Raw Story: ‘He’s a nut’: Republicans turn on Trump attack dog [Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent] who got ‘too big for his britches’

Republican lawmakers are reportedly fed up with housing official Bill Pulte and view him as “a nut,” Politico reports.

The Trump administration’s Federal Housing Finance Agency director is now at the center of President Donald Trump’s heated campaign against the Federal Reserve and has become “one of his most vociferous social media attack dogs” for the commander-in-chief.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confronted Pulte, threatening physical violence during an exclusive Georgetown event for Trump administration officials.

During the cocktail hour, Bessent launched into an aggressive confrontation with Pulte, claiming the housing official had been speaking negatively about him to Trump. Witnesses reported Bessent’s explosive verbal assault, with him demanding, “Why the f— are you talking to the president about me? F— you,” and declaring, “I’m gonna punch you in your f—ing face.”

Republicans are reportedly pleased that Bessent confronted Pulte.

Speaking anonymously to Politico due to the sensitive nature of the administration infighting, one lawmaker shared frustration over Pulte.

“I think he’s a nut,” one House Republican told Politico.

“The guy’s just a little too big for his britches,” said another GOP lawmaker and member of the House Financial Services Committee. “I’ve got great respect for Bessent for taking him on.”

Pulte initiated mortgage fraud allegations against Fed Governor Lisa Cook — Trump later moved to fire her. Like Trump, Pulte also attacks Fed Chair Jerome Powell, claiming his handling of monetary policy and the expensive renovations to the central bank’s Washington headquarters.

“Rank-and-file Hill Republicans” appear to back Bessent and see him as “a key stabilizing force on economic policy within the Trump administration.”

Many Republicans see Bessent as “the adult in the room.”

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA), chair of the House Financial Services oversight subcommittee, prefers Bessent’s approach.

“I’m always in line with where the president wants to go, and I believe [Pulte] is as well,” he said. “I know Secretary Bessent is, and that’s where my loyalties lie, with the president and with Secretary Bessent.”

“I would have done the same,” another Republican who spoke anonymously to Politico said.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2673976667

CNN: Trump’s credibility challenged in Qatar and Poland

Assuming President Donald Trump’s claim that he couldn’t stop Israel’s strike on Hamas officials in a Qatar residential district is true, he’s just suffered another devastating blow to his international credibility.

Trump hurriedly made clear that Tuesday’s raid, which killed five Hamas members but not the top team negotiating a new US ceasefire plan for Gaza, was not his decision and that he’d rushed to inform Qatar when he learned of it.

“I’m not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said as he went for dinner at a Washington, DC, steakhouse. “It’s not a good situation … we are not thrilled about the way that went down.”

That seemed a rare Trumpian understatement.

The strike — in which Israel ignored profound implications for vital American interests — is a new embarrassment for Trump at a time when he’s also being taken for a ride by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who grinned through their summit in Alaska, then escalated attacks on Ukrainian civilians. Poland said early Wednesday that it had shot down drones that violated its airspace during a Russian attack on neighboring Ukraine.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the violation of Poland’s airspace was “absolutely reckless” and not an “isolated incident.” NATO, Rutte said, will defend “every inch” of its territory.

Trump, meanwhile, seems sincere in his desire to be a global peacemaker. If he succeeds, he could save many lives and leave a valuable legacy. He returned to the White House in January insisting he’d quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. But eight months later, both are even more bloody. And Putin, China’s leader Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi openly defy him.

Events in the Middle East are unlikely to do much to hurt Trump’s political fortunes at home, as his crime crackdown plays out amid worries about a slowing economy. But Israel’s attack in broad daylight in Doha — just like Putin’s violations — could be ruinous to his self-image as a hard-power-wielding strongman who is feared abroad.

That’s because the strike flagrantly trampled the sovereignty of a vital US ally that hosts the largest US base in the Middle East and was negotiating with Hamas at the behest of the White House on a plan Trump predicted would soon yield a deal.

Not only was this a personal affront to Trump, but it also puts Netanyahu’s goals over the critical security priorities of the United States — even after the last two US administrations rushed to defend Israel from two sets of attacks by Iran. CNN reported that some White House officials were furious that it took place after one of Netanyahu’s advisers, Ron Dermer, on Monday met Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff but made no mention of an operation sure to humiliate the US president.

“The attacks take place at a very sensitive moment in the ceasefire negotiations where the Trump administration, the president, and his envoy Witkoff have made clear that the president is looking for a comprehensive ceasefire, the release of all hostages, prisoner exchange and moving forward and ending the war in Gaza,” former US ambassador to Israel Edward Djerejian told Richard Quest on CNN International.

“Israel is not obviously paying much attention to US national security interests,” said Djerejian, who served in eight administrations, starting with that of President John F. Kennedy and ending with that of President Bill Clinton.

Huge ramifications for US foreign policy

The reverberations of the strike seem certain to end any hope of a negotiated peace to end Israel’s war in Gaza — one reason why it may have recommended itself to Netanyahu. There may be horrific ramifications for the remaining Israeli hostages who are still alive after nearly two years of torment in tunnels under Gaza.

It’s also the latest evidence that the Israeli prime minister places more importance on the total eradication of Hamas — a potentially impossible task — than the hostages’ return. And the almost certain result is an intensification of Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip, which has already killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and alienated most of Israel’s foreign allies.

For the United States, there are also serious ramifications.

► The fallout could sour the relationship between the US president and the Israeli prime minister and sow distrust between Israel and its vital ally the United States.

► It will shatter any credibility that the Trump had in posing as a distant mediator between Israel and Hamas and may cause Qatar to pull out of peace talks. The emirate’s prime minister accused Israel of conducting “state terrorism.”

► Some US observers accuse Qatar of playing a double game by hosting Hamas leaders. But Doha will see the attack by America’s closest Middle East ally as a betrayal after its years working to advance US diplomatic priorities, not just in the Middle East, but in hostage release deals beyond the Middle East as far away as Afghanistan and Venezuela.

► There could also be adverse consequences for Trump’s personal and political interests in the wider Arab world, which he energetically pursued during the first Gulf trip of his second term, including a lavish welcome in Qatar.

► And the administration’s hoped-for expansion of the first-term Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and some Arab states — and which is key to Trump’s push for a Nobel Peace Prize — is now more distant than ever.

► Leaders of other states in the Gulf, a thriving business and leisure hub, will wonder — if Israel can strike with impunity at Qatar, under the noses of the US garrison — whether they will be next.

“It’s a pretty big bill for the Israelis to have conducted this strike,” retired Admiral James Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt. He added that Netanyahu has “been in power forever by US standards. And over time, he’s gotten very comfortable in doing exactly what he wants to do.”

Israel insists it acted alone

Many US analysts will interpret Israel’s attempt to kill negotiators considering a US peace plan a day after they met with Qatari government officials as new proof that Netanyahu wants to prolong the war. The prime minister has succeeded in postponing inevitable investigations into the security lapses after the October 7 attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas in 2023. And his personal legal woes can be kept off the boil as long as he stays in power atop his far-right coalition.

Israel’s justification for the strikes was that it will pursue terrorist leaders wherever they are. Netanyahu has waged war on multiple fronts throughout the region, and conducted devastating strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon; Houthis in Yemen; and Iran. He said Tuesday that the “days when the heads of terror enjoyed immunity anywhere are over.”

Many Israelis viewed the Hamas attacks nearly two years ago not just as a strike against Israel but also as the most heinous attempt to wipe out Jews since the Nazi Holocaust. Yet many also now oppose the total warfare on Gaza waged by Netanyahu and are desperate to see the return of the hostages after a negotiated settlement.

Netanyahu was quick to make clear that the attack on Doha was a “wholly independent Israeli operation,” seeking to offer Trump some diplomatic cover. But the Middle East loves conspiracy theories. And the US faces a hard sell over its claim that it knew nothing as Israel got 10 fighter jets and their munitions — possibly American-made F-35 planes — within range of the target.

Some will suspect that Trump gave a green light, or at least tacitly condoned the attacks. The White House, however, said that the US military in Qatar alerted Trump, and he ordered Witkoff to tip off the Qataris. But the government in Doha said it only got a heads-up when the attack, which caused panic in the capital, was already over.

The White House damage-control effort does seem to bolster Trump’s claim that he couldn’t do anything to halt the strike.

“Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

It was exceedingly rare criticism of Israel from the Trump administration. The president later said on Truth Social that “this was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me.” Trump also said he’d ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to finalize a defense cooperation pact with Qatar.

How Trump’s new Air Force One complicates his response

There are geopolitical reasons to take the president’s comments at face value. But there is a complication. Trump earlier this year accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar to serve as a new Air Force One in violation of any previous understanding of presidential ethics. How can Americans therefore be convinced that he’s acting on his perception of their vital security interests on this matter — and not his own desire to pay back Qatar for the personal gift of a jet worth hundreds of millions of dollars?

That aside, Trump’s credibility with Qatar will need serious repair work.

What of the US security umbrella supposed to be provided by its vast Al Udeid Air Base in the desert outside Doha? It didn’t prevent a deeply humiliating violation of Qatari sovereignty by an enemy the US would like them to engage. By extension, how can other Gulf states and other US allies worldwide be sure that Trump’s security guarantees will be any more airtight than they were for Qatar?

The attack on Qatar will also cement an already widespread belief throughout the Middle East that Trump lacks any influence over Netanyahu despite the leverage of US defense sales to Israel and its vital role in the Jewish state’s defense. There was no public talk from the White House on Tuesday about consequences for the Israeli leader.

The loss of Trump’s credibility is especially critical since the new US peace plan envisages the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas in Gaza in return for a ceasefire. Trump would then guarantee to Hamas that Israel would stick to the deal while negotiations continue. Tuesday’s attacks in broad daylight in Doha suggest that’s an empty promise.

So yet again, Trump’s self-proclaimed role as the president of peace is thrown into question. And his foreign policy team’s understanding of ruthless global strongmen was left badly exposed.

And our Grifter-in-Chief is badly compromised by having accepted the gift of a free 747 from Qatar!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/trump-israel-qatar-airstrikes-hamas-analysis

Fox News: ICE agents break car window to arrest resisting illegal immigrant in exclusive Fox News ride-along

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago this week, arresting multiple criminal illegal immigrants as Fox News joined agents for an exclusive ride-along.

On Tuesday, ICE agents arrested a Mexican national on a federal criminal arrest warrant for multiple felony reentries into the United States. Fox News learned that the individual had been deported twice to Mexico and returned a third time to the U.S. He is also facing charges for assault in a previous case.

Fox News cameras followed agents as they approached the Mexican national outside his home. The individual tried to enter his car to avoid arrest, forcing ICE agents to break its window and extract him from the vehicle. He then appears to continue resisting arrest.

The Mexican national will face federal criminal prosecution before he is deported, potentially spending time in jail, Fox News learned.

ICE and Fox lie as usual — this guy’s only “crime” was being in the U.S. too often. We are not made the least bit safer by his arrest, and taxpayers will be funding his room and board.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ice-agents-break-car-window-to-arrest-resisting-illegal-immigrant-in-exclusive-fox-news-ride-along/ar-AA1McWfM

MiBolsillo Colombia: 800,000 Jobs Lost in the U.S.: Are Trump’s Tariffs to Blame?

800,000 Jobs Lost in the U.S.: Are Trump’s Tariffs to Blame?

The U.S. labor market is experiencing a turbulent phase in 2025, with job losses reaching alarming levels. Reports indicate that over 800,000 jobs have been cut in the first seven months of the year, marking a 75% increase compared to the same period in 2024. This surge in job cuts is the highest since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which saw over 1.8 million layoffs. 

A report by Challenger, Gray & Christmas highlights three primary causes for these job cuts. Among them, the economic conditions and uncertainty stemming from the tariffs imposed during Trump’s administration are significant contributors. These tariffs have increased the cost of essential inputs for many U.S. businesses, squeezing profit margins.

Andrew Challenger, a labor expert, noted that tariff-related concerns have directly impacted nearly 6,000 jobs this year. The lack of clarity on whether tariffs will remain, increase, or decrease adds to the economic uncertainty, making it challenging for businesses to strategize effectively. However, tariffs are not the sole factor in the current employment crisis.

The report also points to the controversial federal budget cuts enacted by the Trump administration, which have resulted in the loss of 289,679 jobs. These cuts have affected the federal workforce and its contractors, impacting non-profit organizations, the healthcare sector, and government operations. Agencies like the IRS are now struggling to fill critical gaps left by these reductions.

Technological advancements, particularly in Artificial Intelligence (AI), have emerged as another significant factor. The report indicates that automation and AI-related technological updates have led to the loss of 20,219 jobs, with an additional 10,375 cuts directly attributed to these advancements. This trend highlights a rapid shift in the labor market driven by the adoption of new technologies.

While Trump’s tariffs have undeniably contributed to economic uncertainty and job losses, the current wave of layoffs in the U.S. is the result of a confluence of factors. These include federal budget cuts and the rise of AI, which are reshaping the labor landscape. The interplay of these elements underscores the complexity of the employment challenges facing the nation.

https://www.mibolsillo.co/news/800000-Jobs-Lost-in-the-U.S.-Are-Trumps-Tariffs-to-Blame-20250908-0019.html

Fox News: DHS launches major operation in Illinois targeting illegal immigrants with criminal records

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dhs-launches-major-operation-in-illinois-targeting-illegal-immigrants-with-criminal-records/vi-AA1MbtNp


Problem is, not withstanding DHS’s endless lies to contrary, most of the people rounded up in these sweeps are NOT criminals.

Roll Call: Republicans move to change Senate rules to speed confirmation of some nominees

Facing insurmountable backlog, Thune moves to allow consideration of multiple nominees as a group

Senate Majority Leader John Thune took the first procedural step Monday toward changing the chamber’s rules to speed up the confirmation of lower-level Trump nominees, saying the move is necessary to combat obstruction from Democrats.

Democrats this Congress have forced the GOP majority to use valuable floor time on procedural votes, slowing down the confirmation process and leaving spots unfilled in the Trump administration.

Republicans argue Democrats are destroying a Senate tradition of quickly confirming noncontroversial nominees regardless of the party of the president. But Democrats contend the posture is a needed negotiating tool as Trump has burned through government norms and at times embraced an authoritarian attitude of executive power.

Thune, R-S.D., late Monday asked for immediate consideration of an executive resolution that would authorize the en bloc consideration in executive session of certain nominations. In order to place it on the calendar, he said, he objected to his own request.

The resolution now lies over one calendar day. A copy of the resolution was not immediately available Monday night.

Thune said in a floor speech earlier Monday that after Trump’s eight months in office this term, no civilian nominee has been confirmed by voice vote.

He compared that to other presidents: George W. Bush and Barack Obama each had 90 percent of their civilian nominees confirmed on voice vote, and Trump in his first term and Biden had more than 50 percent.

“It’s time to take steps to restore Senate precedent and codify in Senate rules what was once understood to be standard practice, and that is the Senate acting expeditiously on presidential nominations to allow a president to get his team into place,” Thune said.

Thune said Republicans would seek to speed up confirmations. The change would apply to nominees at the sub-Cabinet level and not Article III judicial nominees, he said.

The objective, he said, was “confirming groups of nominees all together so the president can have his team in place and so the Senate can focus on the important legislative work in its charge.”

The Senate would have to take another 600 votes before the end of the year to clear the current backlog of nominees on the calendar and at committee, Thune said.

“That’s more votes than this record-breaking Senate has taken all year up until now,” Thune said. “There is no practical way that we could come close to filling all the vacancies in the four years of this administration, no matter how many hours the Senate works.”

Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., slammed the GOP effort, warning Republicans that they would come to regret the decision to “go nuclear.”

“What will stop Donald Trump from nominating even worse individuals than we’ve seen to date, knowing this chamber will rubber-stamp anything he wishes?” Schumer said.

The move is the latest in a history of changing Senate rules to lower vote thresholds in the chamber.

Under then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Republicans in 2017 removed the 60-vote requirement for confirming Supreme Court justices as they sought to confirm Neil M. Gorsuch.

Years before, in 2013, Senate Democrats did away with that vote threshold for other judicial nominees.

Since the start of the second Trump administration, some Senate Democrats have sought to use the lower-level confirmations as a pressure point.

In May, Schumer announced a hold on all Justice Department nominees after the administration agreed to accept a plane from Qatar. That move from Schumer prevented U.S. attorney nominees from moving forward on voice votes.

The same month, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, put a hold on Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

Durbin also warned he might do so for other U.S. attorney nominees who reach the Senate floor.

In February, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, announced he was putting a blanket hold on all Trump administration State Department nominees over the shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Just ram King Donald’s incompetent appointees through the process!

https://rollcall.com/2025/09/09/republicans-move-to-change-senate-rules-to-speed-confirmation-of-some-nominees

Washington Post: Senators ramp up pressure on Trump to abandon threats to send troops into U.S. cities

A group of Democratic senators is filing a friend of the court brief Tuesday in California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump, stepping up pressure to keep Trump from overriding Democratic leaders and sending National Guard troops into Democrat-led cities like Chicago.

The 19 senators are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to overturn a temporary order issued by a three-judge panel in June that found that Trump had the authority to send National Guard troops into Los Angeles this summer over Newsom’s objections. The Democratic senators argue that the issue has gained greater salience since then, as Trump began threatening to go into other states and cities against the wishes of their governors and mayors.

The senators are amplifying Newsom’s argument that the president’s use of the federal troops — at a moment when local law enforcement officials said they did not need federal support — violated the separation of powers doctrine by usurping Congress.

A federal district court judge initially sided with Newsom on June 12. Then, on June 19, the three-judge panel issued their temporary ruling siding with Trump. California is waiting on a final ruling from the appeals court.

Led by California Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, the group includes senators who represent BaltimoreBostonChicago, and Portland — all cities that Trump has threatened to send in National Guard troops to “straighten it out” as he ramps up enforcement on crime and immigration. Schiff said in a statement that he hoped the Newsom case would become “the line drawn in the sand to prevent further misuse of our service members on the streets of American cities.”

The senators argue in their brief that by federalizing 4,000 California National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement over Newsom’s objections “without showing a genuine inability to enforce federal laws with the regular forces,” Trump violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering mandate and contravened the provisions of the Constitution assigning power over militias to Congress.

“Our concern that President Trump will continue to act in bad faith and abuse his power is borne out by his recent deployment of state militias to Washington, D.C. and his stated intent to deploy state militias elsewhere (like Chicago and Baltimore),” the senators wrote in the brief obtained by The Washington Post that will be filed in court Tuesday. They warned that courts are the last resort to “prevent the President from exceeding his constitutional powers” and that failing to do so could “usher in an era of unprecedented, dangerous executive power.”

In court filings this summer, the administration argued that Trump was compelled to send the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property because numerous “incidents of violence and disorder” posed unacceptable safety risks to personnel who were “supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws.” Department of Justice lawyers argued that Trump was within his rights to mobilize the National Guard and Marines “to protect federal agents and property from violent mobs that state and local authorities cannot or choose not to control.”

Before Trump sent National Guard troops into Los Angeles this summer in the midst of protests against his administration’s immigration raids, prior presidents had deployed Guard troops on American soil primarily to assist after natural disasters or to quell unrest.

The senators write that the last instance in which a president federalized the National Guard without consent from the state’s governor is when Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D) ordered the Alabama Highway Patrol to prevent the Rev. Martin Luther King, Rep. John Lewis and others from marching from Selma to Montgomery. President Lyndon B. Johnson intervened to protect the marchers.

Our arguments to the court make clear that Trump’s unprecedented militarization of Los Angeles should not be used as a playbook for terrorizing other cities across America,” Padilla said in a statement.

Last month, the president deployed National Guard troops and federal agents to D.C., arguing that they needed to tackle a “crime emergency” that local officials say does not exist. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, a Democrat, last week sued the Trump administration, seeking to force it to withdraw troops from the city.

In recent days, Trump has escalated his warnings to intervene in Chicago, posting on his social media site that the city is “about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” a reference to the Defense Department.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said on social media Monday that Trump’s threats were not “about fighting crime,” which would require “support and coordination” from the administration that he had not yet seen.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that it had launched an operation to target immigrants in Chicago as the president vowed a broader crackdown on violent crime. A spokesperson for Pritzker said Monday that the governor’s office has not received any formal communication from the Trump administration or information about its plans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/senators-ramp-up-pressure-on-trump-to-abandon-threats-to-send-troops-into-u-s-cities/ar-AA1Mb9dp

USA Today: ‘Unconscionably irreconcilable’. Sotomayor rips Supreme Court’s pro-Trump ICE ruling

The liberal justice called the order “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.”

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion criticizing the majority’s decision and the Trump administration’s actions.
  • Sotomayor argued the ruling allows the government to seize people based on their appearance, language, and type of work.
  • The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s order that had restricted ICE agents’ tactics in Los Angeles.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Trump administration’s operation of the Los Angeles immigration raids, vowing not to stand idly by while the United States’ “constitutional freedoms are lost.”

On Sept. 8, the Supreme Court lifted a restraining order from a federal judge in LA who had restricted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion.

In July, US District Judge Maame Frimpong of the Central District of California said the government can’t rely solely on the person’s race, the language they speak, the work they perform, and whether they’re at a particular location, such as a pickup site for day laborers.

However, the Sept. 8 reversal by the Supreme Court’s mostly conservative majority gave the Trump administration another victory, as Sotomayor condemned the vote.

“That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering, 21-page dissent on Sept. 8. “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”

Sotomayor called the order “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.”

The justice, an Obama appointee, ripped her high court conservative colleagues and the government over the ruling. Sotomayor declared that all Latinos, whether they are U.S. citizens or not, “who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”oss California by broadening its scope from those only with criminal records to anyone in the United States without proper authorization. The crackdown ignited protests, prompting Trump to call in the National Guard and eventually the Marines to diffuse the outrage.

In June, the Trump administration ramped up immigration raids across California by broadening its scope from those only with criminal records to anyone in the United States without proper authorization. The crackdown ignited protests, prompting Trump to call in the National Guard and eventually the Marines to diffuse the outrage.

Sotomayor takes exception to Kavanaugh’s explanation

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with the Trump administration, said in his concurrence on Sept. 8 that the District Court overreached in limiting ICE’s authority to briefly stop people and ask them about their immigration status.

“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors,” Kavanaugh said.

He added, “Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of US immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations.”Despite fears, still looking for work: 

Sotomayor took exception to Kavanaugh’s comments. She said ICE agents are not simply just questioning people, they are seizing people by using firearms and physical violence.

Sotomayor added that the Fourth Amendment, which is meant to protect “every individual’s constitutional right,” from search and seizure, might be in jeopardy.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers,'” Sotomayor said. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.” 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/08/sotomayor-supreme-court-ruling-unconscionably-irreconcilable/86048909007

Forbes: New $250 Visa Integrity Fee Will Cost US $11 Billion, Say Tourism Officials

U.S. tourism officials say Congress’s controversial $250 visa integrity fee will deter international visitors and cost the country nearly $11 billion in lost visitor spending and tax revenue over the next three years.

  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the new $250 visa integrity fee will bring in around $27 billion over a decade—or $2.7 billion per year—to U.S. government coffers and reduce the national debt.
  • But a U.S. tourism official told Forbes the fee will instead cost the U.S. economy $11 billion over three years, including $9.4 billion in lost visitor spending and $1.3 billion in lost tax revenue—or about $3.6 billion per year, according to an analysis by Tourism Economics.
  • In addition, the lost revenue will lead to losing 15,000 U.S. travel jobs, according to U.S. tourism industry estimates.

How Will The $250 Fee Impact Tourism To The U.s.?

The CBO based its estimate solely on the potential revenue generated by the fee itself, while the U.S. tourism industry looked at the macroeconomic impact of implementing the fee, hence the wildly different estimates. The CBO estimated that charging roughly 11 million annual visa applicants $250 apiece would rake in roughly $2.7 billion per year for the State Department. Tourism officials say Congress wrongly assumed the pricey fee would have little impact on the volume of visitation. Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics, estimated that the $250-per-person fee is onerous enough to deter 5.4% of international visitors from coming to the U.S., which would translate to a drop of nearly 1 million fewer visits annually. Fewer visitors translate to less visitor spending, and in turn to lower tax revenue and job losses in the tourism industry, sending a negative ripple effect throughout the national economy. “By longstanding tradition, the Congressional Budget Office does not incorporate macroeconomic feedback effects into its traditional cost estimates,” a CBO spokesperson told Forbes. “We didn’t specifically do a dynamic analysis of this provision.” In other words, the CBO did not factor in the potential negative economic impact from lower visitor spending, tax revenue and subsequent job cuts—key metrics used by the U.S. tourism industry and the U.S. Commerce Department to evaluate the overall value of tourism to the U.S. economy. “I think in the minds of congressional leaders, foreign visitors don’t vote, so making them pay more to help fund the [Big Beautiful] Bill wouldn’t come at any political cost,” Erik Hansen, senior vice president of government relations at the U.S. Travel Association, told Forbes. “But the problem is it comes at a huge economic cost to American businesses.”

What Else Do U.s. Tourism Experts Say Congress Got Wrong?

“Congress made the mistake of assuming that this worldwide visa integrity fee would not have a big impact on visitors from countries like India or Brazil,” Hansen told Forbes. “This is the exact type of armchair public policymaking that is going to get us into a big mess.” India, in particular, is a “bright spot” for inbound international travel because visitation numbers have surpassed where they were in 2019, he said, while most other countries are lagging behind their pre-pandemic volume. In 2024, Indian tourists spent roughly $13.3 billion in the U.S., according to the National Travel and Tourism Office, part of the U.S. Commerce Department. “Applying a $250 fee to a country where travel is growing is mindboggling. It will absolutely deter travel—that’s what our research has found,” Hansen said.

What Do International Visitors Need To Know About The Visa Integrity Fee?

The fee is not actually as “refundable” as Congress has billed it to be. As written, the Big Beautiful Bill says the State Department “may reimburse” the fee after the visitor’s visa expires, provided that the visa holder has complied with all conditions of the visa. But most visitor visas are valid for 10 years, Hansen pointed out. “The idea that you’re going to give the government money and then wait around 10 years and remember to ask for it back, even if you followed the rules, is just absolutely crazy,” he said. Indeed, to arrive at its projection, the CBO reasoned in its estimate that “a large number of nonimmigrants would not be eligible to seek reimbursement until several years after paying the fee” so consequently only “a small number of people would seek reimbursement.” In other words, said Hansen, “there’s a very good understanding that the refund process itself is not going to be easy, and even if it is easy, that a lot of people aren’t going to seek that refund after a decade.” Another red flag: The $250 fee was inserted into the Big Beautiful Bill without a plan for processing refunds. In its analysis, the CBO wrote that “the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements.”

Why Are So Many International Travelers Avoiding The U.s. This Year?

In June, a World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) analysis of the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries revealed the U.S. was the only country forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025, which by some estimates is as much as $29 billion. The root causes of this decline, multiple studies have found, are a combination of President Trump’s tariffs, travel bans, inflammatory rhetoric and harsher immigration policies, all which have created a chilling effect on visitors. “While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the ‘closed’ sign,” Julia Simpson, president and CEO of WTTC, said in a statement. “Given we’re halfway through the year and we’ve seen these impacts, we don’t know when the stiffest headwind is, but I think it does stay sustained,” Aran Ryan, director of industry studies at Tourism Economics, told Forbes last month. “We’re generally assuming that this persists for a while and that some of it is going to persist throughout the end of the administration.” Simpson characterized the WTTC study as a “wake-up call for the U.S. government,” adding that “without urgent action to restore international traveler confidence, it could take several years for the U.S. just to return to pre-pandemic levels of international visitor spend.”

Tangent

Trump’s signature spending bill contains another blow to U.S. tourism. A Senate committee led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) slashed the budget of Brand USA, the country’s public-private destination marketing organization, from $100 million to $20 million. “This is another error that Congress has made,” Hansen said, noting that the Trump administration recommended full funding for the organization in its fiscal year 2026 budget. “We have a big misperception problem among international visitors right now, but Congress cut funding for the one organization that’s in charge of setting perceptions and sending a welcoming message about travel to the United States.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/08/15/visa-integrity-fee-cost-us-11-billion

Independent: Federal agents to ‘flood the zone’ after Supreme Court opens door for racial profiling in Los Angeles immigration raids

The Trump administration is vowing to “FLOOD THE ZONE” after the Supreme Court opened the door for federal law enforcement officers to roam the streets of Los Angeles to make immigration arrests based on racially profiling suspects.

A 6-3 decision from the nation’s high court Monday overturned an injunction that blocked federal agents from carrying out sweeps in southern California after a judge determined they were indiscriminately targeting people based on race and whether they spoke Spanish, among other factors.

The court’s conservative majority did not provide a reason for the decision, which is typical for opinions on the court’s emergency docket.

In a concurring opinion, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but it can be a “relevant factor” for immigration enforcement.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a “massive victory” that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to “continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement.”

The Department of Homeland Security said its officers “will continue to FLOOD THE ZONE in Los Angeles” following the court’s order.

“This decision is a victory for the safety of Americans in California and for the rule of law,” the agency said in a statement accusing Democrat Mayor Karen Bass of “protecting” immigrants who have committed crimes.

Federal law enforcement “will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor,” according to Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

The court’s opinion drew a forceful rebuke from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the bench, who accused the conservative justices of ignoring the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful protects against unlawful searches and seizures

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers,’” she added. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

Immigration raids throughout the Los Angeles area in June sparked massive protests demanding the Trump administration withdraw ICE and federal agents from patrolling immigrant communities.

In response, Trump federalized National Guard troops and sent in hundreds of Marines despite objections from Democratic city and state officials. The administration deployed roughly 5,000 National Guard soldiers and Marines to the Los Angeles area, assisting with more than 170 law enforcement operations carried out by federal agencies, according to the Department of Defense.

The Pentagon has ended most of those operations, but hundreds of National Guard members remain active in southern California.

California Governor Gavin Newsom sued the administration, alleging the president illegally deployed the troops in violation of a 140-year-old law that prohibits the military from performing domestic law enforcement operations.

ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, representing groups who sued to block indiscriminate raids in Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court order “puts people at grave risk.”

The order allows federal agents “to target individuals because of their race, how they speak, the jobs they work, or just being at a bus stop or the car wash when ICE agents decide to raid a place,” she said.

“For anyone perceived as Latino by an ICE agent, this means living in a fearful ‘papers please’ regime, with risks of violent ICE arrests and detention,” Wang added.

In his lengthy concurring opinion, Kavanaugh suggested that the demographics of southern California and the estimated 2 million people without legal permission living in the state support ICE’s sweeping operations.

He also argued that because Latino immigrants without legal status “tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work,” work in construction, and may not speak English, officers have a “reasonable suspicion” to believe they are violating immigration law.

Sotomayor criticized Kavanaugh’s assessment that ICE was merely performing “brief stops for questioning.”

“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor,” she wrote. “Today, the court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

Because the court did not provide a reasoning behind the ruling, it is difficult to discern whether the justices intend for the order to have wider effect, giving Donald Trump a powerful tool to execute his commands for millions of arrests for his mass deportation agenda.

Bass warned that the ruling could have sweeping consequences.

“I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country,” she said in a statement.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-ice-immigration-raids-racial-profiling-b2822602.html