Mediaite: Leaked Texts Reveal Trump Officials Floated Airborne Troops to ‘War-Ravaged’ US City

Trump administration officials privately discussed sending one of the country’s most hardened combat units into Portland, Oregon, leaked Signal messages reveal.

Anthony Salisbury, a top deputy to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, was reportedly exchanging messages with War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s adviser Patrick Weaver over Signal in a crowded public space last weekend while traveling in Minnesota to a family funeral.

The alarmed source shared images of the exchange with the Minnesota Star Tribune under condition of anonymity.

According to the newspaper the texts reveal discussions about deploying the 82nd Airborne Division to Portland, a unit better known for parachuting into World War battlefields and Afghanistan than patrolling American streets.

“Between you and I, I think Pete just wants the top cover from the boss if anything goes sideways with the troops there,” wrote Weaver.

Another message acknowledged the political cost of such a move: “82nd is like our top tier for abroad. So it will cause a lot of headlines. Probably why he wants potus to tell him to do it.”

Hegseth wanted to send the National Guard instead, he added.

The administration ultimately ordered 200 National Guard troops to what the president called “war-ravaged” Portland on September 28. Both the state of Oregon and the city of Portland have since sued to block the deployment, arguing it violates federal limits on the domestic use of the military.

The revelations underscore remarks by President Donald Trump days in an address at Quantico to generals and admirals floating American cities “training grounds” for the armed forces.

Elsewhere the exchange revealed information about other ongoing campaigns within the cabinet, according to the outlet, with Salisbury insulting FBI director Kash Patel as a “giant douche canoe.”

The White House did not respond to questions on the exchanges by attacking the journalists reporting as “morally bankrupt.

Associated Press: Lawyers for firefighter ask judge to order his release from ICE facility

Lawyers for an Oregon firefighter who was taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol agents while fighting a Washington state wildfire filed a petition in federal court Friday asking a judge to order his release from an immigration detention facility.

The Oregon man, Rigoberto Hernandez Hernandez, and one other firefighter were part of a 44-person crew fighting a blaze in the Olympic National Forest on Aug. 27 when the agents took them into custody during a multiagency criminal investigation into the two contractors for whom the men were employed.

Lawyers with the Innovation Law Lab said during a press conference that his arrest was illegal and violated U.S. Department of Homeland Security polices that say immigration enforcement must not be conducted at locations where emergency responses are happening.

The Bear Gulch Fire, one of the largest in the state, had burned 29 square miles (75 square kilometers) by Friday and was 9% contained.

The Border Patrol said at the time that the two workers were in the U.S. illegally so they were detained. Federal authorities did not provide information about the investigation into the contractors.

Lawyer Rodrigo Fernandez-Ortega said they filed a petition for habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order that seeks the man’s release from the Northwest ICE detention center in Tacoma, Washington.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in an email to The Associated Press that the two men were not firefighters — they were working in a support role cutting logs into firewood.

“The firefighting response remained uninterrupted the entire time,” she said. “U.S. Border Patrol’s actions did not prevent or interfere with any personnel actively engaged in firefighting efforts.” A spokesperson for the Border Patrol declined to comment, saying they don’t comment on active or pending litigation.

Six Democratic Oregon Congressional leaders sent a press release late Friday calling on the release of the firefighter. “It’s outrageous for the Trump Administration to trample on the due process rights of emergency responders who put their lives on the line to protect Oregonians’ safety,” said Sen. Ron Wyden. Sen. Jeff Merkley and four representatives said the arrests put communities in danger and stoke fear.

After Hernandez was taken into custody in August, his lawyers were unable to locate him for 48 hours, which caused distress for his family, Fernandez-Ortega said. He has been in the Tacoma facility ever since, they said.

Hernandez, 23, was the son of migrant farmworkers, his lawyer said. He was raised in Oregon, Washington and California as they traveled for work. He moved to Oregon three years ago and began working as a wildland firefighter.

This was his third season working as a wildland firefighter, “doing the grueling and dangerous job of cutting down trees and clearing vegetation to manage the spread of wildfires and to protect homes, communities, and resources,” his lawyer said.

Hernandez had received a U-Visa certification from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon in 2017 and submitted his U-Visa application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the following year. The U-Visa program was established by Congress to protect victims of serious crimes who assist federal investigators.

He has been waiting since 2018 for the immigration agency to decide on his application and should be free during the process, his lawyers said.

https://apnews.com/article/firefighters-immigration-ice-7916a6ea4682440e181747e77e0a4525

Washington Post: RFK Jr. says anyone who wants a covid shot can get one. Not these Americans.

Pharmacies and doctors are struggling to adjust to a new regulatory environment for updated coronavirus vaccines that are no longer broadly recommended.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told senators last week that anyone can get a new coronavirus vaccine. But many Americans are finding the opposite.

Confusion is rippling through the health care system as pharmacies and doctors try to adjust to providing a vaccine that is no longer broadly recommended. Americans’ experiences vary widely, from easily booking appointments to having to cross state lines to access the shots, according to more than 3,200 submissions to The Washington Post’s request for readers to share their experiences.

Chain pharmacy locations in some parts of the country have yet to stock the shots or are turning away patients seeking the updated vaccines manufactured to protect people from the worst effects of new strains of the coronavirus. In some states, they require prescriptions, a step that has largely not been required since vaccines became widely available in early 2021.

Even more confusing: Pharmacies are reaching different conclusions about whether they’re allowed to administer coronavirus vaccines, even in the same state. And some states, including New York and Massachusetts, have scrambled in recent days to rewrite their rules to make it easier to get shots.

Many patients puzzle about whether they qualify to get the shot at all, or if they remain free as in years past.

Officials in the Trump administration have insisted that the new coronavirus vaccines remain available to those who want them and have blasted those who have suggested otherwise. Some Republican leaders are casting doubt on the safety of the shots, while some Democratic governors are rushing to preserve access — underscoring the nation’s deepening political divide over vaccines.

In Washington, D.C., Vernon Stewart, a 59-year-old retired parking enforcement officer, spent Wednesday riding his bike to see a doctor to get a prescription for the vaccine and to find a pharmacy where he could get it, only to be told the shot was not available. At one CVS, Stewart was seated in the chair with his sleeve rolled up when a nurse emerged to tell him his Medicaid insurance plan didn’t cover it.

On Friday morning, he hopped on the Metro train to Temple Hills, in Maryland — a state where CVS is not requiring prescriptions. He didn’t have to show his insurance card and paid nothing for the shot. He left with a bandage on his arm and a free bag of popcorn.

“It shouldn’t have to be this hard,” Stewart said Friday. “It was such a hassle. But I found a way.”

Doctors have the option to provide coronavirus vaccines “off label” to lower risk groups without approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Amid the fierce debates about coronavirus vaccines and low uptake of the latest versions, plenty of Americans want them.

Some, like Stewart, simply want to protect their health, despite not being considered at high risk. Many care for elderly or immunocompromised people and don’t want to get them sick. Some want to be immunized before traveling abroad or to reduce their risk of long covid.

Research has shown that annual coronavirus vaccinations reduce hospitalization and death, especially in people with weaker immune systems because of their age and underlying conditions. Health officials in the Trump administration argue that a universal recommendation is no longer warranted, because clinical trials have not demonstrated the vaccines are effective at reducing infection or transmission in younger and otherwise healthy people who are at low risk of hospitalization. Past research into updated coronavirus vaccines suggests they confer short-term partial protection against infections and can reduce transmission by reducing viral loads and symptoms.

Under Kennedy, the FDA in August narrowed approval of updated coronavirus shots to those 65 and older and people with underlying conditions that elevate their risk of severe disease. Typically, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee meets soon after such an announcement — often a few days later — to recommend which Americans should get coronavirus vaccines. The recommendations, which previously applied to everyone ages 6 months and older, compel insurers to pay for the vaccines.

But this year, the CDC panel was thrown into turmoil when Kennedy fired its members and replaced them with his own picks, most of whom have been critical of coronavirus vaccines. The panel is now scheduled to meet Sept. 18-19.

The vast majority of Americans receive coronavirus shots at pharmacies. More than a dozen states limit the vaccines that pharmacists can give without a doctor’s prescription to only those recommended by the CDC advisory panel, according to the American Pharmacists Association, complicating efforts even for those who are seniors or have preexisting conditions as approved by the FDA.

Five Democratic-led states — Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania — have recently issued orders to pharmacies to provide coronavirus vaccines without a prescription.

At CVS, the nation’s largest pharmacy chain, prescriptions are still required for coronavirus vaccines in Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico (where the order has yet to take effect), Utah and West Virginia. Patients in higher-risk groups can receive them through CVS Minute Clinics to bypass prescription requirements in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia and D.C.

The nation’s other two largest pharmacy chains — Walgreens and Walmart — have not provided a list of states where prescriptions are required to get the vaccine.

In a combative appearance before the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, Kennedy bristled when Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) accused the Trump administration of taking steps that deny people vaccines.

“Everybody can get the vaccine. You’re just making things up,” Kennedy said. “You’re making things up to scare people, and it’s a lie.”

In Virginia, Elaine Cox said she and her husband asked their doctor for a prescription before leaving Saturday for a vacation in Italy. The office declined because it hadn’t received CDC guidance. Cox, 68, suffers from chronic lung disease, and her nephew died of the viral infection in 2022.

“I was crying this afternoon about this,” she said on Thursday. “My family takes [covid] very seriously.”

Pharmacy employees have given conflicting instructions about how to get coronavirus vaccines, patients report.

In San Antonio, 78-year-old Brant Mittler was told at a CVS Minute Clinic that he needed a prescription on Monday, even though the pharmacy includes Texas among its no-prescription states. The next day, a pharmacist at the same clinic told him it wasn’t needed.

In states where CVS does not require prescriptions, coronavirus vaccine appointments aren’t available for younger, healthier people outside the recommended categories. But the list of qualifying medical conditionsincluding physical inactivity, being overweight or a history of smoking, is so long that nearly anyone who wants a shot should be able to get one, said Amy Thibault, a CVS spokeswoman.

“If you’re five pounds overweight, you qualify,” she said. “If you’ve smoked a cigarette once, you qualify.”

Some people seeking prescriptions from their doctors face pushback.

In Louisville, Stephen Pedigo said his primary care doctor recommended against receiving the vaccine, arguing that covid is mild and that the vaccine has “a lot of complications,” including heart problems, according to a screenshot of their messages.

The most recent CDC guidance says coronavirus vaccination is “especially important” if you are 65 or older and notes vaccines underwent the most intensive safety analysis in U.S. history.

Pedigo, who is 66 and has undergone a heart valve replacement, insisted, and the office gave him the prescription. He received the shot at a CVS on Friday. “I trust the vaccines are safe,” Pedigo said.

Doctors offices also have reported challenges helping patients get vaccinated.

In Raleigh, North Carolina, pediatrician Mary-Cassie Shaw said her office has preordered from Moderna hundreds of shots, at $200 a dose, but worries that insurers won’t provide reimbursement.

Families for the past month have been asking for coronavirus shots to go along with flu vaccines, she said.

One 12-year-old immunocompromised girl went to CVS but needed a prescription from Shaw — who was asked by the pharmacist to rewrite the prescription to include certain diagnosis codes indicating why the patient needed the vaccine.

“I have to do the legwork to come up with the codes that might qualify them,” Shaw said. “It’s a huge barrier. It’s ridiculous.”

Vaccination rates for the latest coronavirus shots have been low, particularly for people not considered at high risk, according to CDC estimates. For adults, uptake of the 2024-2025 vaccine ranged from 11 percent for younger adults to nearly 44 percent for those 65 and older. Roughly 13 percent of children between 6 months and 17 years received the shot.

The most effective way to increase vaccine uptake is to make it easier for people to get the shots, said Noel Brewer, professor of public health at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health. In states such as North Carolina, the added step of getting prescriptions will prompt many people to not bother, he said.

“They might even just hear about other people having a hassle and decide to go back another time and never get back to it,” said Brewer, who studies patient behavior in regard to vaccines.

Last week, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington announced plans to form a “health alliance” to coordinate vaccine recommendations based on advice from national medical organizations rather than the federal government, because, they said, federal actions have raised concerns “about the politicization of science,” according to a joint statement.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) announced Thursday that her state would be the first to require insurance companies to cover vaccines recommended by the state’s Department of Public Health, even if the CDC does not. Washington state government officials on Friday recommended coronavirus vaccines for people ages 6 months and older.

At 59, Brewer doesn’t fall into the category of people for whom the FDA recommended updated coronavirus vaccines. Instead, Brewer said, he will wait until the fall, when he might travel to a blue state.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/rfk-jr-says-anyone-who-wants-a-covid-shot-can-get-one-not-these-americans/ar-AA1M32EI

Mirror US: Chicago fights back against Trump’s National Guard threats as NYC’s Mamdani issues warning

The Illinois governor called Donald Trump a ‘wannabe dictator,’ after earlier this month Trump claimed Americans might ‘like a dictator’

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani issued fiery statements opposing President Donald Trump’s escalating threats to deploy federal troops into the largely Democratic cities, a continuation of his weaponization of the government against his opponents.

Mamdani, asked about the idea of National Guard troops being sent to New York City, cautioned that the potential illegality of an act would not dissuade Trump from pursuing it. “The first thing is we have to prepare for the inevitability of that deployment,” he said. “We cannot try to convince ourselves that because something is illegal, Donald Trump will not do it.”

Pritzker, in response to a post from Trump threatening to sick his so-called “Department of War” on an American city, called Trump a “wannabe dictator.”

Trump on Saturday amplified his promises to send National Guard troops and immigration agents to Chicago by posting a parody image from “Apocalypse Now” featuring a ball of flames as helicopters zoom over the nation’s third-largest city, according to The Associated Press.

“I love the smell of deportations in the morning,” Trump wrote on his social media site. “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”

A rally and march formed in downtown Chicago Saturday evening against the increase in ICE operations, which were expected to begin that day. About 300 federal agents were using North Chicago’s Naval Station Great Lakes as a logistical hub for the operations.

While Trump has attributed the surge in immigration enforcement activity in Chicago and other blue cities to “out of control” dangerous criminals, his claims defy evidence, which show decreases in violent crime. In 2024, Chicago’s violent crime rate was down 11% compared with 2023 levels, and about half what it was in the years leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the BBC.

Trump’s weekend post follows his repeated threats to add Chicago to the list of other Democratic-led cities he’s targeted for expanded federal enforcement. His administration is set to step up immigration enforcement in Chicago, as it did in Los Angeles, and deploy National Guard troops.

In addition to sending troops to Los Angeles in June, Trump has deployed them since last month in Washington, as part of his unprecedented law enforcement takeover of the nation’s capital.

He’s also suggested that Baltimore and New Orleans could get the same treatment, and on Friday even mentioned federal authorities possibly heading for Portland, Oregon, to “wipe ’em out,” meaning protesters. He could have been mistakenly describing video from demonstrations in that city years ago.

Details about Trump’s promised Chicago operation have been sparse, but there’s already widespread opposition. City and state leaders have said they plan to sue the Trump administration. Pritzker, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, is also fiercely opposed to it.

The president “is threatening to go to war with an American city,” Pritzker wrote on X over an image of Trump’s post. “This is not a joke. This is not normal.”

He added: “Donald Trump isn’t a strongman, he’s a scared man. Illinois won’t be intimidated by a wannabe dictator.”

Trump has suggested that he has nearly limitless powers when it comes to deploying the National Guard. At times he’s even touched on questions about his being a dictator.

“Most people are saying, ‘If you call him a dictator, if he stops crime, he can be whatever he wants’ — I am not a dictator, by the way,” Trump said last month. He added, “Not that I don’t have — I would — the right to do anything I want to do.”

“I’m the president of the United States,” Trump said then. “If I think our country is in danger — and it is in danger in these cities — I can do it.”

Trump began putting the federal government to work for him within hours of taking office in January, and he’s been collecting and using power in novel ways ever since. It’s a high-velocity push to carry out his political agendas and grudges.

This past month, hundreds of federal agents and National Guard troops fanned out across Washington after Trump drew on a never-used law that allows him to take control of law enforcement in the nation’s capital. He’s threatened similar deployments in other cities run by Democrats, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York and New Orleans. He also fired a Federal Reserve governor, pointing to unproven claims of mortgage fraud.

That’s not weaponizing government, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told The Associated Press; it’s wielding power.

“What the nation is witnessing today is the execution of the most consequential administration in American history,” Fields reportedly said, “one that is embracing common sense, putting America first, and fulfilling the mandate of the American people.”

https://www.themirror.com/news/politics/breaking-chicago-fights-back-against-1375650

News Nation: Oregon lawmakers to propose ban on ‘secret police’ in state

As the Oregon legislature convened for a special session Sunday, two lawmakers were already planning ahead for next year’s short session and announced their intent to introduce a bill to ban “secret police” in the state.

Reps. Tom Anderson, a Democrat, and Cyrus Javadi, a Republican, both co-sponsors of the bill, stated that it would enable Oregon voters to amend the state constitution to prohibit law enforcement from wearing masks or being unidentifiable.

It would further require them to wear official uniforms detailing names and badge numbers. However, there would be exceptions made in the case of SWAT teams and undercover operations.

In a statement, Anderson said the impetus for the bill came with the increased presence of unidentified Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the state brought on by Trump administration policies, which he referred to as “malignant forces.”

“This is no longer just some Donald Trump fever dream. It’s happening right now — unidentified
federal ICE officers are using violence and the threat of violence in our communities to replace
normal law enforcement,” he said. “When I see masked, anonymous quasi-law enforcement ICE employees on our streets, making violent, warrantless arrests, I am aghast and angry. We are becoming a nation of clandestine bounty hunters. Simply put, secret police have no place in a free and democratic society because public trust in government erodes when you don’t know who’s enforcing the law.”

Javadi echoed this sentiment, noting “Oregonians shouldn’t have to wonder who’s knocking on their door in the middle of the night.”

“In a free society, the people who enforce the law should never be faceless or unaccountable,” he added. “This amendment isn’t about partisanship, it’s about protecting the rule of law itself. The Oregon Constitution already safeguards us from unreasonable searches and seizures. This proposal makes sure we also safeguard the principle that law enforcement must be visible, identifiable, and responsible to the people they serve.”

For the bill to pass, it would require a majority vote in both the House and Senate during the 2026 short legislative session beginning in January.

If passed, it will then be placed on the ballot for a public vote in the November 2026 general election.

If approved by Oregon voters, the amendment will be added to the state constitution.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/oregon-lawmakers-secret-police-ban-masks

MSNBC: ‘Stay within your lanes’: Oregon AG sends warning to Trump on tariffs and national guard threat

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/stay-within-your-lanes-oregon-ag-sends-warning-to-trump-on-tariffs-and-national-guard-threat/vi-AA1LxqRp

Washington Examiner: Border czar says ICE ops will ramp up after Labor Day

Border czar Tom Homan told reporters that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations will expand after Labor Day in sanctuary cities nationwide, including Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore.

“You’re going to see a ramp up of operations in New York. You’re going to see a ramp up of operations continue in L.A. and, you know, Portland, Seattle,” Homan told reporters gathered near the White House. “I mean, all these sanctuary cities refuse to work with ICE … we’re going to address that.”

Homan said some other states are complying and working with ICE.

“We don’t have that problem in Texas and Florida, where all the sheriffs are working with us and they’re actually holding people for us and letting us know when someone’s being released,” he said. “So, we’re going to take the assets we have and move them to problem areas like sanctuary cities, where we know for a fact they’re releasing public safety threat illegal aliens to the streets every day. That’s where we need to send the majority of the resources, and that’s where they’re going.”

Homan was in Portland on Aug. 21 to meet with ICE personnel. After the visit, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson reaffirmed the city’s sanctuary status and said city employees, including police officers, will not assist in ICE operations.

“I was in San Diego and Portland in the last week meeting with the men and women of ICE to understand the hate that’s being pushed against them and letting them know the President has their six,” Homan said. “I have their six.”

The Center Square contacted Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office on Friday for comment on what the nation’s border czar had to say.

“Seattle will not be intimidated by the Trump administration’s threats. Suggesting that federal immigration raids or deployments of federal agents could soon target our city is not about public safety – it’s about political theater and an overreach of federal authority,” said Harrell in a statement emailed to The Center Square. “Seattle is a welcoming city, and our policies comply with both federal and state law. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, not the city’s, and we will not allow our police resources to be commandeered for political purposes.

“We are already working closely with Gov. [Bob] Ferguson and Attorney General [Nick] Brown, and have asked the City Attorney’s Office to review every legal option available to protect our residents. We have successfully taken this administration to court before … over its attempts to punish sanctuary cities, and we are prepared to do so again. We will stand firm, protect our communities, and preserve local control over our public safety resources. Seattle’s values are not up for negotiation.”

Homan said enforcement operations across the country are improving public safety for Americans.

“I look at the numbers every morning,” he said. “There’s about 22 pages of data; 70% of everybody arrested is a criminal,” he said. “But the left says, ‘Well, not criminal enough. It’s just a DUI.’ DUIs kill over 10,000 people a year. That’s a public safety threat. I don’t care what anybody thinks.”

As for the other 30% of arrestees, Homan explained, “We arrested thousands of national security threats. Many of them don’t have a criminal history because their whole goal is to lay low ‘til they do their dirty deed. Gang members. A lot of gang members don’t have a criminal history.”

He concluded, “And finally, final deportation orders. People who had due process at great taxpayer expense. They were ordered removed by a federal judge, and they didn’t leave. And we’re looking for them, too, because we’re sending a message to the whole world. It’s not okay to enter this country illegally. It’s a crime.”

Bring it on, asshole! You haven’t yet see the poll numbers bottom out!

L.A. Times: Trump administration plans to remove nearly 700 unaccompanied migrant children, senator says

  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called on the government to halt the deportation plans.
  • The removals would violate the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s long-established practice of protecting such children, Wyden said.

The Trump administration is planning to remove nearly 700 Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. without their parents, according to a letter sent Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, and the Central American country said it was ready to take them in.

The removals would violate the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s “child welfare mandate and this country’s long-established obligation to these children,” Wyden told Angie Salazar, acting director of the office within the Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for migrant children who arrive in the U.S. alone.

“This move threatens to separate children from their families, lawyers, and support systems, to thrust them back into the very conditions they are seeking refuge from, and to disappear vulnerable children beyond the reach of American law and oversight,” the Democratic senator wrote, asking for the deportation plans to be terminated.

It is another step in the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration enforcement efforts, which include plans to surge officers to Chicago for an immigration crackdown, ramping up deportations and ending protections for people who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

Guatemalan Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos Martínez said Friday that the government has told the U.S. it is willing to receive hundreds of Guatemalan minors who arrived unaccompanied to the United States and are being held in U.S. facilities.

Guatemala is particularly concerned about minors who could age out of the facilities for children and be sent to adult detention centers, he said. The exact number of children to be returned remains in flux, but they are currently discussing a little over 600. He said no date has been set yet for their return.

That would be almost double what Guatemala previously agreed to. The head of the country’s immigration service said last month that the government was looking to repatriate 341 unaccompanied minors who were being held in U.S. facilities.

“The idea is to bring them back before they reach 18 years old so that they are not taken to an adult detention center,” Guatemala Immigration Institute Director Danilo Rivera said at the time. He said it would be done at Guatemala’s expense and would be a form of voluntary return.

The plan was announced by President Bernardo Arévalo, who said then that the government had a moral and legal obligation to advocate for the children. His comments came days after U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Guatemala.

The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the latest move, which was first reported by CNN.

Quoting unidentified whistleblowers, Wyden’s letter said children who do not have a parent or legal guardian as a sponsor or who don’t have an asylum case already underway “will be forcibly removed from the country.”

The idea of repatriating such a large number of children to their home country also raised concerns with activists who work with children navigating the immigration process.

“We are outraged by the Trump administration’s renewed assault on the rights of immigrant children,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, president and CEO of Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “We are not fooled by their attempt to mask these efforts as mere ‘repatriations.’ This is yet another calculated attempt to sever what little due process remains in the immigration system.”

Santana, Seitz and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. Gonzalez reported from McAllen, Texas. AP writers Sonia Pérez D. in Guatemala City and Tim Sullivan in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

They already tried.

Judge already said “nyet”.

One airborne plane was even forced to return & unload the kids.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-08-29/trump-administration-plans-to-remove-nearly-700-unaccompanied-migrant-children-senator-says

The Hill: [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi ramps up pressure on 32 ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’: Who’s on the list?

Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi said Thursday she was ramping up pressure on 32 “sanctuary jurisdictions,” urging them to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

“I just sent Sanctuary City letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she told a Fox News reporter

“And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let’s see who responds and how they respond. It starts at the top, and our leaders have to support our law enforcement,” she added. 

The measure comes after an Aug. 5 release from the Justice Department highlighting various states, cities and counties deemed noncompliant with regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.

“For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in the letter to officials across the country. 

“Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in a post announcing the move. 

She cited a late April executive order from President Trump as legal grounds for the push. 

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for the 32 jurisdictions that received letters from [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi. 

The below jurisdictions received a letter from the Department of Justice on Aug. 5:

States:

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Illinois
  • Minnesota
  • Nevada
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Washington

Counties:

  • Baltimore County, Md.
  • Cook County, Ill.
  • San Diego County, Calif.
  • San Francisco County, Calif.

Cities:

  • Albuquerque, N.M.
  • Berkeley, Calif.
  • Boston
  • Chicago
  • Denver
  • District of Columbia
  • East Lansing, Mich.
  • Hoboken, N.J.
  • Jersey City, N.J.
  • Los Angeles
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • Newark, N.J.
  • Paterson, N.J.
  • Philadelphia
  • Portland, Ore.
  • Rochester, N.Y.
  • Seattle
  • San Francisco City

Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi is one of the stupidest women on Earth. Despite already losing a couple such cases on well-established Tenth Amendment grounds, she is now threatening to replicate her failures in 12 states, 4 counties, and 19 cities. When God passed out brains, Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi must have been hanging out near the manure spreader.

The bottom line is that the federal government can’t compel state and local governments to do its bidding. If the state and local governments don’t wish to comply or assist, the federal government must do its own dirty work.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5454204-bondi-immigration-enforcement-urge

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.


What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁


https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176