Moneywise: ‘Can’t even afford to pick them’: Florida farmers plowing over perfectly good tomatoes as tariffs cause prices to plummet. How farmers are reacting

Tony DiMare’s family owns 4,000 acres of tomato farms across Florida and California. Sadly, his Florida crops are not looking good — mowed over and left to rot, like tomato vines across the state.

But it’s not growing conditions that are the problem. It’s economic ones.

DiMare told WSVN 7 Miami that President Donald Trump’s tariff and immigration policies are driving farmers to abandon their crops.

In January, he warned that Trump’s crackdown on migrants would squeeze farmers, who rely on migrants to pick produce.

“We have to secure our borders south and north, but you have to have a workforce in this country,” he told the Financial Post.

Deportations devastate farm workforce

About 50% of farm workers in the U.S. are undocumented migrants — including skilled supervisors and machine operators — according to Farmonaut, a farm technology company.

As the Trump administration proceeds with mass deportations of undocumented migrants, there are far fewer pickers in the fields, and crops are left to go bad.

One spoke to WSVN about fellow migrants leaving Florida each day. He spoke on condition of anonymity, concerned he might be deported himself

“A lot of people are really afraid, and sometimes they come, sometimes they don’t come,” he said. “And the harvest is lost because it cannot be harvested.”

The labor shortage also means Florida farmers have to pay more for labor. At the same time, they’re getting less money for their produce due to Trump’s tariff policies.

Tariffs upset traditional supply chain

From January through April, Trump’s threatened tariffs triggered Mexican suppliers to double or even triple tomato exports to the U.S. — before tariffs went into effect.

The result? The U.S. market was flooded with Mexican tomatoes. Florida farmers saw the wholesale price of a box of tomatoes plummet from $16 per box to $3 or $4. DiMare said tomato farmers need around $10 or $11 per box to break even.

“You can’t even afford to pick them right now,” said Heather Moehling, president of the Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau. “Between the cost of the labor and the inputs that goes in, it’s more cost-effective for the farmers to just plow them right now.”

It’s not just Florida tomato growers feeling the pinch. Canada has imposed a 25% tariff on U.S. watermelons in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs on Canadian products. DiMare knows one watermelon grower who’s lost Canadian customers to Mexican watermelon suppliers as a result.

Prepare for higher food costs

Farmonaut notes that the impacts of tariffs and immigration policy on farmers will have a knock-on effect in grocery stores. If U.S. farmers don’t have enough workers to harvest crops, Americans will have to buy more imported produce, and pay more due to tariffs.

The Food Policy Center at Hunter College of New York City warns that the resulting surge in food prices will drive inflation — “stressing household budgets across the nation, and particularly hurting families in areas with high food insecurity.”

While farmers have few options but to hope the political upheaval will end, consumers should prepare to mitigate those costs.

One way to do that is to buy a membership in a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) organization. You’ll be supporting local farmers and getting local, less costly produce delivered to your door.

In addition to shopping frugally by clipping coupons and shopping sales flyers deals, you can get creative in the kitchen. For example, you can limit food costs by planning weekly menus around seasonal and affordable foods.

https://moneywise.com/news/economy/florida-farmers-now-plowing-over-perfectly-good-tomatoes-as-trumps-tariff-policies-cause-prices-to-plummet

Newsweek: The Midwest has turned on Trump

Once the heart of President Donald Trump’s political base, the Midwest — the region he promised to revive with factory jobs and “America First” trade policies — is showing signs of disillusionment.

The latest TIPP Insights poll, conducted between September 30 and October 2, found Trump’s favorability in the Midwest at 40 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable, one of his weakest showings nationwide. The decline is striking given that Trump has long positioned himself as a champion of blue-collar workers and has frequently touted his record of reviving the region’s industrial economy.

“I think of the Midwest as quintessentially the most ‘purple’ or swingy region in national politics,” J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told Newsweek. “With that, it’s not too surprising to me that Trump’s approval there, -9, is roughly in line with where he is nationally.”

Trump’s highest favorability was recorded in the Northeast (47 percent favorable, 43 percent unfavorable) — an unexpected result for one of the nation’s most liberal regions. He also performed well in the South (46 percent favorable, 43 percent unfavorable), where Republican registration remains strong.

The West was Trump’s least favorable region, with 38 percent viewing him positively and 50 percent negatively.

The Midwest at the Heart of Trump’s 2024 Strategy

The Midwest was central to Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign. He won eight of the 12 Midwestern states, flipping both Michigan and Wisconsin — two states he had narrowly lost in 2020. In Wisconsin, Trump won 49.6 percent of the vote to Kamala Harris’s 48.7 percent, while in Michigan he became the first Republican to carry the state twice since Ronald Reagan.

His choice of Ohio Senator JD Vance as his running mate underscored the region’s political importance. Announcing the pick, Trump said Vance “will be strongly focused on … the American Workers and Farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond.”

At the time, Anthony Zurcher, the BBC’s North America correspondent, wrote that “the pick suggests Trump knows this election will be won and lost in a handful of industrial Midwest battleground states.”

And ahead of that announcement, Angelia Wilson, a politics professor at the University of Manchester, England, told Newsweek: “Any reasonable political strategy points to Vance and the need to ensure a solid win in Ohio and the Rustbelt.”

Trump’s Midwest Promise

Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump returned repeatedly to the theme that only he could restore the region’s lost industrial power. In Saginaw, Michigan, he vowed to make the state once again the “car capital of the world,” blasting what he called “energy policies that are stripping jobs” from American workers. “Michigan, more than any other state, has lost 60 percent of your automobile business over the years,” he said.

In Mosinee, Wisconsin, Trump leaned on trade threats as a key policy tool. Speaking at a rally, he warned of “unprecedented tariffs” against foreign competitors and argued that immigrants were displacing U.S. workers — framing his agenda as a defense of the industrial Midwest, Reuters reported.

And in one of his most direct economic moves, Trump threatened 200 percent tariffs on John Deere if the agricultural giant shifted production to Mexico, a signal to Midwestern manufacturers that his “America First” stance still applied to them.

Tariffs, Inflation, and the New Economic Anxiety

But while Trump’s message of protectionism once resonated deeply across the Midwest, cracks are beginning to show. Many farmers and manufacturers are now feeling the pinch of tariffs that have reduced exports and driven down crop prices.

“There have been constant headlines of farmers being caught in the middle of Trump’s tariff fights, so that might be an especially salient issue in the Midwest,” Coleman said.

Trump has dramatically expanded U.S. tariffs since returning to office, marking one of the most sweeping protectionist shifts in decades. In February 2025, he imposed new duties of 25 percent on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10 percent on Chinese imports, citing national security concerns related to drug trafficking and border security, according to a White House fact sheet.

Two months later, Trump issued Executive Order 14257, known as “Liberation Day,” introducing a 10 percent baseline tariff on nearly all imports and authorizing higher duties — in some cases up to 50 percent — on goods from countries accused of unfair trade practices. The order also revoked the de minimis exemption that had allowed low-value imports to enter the U.S. tariff-free, and expanded tariffs under existing laws such as Section 232 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The measures targeted key industries including autos, steel and aluminum.

The administration has defended the tariffs as essential to rebuilding American manufacturing and protecting domestic jobs. But economists have warned of steep costs. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the tariffs could reduce long-run GDP by six percent and lower wages by five percent, costing a typical middle-income household about $22,000 in lifetime income losses. The group also projected that the tariffs could raise between $4.5 and $5.2 trillion in federal revenue over the next decade — gains that could be offset by inflation and supply chain disruptions.

For farmers, tariffs have been a thorn in their side since 2017, when Trump first imposed tariffs on key trading partners.

Since then, American farmers have struggled with the loss of China as the top buyer of U.S. soybeans and a major market for corn. Exports of soybeans — America’s largest grain export by value — recently fell to a 20-year low, deepening fears that China may not purchase any U.S. grain this season.

“With [tariffs] in place, we are not competitive with soybeans from Brazil,” Virginia Houston, director of government affairs at the American Soybean Association, told The Guardian. “No market can match China’s demand for soybeans. Right now, there is a 20 percent retaliatory duty from China.”

Trump has said little publicly about the impact on farmers, though in August he demanded on Truth Social that China quadruple its soybean purchases. Chinese officials have instead pledged to boost domestic production by 38 percent by 2034, and U.S. farm groups say no new Chinese orders have been placed for the upcoming season.

Despite the financial pain, many rural voters continue to back Trump, emphasizing that their support isn’t determined by a single issue like tariffs. 

“Tariffs are probably something that will help in the long run,” Ohio farmer Brian Harbage, told The Guardian, acknowledging current export difficulties and economic uncertainty.

To ease the strain, the Trump administration included $60 billion in farm subsidies in its latest tax bill, but critics argue the money favors large producers over family farms. Meanwhile, falling commodity prices, smaller cattle herds, and declining ethanol production have further weakened the sector.

“The farm economy is in a much tougher place than where we were in 2018,” Houston said. “Prices have gone down while inputs – seed, fertilizer, chemicals, land and equipment – continue to go up.”

Harbage said if Trump visited his farm, his message would be simple: “The exports is number one. That’s the number one fix. We have to get rid of what we’re growing, or we have to be able to use it. China, Mexico and Canada – we export $83 billion worth of commodities to them a year. So if they’re not buying, we’re stuck with our crop.”

Renewable Energy Rift

Trump’s opposition to renewable energy subsidies is also creating unease among farmers.

In Iowa, where nearly two-thirds of electricity comes from wind and more than 50 wind-related companies operate, the end of federal incentives under Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has thrown the industry into turmoil. The cuts have imperiled $22 billion in wind investments and tens of thousands of jobs tied to wind manufacturing and land leases. Wind farms are the top taxpayer in a third of Iowa’s counties, contributing up to 55 percent of local property taxes and $91.4 million in annual lease payments to farmers, according to Power Up Iowa.

Farmers and local officials warn that Trump’s policies threaten this economic lifeline. “I don’t know how anybody in good faith could vote against alternative energy if they’re elected by the people in Iowa,” Fort Madison Mayor Matt Mohrfeld, told Politico, calling the cuts “a crucial mistake.”

Republicans argue that wind and solar are now “mature industries” that no longer need government help. But clean energy developers and local leaders say the rollback is already causing uncertainty, job losses, and halted projects — including the shutdown of Iowa wind manufacturer TPI Composites, which cited “industry-wide pressures” after losing federal support.

Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright has argued that heavy federal government spending on renewable energy is “nonsensical.”

https://www.newsweek.com/the-midwest-has-turned-on-trump-10860327

CNN: ‘Are Mom and Dad not coming home?’: American kids left stranded when ICE takes their parents

All they knew was that their mother, their only parent since their father died five years ago, was being taken from them.

Across the country, US-born children like Febe and Angelo have become collateral damage in the Trump administration’s unprecedented crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

CNN identified more than 100 US citizen children, from newborns to teenagers, who have been left stranded without parents because of immigration actions this year, according to a review of verified crowdfunding campaigns, public records and interviews with families, friends, immigration attorneys and other advocates.

These cases have unfolded as the Trump administration has abandoned the “humane enforcement” of immigration laws when deporting mothers and fathers who entered the country illegally, according to policy documents.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, American children across the country have ended up in the care of relatives, neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. Their parents were picked up during raids on workplaces ranging from farms to meatpacking plants, coming out of check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or dropping their kids off at school.

In some cases, ICE appears to have violated protections that still remain in official policies by failing to allow undocumented parents time to find an appropriate caregiver or to make travel plans for their children as they are taken into custody and deported, CNN found. Unlike immigrant children, American children of immigrants do not fall within ICE’s jurisdiction and are not tracked by the agency.

An ICE spokesperson did not provide any data on how many cases the agency is aware of where US citizen children have been separated from their parents and would not comment on the removal of “humane” from official ICE policies. The spokesperson claimed that ICE “goes out of its way” to give parents the opportunity to designate a guardian or have their children accompany them upon removal.

“CNN is trying to obscure the fact that each of the illegal alien parents they are defending willingly chose to break our nation’s criminal and administrative laws and as a result of those choices, are responsible for what happens to their children – just as any U.S. citizen parent who breaks the law is when they are taken to jail,” the spokesperson said.

Accounts gathered by CNN included an autistic 11-year-old who was placed in foster care in Nebraska when her father was picked up by ICE in June, and a 10-month-old left with family friends when her single mother was arrested during a workplace raid at a cannabis farm in Southern California in July. In Michigan, the oldest daughter of four reportedly scrapped plans to attend college in the fall so she could raise her three younger siblings after their widowed father was detained.

“It’s literally a kid’s worst nightmare having someone come take your parents in the middle of the night,” said Wendy Cervantes, a longtime immigration policy expert who has worked with Democratic and Republican lawmakers to help craft federal policies that protect the children of immigrants. “No matter the outcome, you are turning a kid’s life upside down.”

‘Children at risk’

Federal agents donned riot gear and lobbed flash bang grenades and smoke bombs at protesters as they raided a pair of cannabis farms near the California coast this summer. When the smoke cleared, multiple employees were left injured and a worker fleeing one of the facilities plummeted 30 feet from the roof of a greenhouse to his death.

The raids made headlines for the chaotic and deadly scene that unfolded, as well as reports that a protestor fired at ICE agents.

What went largely unnoticed was just how many US citizen children — more than a dozen, according to CNN’s analysis — were left without parents to care for them.

One 15-year-old ended up on his own with his two younger brothers, 8 and 9, when his mother was arrested, her immigration attorney told CNN. From detention, the mother had told the attorney she wanted to see her children as soon as possible. But she was deported to Mexico only three days after the raid.

Martita Martinez-Bravo and her small nonprofit organization, Friends of Fieldworkers, have been attempting to fill in some of the gaps — gathering donations and delivering diapers, formula, clothes and toys to those in need. Since the raids, which swept up more than 300 undocumented workers, Martinez-Bravo’s phone constantly rings. Many families contacting her have had their primary or sole income-earner ripped away, leaving the remaining parent without a way to pay rent and other bills.

She said some of the most alarming calls have come from people who are now unexpectedly caring for children. She recalled one call about a babysitter who showed up to one of the farms with two babies in her arms the morning after the raid. Their parents had never come home, Martinez-Bravo said she was told.

“There is no government support, so all the support that is happening is from nonprofit groups and families,” said Martinez-Bravo. “It’s leaving children at risk.”

Martinez-Bravo wore a cheerful, embroidered red blouse on a Friday afternoon last month when she dropped off a large Target bag full of supplies — including toothbrushes, toothpaste and Lysol wipes — at a one-bedroom apartment where seven people had been living for more than a month.

The apartment had been tight when it was just a family of four living there – two farmworkers and their two children. But then the couple took in three more children – their niece and two nephews – when those kids’ parents were detained and quickly deported.

The aunt and uncle struggled to pay for food and rent, and their landlord told them too many people were living in the small apartment. The stress had become so great that the aunt — who is also undocumented — kept getting headaches. Just the week prior, she ended up in the hospital, she said.

When she could no longer afford a babysitter for the youngest of the children, she said, a family friend drove the 2-year-old boy — a US citizen — across the border to live with his father in Tijuana, Mexico. The father said he had come to the United States days after he found his own father shot dead in his house in Mexico. He said he and his son are now sharing a room with a roommate while his wife stays with her family thousands of miles away. He found a job on a farm and works six days a week, but nets less than $20 a day. After paying for child care, it’s a struggle to afford food and diapers, he said.

Back in California, the aunt says she worries about being separated from her own children, a teenager and 4-year-old, who were both born in the US and are citizens. She wants a better future for them, one where they don’t come home from long days picking produce, caked in mud like her and their father.

“Now I feel sad for everything happening,” she said in Spanish. “What happens if ICE takes me?”

A new kind of family separation

Previous immigration crackdowns had primarily focused on immigrants who had violent criminal records or were recent arrivals.

But now, as immigration agents scramble to meet the Trump administration’s aggressive quotas of 3,000 arrests a day, many immigrants who have lived in the country a decade or longer with no criminal records are being arrested, detained and deported — often within a matter of weeks or even days.

Many parents in the cases CNN identified had dutifully attended immigration appointments, paid taxes and received work permits and other authorization to remain in the country, according to interviews and records from parents, families and attorneys.

In prior policy documents, ICE noted that there were “limited circumstances in which detention is appropriate” for parents. While it was not unheard of under past administrations for immigrant parents to end up deported, ICE has historically given agents “discretion” to prevent children from being separated from their sole caregivers.

ICE has taken a different approach under Trump’s second term. The administration’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, has repeatedly said parents are to blame for entering the country illegally and having children here without being documented. “If (you’re) in the country illegally and you choose to have a US citizen child, that’s on you,” Homan told Politico in July. “If we want to send a message to the whole world … go have a US citizen child and you’re immune … we’re never going to solve this problem.”

ICE echoed this in its statement to CNN, saying that even if an undocumented immigrant attends immigration appointments, pays taxes or receives authorization to work in the US, they “are not absolved of their original offense of illegally entering the country.”

The agency’s “Detained Parents Directive,” meanwhile, has been changed to weaken protections for undocumented parents, most notably removing a written commitment to pursue “humane enforcement” of deportation laws. Instead, the guidance states that agents should “remain cognizant of the impact enforcement actions may have on a minor child.”

The administration’s updated policy still provides that undocumented parents should be given time to find an appropriate caregiver or to make travel plans for their children. Yet, some detained parents have alleged they were not given such accommodations, according to immigration attorneys and accounts detailed in interviews and online fundraisers.

In one case, a young girl was placed in foster care despite having family members who were willing to care for her, according to a nonprofit. In others, parents were deported so quickly that there wasn’t enough time for them to secure passports for their children to be able to join them.

“This ICE is not using their discretion,” said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center. “The checks and balances that used to exist are gone.”

In Honduras and Guatemala — two countries many undocumented immigrants are being deported to — parents are arriving without their US citizen children and saying they weren’t given the option to bring them, researchers from the nonprofit advocacy group Women’s Refugee Commission said after visiting both places.

“Some parents were showing up inconsolable because they did not know where their children were or who was caring for them,” said Zain Lakhani, the group’s director of migrant rights and justice. “This is the new family separation crisis.”

In its statement, ICE said parents are given the opportunity to designate a guardian to care for their children or to have their children accompany them when they are deported. “That decision is entirely up to the illegal alien parents, and they are given a reasonable amount of time to make that decision,” the spokesperson said.

Citing the increasing likelihood that undocumented parents could end up in ICE custody, nonprofits have been holding community workshops to help parents consider their options, such as designating guardians for their children in the event they are separated. Lawmakers in several states have also recently introduced legislation to make it easier for parents to designate appropriate caregivers if they are taken.

“We are witnessing families being torn apart in real time — parents detained, unable to pick up their children from school and childcare,” Democratic California Assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez said in a statement about legislation that is currently awaiting the governor’s signature. “This bill is not just about planning; it’s about creating a safety net.”

Lasting trauma

Mimi Lettunich was in the middle of work when she received a call from an immigration agent asking her whether she could pick up her friend Jackie Merlos’ four children. Merlos was being detained, and if she didn’t immediately find a US citizen to take her kids, they would end up in foster care.

Within hours, Lettunich found herself driving along the highway with 9-year-old triplets and their 7-year-old brother to care for indefinitely.

The children sat stunned in the back seat. Lettunich herself was trying to wrap her mind around what was happening, she told CNN. She couldn’t understand why immigration authorities would take away Merlos and her husband, well-regarded local business owners who had come to Portland, Oregon, from Honduras decades ago.

Lettunich hadn’t cared for young children in years — her own kids were now grown up. And she had a full-time job. As they drove to her Portland home, she realized she and her husband hadn’t even started to think about what they needed or how this was all going to work: Did they have toothbrushes? Where were they going to sleep? What were they going to have for dinner? How do we make sure they feel comfortable but also give them their space?

That first night at Lettunich’s, the children slept in their clothes because they didn’t have pajamas. She comforted them before bed, telling them they were safe and reading them stories. She told them they could think of this as “summer camp,” and the kids now call it “Camp Reindeer” because of how many deer they see in the backyard. In the days and then weeks that have followed, she and her husband have taken the kids swimming, to the zoo and out to dinner — anything to try to cheer them up. Because they have had to keep working too, they enrolled the children in day camps, and they often visit their parents in detention on the weekends.

But Lettunich said she worries every day about the impacts that they will be coping with for the rest of their lives because of the ordeal. “They fear for their parents,” she said. “They ask, ‘are Mom and Dad not coming home?’”

One of the kids has been keeping everything bottled up, she said. He doesn’t want to hear anything about what happened or talk about it, only wanting to “think of happy things.” And all of the children have started talking with a psychiatrist to try to begin processing the trauma, she said.

Less than three hours away in her cell at an ICE detention center in Tacoma, Washington, their mother, Jackie Merlos, is grappling with her own emotions, writing regular journal entries about her experience and her worries. US Customs and Border Protection, which initially detained Merlos and her husband, told CNN she was arrested “as she attempted to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States” and that formal removal proceedings were underway. Neither Merlos nor her husband has been charged with a crime related to this allegation, however, and Merlos has said she and her family were simply meeting her sister — a Canadian resident — at a park along the US-Canada border. ICE did not comment.

It has been more than 70 days since Merlos was separated from her kids, and her next court date isn’t until the middle of October.

“I feel powerless not being able to see or hug my children, play with them, and watch them grow,” she wrote a week after her children were separated from her. “I’m suffering, and my children are suffering psychologically. It’s not fair to separate children from their mom and dad.”

Sometimes Merlos convinces herself that what is happening is just a nightmare that she will wake up from. “My life feels meaningless without them,” she wrote.

But until the whole family is reunited, she urged her children to keep praying and to continue living their lives without her.

“Please don’t stop practicing your piano (David), guitar (Carlitos), violin (Abigail), and piano (Caleb),” Merlos wrote.

An untracked issue

Pleas for donations to help stranded children have been popping up online since immigration efforts ramped up earlier this year.

In some cases, the children themselves are asking for financial support to help pay for food, rent and utility bills. Teenagers describe being left on their own with younger siblings, and recent high school graduates say they have dropped out of college and returned home in the hopes of keeping their siblings housed, fed and out of the care of strangers.

“My mother is the most hard working woman I know, she is a single mother of 3 and has worked for us to always have everything we need and everything she’s had worked for her whole life was just taken away from her,” a daughter wrote in a July fundraiser. “Truly anything helps.”

Because the number of kids left behind by the ongoing ICE raids and deportation efforts is not being publicly tracked, CNN used the crowdfunding platform GoFundMe as a way to provide a snapshot of the issue, as well as interviews with families and attorneys, who confirmed additional cases to reporters. CNN’s count of more than 100 US citizen children does not include dozens of children whose citizenship status or age was unclear, or where fundraisers couldn’t be verified.

The fundraising accounts, which GoFundMe confirmed to CNN had been verified by the company’s trust and safety team, also served as a window into where separated children have ended up. Some were taken into foster care. Most were being cared for by family friends, community members or relatives.

ICE said it couldn’t comment on CNN’s analysis because it included anonymous families and some of the information had come from what it called “notoriously biased and unreliable” crowdfunding websites. The spokesperson did not respond to questions about how often children were ending up in this situation or whether this was something being internally tracked by the agency.

Immigration experts said said it is difficult to fully assess how widespread the issue is until the federal government comprehensively tracks and releases that data. There are millions of US citizen children living in households where their only parent or both parents are undocumented, Brookings Institution research shows.

Attorneys told CNN about cases ranging from an 8-year-old who allegedly watched her single mother get handcuffed and taken away by ICE to a one-year-old who is currently living with a foster family as the toddler’s mom fights for custody from detention.

“It’s stunning that we’re putting so much emphasis on hitting deportation numbers, and not thinking about all the collateral damage we’re doing,” said Leecia Welch, deputy litigation director at nonprofit Children’s Rights, who has been visiting families in immigrant detention centers to monitor conditions. “We’re traumatizing everybody involved in these situations and completely destabilizing their lives and causing long-term trauma.”

‘It terrifies me’

It was around 6:30 in the morning when Kenia Perez arrived home from her overnight shift at the hospital.

She had stopped at the store to get milk for her daughter’s cereal and was planning to go inside and wake her kids up and get them ready for school, when she saw two large, unfamiliar cars parked outside her apartment.

ICE agents were waiting for her.

“Run away as far as you can,” she texted her 14-year-old son, Isaac, who jumped out the window. Since Isaac was also undocumented, she worried ICE would take him too — leaving Febe and Angelo without any family in the country.

Agents in tactical vests and local police officers surrounded her in the parking lot.

Desperate to keep her children out of foster care, her next call was to Jeff Chaney, a family friend and coworker who had agreed just a day earlier to take guardianship of the children if ICE came for her — something she had become increasingly nervous about under the Trump administration.

Perez had been in the US for roughly a decade, fleeing cartel violence in her native Honduras. She described to CNN how she was assaulted, raped and left in a dumpster on her journey. She was pregnant when she was apprehended at the border and records show she was released under an order requiring regular check-ins with ICE. She met and married her husband in the years that followed and created a family in Galveston, Texas. Only months after she gave birth to her third child, her husband passed away from Covid in 2020, and she suddenly became the sole caregiver for her three children — two of whom, Febe and Angelo, are US citizens.

Perez said she paid taxes and documents show that she never missed a check-in with ICE. Her work permit is not set to expire until the spring of 2026. But ICE came for her anyway.

Unlike other cases examined by CNN, Perez said she was allowed to go into her apartment, wake her children, and tell them goodbye.

“I need you to be strong,” she remembers telling Febe and Angelo. “You see those men. They’re going to take Mom.”

Perez prayed she would be able to take her children with her to Honduras. Even though she knew it would be dangerous, she couldn’t imagine being separated.

But she was deported 11 days after her arrest, leaving her friend, Chaney, trying to lighten the kids’ moods. He took them to IHOP on the weekends and held movie nights at his house.

Chaney couldn’t keep the kids at his house given the long hours he worked at his two jobs, so the children spent several days bouncing around among a network of Perez’s coworkers’ homes until one of her undocumented friends gave them a place to stay, at least temporarily. Because the kids didn’t have access to any of the funds Perez had saved from her job, community members began supporting the family through a GoFundMe campaign.

In an interview with CNN, Chaney said that when he voted for Trump last year, he understood that immigration enforcement was a top priority for his administration. He supported the Republican Party’s promise to secure the border and to go after criminals and gang members.

But he never imagined that someone like Perez, his close friend and co-worker, would end up caught in the crackdown.

“This is not what I voted for,” he said, adding that he never supported the targeting of working-class people who had been doing everything right. “You don’t do this. This is inhumane what they’re doing.”

An ICE spokesperson told CNN Perez asked to be reunited with her children before she was deported, but that she refused to provide agents with their specific location. Perez told CNN she did not want to endanger any of her undocumented friends who were helping to care for her kids when she was first arrested, but that she had hoped that while she was in detention, she would have an opportunity to secure their passports so that they could be reunited when she was deported. “After exhausting all efforts, ICE proceeded with her removal in accordance with federal law,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson described Perez as an “irresponsible parent,” who “chose to use her children as a bargaining chip in an attempt to prevent her own removal from the country.”

“Any claims by her now that ICE improperly separated her from her kids are patently false and just another attempt to manipulate the system for her own benefit,” the spokesperson said.

From a small home on a dirt road in a neighborhood of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, known for gang violence, Perez called her kids every night, telling them everything was going to be OK. Her daughter’s dolls and her son’s toys sat waiting for them, along with two spots next to her in her bed.

More than two months after she was deported, Perez was finally able to secure the paperwork and passports needed for Febe and Angelo to reunite with her in Honduras, where her oldest son had also joined her. But she told CNN she worries about her children and the life they will have in one of the most violent countries in the world.

“It terrifies me,” she said. “I don’t like the decisions I’m making, but I’m tied hand and foot.”

METHODOLOGY

CNN’s analysis, which provided a snapshot of the number of US citizen children being stranded by ICE actions, included accounts from interviews with families, attorneys and nonprofit organizations, as well as fundraisers from the crowdfunding platform GoFundMe. CNN provided GoFundMe with a list of roughly 150 campaigns to confirm which fundraisers had been verified by the company’s Trust & Safety Team as part of its standard verification process, and reporters contacted the organizers and family members. The count does not include dozens of children whose citizenship status or age was unclear, or where fundraisers couldn’t be verified.

CNN’s Abel Alvarado, Norma Galeana and Yahya Abou-Ghazala contributed to this report.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/23/politics/us-citizen-children-separated-parents-deported-ice-invs

Intelligencer: Top Goon – Kristi [“Bimbo #2”] Noem is the face of Trump’s police state. Corey Lewandowski is the muscle. Who really runs DHS?

“She’s a petty, vindictive person who is only ever out for herself. She doesn’t do anything unless it’s calculated to better her political aspirations.”

On the morning of May 7, before making his way to Capitol Hill to testify in front of Congress, Cameron Hamilton, then the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, packed up his office. He assumed his boss, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, would fire him once she got wind of what he planned on telling lawmakers. It turned out he was right about getting fired but wrong about who would deliver the blow.

Hamilton is a former Navy SEAL with a close-cropped beard and perfect posture. He is a MAGA true believer who served in the State Department during Donald Trump’s first administration and ran for Congress in Virginia with the backing of the conservative Freedom Caucus super-PAC in 2024. He lost his primary, but after Trump won the presidency, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem offered him the opportunity to run FEMA. He soon found himself crosswise with not only [“Bimbo #2”] Noem but also her de facto chief of staff, Corey Lewandowski, a combative veteran of Trumpworld’s internecine battles.

When Hamilton interviewed for the job during the transition, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem had expressed no interest in eliminating FEMA. But as Trump’s second administration got underway, it became clear that DHS, a sprawling entity with more than 260,000 employees across various agencies, was being utilized to counter seemingly a single threat: illegal immigration. [“Bimbo #2”] Noem joined Trump’s call to shutter FEMA, which seemed like a bad idea to Hamilton as wildfires and tornadoes took an unprecedented toll on states from California to Arkansas. He was vocal enough about this belief that when CNN reported in March on a meeting about the agency’s future — a meeting that included Hamilton, Lewandowski, and [“Bimbo #2”] Noem — Lewandowski accused Hamilton of being the source. Hamilton was in a classified briefing when he got a “furious” call from Lewandowski.

“Somebody needs to be fired for this,” Lewandowski told him.

“I’m not a leaker,” Hamilton said.

“Well, if you didn’t leak it, you’ll have no problem submitting to a polygraph,” Lewandowski said.

Hamilton, who said he took the job out of patriotic duty, was incensed by the insinuation that he had snitched. “I wanted to choke some people,” he said. The polygraph was an “exhaustive process” that ended with him being cleared, but he believed his days were numbered: Lewandowski was lobbying to replace him with David Richardson, who had no experience managing natural disasters. (Lewandowski had blurbed Richardson’s 2019 novel, War Story, as “brutal, funny in places, unapologetic. Will make liberals cringe!”) On the day Hamilton testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, he declared, “I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” an opinion whose merits were borne out by disasters like the catastrophic floods in Texas later that summer.

“I got a call the next morning saying I had 30 minutes to report to DHS headquarters,” he said. Once there, Hamilton was escorted to the office of the secretary. But when he walked in, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem wasn’t behind her desk. Lewandowski was. “He said, ‘You are losing your access,’” Hamilton told me. Lewandowski smirked as he offered Hamilton “an opportunity” to work at the Department of Education, perhaps one of the only departments more scorned by the Trump administration than FEMA. The message to Hamilton: Take the new position or be terminated.

Hamilton said it wasn’t a surprise that Lewandowski was the messenger, even if Lewandowski, technically an unpaid and temporary special government employee, wasn’t his boss. Lewandowski has long served as [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s gatekeeper, described to me by DHS staff as her “handler,” her “bulldog,” and the “shadow secretary.” They are also widely understood by those who work with them to be romantically attached. ([“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski have both denied this.) In April, the Daily Mail snapped photographs of Lewandowski outside her Navy Yard complex with a duffel bag slung over his shoulder, and partly in response to the presence of the Mail’s paparazzi, which a DHS spokesperson said had led to threats and safety concerns, she moved into military housing usually reserved for the top admiral of the Coast Guard, which is under DHS’s purview. This has only fueled the rumors surrounding [“Bimbo #2”] Noem. “They’ve sent no three- or four-stars in the Coast Guard up for confirmation,” a top administration official told me, “because she doesn’t want to get kicked out of the commandant’s house.”

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem, 53, is the public face of the department, bringing reality-star energy to an office that was created in the aftermath of 9/11 to coordinate America’s preparedness for a terrorist attack. She has hopped across the country in various uniforms — as a Border Patrol agent, in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement flak jacket, as a Coast Guard firefighter — mean-mugging her way onto television screens and decorating the halls of DHS buildings with action shots of her in the field. Most notoriously, when the U.S. sent 238 migrants to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center — described as a “hell on earth,” where alleged human-rights abuses are rampant — she filmed a video in front of a cage of inmates wearing a $50,000 Rolex. “We looked at her and we thought we were going to get out,” Edicson Quintero Chacón, a detainee at the time, told me. “I mean, we had a sense of joy.” Her reasons for visiting CECOT were more self-interested. She is so skilled at getting in front of the camera that the New York Times has called her the head of the “Department of Homeland Publicity,” while her liberal detractors have taken to calling her “ICE Barbie.”

Since the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July, she has been overseeing a massive influx of some $170 billion that Republicans set aside for combating illegal immigration, money that will go toward expanding DHS’s detention capacity to 100,000 beds (ICE is currently holding more than 58,000 detainees), increasing the size of ICE (in part by offering up to $50,000 in signing bonuses and eliminating the age cap on new hires), bolstering law-enforcement border support, and underwriting a propaganda campaign that has clogged social media with everything from Zero Dark Thirty–style PSAs to paeans to white-nationalist mythology. Under [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, it is DHS, not the Justice Department, that has emerged as Trump’s most devastating and visible weapon against the right’s perceived enemies. “She’s going to play a key role in advancing Donald Trump’s effort to consolidate the powers of the presidency,” a former DHS official told me. “I think by the end of this administration, if she stays the whole time, she’s likely to become the warden of the police state.”

On paper, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem sits at the top of this empire. In practice, power over immigration policy is fractured, shaped by competing factions, starting with deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who has vowed in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination to destroy nameless forces that have conspired against the right — the long arm of law enforcement, he warned them, “will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and, if you’ve broken the law, to take away your freedom.” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem will be among those at the forefront of any such effort, surrounded by a tight inner circle that can be difficult to penetrate and often impossible to work with. “The culture over there is terrible,” the administration official told me. “People are scared shitless of Corey.”

Lewandowski has been integral to [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s rise, her right hand as they run roughshod over the rule of law and, like so many in Trump’s Cabinet, position themselves for a post-Trump future. Lewandowski is not only surreptitiously co-leading DHS without congressional approval but has brought Trumpworld’s manically pugnacious style to the department and drawn out some of [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s own pugnacious predilections, too. After all, Trump’s immigration policies, while broadly unpopular with those who oppose masked men snatching people off the streets and spiriting them away to brutal foreign prisons, remain popular among Republicans. Frank Luntz, the veteran political consultant, thinks this is at least partly owed to [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, who adds the necessary stage presence to Lewandowski’s muscle and Miller’s brain. “She is probably the administration’s best spokeswoman,” he told me. “The only thing that bothers me is that her name is not mentioned as a potential 2028 Republican Party leader. She’s underestimated.”

The story of [“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski goes back to 2019 on a remote Pacific island off northwestern British Columbia. They had arrived via helicopter as guests of the multimillionaire Republican donor Foster Friess, who was hosting his annual deep-sea-fishing fundraiser. [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was a rising conservative star recently elected governor of South Dakota after an eight-year stint in Congress, while Lewandowski was the former campaign manager for Trump. She once wrote that she “wasn’t emotional about anything.” He once told the Washington Post, “I’m like a robot. I literally have no emotions.”

Lewandowski had come to Trump’s 2016 campaign with an unconventional résumé: real-estate agent, New Hampshire marine-patrol officer, Koch Brothers operative, congressional aide who once brought a gun to the Capitol. His longtime political ally David Bossie told the Times in 2015 that Lewandowski was “as anti-Establishment” as Trump. “Corey is driven by an incredible desire to please and be loved by those in positions of power, all while fighting against convention and normal ways of operating,” a campaign operative who worked with Lewandowski told me. He quickly became known for two things: getting arrested after grabbing the arm of a FEMAle reporter at a press conference (charges were dropped) and a political strategy that amounted to “Let Trump be Trump.” He lost his job after allies and donors complained he was running an undisciplined campaign.

In the years that followed, Lewandowski would float in and out of Trumpworld but never fall completely out of Trump’s orbit. “The president has always been loyal to people he connects with successful phases of his life,” former Trump adviser Jason Miller told me. Lewandowski’s aggression was also useful. “He is not intimidated by the prospect of a fight and will work doggedly to achieve his pursuits,” the campaign operative told me. “He is a one-of-a-kind operator, for better or worse.” In response to a request for comment, Lewandowski wrote, “Instead of reviewing the newest wine bar in Chelsea the New York Magazine has degraded itself.”

At the time he met [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, Lewandowski was casting a line for another project. “I think he saw potential in her,” said Lynn Friess, who was married to Foster until his death in 2021. The fishing trips were an excellent way for people to get to know one another, as they spent hours on end in small boats, then returned to camp to talk about everything from politics to family life. Friess remembers [“Bimbo #2”] Noem being an excellent angler, hauling in fish after fish. “I quite frankly don’t remember what he did,” she said about Lewandowski. Later, Friess emailed an update: After asking around, she was told Lewandowski had caught one of the biggest fish in the group.

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem stayed close with Lewandowski after the trip and eventually brought him on as an adviser. He was, according to a former staffer from the time, “intimately involved in her governorship.” He helped decide which television shows to go on and encouraged her never to do panels with other guests because she was too big of a star to share the spotlight. He joined her on phone calls with senior staff, dictating which events she should attend in the state. “It bothered people because what did he even know about South Dakota?” the former staffer said.

But Lewandowski seemed like he was already thinking beyond state politics. Early on in their relationship, Lewandowski brought [“Bimbo #2”] Noem on a swing through New York to talk to financiers who might be helpful were she ever to run for higher office. In one meeting, they appeared to have such a close connection that their millionaire host called a mutual acquaintance afterward to ask if the two were dating. The mutual acquaintance called around and reported back it appeared that they were. They both were, and remain, married, though [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s husband, Bryon Noem, lives in South Dakota. Over the years, there have been plenty of tabloid reports about [“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski’s relationship. “Everybody knows they’re together. Can I prove it? No, but they’re together,” the administration official said. A FEMA official called it the “worst-kept secret in D.C.” In 2019, after a conservative conference in Doral, Florida, a bunch of VIPs were on the patio smoking cigars and drinking. Then [“Bimbo #2”] Noem came out and sat on Lewandowski’s lap. “I remember it being just very romantic,” said a person present. “Interactions that you would expect of a romantic couple, not of a political consultant and the client.” They added, “It was very clear that they were together.”

Ideologically, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was difficult to pin down. She worked on her family farm before Democratic senator Tom Daschle appointed her to the state board of the Farm Service Agency in 1997. When she ran for the statehouse as a Republican, she said some conservatives doubted her credentials. “People wondered for years if maybe I switched to the Democrat Party to serve,” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem wrote in her book, Not My First Rodeo. “Of course, I never did, and to his credit Senator Daschle never asked.” After serving in the state legislature, she ran with tea-party support for Congress in 2010, only to disappoint some of her bomb-throwing compatriots by becoming a lieutenant for House leadership. As governor, she championed legislation to keep transgender athletes out of women’s sports but vetoed the bill under pressure, in part, from the NCAA. Then, like most Republicans looking to move up within the party, she fully leaned in as a MAGA loyalist.

Beth Hollatz, a senior adviser during [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s governorship and a close friend, said [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was driven by religious faith and love of her family. “People think she’s coldhearted,” she said. “But she’s not at all.” Others said [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was virtually an empty vessel. “Beyond just basic conservative principles, she never had an original policy idea or thought at all,” a former campaign aide told me. “She never read books or newspapers or newsmagazines, had zero interest in policy.” Like Trump, her management style, the aide said, “revolves around whoever is the last person to speak to her.” She had a nickname among staff, “Governor Text Message,” because she did much of her managing via phone.

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem could be warm and friendly only to turn it off moments later. Once, a former staffer recalled, a supporter brought [“Bimbo #2”] Noem flowers, which [“Bimbo #2”] Noem pretended to love but then had a staffer throw in the trash as soon as her constituent left. “She was rolling her eyes and said, ‘Ugh, I can’t stand these people,’” she said. “It made me wonder whether she was bad-mouthing me behind my back.”

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s tenure as governor was dotted with oddities. She was found by South Dakota ethics board to have intervened in her daughter’s application to become a state-sanctioned real-estate appraiser. She came up with the idea for a $1.4 million anti-drug campaign that resulted in the tagline “Meth. We’re on it.” She earned a reputation among lawmakers for enjoying the perks of office a little too much, traveling often on the state’s plane and spending taxpayer money on a hunting trip to Canada and a trip to Las Vegas, among other destinations with no obvious bearing on state business. Taffy Howard, a Republican state senator who clashed with [“Bimbo #2”] Noem over the years, said she and some of her fellow lawmakers tried to force [“Bimbo #2”] Noem to reveal how much money was being spent on her travel but were told revealing that information would be a security issue. “You could not oppose her without her taking it personally,” Howard said.

Once, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem hitched a ride on My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell’s plane to a conference in Tennessee. “She was never here,” said Ryan Maher, a Republican who served in state-senate leadership while [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was governor. [“Bimbo #2”] Noem declined a request for an interview. In response to a list of questions about [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, DHS said, “This NYMag hit piece reads like a preteen rage-scrolling, then prompting ChatGPT for a screed on misogyny — complete with zero substance and maximum bullshit.”

Still, as a telegenic communicator and Trump loyalist, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem remained a popular governor. She earned credit from Republicans at home and across the country for how she handled the COVID pandemic (namely, by keeping the state mostly open while other states shut down) and for sending members of the South Dakota National Guard to the southern border.

By the time the 2024 election cycle began, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was being talked about as a possible vice-presidential pick for Trump. In South Dakota political circles, her higher ambitions were not a surprise. “Every decision she makes is to help her, help her career, help her get a better job down the road,” said Tom Brunner, a conservative who used to serve with [“Bimbo #2”] Noem in the state legislature. “She would sell her soul in a heartbeat to get a better job.” Howard said, “She’s a petty, vindictive person who is only ever out for herself. She doesn’t do anything unless it’s calculated to better her political aspirations.”

In February 2024, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem met with Trump to make her case to join the ticket. She was accompanied by Lewandowski, who came prepared with polling data showing how popular she was in midwestern swing states, according to the book Revenge, by the journalist Alex Isenstadt. But there were obstacles to her getting the job — the foremost being Lewandowski himself. People close to Trump worried about their alleged romantic involvement, Isenstadt wrote. Trump’s advisers had witnessed Lewandowski slapping [“Bimbo #2”] Noem on the butt, and Trump would slyly refer to [“Bimbo #2”] Noem as Lewandowski’s “girlfriend.” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s chances at securing the No. 2 spot were ultimately buried by the publication of her second memoir, No Going Back, in which she told the unfortunate story of shooting a disobedient puppy named Cricket on the family farm. “That’s not good at all,” Trump told his son Don Jr., according to Revenge. “Even you wouldn’t kill a dog, and you kill everything.”

With the VP job now off the table, Lewandowski and [“Bimbo #2”] Noem had another idea: Perhaps she could be the general in charge of immigration. By August, Trump had brought Lewandowski back to his campaign, but he lost a power struggle with co–campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles and was demoted to surrogate work. In the meantime, he mounted a whisper campaign on behalf of [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, enlisting the help of people like Tom Homan, who would go on to become Trump’s border czar, to talk up her campaign to lead DHS. After Trump won the election, he asked [“Bimbo #2”] Noem if she might be interested in a Cabinet position, perhaps with the Department of Interior or Agriculture. “I said, ‘Sir, I’d like to be considered for Homeland Security,’” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem recalled during a speech this summer on Capitol Hill. “And he said, ‘Why would you want to do that?’” The answer she gave: “Because it’s your No. 1 priority.” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was easily confirmed on a 59-34 vote.

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem returned to Washington having gone through a near-complete physical transformation. Long, curled hair had replaced her layered bobs, and the topography of her face had been smoothed. Before moving out of the governor’s mansion, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem flew to Texas to have her teeth done, after which she filmed what appeared to be an infomercial-style social-media video for the dentist. Once in Washington, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski seemed to always be around each other. “He had a seat at the vice-president’s inauguration dinner,” an attendee told me, “where he was looking directly at her at all times.”

When Trump picked [“Bimbo #2”] Noem for DHS, Lewandowski hoped he would be named chief of staff. It wasn’t in the cards. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that the tabloid reports of his romantic relationship with [“Bimbo #2”] Noem were a sticking point. But apparently there were other issues as well. In September, the Daily Mail reported the existence of a memo written by Richard McComb, the chief security officer at DHS at the time, containing a litany of concerns regarding Lewandowski and questioning whether he should have a top-secret security clearance. Lewandowski had, according to the memo, been accused of receiving $50,000 directly from the Chinese Communist Party as well as money from Israel’s Likud Party without disclosing the payments on his DHS background form. (A DHS official denied these claims.)

The memo also detailed known instances of Lewandowski’s entanglements with the law, including an alleged incident of unwanted sexual contact. In 2021, a woman accused Lewandowski of touching her inappropriately and relentlessly making sexually explicit comments at a charity dinner in Las Vegas. Lewandowski was charged and cut a plea deal in 2022 that resulted in eight hours of impulse-control counseling and 50 hours of community service. In exchange, Lewandowski did not have to admit guilt. The same month he issued the memo, McComb resigned from DHS.

After losing out on the chief-of-staff job, Lewandowski finagled the special-government-employee designation, which allowed him to work 130 days a year for the DHS while maintaining a business with outside clients. Best of all, he wouldn’t have to disclose those clients, making it difficult to determine if they might present a conflict of interest with the work he was doing for the government. There have been red flags. In March, DHS skipped a fully competitive bidding process for the first part of a $200 million ad campaign, giving part of the contract to a firm run by a person with close professional ties to Lewandowski. Furthermore, few people in the administration believe he was keeping an accurate tally of the days he worked. In mid-August, after months of working closely with [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, Axios reported that Lewandowski wasn’t even close to his 130-day allotment. The report said that he was believed to be entering buildings with other staffers so he wouldn’t have to swipe himself in and that he didn’t always use his government email or phone so that his digital trail was harder to follow. The number he gave — precisely 69 days — was like a bad joke conjured up by Elon Musk. “That number was Corey’s way of saying, ‘Fuck you,’” a former DHS official said.

As soon as Trump entered office, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem & Co. went to work forming a new anti-immigration regime, transforming DHS into the country’s most fearsome law-enforcement arm. It is now endangering the constitutional rights of citizens and noncitizens alike — and it is doing so openly, even proudly. During his first two weeks on the job, Trump signed an order that attempted to end birthright citizenship and another to begin preparing Guantánamo Bay to detain tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants. In March, the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, claiming it could deport migrants without a hearing owing to an “invasion” of gang members from Venezuela. Later, a federal judge ordered planes carrying detainees to El Salvador to be returned to the U.S., but the planes continued on their flight in defiance of the judge’s ruling. On one of these flights was Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had been granted legal protection because of legitimate concerns for his safety. The Trump administration admitted Garcia’s deportation was a mistake but claimed there was nothing it could do about it now that he was no longer in U.S. custody; Garcia later claimed he was beaten and psychologically tortured, while other deportees have said they were sexually assaulted.

Back home, ICE grabbed Palestinian green-card holder Mahmoud Khalil and kept him for more than 100 days in a detention center in Jena, Louisiana. A judge later ruled his capture unconstitutional, and other detainees at Jena have complained of overcrowding, cells contaminated with feces, and being denied medication. DHS detained Mohsen Mahdawi, also a Palestinian green-card holder, at his citizenship interview; nabbed Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish Ph.D. student, off the streets in Massachusetts; and held an Irish tourist for more than three months after he overstayed his visa by three days. “Nobody is safe,” he told the Guardian. The DHS X account has encouraged Americans to “Report Foreign Invaders,” and cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Chicago have become staging grounds for militarized immigration raids. “They are grabbing people who have brown skin or who speak with an accent or who speak another language and not people who are guilty of or are accused of perpetrating a crime,” Illinois governor J. B. Pritzker said in September.

New detention centers with macabre nicknames have started to spring up across the country: Alligator Alcatraz in Florida, the Cornhusker Clink in Nebraska, the Speedway Slammer in Indiana. ICE’s own inspectors found that migrants housed in a detention center in Fort Bliss in Texas had been subject to conditions that violated at least 60 federal standards, according to a report by the Washington Post, including many of the detainees being unable to contact their lawyers for weeks. South Korean workers detained in a raid on a Hyundai-LG factory in Georgia described being crammed into windowless rooms with few bathrooms and moldy beds, while ICE guards mocked them for being from “North Korea.” Democratic senator Jon Ossoff says his office has compiled credible reports of more than 500 human-rights abuses in immigration detention centers since the beginning of Trump’s term.

The Trump-friendly Supreme Court, in part through the use of its so-called shadow docket, has given DHS a green light to run rampant. The Court even reversed a judgment that blocked ICE agents from stopping people and questioning them solely based on factors like their ethnicity. As a result of all these changes, the number of illegal border crossings has plummeted, the number of detentions has hit record highs, and, according to DHS, 2 million undocumented immigrants have either left the country or been deported (though the number has not been independently verified) — and ICE hasn’t even fully utilized the funding increase that makes its annual budget larger than the FBI’s.

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem leaped on to this agenda, developing a reputation as a ruthless enforcer. A South Park episode devoted to [“Bimbo #2”] Noem showed her raiding Heaven for undocumented immigrants and, in a callback to poor Cricket, gunning down several dogs. But her efforts put her in good stead with the Trump administration. “Secretary [“Bimbo #2”] Noem is returning America to the American People,” Stephen Miller said in an email. By all accounts, the president likes [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, describing her as both “elegant” and “tough as hell.” It helps that [“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski have their own fiefdom, since getting too much attention can be a dangerous game in Trump’s Washington, where no one is allowed to overshadow the boss. “They sort of avoid being at the White House,” the administration official told me. “And I think they do that because they don’t want to be overexposed.” Lewandowski, he said, knows better than anybody that “one of the best ways to survive is to stay off the radar.”

At the same time, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem wants to be as closely associated with Trump’s draconian regime as possible. Once, according to a former DHS official, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem grew angry with Homan after he went on television to discuss immigration news, believing that he had “gotten out front” of her on the issue. “She tried to put a comms blackout on him,” another administration official told me. “She ordered that he not go on TV; she ordered that basically no one go on TV in the entire Homeland lane.” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem tried to tell Homan that he worked for her. He told her he worked for the White House. Her relationship with Homan got so sour that, at a meeting earlier this year, Trump asked Homan whether he needed to intervene. “No, sir, we can work this out,” Homan responded. The White House told me, “The President’s entire team — including Border Czar Tom Homan and Secretary [“Bimbo #2”] Noem — are all in lockstep.”

As part of DHS’s advertising blitz, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem filmed a series of ads thanking Trump for “securing our border and putting America first,” while urging undocumented immigrants to self-deport. “We will hunt you down,” she said. The TV spots looked, even to some members of [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s team, like the start of a state-sponsored presidential campaign. “They were running on Fox News and everywhere in places they would run if she were running for president, not places where illegal aliens might see them,” a DHS employee told me. “It was a taxpayer-dollar-funded ad for her to position herself.”

None of this is to say that [“Bimbo #2”] Noem is fully in charge of Trump’s immigration policy. Deputy chief of staff Miller, an immigration obsessive, is Trump’s most trusted policy adviser. It was Miller who reportedly set a 3,000-deportations-a-day goal for ICE early in the administration, a number so high that it remains elusive today, and it’s Miller who speaks with DHS most days to get reports on how things are going. Miller has also been one of the most outspoken administration officials in calling for a crackdown on the “radical left” in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, though [“Bimbo #2”] Noem herself also mentioned her connection to the former campus activist, telling conservative media that one of his last text messages to her called for mayors and governors to be held accountable for overseeing high levels of crime.

[“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s belligerent approach is reflected within the department, where she is an isolated and isolating figure. She has, according to a person close to the administration, gone to the White House multiple times to try to replace Troy Edgar, one of her deputies. A very tight circle of aides runs day-to-day operations. Lewandowski, in particular, was described to me as a micromanager who will approve and deny travel requests made by ICE employees. He has been responsible for firing and reassigning dozens of people within the agency, and they are afraid to push back because he might call and “rip their heads off,” according to the person close to the administration.

Another person close to the administration told me that Lewandowski once called a DHS employee with marching orders. The employee replied that he didn’t take instruction from Lewandowski but from [“Bimbo #2”] Noem. “All of a sudden, you hear the secretary say, ‘It’s coming from me,’” the person familiar told me. “She was on the call, in the background, not saying anything.” Matt Strickland, a former contractor who worked at DHS headquarters, told me that all the major decisions in the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office had to be run by Lewandowski. “Corey Lewandowski is running DHS. Kristi [“Bimbo #2”] Noem is just the face of it,” he said. After tweeting in support of FEMA’s Hamilton, Strickland says he was warned he could be fired. When the order finally came down, he was told that it was from Lewandowski and a member of a group of senior officials Lewandowski has dubbed “the Four Horsemen.”

Another of [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s deputies is Madison Sheahan, 28, who just six years ago was the captain of the rowing team at Ohio State University and who now is the deputy director of ICE. “For the most part, every entity in ICE reports to me,” Sheahan told me in an interview at ICE headquarters in southwest Washington. Sheahan is broad-shouldered with a punishing handshake. She told me she doesn’t sweat the controversial parts of her job. “I understand that everyone wants to poke holes and say we aren’t perfect, and we aren’t,” she said. “But we’ll never know how much ICE prevented — the number of kids that we’ve saved and families that we’ve saved.”

She first began working for [“Bimbo #2”] Noem pretty much right out of college, as a body woman and policy aide when [“Bimbo #2”] Noem was governor. “She genuinely believes she was called to serve by God,” she said of [“Bimbo #2”] Noem. They grew close enough to consider each other friends. Once, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem invited Sheahan to run a half-marathon with her. When Sheahan asked her boss if she needed Gatorade about a mile from the finish line, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem said “yes,” only to sprint ahead when Sheahan popped over to a hydration table. [“Bimbo #2”] Noem beat her by about ten feet. “That really describes her,” Sheahan told me. “She’s gonna have fun. She’s gonna do her job. But she’s gonna win, too.”

Some ICE officials call Sheahan “Fish Cop” behind her back because of her previous stint running the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in Louisiana. Sheahan knows there are people who think that, without any law-enforcement background, she isn’t qualified for a job usually occupied by veteran ICE officials. “I absolutely think I’m qualified for the job,” she told me. “Because at the end of the day, what really makes anybody qualified for any job?”

If Miller sets the policies, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski have nevertheless centralized power at DHS to an unprecedented degree. In June, a memo from [“Bimbo #2”] Noem went out saying secretarial approval was needed for all payments above $100,000, superseding a previous threshold of $25 million. This was, in theory, a way to make sure the secretary could be a better steward of the taxpayer dollar. In practice, it meant chaos. “I can’t make a phone call for under a hundred grand,” a former top FEMA official remembered thinking when the memo landed in his inbox. There are thousands of contracts worth $100,000 or more, and a backlog was inevitable.

“They almost had their utilities shut off at the building because the bill wasn’t paid,” the former FEMA official told me. A government-mandated return-to-office policy meant that the FEMA building went from having hundreds of staffers to thousands but saw no corresponding increase in janitorial services. It could feel, the official said, “like you needed an appointment” to use a restroom. Another former FEMA official told me that FEMA headquarters came within hours of having the lights turned off.

The bottleneck affected mission-critical work as well. Two days after catastrophic floods inundated Central Texas this summer, FEMA did not answer nearly two-thirds of calls to its disaster-assistance line, the New York Times reported, because [“Bimbo #2”] Noem had not renewed a contract for hundreds of workers at call centers. And in September, Ted Budd, a Republican senator from North Carolina, threatened to filibuster Homeland Security nominees until the department stops “stonewalling” payments for the recovery efforts stemming from Hurricane Helene last year.

In July, FEMA created a task force of about 30 employees to compile a list of crucial contracts that are soon to expire. Many of these employees were taken off their day jobs to work on this task force, where they spent upwards of 15 hours a day in a windowless room, poring over paperwork. “She’s supposed to be the one cutting red tape, not creating it,” a former FEMA official familiar with the process told me. “It feels like intentional busywork, like a way to destroy the agency from the inside.”

It’s not just FEMA. The backlog has affected parts of DHS that the administration cares about. The Times reported this summer that the Transportation Security Administration allowed a contract for airport-screening equipment that helps detect fake passports to expire as well as contracts with Customs and Border Protection to help administer polygraph tests to applicants for law-enforcement jobs. And in early September, DHS staff received an email stating that its daily immigration-enforcement report would not be available. “Due to a contracting lapse, we will not be able to update the data today until the issue is resolved,” the email said.

DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the new rules came about after [“Bimbo #2”] Noem learned about massive contracts getting signed for deals she knew nothing about. Already the DHS has saved taxpayers more than $10 billion, McLaughlin said. “It’s not just a talking point,” McLaughlin told me.

Lewandowski is intimately involved with contract work. One former DHS official told me he kept a list of vendors that are banned from doing business with the department. And this past summer, Politico reported that Lewandowski had veto power over contracts and is the last stop before they are sent to [“Bimbo #2”] Noem’s desk. “Everything has to go through Corey,” a lobbyist who has done business with DHS told me. “It’s all based on ‘You’re my buddy, or you’re not my buddy. You hired my friend, or you didn’t hire my friend.’ That place just runs that way.” As one former administration official put it to me, “It’s the Corey show over there.”

In late August, articles in several outlets detailed the delays in contract approvals, which DHS officials denied were happening. They caught the attention of the White House, which is now monitoring Lewandowski’s hours and, according to the administration official, complaining about how difficult [“Bimbo #2”] Noem can be to reach. In response to the articles, Lewandowski and [“Bimbo #2”] Noem called various officials in the department to try to speed things up. “They were screaming,” one DHS employee told me about a call with ICE officials. “The level of disrespect and screaming at everybody in that room — I think people were really shocked and taken aback.” [“Bimbo #2”] Noem “dropped multiple F-bombs,” a former DHS staffer said. It was clear to everyone that she and Lewandowski had been embarrassed by the bad press and were now feeding off each other’s negative energy. They accused the people in the room of “lining their pockets” from government contracts, according to the former staffer, an accusation that struck them as a possible projection. At one point, a member of the team rattled off some acronyms. “Enough with the acronyms,” Lewandowski said. “I’ll give you an acronym: F-I-R-E-D.”

In mid-September, Trump called [“Bimbo #2”] Noem and Lewandowski into the Oval Office. The president had, according to the administration official, who was briefed on the meeting, heard concerns about their management style. “He was particularly mad at Corey” and about how “he can’t get along with anybody,” the official said. The two assuaged his concerns and left the meeting with their jobs intact — for now.

The expansion of DHS’s gulag archipelago continues apace. In September, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem held a press conference at the infamous Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as “Angola” for the slave plantation that used to be here. As reporters loaded onto shuttle buses at the gate, an official told us, “Most people who come in here and go down that road never get to come back out.”

We parked by an orange roadblock labeled ANGOLA RODEO, the site of the annual exhibition where prisoners participate in a series of events like “Convict Poker” (four inmates play poker seated at a table with a loose bull in the arena, and the last man sitting wins). Looming in front of us: a thicket of barbed wire and two patrol towers guarding a housing unit that was called the Dungeon back when it was used for solitary confinement.

The Dungeon had fallen into desuetude, but the Trump administration has given it a new purpose as a detention center for undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes. Fifty-one detainees have already been transferred inside, and there are plans to house as many as 400 in the future. Internally, DHS staff had been referring to the revamped facility as “Camp 47” — an homage to Trump — but its given name is the Louisiana Lockup.

The sky soon filled with military helicopters carrying [“Bimbo #2”] Noem, Lewandowski, Sheahan, Louisiana governor Jeff Landry, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Lewandowski, dressed in all black and aviators, hung back with a group of staffers out of sight of the gathered camera people, while Landry, Bondi, Sheahan, and [“Bimbo #2”] Noem approached a podium beside a parked ICE SUV newly wrapped with the words PROTECT THE HOMELAND.

Landry was dressed in an olive-green hat and matching tactical shirt. The prison, he said in his thick Cajun accent, will be home to criminals who shouldn’t even bother trying to escape unless they want to contend with the “swamps filled with alligators and the forests filled with bears.”

“What will their day-to-day be like?” a journalist asked.

“What would you expect?” he retorted.

Landry said those who come here will have no interaction with any of the other 4,000 inmates living at Angola, more than 90 percent of whom committed violent crimes. The Louisiana Lockup will be filled with “the worst of the worst,” Landry told us. The message to any and all undocumented immigrants living in this country was clear: Get out or they will find you.

For most of the press conference, [“Bimbo #2”] Noem had stood expressionless, offering steely stares while Landry spoke about the need to get rapists and drug dealers and human traffickers off America’s streets. Then a journalist asked, “Every headline about Angola calls it ‘notorious.’ Was the decision to choose a prison with such a reputation deliberate to get people to self-deport?”

The question seemed to make her giddy. She looked around at her colleagues and then bent forward in laughter. “Absolutely!” she said with a grin.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/kristi-noem-corey-lewandowski-dhs-fema-trump-enforcers.html

Daily Beast: Trump’s Canadian Ambassador Blames Canada for Not Being MAGA

Pete Hoekstra voiced he was “disappointed” that Canadians weren’t very passionate about America.

America’s Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra is “disappointed” that Canadians don’t like America all that much.

“I’m disappointed that I came to Canada, a Canada (where) it is very, very difficult to find Canadians who are passionate about the American-Canadian relationship,” said Hoekstra during a luncheon with the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.

Hoekstra, 71, was the Michigan GOP chair before his appointment to the ambassadorship in April. His comments came the day after he said he was saddened Canada wasn’t excited about working with America on topics in their mutual national interests.

“Whether it’s energy, whether it’s automotive, whether it’s nuclear, defense and all of those types of things, we were hoping that we would not just renegotiate CUSMA, but that we could take it into being something much bigger,” he said, referring to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement that deals with free trade between the three nations.

“It’s obvious, at least at this point in time, that that’s not going to happen,” he said.

Hoekstra took particular issue with Canada’s “Elbows Up” campaign, a grassroots campaign of national solidarity that sprung up as a result of the Trump administration’s tariffs on Canada and President Trump’s suggestions that Canada become the 51st state. The phrase “Elbows Up” comes from hockey, and it means to skate with one’s elbows up to repel checks from opposing players. It was used frequently by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on the campaign trail.

“‘Elbows up’… was an anti-American campaign. That has continued. That’s disappointing,” said Hoekstra.

Canadian government officials haven’t exactly voiced remorse for the country’s anti-American unity in recent months. On Wednesday, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said the Trump administration’s 35% tariffs on Canadian goods have forced the country to “reinvent” its economy.

“It is sad, I would say, that our largest trading partner turned its back on Canada, which has led to us having to reassess how we’re going to build the economy of the future,” he said.

Canada dropped some its retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods in August, but it maintains a 25% tariff rate on U.S. cars, steel and aluminum.

Carney has voiced that he’s open to reopening the door for the United States to improve its trade policies with Canada.

“We have the ambition, but a deal is a deal, and a deal has to go for both sides, and Canada will agree to a deal that’s in the best interest of Canadians,” said Carney.

“It should not surprise anyone, including the U.S. ambassador.”

You insult them, you destroy their export markets with tariffs, and now you’re upset that they’re not “MAGA”?


https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-canadian-ambassador-blames-canada-for-not-being-maga


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-s-canadian-ambassador-blames-canada-for-not-being-maga/ar-AA1MY5Qm

Independent: Trump said he ate ‘whatever the hell they served us’ at Windsor banquet during UK state visit: Latest

Donald Trump’s visit to the UK finished without controversy despite a number of issues – including the recent sacking of US ambassador Lord Peter Mandelson – threatening to sour proceedings

Donald Trump has said he ate “whatever they hell they served us” during a banquet staged in his honour at Windsor Castle.

Trump said being with the “wonderful” King was the best part of his historic state visit to the UK, as he heaped praise on the royal family following his departure.

The US leader said he saw more paintings “than any human being has ever saw” and when asked what he ate at the Windsor Castle banquet staged in his honour, he said: “Whatever the hell they served us.”

Guests at the lavish event – attended by “the biggest people in the world” according to Mr Trump – were treated to Hampshire watercress panna cotta with parmesan shortbread and quail egg salad, followed by organic Norfolk chicken ballotine wrapped in courgettes, with a thyme and savoury infused jus.

Mr Trump, who is known to have a sweet tooth, is likely to have enjoyed the dessert – a bombe glacee cardinal, which is a vanilla ice cream bombe with Kentish raspberry sorbet interior with lightly poached Victoria plums.

Much more — hour-by-hour account — at the links below:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-uk-visit-chequers-melania-starmer-latest-news-b2829542.html

Miami Herald: GOP lawmaker makes blockbuster claim: FBI has at least 20 names of suspected Epstein clients

A Republican lawmaker revealed for the first time Wednesday that there is a quasi-list of suspected clients of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein that can be compiled from a series of witness statements and other evidence gathered by the FBI.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told the House Judiciary Committee that he thinks the FBI has the names of at least 20 people tied to Epstein, including prominent figures in the music industry, finance, politics and banking.

Massie’s statement comes as FBI Director Kash Patel testified under oath before Congress over two days of contentious hearings, during which he continued to insist that there is no “client list” and no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked underage girls to anyone other than himself.

But Massie cited files used by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York which summarize interviews with witnesses and suspects.

The lawmaker claimed those files include “one Hollywood producer worth a few 100 million dollars, one royal prince, one high-profile individual in the music industry, one very prominent banker, one high profile government official, one high profile former politician, one owner of a car company in Italy, one rock star, one magician, at least six billionaires, including a billionaire from Canada. We know these people exist in the FBI files, the files that you control.”

Patel said he asked FBI agents to review the existing files and added “any investigations that arise from any credible investigation will be brought. There have been no new materials brought to me.”

On Tuesday, Patel blamed former Miami federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta for what he called the “Original Sin” — explaining that the decision to give federal immunity to Epstein in 2008 has hampered almost every effort by the FBI and Justice Department to hold those involved in Epstein’s criminal operation accountable.

Patel, a podcaster who once called for the release of the files and helped propagate conspiracy theories about why they weren’t being made public, testified just days before Acosta is set to finally tell his side of the story before a congressional committee. On Friday, Acosta will be grilled by the House Oversight Committee in closed-door testimony for the first time since he resigned as U.S. labor secretary amid renewed scrutiny of the case.

Acosta was just 37 and a rising star in the Republican Party who had noble ambitions of becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice when he was namedU.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2005. By the time he was sworn in, the FBI was already investigating Epstein, and evidence suggested that the crimes against children and young women he committed in Palm Beach went well beyond Florida.

Now 56, Acosta has almost vanished from public life, other than appearing from time to time to discuss economic issues on the conservative TV network Newsmax, where he is also on the network’s board of directors and chair of its audit committee. The Miami Herald was unsuccessful in obtaining a comment from Newsmax, which in recent months has portrayed Acosta as a victim of the “deep state,” suggesting that Epstein and Maxwell were unfairly targeted.

Acosta still owns a $2.6 million mansion in McLean, Virginia, which he and his wife bought after being named labor secretary by President Donald Trump in 2017. Nowadays, he advises private market ventures and serves as a public speaker, according to his Newsmax bio.

A first-generation Cuban American, Acosta skipped his senior year of high school to enter Harvard a year early. Upon graduation in 1994, he worked as a law clerk for future Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito, who was then a federal appeals court judge. Acosta then took a job with the prestigious law firm Kirkland and Ellis in Washington and became a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative organization that has influenced the appointment of judges, including members of the Supreme Court.

Acosta was appointed in 2001 under the George W. Bush administration as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, and also served on the National Labor Relations Board before being appointed U.S. Attorney in Miami.

Acosta has rarely spoken about the Epstein case. To this day, he has stood firm on his decision to give Epstein a plea deal, arguing in the past that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prosecute him on serious sex trafficking charges.

But an investigation, completed in 2020 by the Justice Department, concluded that Acosta had used “poor judgement” in resolving the case with such a lenient plea deal — one that not only gave Epstein immunity from federal charges, but also gave immunity to four co-conspirators and an unidentified number of others who were involved. Under the deal, Epstein pleaded guilty in state court to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor under 18. He was sentenced to 18 months in the county jail, but served 13 — most of it under a “work release” program which enabled him to leave prison during the day. (It was later revealed that he continued to sexually abused young women in his Palm Beach “office” while he was an inmate).

Acosta has also blamed the Palm Beach state attorney, Barry Krischer — specifically his decision early on to pursue only a misdemeanor charge and a fine against Epstein, which complicated any future federal prosecution.

Krischer called Acosta’s reasoning an attempt to “rewrite history.”

“No matter how my office resolved the state charges, the U.S. Attorney always had the ability to file his own criminal charges,” Krischer said in a statement at the time of Acosta’s resignation.

The lead line prosecutor who handled the case in Florida, Marie Villafaña, told federal investigators in 2019 that she had drawn up a 53-page draft indictment in 2007 against Epstein accusing him of sex trafficking minors while running a systemic operation using others to recruit girls. If convicted, Epstein may have served life in prison. Villafaña, who has never spoken publicly and has since resigned, told investigators she pleaded with her bosses to prosecute him — to no avail.

The DOJ’s investigation into Epstein’s plea deal also hit several roadblocks, among them: the discovery that 11 months’ worth of Acosta’s emails during the negotiations had vanished. Federal investigators blamed the gap – from May 2007 to April 2008 – on a technical glitch that they said wasn’t isolated to Acosta and had affected other federal email accounts.

The missing emails included the months and days leading up to and following October 12, 2007, when Acosta had a private breakfast meeting in Palm Beachwith Epstein’s lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz, a former Kirkland and Ellis law colleague.

The Miami Herald, in its 2018 investigation of the case, uncovered evidence suggesting that Epstein and his battery of high-priced attorneys exerted undue influence over both state and federal prosecutors. Among other lawyers hired by Epstein: former Clinton special prosecutor and Kirkland and Ellis lawyer Kenneth Starr; lawyer and friend Alan Dershowitz (who was later accused by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre of sexual abuse, though she later recanted); and Miami lawyer Lilly Anne Sanchez, who, according to the DOJ probe, had dated one of the federal prosecutors on the Epstein case, Matthew Menchel.

Emails between Epstein’s lawyers and federal prosecutors obtained by the Herald showed that Epstein’s lawyers repeatedly made demands and that federal prosecutors acquiesced each step of the way.

“Thank you for the commitment you made to me during our Oct. 12 meeting,’’ Lefkowitz wrote in a letter to Acosta after their breakfast meeting in Palm Beach. He added that he was hopeful that Acosta would abide by a promise to keep the deal confidential. By law, prosecutors were required to notify Epstein’s victims in advance of any plea agreement.

“The original sin in the Epstein case was the way it was initially brought by Mr. Acosta,” Patel told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Mr. Acosta allowed Epstein to enter — in 2008 — to plea to a non-prosecution agreement which then the courts issued mandates and protective orders legally prohibiting anyone from ever seeing that material ever again without the permission of the court. The non-prosecution also barred future prosecutions of those involved at that time.”

A judge later ruled that the Epstein deal was illegal, but the courts ultimately ruled that it was too late to undo it.

Still, the deal’s provisions did not stop the then-U.S. attorney in New York, Geoffrey Berman, from bringing new charges against Epstein in 2019 in the wake of the Herald’s series. Epstein, 66, was arrested on July 6, 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. A month later, Epstein was found hanging in his cell. The medical examiner in New York ruled his death a suicide, although Epstein’s brother, a private forensic pathologist he hired and Epstein’s lawyers have said they don’t believe Epstein killed himself.

Prosecutors did arrest Epstein’s former girlfriend, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted on sex trafficking charges in 2021 and is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence. She is appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court, and part of her argument is that she is covered by the immunity clause in the 2008 agreement, even though she was not named.

Former attorney general William Barr testified for the Oversight Committee under a subpoena last month that he was confident Epstein’s death was a suicide. He also disputed rumors that Epstein had any ties to intelligence agencies.

Barr, who worked for the CIA while in law school in the 1970s, said the notion that Epstein was working for intelligence was “dubious.”

“Many American businessmen who have foreign contacts sometimes will talk to intelligence agencies and provide information to them,” Barr said. “And the CIA has a unit that goes around and talks to people who are well-connected and asks them questions.”

https://www.miamiherald.com/article312146310.html

National Institute of Justice: What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism

Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. 

This is the complete text of a Department of Justice study regarding right-wing extremism that the Trump administration has tried to remove from the Internet.

This complete text was retrieved from the Internet Archive.

January 4, 2024

By

Steven Chermak

Matthew Demichele

Jeff Gruenewald

Michael Jensen

Raven Lewis

Basia E. Lopez

Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.[2] A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.[3]

Over the past 20 years, the body of research that examines terrorism and domestic violent extremism has grown exponentially. Studies have looked at the similarities and differences between radicalization to violent domestic ideologies and radicalization to foreign extremist ideologies. Research has found that radicalization processes and outcomes — and perhaps potential prevention and intervention points — vary by group structure and crime type. In addition, research has explored promising and effective approaches for how communities can respond to radicalization and prevent future attacks.[4]

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has played a unique role in the evolving literature on terrorism and violent extremism. NIJ has promoted the development of comprehensive terrorism databases to help inform criminal justice responses to terrorism, address the risk of terrorism to potential targets, examine the links between terrorism and other crimes, and study the organizational, structural, and cultural dynamics of terrorism. In 2012, the U.S. Congress requested that NIJ build on these focal points by funding “research targeted toward developing a better understanding of the domestic radicalization phenomenon and advancing evidence-based strategies for effective intervention and prevention.”[5] NIJ has since funded more than 50 research projects on domestic radicalization, which have led to a better understanding of the processes that result in violent action, factors that increase the risk of radicalizing to violence, and how best to prevent and respond to violent extremism.

This article discusses the findings of several NIJ-supported domestic radicalization studies that cover a range of individual and network-centered risk and protective factors that affect radicalization processes, including military involvement and online environments. The article also explores factors that shape the longevity of radicalization processes and their variation by group structure and crime type, and examines factors that affect pathways away from domestic extremism. It concludes with a discussion of how these findings can inform terrorism prevention strategies, criminal justice policy, and community-based prevention programming.

The Characteristics of U.S. Extremists and Individuals Who Commit Hate Crimes

Over the past two decades, research that seeks to understand individual-level engagement in violent extremism has grown tremendously. However, as the research field has developed, a gap has emerged between the increasingly sophisticated arguments that scholars use to explain extremism and the availability of data to test, refine, and validate theories of radicalization.

In 2012, NIJ funded the Empirical Assessment of Domestic Radicalization project to address the data gap in radicalization research.[6] The project created the Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) database, a cross-ideological repository of information on the characteristics of U.S. extremists. In 2017, NIJ supported a follow-on project[7] that sought to replicate the PIRUS data for individuals in the United States who commit hate crimes. This project yielded the Bias Incidents and Actors Study (BIAS) dataset, the first data resource for researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the risk and protective factors associated with committing hate crimes.

PIRUS and BIAS are designed to provide users with information on a wide range of factors that can play a role in a person’s radicalization to criminal activity.[8] These risk and protective factors can be divided into four domains:[9]

  • The situational characteristics of the crimes, including whether the acts were premeditated or spontaneous, involved co-conspirators, or were committed while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
  • The characteristics of the victims, including whether targets were “hard” (for example, military bases, secure facilities) or “soft” (for example, businesses, public areas, private civilians) and whether the individuals had prior relationships with their victims.
  • Factors that produce the social bonds that may protect against mobilization to violence, such as marriage, military service, work experience, and advanced education.
  • Factors that may act as radicalization mechanisms and risk factors for violence, such as previous criminal activity, membership in extremist or hate groups, substance use, and mental illness.

The PIRUS and BIAS data have been used to generate insights on a range of important topics related to hate crime and extremism; however, there are three overarching findings common to both datasets: diversity in beliefs, diversity in behaviors, and diversity in characteristics.

Diversity in Beliefs

Although it is not uncommon for a particular ideology to dominate the public discourse around extremism, the PIRUS and BIAS data indicate that U.S. extremists and individuals who commit hate crimes routinely come from across the ideological spectrum, including far-right, far-left, Islamist, or single-issue ideologies. These ideologies break down into particular movements, or sub-ideologies. For instance, in 2018, the PIRUS data identified extremists associated with several anti-government movements, Second Amendment militias, the sovereign citizen movement, white supremacy, ecoterrorism, anarchism, the anti-abortion movement, the QAnon conspiracy theory, and others.[10] The prevalence of particular movements can ebb and flow over time depending on political climate and law enforcement priorities, but at no point in recent U.S. history has one set of beliefs completely dominated extremism or hate crime activity.[11] Furthermore, the PIRUS and BIAS data reveal that U.S. extremists and individuals who commit hate crimes are often motivated by overlapping views. For instance, it is common for individuals from the anti-government militia movement to adopt views of white supremacy or for those from the extremist environmental movement to take part in anarchist violence. Nearly 17% of the individuals in PIRUS were affiliated with more than one extremist group or sub-ideological movement, and nearly 15% of the individuals in BIAS selected the victims of their hate crimes because of multiple identity characteristics, such as race and sexual orientation.[12]

Diversity in Behaviors

Although radicalization to violence has been a primary topic in extremism and hate crime research, the PIRUS and BIAS data indicate that U.S. extremists and individuals who commit hate crimes often engage in a range of violent and nonviolent criminal activities. Indeed, 42% of PIRUS and nearly 30% of BIAS individual actors engaged exclusively in nonviolent crimes, such as property damage, financial schemes, and illegal demonstrations.[13] Moreover, the violent outcomes represented in the PIRUS and BIAS data vary in scope and type. For instance, approximately 15% of those in BIAS committed or planned to commit mass casualty crimes, while the remaining subjects targeted specific victims.[14] Similarly, nearly 50% of those in BIAS did not premeditate their crimes but rather acted spontaneously after chance encounters with their victims.[15]

Diversity in Characteristics

One of the more common conclusions of recent research on radicalization is that no single profile accurately captures the characteristics of the individuals who commit extremist and hate crimes.[16] The PIRUS and BIAS data support this finding, revealing that background characteristics vary considerably depending on ideological affiliations. For instance, white supremacists in PIRUS tend to be older and less well-educated and are more likely to have criminal histories than those who were inspired by foreign terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or those associated with the extremist environmental or anarchist movements.[17] Despite these differences, some risk and protective factors tend to separate violent from nonviolent individuals, regardless of ideology.[18] In the PIRUS data, individuals with criminal records, documented or suspected mental illness, and membership in extremist cliques are more often classified as violent, while those who are married with stable employment backgrounds are more likely to engage in nonviolent crimes.[19] Similarly, in BIAS, violent individuals are more likely to co-offend with peers, have criminal histories that include acts of violence, and offend while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.[20]

Military Experience and Domestic Violent Extremism

According to current statistics, individuals with military backgrounds represent 11.5% of the total known extremists who have committed violent and nonviolent crimes in the United States since 1990.[21] Although this percentage seems small, there has been a growing trend of (former) military members engaging in extremist offenses in recent years. An average of seven people with U.S. military backgrounds per year committed extremist crimes between 1990 and 2010. That rate has risen to an average of 29 people per year over the past decade. Also worth noting is that more than half (52%) of extremists with military experience are identified as violent.

Given the growth of violent domestic extremism among military personnel, the relationship between military service and radicalization has become a major concern. Prior NIJ-funded studies have identified military experience as a potential risk factor for attempted and actual terrorism.[22] The likelihood of radicalization and radicalization to violence increases when individuals have already left military service.[23] This research suggests that military service is not a social bond that inhibits extremist violence.

NIJ studies have also shown that individuals with military experience may be susceptible to recruitment by domestic violent extremist groups due to their unique skills, which an extremist group may perceive as contributing to the success of a terrorist attack.[24] Also, transitioning from military to civilian life appears to be a pull factor for engaging in violent extremism.[25] Indicators for potential involvement in extremism may include a lack of a sense of community, purpose, and belonging. If these indicators are identified early, community stakeholders — in partnership with military agencies — could have an opportunity to intervene. Although such knowledge is valuable, the role of military service in radicalization to violent extremism still requires study.

Differences in Violent Extremist Characteristics Between Military Veterans and Civilians

In 2019, NIJ funded researchers at the University of Southern California to study the link between military service and violent domestic extremism. They are also examining the differences between military veteran and civilian extremists in terms of their characteristics and social networks.[26] Although this study is ongoing, preliminary findings have been drawn from a secondary analysis of the American Terrorism Study data, which contain information on people federally indicted for terrorism-related crimes by the U.S. government between 1980 and 2002.[27] With these data, the researchers compared the demographic and homegrown violent extremist characteristics among military veterans and civilians. The demographic characteristics considered were age, race, sex, marital status, and education level. The homegrown violent extremist characteristics consisted of the length of group membership, type of terrorist group, role in the group, mode of recruitment into the group, primary target, and the state of indictment.

The research team observed significant differences between military veteran and civilian extremists across both demographic and homegrown violent extremist characteristics. First, they found that military veteran and civilian extremists differed with respect to age, sex, and marital status. Specifically, individuals with military service who engaged in homegrown violent extremism were more likely to be older, male, and in marital or cohabiting relationships than civilians who engaged in homegrown violent extremism. Second, analyses revealed that, compared to civilian extremists, military veteran extremists had greater affiliations with right-wing terrorist groups (versus left-wing, international, or other terrorist groups) and were more likely to hold leadership positions within these groups and either initiate a terrorist group or unite groups together. Finally, other than government/federal officials or buildings, which were the primary targets across all groups, the primary targets of veterans were diverse social groups, such as those belonging to racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups.

Implications of Transitioning Out of Military Service

The University of Southern California researchers intend to supplement these results by interviewing members from the social networks of military veterans and civilians who committed homegrown violent extremism between 2003 and 2019. The findings produced thus far are important, especially because the association between military experience and terrorism is understudied. Ultimately, these results suggest that people who transition from active duty to veteran status experience a nuanced, complex, and potentially lifelong process. Veterans who encounter difficulties during this transition and desire — but lack — a sense of community, purpose, and belonging after leaving the military may be attracted to the pull of domestic extremist groups. In these groups, veterans can lead and collaborate with others of similar ideologies to accomplish a shared mission akin to what they did in the military. For example, the military veterans in this study largely endorsed right-wing values; thus, perhaps something about the narratives of right-wing extremist groups compensates for the void felt when leaving military service. With such insights in mind, researchers recommend forming partnerships among civilians, the military, and veteran communities to identify and prevent violent extremism among U.S. veterans.

Longevity of Terrorist Plots in the United States

A major question for researchers and counterterrorism officials is how to prevent the next act of terrorism or violent extremism from occurring. As such, much attention has been paid to disrupted plots and successful interdiction tactics that ultimately led to arrest and indictment. Less attention has been given to what those responsible for acts of terrorism and violent extremism do to successfully evade detection and arrest. In other words, the focus has not been on what terrorists and violent extremists are doing “right.”

In 2013, NIJ funded researchers at the University of Arkansas’ Terrorism Research Center to study the sequencing of precursor behaviors for individuals who have been federally indicted in the United States for charges related to terrorism and domestic violent extremism.[28] Based on preliminary analyses, the researchers somewhat serendipitously observed lifespan differences between lone actors and those operating in small cells or more formalized groups. Consequently, it warranted a more comprehensive examination of the factors that increased the likelihood of terrorists and violent extremists evading arrest. NIJ funded the researchers to identify behaviors that improved the chances of plot longevity — or the ability for terrorists to commit acts of terrorism and evade capture by law enforcement — for individuals federally indicted on terrorism-related charges.[29]

Data on the longevity of terrorism and violent extremism plots come from the American Terrorism Study, the longest-running project on terrorism and violent extremism in the United States. With NIJ funding that began in 2003,[30] the American Terrorism Study maintains the most comprehensive dataset on temporally linked precursor behaviors and outcomes of terrorism and violent extremism plots. To examine plot longevity, the Arkansas researchers[31] limited their analyses to 346 federally indicted individuals who were linked to the planning or completion of a terrorist attack in the United States from 1980 to 2015. Longevity, or duration of their “terrorist lifespan,” is based on the date of a person’s involvement in their first preparatory activity and their “neutralizing” date (usually the date of arrest).

One of the key findings from this research is a correlation between significant declines in the lifespan of individual terrorists and major changes to the U.S. Attorney General guidelines established to combat terrorism and violent extremism in the United States. For example, those who began in the mid- to late 1970s, following Watergate, COINTELPRO, and the Privacy Act, had a median longevity of 2,230 days. In contrast, the median lifespan of terrorists who began operating in the mid-1980s decreased to 1,067 days. Later, in the early 2000s, it fell even further to 99 days, which reflects the FBI’s tighter focus on terrorism and violent extremism and guidelines granting law enforcement more discretion in the investigative techniques employed.

The researchers also found that the lifespans of terrorists and violent extremists vary significantly depending on key attributes, such as ideology, sex, and educational attainment. For example, environmental and extreme left-wing violent extremists tend to sustain themselves for relatively long periods of time (5.4 and 4.3 years, respectively), while the longevity of extreme right-wing and radical Islamist terrorists is, on average, two years or less.

Females federally indicted on charges related to terrorism and violent extremism also tend to have increased longevity compared to male terrorists and violent extremists, perhaps because of females’ disproportionate representation in longer-lasting extreme left-wing and environmental movements, as well as increased representation in left-wing group leadership roles. Females involved in terrorism and extremism are usually more educated, which is also associated with extended longevity. Further, females who play support roles in terrorism and extremist groups — as is more often the case for right-wing extremists and radical Islamist terrorists — also appear to have longer lifespans. In contrast, males have been more likely to engage in overtly criminal preparatory behavior and actual incident participation than females. Both types of behavior are significantly more likely to attract the attention of law enforcement and would be expected to shorten the longevity of both male and female terrorists and violent extremists.

Finally, longevity also depends on a plot’s sophistication and the extent of the planning required to carry it out. Less sophisticated plans or executed plots, or those using simpler and less advanced weapons, are generally associated with longer lifespans for terrorists and violent extremists. More sophisticated plots may provide greater potential for missteps by terrorists and violent extremists and leads for law enforcement. Additionally, more sophisticated plots are associated with more meetings with accomplices and necessitate extra preparation. Importantly, both the number of meetings and preparatory activities have been found to be negatively related to the successful completion of terrorist incidents, suggesting that early intervention or arrest are also linked to these two factors.

How Domestic Terrorists Use the Internet

Terrorists and terrorist groups use the internet to share propaganda and recruit new members. The internet provides a platform to strengthen their members’ commitment to the cause, encourage radicalized individuals to act, and coordinate legal and illegal activities. A recently published meta-analysis concluded, “Exposure to radical content online appears to have a larger relationship with radicalization than other media-related risk factors (for example, television usage, media exposure), and the impact of this relationship is most pronounced for the behavioral outcomes of radicalization.”[32]

In 2014, NIJ funded a study to develop a deeper understanding of what domestic terrorists discuss on the internet.[33] The study analyzed 18,120 posts from seven online web forums by and for individuals interested in the ideological far right. The research team read each post’s content and coded it for either quantitative or qualitative analyses depending on the project’s objective.

The project provided several important insights into terrorist use of the internet. First, the web forums included discussions about a variety of beliefs, such as gun rights, conspiracy theories, hate-based sentiments, and anti-government beliefs; however, the intensity of ideological expression was generally weak. The nature of the online environments that far-right groups use likely facilitates the diffusion of ideological agendas.

Second, the amount and type of involvement in these forums played a key role in radicalization. Posting behaviors changed over time. Users grew more ideological and radical as other users reinforced their ideas and connected their ideas to those from other forums. (It is important to note that the study focused on online expression and not conversion to offline violence.)

Third, far-right extremists were primarily interested in general technology issues. Discussions focused on encryption tools and methods (such as Tor), internet service providers and social media platforms, and law enforcement actions to surveil illicit activities online. These far-right extremists appeared more interested in defensive actions than sophisticated schemes for radicalization or offensive actions such as criminal cyberattacks.

The study used social network analyses to visualize user communications and network connections, focusing on individuals’ responses to posts made within threads to highlight interconnected associations between actors. The social network analyses indicated that far-right forums have a low network density, which suggests a degree of information recycling between key actors. The redundant connections between actors may slow the spread of new information. As a result, such forums may inefficiently distribute new knowledge due to their relatively insular nature. They may also be generally difficult to disrupt, as the participants’ language and behaviors reinforce others and create an echo chamber. These networks are similar to others observed in computer hacker communities and data theft forums,[34] which suggests that there may be consistencies in the nature of online dialogue regardless of the content.

The study also indicated that extreme external events usually did not affect posting behaviors. However, there were significant differences associated with conspiratorial, anti-Islamic, and anti-immigrant posts after the Boston Marathon bombing. It may be that violence or major disruptive events inspired by jihadist ideologies draw great responses from far-right groups relative to their own actions. The same appears to be true for the 2012 presidential election; the study observed increases both in the number of posts in the month after the election and in overt signs of individual ties or associations to far-right movements through self-claim posts, movement-related signatures, and usernames. These findings are consistent with other recent work comparing online mobilization after the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections.[35]

Entering and Exiting White Supremacy in the United States

An NIJ-funded research team led by RTI International examined the complex social-psychological processes involved with entering, mobilizing, and exiting white supremacy in the United States.[36] The researchers conducted in-depth life history interviews with 47 former members of white supremacist groups in 24 states and two provinces in Canada.[37]

For this project, white supremacy referred to groups that reject essential democratic ideals, equality, and tolerance. A key organizing principle is that inherent differences between races and ethnicities position white and European ancestry above all others. Those interviewed were authoritarian, anti-liberal, or militant nationalists who had a general intolerance toward people of color. They had used violence to achieve their goals and supported a race war to eradicate the world of nonwhite people.[38]

The study led to several key findings about entering and exiting white supremacy in the United States.

Hate as Outcome

The study found that most people do not join white supremacist groups because they are adherents of a particular ideology. Rather, a combination of background factors increases the likelihood that someone will be susceptible to recruitment messaging (for example, propaganda).[39] Previous research has highlighted that hate or adherence to racist violence was an outcome of participation in white supremacist groups.[40] The commitment to white supremacist groups lacked a preexisting sense of racial grievance or hatred that motivated an individual to join the racist movement.[41] One former member reported having “no inkling of what [Nazism] really was other than what you saw on TV.”[42] The NIJ-funded study found that people joined white supremacist groups because they were angry, lonely, and isolated, and they were looking for opportunities to express their rage.[43]

Vulnerabilities as Precondition

The former white supremacists had various personal, psychological, and social vulnerabilities that made them strive for what psychologists have framed as developing a new possible self.[44] High levels of negative life experiences — including, but not limited to, maladjustment, abuse, and family instability — potentially make a person imagine a new, different, and more fulfilled self.[45] They can imagine an empowered future self with friends and a purpose. Extremist recruiters prey on these desires. The former white supremacists indicated high levels of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse as children; strained personal relationships; and general difficulties throughout their lives. These struggles made white supremacy seem like an improvement to their sense of self, as the group came with a ready-made set of friends, social events, and camaraderie among individuals with similarly rough pasts. Besides these social benefits, white supremacist groups provided members with a deeper sense of belonging and explanation for their life troubles, rooted in a sense of racial pride and empowerment.

Gradual, Nonlinear Exit

Most white supremacists in this country do not remain members for life. Rather, group membership is often temporary (but not always short-lived), and many become disillusioned and burnt out over time. The study showed that the exit process is gradual, as the former white supremacists reported slowly becoming dissatisfied with the ideology, tactics, or politics of a group.[46] They described an identity that became filled with negative encounters with other members, even breeding distrust. White supremacy requires the development of a totalizing identity that results in isolating members from nonextremists. This marginalization fosters a sense of social stigma that makes white supremacy less attractive and further supports disengagement and deradicalization processes.

This research reported that emotional dynamics create trajectories of development and decline in white supremacy and the role of disillusionment among the reasons why members exit the organization.[47] These analyses offer an explanation for how white supremacist organizations maintain solidarity even though many individuals stay in groups after losing their ideological commitment. They also demonstrate that exit from a group is a nonlinear process.[48] Meanwhile, in other analyses, the study team reported that, even after an individual exits a group, their white supremacist identity lingers with a residual effect.[49] That research likened hate to an addiction that creates an uncontrollable emotional, social, and cognitive hold over adherents, which has the ability to pull former members back into hate almost against their will.[50] The former white supremacists shared experiences in which music, environments, and images created desire, longing, and curiosity about their old lifestyle within the organization.

Opportunities

The NIJ-funded study found several blind spots in terms of identification and awareness among criminal legal system practitioners and other responders. This resulted in several missed opportunities for intervention and practical solutions. Exhibit 1 details four areas in which the study findings can contribute to criminal justice policy and practice.[51]

Exhibit 1. Missed Opportunities for Intervention and Practical Solutions

Exhibit 1. Missed Opportunities for Intervention and Practical Solutions
(View larger image.)

Policy Implications

The results of the NIJ-funded studies discussed in this article have several implications for policy and practice. First, they illustrate that extremism is complex and that successfully countering it will require a unified response that bridges law enforcement, community partners, health officials, and concerned citizens. To facilitate a shared understanding of the extremist threat, stakeholders engaged in counterextremism efforts routinely use findings from these studies to provide training to concerned family and friends about potential radicalization warning signs and how best to respond. They also use the findings to educate law enforcement, corrections and probation officers, and mental health professionals on the complexity of radicalization so they can accurately gauge and respond to extremism in their communities. These types of training initiatives will remain critical to counterextremism efforts as the threat continues to evolve.

Second, the studies highlight the importance of focusing criminal justice resources on domestic extremism. Although international terrorist organizations remain a threat, these studies show that domestic extremists continue to be responsible for most terrorist attacks in the United States. Historically, far fewer resources have been dedicated to the study of domestic extremism, leaving gaps in our understanding about terrorist trends, recruitment and retention processes, and online behaviors. Due in large part to NIJ’s commitment to funding research on domestic radicalization, considerable progress has recently been made in addressing these topics. But this work will need to continue if we hope to keep pace with the rapidly evolving threat landscape.

Finally, the studies highlight the need for communitywide partnerships that link government and nongovernment organizations in support of community-level prevention and intervention programs. Law enforcement and criminal justice resources for countering extremism are finite and scarce, making it imperative that we focus our research and support efforts on understanding what occurs before a crime takes place. As the studies reviewed in this article show, there is often an opportunity to intervene to help individuals exit extremism before they engage in criminal activity. Similarly, prevention efforts are needed in digital spaces where extremist narratives often flourish. Achieving these goals will require community members, policymakers, and practitioners to commit to supporting counterextremism efforts.

About This Article

This article was published as part of NIJ Journal issue number 285. This article discusses the following awards:

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position, policies, terminology, or posture of the U.S. Department of Justice on domestic violent extremism. The content is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.

Notes

[note 1] Celinet Duran, “Far-Left Versus Far-Right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States,” Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society 22 no. 2 (2021): 33-49; Joshua D. Freilich et al., “Introducing the United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB),” Terrorism and Political Violence 26 no. 2 (2014): 372-384; and William Parkin, Joshua D. Freilich, and Steven Chermak, “Did Far-Right Extremist Violence Really Spike in 2017?” The Conversation, January 4, 2018.

[note 2] Duran, “Far-Left Versus Far-Right Fatal Violence”; Freilich et al., “Introducing the United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB)”; and Parkin, Freilich, and Chermak, “Did Far-Right Extremist Violence Really Spike in 2017?

[note 3] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Threat Assessment: October 2020, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2020, 4.

[note 4] Allison G. Smith, How Radicalization to Terrorism Occurs in the United States: What Research Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice Tells Us, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 2018, NCJ 250171; and Michael Wolfowicz, Badi Hasisi, and David Weisburd, “What Are the Effects of Different Elements of Media on Radicalization Outcomes? A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 18 no. 2 (2022).

[note 5] Aisha Javed Qureshi, “Understanding Domestic Radicalization and Terrorism: A National Issue Within a Global Context,” NIJ Journal 282, August 2020.

[note 6] National Institute of Justice funding award description, “Empirical Assessment of Domestic Radicalization (EADR),” at the University of Maryland, award number 2012-ZA-BX-0005.

[note 7] National Institute of Justice funding award description, “A Pathway Approach to the Study of Bias Crime Offenders,” at the University of Maryland, College Park, award number 2017-VF-GX-0003.

[note 8] The PIRUS and BIAS datasets are based on the same data collection methodologies and share similar goals. Both contain random samples of individuals who committed crimes in the United States that were motivated by their extremist ideologies or hate beliefs. The PIRUS dataset includes 2,225 individuals from 1948 to 2018, and BIAS is based on 966 cases from 1990 to 2018. Both datasets are collected entirely from public sources, including court records, online and print news, and public social media accounts. Both seek to capture individuals who promoted a range of extremist ideologies and hate beliefs. PIRUS, for instance, includes those whose crimes were associated with anti-government, white supremacist, environmental, anarchist, jihadist, and conspiracy theory movements. Similarly, BIAS includes individuals who selected victims based on their race, ethnicity, and nationality; sexual orientation; religious affiliation; age; or disability.

[note 9] Michael Jensen and Gary LaFree, “Final Report: Empirical Assessment of Domestic Radicalization (EADR),” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, award number 2012-ZA-BX-0005, December 2016, NCJ 250481; and Michael A. Jensen, Elizabeth A. Yates, and Sheehan E. Kane, “A Pathway Approach to the Study of Bias Crime Offenders,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, award number 2017-VF-GX-0003, February 2021, NCJ 300114.

[note 10] Michael Jensen, Elizabeth Yates, and Sheehan Kane, “Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS),” Research Brief, College Park, MD: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism [START], May 2020.

[note 11] Jensen, Yates, and Kane, “Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS).”

[note 12] Jensen, Yates, and Kane, “A Pathway Approach to the Study of Bias Crime Offenders.”

[note 13] Jensen and LaFree, “Final Report: Empirical Assessment of Domestic Radicalization (EADR)”; and Jensen, Yates, and Kane, “A Pathway Approach to the Study of Bias Crime Offenders.”

[note 14] Michael Jensen, Elizabeth Yates, and Sheehan Kane, “Characteristics and Targets of Mass Casualty Hate Crime Offenders,” College Park, MD: START, 2020.

[note 15] Jensen, Yates, and Kane, “A Pathway Approach to the Study of Bias Crime Offenders.”

[note 16] John Horgan, “From Profiles to Pathways and Roots to Routes: Perspectives From Psychology on Radicalization Into Terrorism,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 618 no. 1 (2008): 80-94.

[note 17] Jensen, Yates, and Kane, “Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS).”

[note 18] Gary LaFree, “Correlates of Violent Political Extremism in the United States,” Criminology 56 no. 2 (2018): 233-268; Michael A. Jensen, Anita Atwell Seate, and Patrick A. James, “Radicalization to Violence: A Pathway Approach To Studying Extremism,” Terrorism and Political Violence 32 no. 5 (2020): 1067-1090; and Michael A. Jensen et al., “The Link Between Prior Criminal Record and Violent Political Extremism in the United States,” in Understanding Recruitment to Organized Crime and Terrorism, ed. David Weisburd et al. (New York: Springer, 2020), 121-146.

[note 19] Jensen, Yates, and Kane, “Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS).”

[note 20] Michael Jensen, Elizabeth Yates, and Sheehan Kane, “Violent Hate Crime Offenders,” College Park, MD: START, 2020.

[note 21] Unless otherwise noted, all data reported in this section originate from Michael Jensen, Elizabeth Yates, and Sheehan Kane, Radicalization in the Ranks: An Assessment of the Scope and Nature of Criminal Extremism in the United States Military, College Park, MD: START, January 2022. In this project, extremists with military backgrounds consisted of active and nonactive personnel from all military branches and reserves, aside from the Space Force and Coast Guard Reserves. Individuals who were honorably discharged, dishonorably discharged, or otherwise violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice were excluded from the study. Also excluded were those discharged through court martial unless information about their criminal proceedings was publicly available.

[note 22] Allison G. Smith, Risk Factors and Indicators Associated With Radicalization to Terrorism in the United States: What Research Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice Tells Us, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 2018, NCJ 251789.

[note 23] Jensen and LaFree, “Final Report: Empirical Assessment of Domestic Radicalization (EADR).”

[note 24] Smith, Risk Factors and Indicators Associated With Radicalization to Terrorism in the United States.

[note 25] Smith, Risk Factors and Indicators Associated With Radicalization to Terrorism in the United States.

[note 26] National Institute of Justice funding award description, “Exploring the Social Networks of Homegrown Violent Extremist (HVE) Military Veterans,” at the University of Southern California, award number 2019-ZA-CX-0002.

[note 27] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Hazel R. Atuel and Carl A. Castro, “Exploring Homegrown Violent Extremism Among Military Veterans and Civilians,” The Military Psychologist 36 no. 3 (2021): 10-14.

[note 28] National Institute of Justice funding award description, “Sequencing Terrorists? Precursor Behaviors: A Crime Specific Analysis,” at the University of Arkansas, award number 2013-ZA-BX-0001.

[note 29] National Institute of Justice funding award description, “Radicalization and the Longevity of American Terrorists: Factors Affecting Sustainability,” at the University of Arkansas, award number 2015-ZA-BX-0001.

[note 30] National Institute of Justice funding award description, “Pre-Incident Indicators of Terrorist Incidents,” at the Board of Trustees, University of Arkansas, award number 2003-DT-CX-0003.

[note 31] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Brent L. Smith et al., “The Longevity of American Terrorists: Factors Affecting Sustainability,” Final Summary Overview, award number 2015-ZA-BX-0001, January 2021, NCJ 256035.

[note 32] Wolfowicz, Hasisi, and Weisburd, “What Are the Effects of Different Elements of Media on Radicalization Outcomes?”

[note 33] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Thomas J. Holt, Steve Chermak, and Joshua D. Freilich, “An Assessment of Extremist Groups Use of Web Forums, Social Media, and Technology To Enculturate and Radicalize Individuals to Violence,” Final Summary Overview, award number 2014-ZA-BX-0004, January 2021, NCJ 256038.

[note 34] Thomas J. Holt and Adam M. Bossler, “Issues in the Prevention of Cybercrime,” in Cybercrime in Progress: Theory and Prevention of Technology-Enabled Offenses (New York: Routledge, 2016), 136-168.

[note 35] Ryan Scrivens et al., “Triggered by Defeat or Victory? Assessing the Impact of Presidential Election Results on Extreme Right-Wing Mobilization Online,” Deviant Behavior 42 no. 5 (2021): 630-645.

[note 36] Matthew DeMichele, Peter Simi, and Kathleen Blee, “Research and Evaluation on Domestic Radicalization to Violent Extremism: Research To Support Exit USA,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, award number 2014-ZA-BX-0005, January 2021, NCJ 256037. 

[note 37] The project included three human rights groups (Anti-Defamation League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Southern Poverty Law Center) and Life After Hate, an organization that assists white supremacists in exiting the movement. The project partners helped develop a semi-structured interview protocol and provided contact information for initial interviewees. The study used a snowballing technique from these initial interviewees to identify former white supremacists who were in the public sphere to determine if they were interested in being interviewed. The interviews were conducted in places where the individuals would be comfortable, including hotel rooms, homes, places of work, coffee shops, restaurants, and parks. The interviews were in-depth accounts (lasting 6-8 hours each) of individuals’ backgrounds (for example, how they grew up), entry into white supremacy (for example, how they learned about the movement), mobilization (for example, rank and use of violence), and exit process (for example, initial doubts and barriers to exit). The completion of the project was a collaboration with equal contributions from Kathleen Blee, Matthew DeMichele, and Pete Simi and support from Mehr Latif and Steven Windisch.

[note 38] Steven Windisch et al., “Understanding the Micro-Situational Dynamics of White Supremacist Violence in the United States,” Perspectives on Terrorism 12 no. 6 (2018): 23-37.

[note 39] DeMichele, Simi, and Blee, “Research and Evaluation on Domestic Radicalization to Violent Extremism: Research To Support Exit USA.”

[note 40] Kathleen M. Blee et al., “How Racial Violence Is Provoked and Channeled,” Socio 9 (2017): 257-276.

[note 41] Blee et al., “How Racial Violence Is Provoked and Channeled.”

[note 42] Blee et al., “How Racial Violence Is Provoked and Channeled,” 265.

[note 43] DeMichele, Simi, and Blee, “Research and Evaluation on Domestic Radicalization to Violent Extremism: Research To Support Exit USA.”

[note 44] Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius, “Possible Selves,” American Psychologist 41 no. 9 (1986): 954-969.

[note 45] Unless otherwise noted, all data in the remainder of this paragraph come from DeMichele, Simi, and Blee, “Research and Evaluation on Domestic Radicalization to Violent Extremism: Research To Support Exit USA.”

[note 46] All data in this paragraph come from DeMichele, Simi, and Blee, “Research and Evaluation on Domestic Radicalization to Violent Extremism: Research To Support Exit USA.”

[note 47] Mehr Latif et al., “How Emotional Dynamics Maintain and Destroy White Supremacist Groups,” Humanity & Society 42 no. 4 (2018): 480-501.

[note 48] Latif et al., “How Emotional Dynamics Maintain and Destroy White Supremacist Groups.”

[note 49] Pete Simi et al., “Addicted to Hate: Identity Residual Among Former White Supremacists,” American Sociological Review 82 no. 6 (2017): 1167-1187.

[note 50] Simi et al., “Addicted to Hate.”

[note 51] DeMichele, Simi, and Blee, “Research and Evaluation on Domestic Radicalization to Violent Extremism: Research To Support Exit USA.”

NIJ-funded research projects have led to a better understanding of the processes that result in violent action, factors that increase the risk of radicalizing to violence, and how best to prevent and respond to violent extremism.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250911012550/https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

Slingshot News: ‘You Guys Got Hit’: Trump Insults Disabled Military Veterans And Their Injuries In Front Of Reporters From The Oval Office

President Donald Trump insulted wounded and disabled Military veterans and their injuries during a tirade from the Oval Office earlier this year.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/you-guys-got-hit-trump-insults-disabled-military-veterans-and-their-injuries-in-front-of-reporters-from-the-oval-office/vi-AA1Mg6ud

Forbes: Struggling U.S. Tourism Takes Another Hit: New Visa Requirement For Foreign Visitors

The U.S. State Department announced a brand new hurdle for international travelers seeking tourist visas—which will make already-long visa wait times even longer.

  • “Effective immediately,” the State Department announced Saturday that nonimmigrant visa applicants should schedule an interview at their local U.S. embassy, adding “applicants must be able to demonstrate residence in the country where they are applying.”
  • The announcement warned applicants who schedule interviews at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside of their country of nationality or residence they “might find that it will be more difficult to qualify for the visa,” noting that fees “will not be refunded and cannot be transferred.”
  • The new rule applies to short-term visas for tourists as well as business travelers, students and temporary workers.
  • Forbes has reached out to the U.S. Travel Association for comment.

How Do Long Visa Wait Times Hurt U.s. Tourism?

The U.S. tourism industry has carped about the State Department’s long visa wait times for years. Geoff Freeman, CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, explained to Forbes in 2023 that long visa wait times create an unnecessary friction that makes the country less competitive as a destination. “We need to look at travel as a path of least resistance. That’s what travelers tend to follow: Who makes it easy? Who makes it comfortable?” Freeman said at the time. Depending on a would-be tourist’s nationality, the wait time for a visa interview at a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad can be more than a year.

Why Are International Tourists Essential To The Us Economy?

International tourists spent $181 billion in the U.S. in 2024, according to travel association data. While domestic tourism represents a five-times-bigger slice of the country’s overall tourism pie, foreign travelers stay longer than Americans traveling within the U.S., and spend, on average, $4,000 per trip—eight times more than domestic travelers.

Key Background

U.S. tourism officials were initially expecting to see a 9% increase in overall international arrivals to the U.S. in 2025. Instead, the U.S. is the only country that will see international visitor spending decline in 2025, according to a study from the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) that analyzed the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries. The U.S. is facing an 8.2% decline in foreign tourists this year, according to Tourism Economics, the travel-focused division of Oxford Economics. “Geopolitical and policy-related concerns … paired with harsh rhetoric” have contributed to “unpredictability and negative global travel sentiment toward the US,” Tourism Economics wrote in its August update, noting “the sentiment drag has proven to be severe.” The organization noted international inbound air bookings for August through October are pacing 10% to 14% below last year, and air bookings from Canada—which accounts for nearly one quarter of all inbound tourism—have fallen by up to 43% compared to this time last year. All told, the U.S. went from an anticipated $16.3 billion increase in international tourism revenue to a loss of between $8.3 billion (Tourism Economics estimate) and $12.5 billion (WTTC estimate), meaning the U.S. is facing a shortfall of as much as $29 billion this year.

How Else Has The U.s. Made It Harder For International Visitors?

The passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which President Donald Trump signed into law in July, introduced a new $250 “visa integrity fee” for most non-immigrant U.S. visas, including tourist, student and work visas, beginning in 2026. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the new fee will bring in around $27 billion over a decade—or $2.7 billion per year—to U.S. government coffers. But a U.S. Travel Association official disputed how Congress calculated its estimate, telling Forbes its economic impact study found the fee will instead cost the U.S. economy $3.6 billion per year, including more than $3 billion in lost visitor spending and more than $450 million in lost tax revenue. In addition, the lost revenue will lead to 15,000 U.S. fewer travel jobs, according to U.S. tourism industry estimates.

Tangent

Brand USA, the country’s public-private destination marketing organization, has laid off 15% of its staff, the travel industry news outlet Skift reported Saturday. The cuts come after the Big Beautiful Bill slashed the organization’s budget from $100 million to $20 million. USTA said it is “deeply concerned” by the cuts, noting in a statement that “for every $1 spent on marketing, Brand USA adds $25 to the U.S. economy.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/09/08/struggling-us-tourism-takes-another-hit-new-visa-requirement-for-foreign-visitors