Associated Press: She was adopted into an abusive home in the US. Decades later, ICE deported her back to Brazil

In March, Pires showed up at the immigration office with paperwork listing all her check-ins over the past eight years. This time, instead of receiving another compliance report, she was immediately handcuffed and detained.

“The government failed her,” attorney Jim Merklinger said. “They allowed this to happen.”

It sounded like freedom, like a world of possibility beyond the orphanage walls.

Maria Pires was getting adopted. At 11 years old, she saw herself escaping the chaos and violence of the Sao Paulo orphanage, where she’d been sexually assaulted by a staff member. She saw herself leaving Brazil for America, trading abandonment for belonging.

A single man in his 40s, Floyd Sykes III, came to Sao Paulo to meet her. He signed some paperwork and brought Maria home.

She arrived in the suburbs of Baltimore in the summer of 1989, a little girl with a tousle of dark hair, a nervous smile and barely a dozen words of English. The sprawling subdivision looked idyllic, with rows of modest brick townhouses and a yard where she could play soccer.

She was, she believed, officially an American.

But what happened in that house would come to haunt her, marking the start of a long descent into violence, crime and mental illness.

“My father — my adopted father — he was supposed to save me,” Pires said. Instead, he tortured and sexually abused her.

After nearly three years of abuse, Sykes was arrested. The state placed Pires in foster care.

By then, she was consumed with fury. In the worst years, she beat a teenager at a roller rink, leaving him in a coma. She attacked a prison guard and stabbed her cellmate with a sharpened toothbrush.

In prison, she discovered that no one had ever bothered to complete her immigration paperwork. Not Sykes. Not Maryland social service agencies.

That oversight would leave her without a country. She wasn’t American, it turned out, and she’d lost her Brazilian citizenship when she was adopted by Sykes, who died several years ago. But immigration officials, including those under President Donald Trump’s first administration, let her stay in the country.

After her release from prison in 2017, Pires stayed out of trouble and sought help to control her anger. She checked in once a year with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and paid for an annual work permit.

But in the second Trump administration — with its promise of mass deportations, a slew of executive orders and a crackdown targeting those the president deemed “the worst of the worst” — everything changed. Trump’s unyielding approach to immigration enforcement has swept up tens of thousands of immigrants, including many like Pires who came to the U.S. as children and know little, if any, life outside America. They have been apprehended during ICE raids, on college campuses, or elsewhere in their communities, and their detentions often draw the loudest backlash.

In Pires’ case, she was detained during a routine check-in, sent to one immigration jail after another, and ultimately deported to a land she barely remembers. The Associated Press conducted hours of interviews with Pires and people who know her and reviewed Maryland court records, internal ICE communications, and adoption and immigration paperwork to tell her story.

U.S. immigration officials say Pires is a dangerous serial criminal who’s no longer welcome in the country. Her case, they say, is cut and dried.

Pires, now 47, doesn’t deny her criminal past.

But little about her story is straightforward.

A new chapter of childhood, marked by abuse

Pires has no clear memories from before she entered the orphanage. All she knows is that her mother spent time in a mental institution.

The organization that facilitated her adoption was later investigated by Brazilian authorities over allegations it charged exorbitant fees and used videos to market available children, according to a Sao Paulo newspaper. Organization leaders denied wrongdoing.

Pires remembers a crew filming a TV commercial. She believes that’s how Sykes found her.

In his custody, the abuse escalated over time. When Sykes went to work, he sometimes left her locked in a room, chained to a radiator with only a bucket as a toilet. He gave her beer and overpowered her when she fought back. She started cutting herself.

Sykes ordered her to keep quiet, but she spoke almost no English then anyway. On one occasion, he forced a battery into her ear as punishment, causing permanent hearing loss.

In September 1992, someone alerted authorities. Sykes was arrested. Child welfare officials took custody of Maria, then 14.

Maryland Department of Human Services spokesperson Lilly Price said the agency couldn’t comment on specific cases because of confidentiality laws but noted in a statement that adoptive parents are responsible for applying for U.S. citizenship for children adopted from other countries.

Court documents show Sykes admitted sexually assaulting Maria multiple times but he claimed the assaults stopped in June 1990.

He was later convicted of child abuse. Though he had no prior criminal record, court officials acknowledged a history of similar behavior, records show.

Between credit for time served and a suspended prison sentence, Sykes spent about two months in jail.

Sykes’ younger sister Leslie Parrish said she’s often wondered what happened to Maria.

“He ruined her life,” she said, weeping. “There’s a special place in hell for people like that.”

Parrish said she wanted to believe her brother had good intentions; he seemed committed to becoming a father and joined a social group for adoptive parents of foreign kids. She even accompanied him to Brazil.

But in hindsight, she sees it differently. She believes sinister motives lurked “in the back of his sick mind.”

At family gatherings, Maria didn’t show obvious signs of distress, though the language barrier made communication difficult. Other behavior was explained away as the result of her troubled childhood in the orphanage, Parrish said.

“But behind closed doors, I don’t know what happened.”

Years in prison and an eventual release

Pires’ teenage years were hard. She drank too much and got kicked out of school for fighting. She ran away from foster homes, including places where people cared for her deeply.

“If ever there was a child who was cheated out of life, it was Maria,” one foster mother wrote in later court filings. “She is a beautiful person, but she has had a hard life for someone so young.”

She struggled to provide for herself, sometimes ending up homeless. “My trauma was real bad,” she said. “I was on my own.”

At 18, she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for the roller rink attack. She served two years in prison, where she finally learned basic reading and writing skills. It was then that authorities — and Pires herself — discovered she wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

Her criminal record meant it would be extremely difficult to gain citizenship. Suddenly, she faced deportation.

Pires said she hadn’t realized the potential consequences when accepting her plea deal.

“If l had any idea that I could be deported because of this, I would not have agreed to it,” she wrote, according to court records. “Going to jail was one thing, but I will lose everything if I am deported back to Brazil.”

A team of volunteer lawyers and advocates argued she shouldn’t be punished for something beyond her control.

“Maria has absolutely no one and nothing in Brazil. She would be completely lost there,” an attorney wrote in a 1999 letter to immigration officials.

Ultimately, the American judicial system agreed: Pires would be allowed to remain in the United States if she checked in annually with ICE, a fairly common process until Trump’s second term.

“How’s your mental?”

Pires didn’t immediately take advantage of her second chance.

She was arrested for cocaine distribution in 2004 and for check fraud in 2007. While incarcerated, she picked up charges for stabbing her cellmate in the eye, burning an inmate with a flat iron and throwing hot water on a correctional officer. Her sentence was extended.

Pires said she spent several years in solitary confinement, exacerbating her mental health challenges.

Her release in 2017 marked a new beginning. Through therapy and other support services, she learned to manage her anger and stay out of trouble. She gave up drinking. She started working long days in construction. She checked in every year with immigration agents.

But in 2023, work dried up and she fell behind on rent. She felt her mental health slipping. She applied for a women’s transitional housing program in Baltimore.

Pires thrived there. With no high school diploma and only second-grade reading skills, she qualified for a state-run job training course to polish and refinish floors. Photos show her smiling broadly in a blue graduation gown.

Friends say Pires may have a tough exterior, but she’s known for thinking of others first. She often greets people with a cheerful question: “How’s your mental?” It’s her way of acknowledging that everyone carries some sort of burden.

“This is a person who just yearns for family,” said Britney Jones, Pires’ former roommate. “She handles things with so much forgiveness and grace.”

The two were living together when Pires went to downtown Baltimore on March 6 for her annual immigration check-in. She never returned.

A crackdown on “the worst of the worst”

When President Donald Trump campaigned for a second term, he doubled down on promises to carry out mass deportations. Within hours of taking office, he signed a series of executive orders, targeting what he called “the worst of the worst” — murderers, rapists, gang members. The goal, officials have said, is 1 million deportations a year.

In March, Pires showed up at the immigration office with paperwork listing all her check-ins over the past eight years. This time, instead of receiving another compliance report, she was immediately handcuffed and detained.

“The government failed her,” attorney Jim Merklinger said. “They allowed this to happen.”

Given that she was adopted into the country as a child, she shouldn’t be punished for something that was out of her hands from the start, he said.

Her March arrest sparked a journey across America’s immigration detention system. From Baltimore, she was sent to New Jersey and Louisiana before landing at Eloy Detention Center in Arizona.

She tried to stay positive. Although Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric made her nervous, Pires reminded herself that the system granted her leniency in the past. She told her friends back home not to worry.

A deportation priority

On June 2, in an email exchange obtained by AP, an ICE agent asked to have Pires prioritized for a deportation flight to Brazil leaving in four days.

“I would like to keep her as low profile as possible,” the agent wrote.

Her lawyer tried to stop the deportation, calling Maryland politicians, ICE officials and Brazilian diplomats.

“This is a woman who followed all the rules,” Merklinger said. “This should not be happening.”

He received terrified calls from Pires, who was suddenly transferred to a detention facility near Alexandria, Louisiana, a common waypoint for deportation flights.

Finally, Pires said, she was handcuffed, shackled, put on a bus with dozens of other detainees, driven to the Alexandria airport and loaded onto an airplane. There was a large group of Brazilians on the flight, which was a relief, though she spoke hardly any Portuguese after so many years in the U.S.

“I was just praying to God,” she said. “Maybe this is his plan.”

After two stops to drop off other deportees, they arrived in the Brazilian port city of Fortaleza.

Starting from scratch back in Brazil

Brazilian authorities later took Pires to a women’s shelter in an inland city in the eastern part of the country.

She has spent months there trying to get Brazilian identification documents. She began relearning Portuguese — listening to conversations around her and watching TV.

Most of her belongings are in a Baltimore storage unit, including DJ equipment and a tripod she used for recording videos — two of her passions.

In Brazil, she has almost nothing. She depends on the shelter for necessities such as soap and toothpaste. But she maintains a degree of hope.

“I’ve survived all these years,” Pires said. “I can survive again.”

She can’t stop thinking about her birth family. Years ago, she got a tattoo of her mother’s middle name. Now more than ever, she wants to know where she came from. “I still have that hole in my heart,” she said.

Above all, she hopes to return to America. Her attorney recently filed an application for citizenship. But federal officials say that’s not happening.

“She was an enforcement priority because of her serial criminal record,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email. “Criminals are not welcome in the U.S.”

Every morning, Pires wakes up and keeps trying to build a new life. She’s applied for Brazilian work authorization, but getting a job will probably be difficult until her Portuguese improves. She’s been researching language classes and using her limited vocabulary to communicate with other shelter residents.

In moments of optimism, she imagines herself working as a translator, earning a decent salary and renting a nice apartment.

She wonders if God’s plan will ever become clear.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-policy-deportations-brazil-bb8beabbe4deb8f966826b9161158a3b

MSNBC: ‘Socialism’: Joe slams Trump official for saying U.S. should take chunk of college’s patent revenue [Video]

After taking a stake in Intel and a cut of Nvidia’s chip sales in China, the U.S. government may next target a share of the money generated by patents developed at major universities using federal funding, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick tells Mike Allen in the premiere episode of “The Axios Show.” Mike Allen joins Morning Joe to discuss.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/socialism-joe-slams-trump-official-for-saying-u-s-should-take-chunk-of-college-s-patent-revenue/vi-AA1MgfiV

Washington Post: National Guard documents reveal candor, ‘shame’ over D.C. deployment

The National Guard, in measuring public sentiment about President Donald Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C., has assessed that its mission is perceived as “leveraging fear,” driving a “wedge between citizens and the military,” and promoting a sense of “shame” among some troops and veterans, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

The assessments, which have not been previously reported, underscore how domestic mobilizations that are rooted in politics risk damaging Americans’ confidence in the men and women who serve their communities in times of crisis. The documents reveal, too, with a rare candor in some cases, that military officials have been kept apprised that their mission is viewed by a segment of society as wasteful, counterproductive and a threat to long-standing precedent stipulating that U.S. soldiers — with rare exception — are to be kept out of domestic law enforcement matters.

Trump has said the activation of more than 2,300 National Guard troops was necessary to reduce crime in the nation’s capital, though data maintained by the D.C. police indicates an appreciable decline was underway long before his August declaration of an “emergency.” In the weeks since, the Guard has spotlighted troops’ work assisting the police and “beautifying” the city by laying mulch and picking up trash, part of a daily disclosure to the news media generated by Joint Task Force D.C., the military command overseeing the deployment.

Not for public consumption, however, is an internal “media roll up” that analyzes the tone of news stories and social media posts about the National Guard’s presence and activities in Washington. Government media relations personnel routinely produce such assessments and provide summaries to senior leaders for their awareness. They stop short of drawing conclusions about the sentiments being raised.

“Trending videos show residents reacting with alarm and indignation,” a summary from Friday said. “One segment features a local [resident] describing the Guard’s presence as leveraging fear, not security — highlighting widespread discomfort with what many perceive as a show of force.”

A National Guard official acknowledged the documents are authentic but downplayed their sensitivity, saying the assessments are intended for internal use and were inadvertently emailed to The Post last week. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing an unspecified policy. It is unclear how many people mistakenly received the documents.

Spokespeople for the Army, which is overseeing the deployment, did not provide comment.

Social media posts about the military mission in D.C. summarized on Friday were assessed to be 53 percent negative, 45 percent neutral and 2 percent positive, the documents say.

While officials have insisted that troops are not policing, their actions have sometimes blurred the lines between soldiering and law enforcement, including detaining criminal suspects until police have arrived. One soldier has been credited with helping the apparent victim of a drug overdose by giving them Narcan, officials have noted.

For most Washington residents and tourists, though, the troops often are most visible at Metro stops and federal monuments, looking bored and absorbing both praise and insults from passersby.

Friday’s assessment highlights “Mentions of Fatigue, confusion, and demoralization — ‘just gardening,’ unclear mission, wedge between citizens and the military.”

The National Guard was ordered to this mission and does not have a responsibility to make it palatable to the public, said Jason Dempsey, a former Army officer who studies civil military affairs for the Center for a New American Security. But, he said, military leaders should think about how deployments with political undertones could have implications for recruiting and sustaining the force.

The themes raised in these assessments, Dempsey said, also should give pause to American citizens. National Guard troops are overseen by governors, who almost always provide their approval when those forces are mobilized for federal service overseas or within the United States. But the mission in Washington, and an earlier deployment to Los Angeles, both occurred against the consent of civil authorities in those jurisdictions.

“When elected representatives say, ‘We do not want them,’ but the federal government sends them, and then you see these kinds of numbers,” he said, “it does raise existential questions for the health of the National Guard, for how America views its National Guard and how America uses the military writ large.”

Such concerns also were spelled out in a separate cache of internal documents that outlined another Trump administration initiative: the creation of a “quick reaction force” of National Guard troops to respond to civil unrest anywhere in the United States. In that case, first reported by The Post as Trump’s D.C. deployment got underway in mid-August, military officials voiced concern about “potential political sensitivities” and “legal considerations related to their role as a nonpartisan force.”

Trump has since signed an executive order directing formation of the quick reaction force.

In examining public opinions online, Guard officials last week highlighted the sentiments shared by people who self-identified as veterans and active-duty troops, who, the documents show, say they viewed the deployment “with shame and alarm.” The assessment also homed in on how people are reacting to various court cases challenging Trump’s domestic military deployments.

A federal judge last week ruled Trump’s mobilization of nearly 5,000 U.S. troops to Los Angeles in June was an illegal use of military force to conduct law enforcement. An appeals court later granted the Trump administration’s motion for a stay in the case until its argument could be heard in greater detail — allowing the military mission there to continue. About 300 National Guard troops remain in the area.

The D.C. deployment, which includes troops not only from the District but from eight Republican-led states as well, is the subject of a lawsuit by city officials who argue that Trump broke the law by putting Guard troops into law enforcement roles. The public reaction being monitored by military officials focuses on “debate about the legality of the mission, whether it’s needed and if it has been successful,” one assessment reads, noting that there is ongoing criticism of the mission as “federal overreach and politically motivated.”

Others viewed the ongoing lawsuit in Washington as “unreasonable,” the assessment shows.

The National Guard has sometimes struggled to highlight significant impact from their presence. The public summary from Tuesday, for instance, noted a sole example of troops providing undescribed support to police at Union Station when a person was “acting aggressively.” The person was ushered out the door, the Guard noted.

In another update, the Guard indicates troops “continue efforts to restore and beautify public spaces across the District” and have “cleared 906 bags of trash, spread 744 cubic yards of mulch, removed five truckloads of plant waste, cleared 3.2 miles of roadway, and painted 270 feet of fencing.”

Those statistics may be among the most consequential takeaways of Trump’s use of the military in D.C., Dempsey said, and should prompt scrutiny of whether this mission was ever necessary in the first place.

“That is such a suboptimal use of military training that we should all be asking, ‘Why are they here?’” Dempsey said. “If they’re picking up trash, they’re not here for a security emergency. There’s no clearer metric than that.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/national-guard-documents-reveal-candor-shame-over-d-c-deployment/ar-AA1MfR7D

Extra.ie: Trump’s ICE agents threaten to deport Irish grandmother living in the US for 47 years

An Irish woman who has been living in the US since she was a child faces deportation over a ‘bad’ $25 cheque she wrote a decade ago.

Donna Brown, 58, who emigrated nearly 50 years ago, is being held by Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement – known as ICE – and faces being sent back to Ireland.

Her husband, Jim Brown, said his wife, an Irish citizen born in England, moved to America when she was 11 and is a legal resident alien, but not a U.S. citizen. The couple married eight years ago, which he believes should also protect her from being deported.

Mr Brown told his local TV station in Missouri: ‘It’s just not fair that you’re telling me I have to be a bachelor the rest of my life because of some stupid policy.’

In July, Donna was arrested at customs in Chicago on her return from Ireland after a family funeral. Her husband said: ‘You don’t arrest 58-year-old grandmothers. It’s just wrong. She hasn’t committed crimes.’

She has now spent more than 30 days in jail in Kentucky as the US government moves to deport her, which Mr Brown fears will happen.

‘It’s egregious that we have allowed a government to allow this to happen,’ he said.

‘It’s egregious that we have allowed a government to allow this to happen,’ he said.

Legal documents for her arrest say that ten years ago, Donna wrote a bad cheque for $25. However, she paid the money back and was given probation. But Mr Brown said the US government is now arguing that was a ‘crime of moral turpitude’.

US courts say a ‘crime of moral turpitude… refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality’. It has been used in the past against former IRA members who did not declare their crimes to immigration.

Mr Brown believes his wife’s arrest is a direct result of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies.

‘I think it’s nonsense. I think it’s a blanket thing to catch everybody, to fill [jail] beds. They signed a stupid bill that is torturing innocent people, and that’s the problem,’ he said. He is now protesting at what he calls his wife’s ‘deplorable’ conditions in jail and is campaigning for her release.

‘She’s been in this country 47 years, is married, with five kids and five grandkids, and you’re telling me she’s a flight risk? I want somebody to have the guts and the fortitude to stand up and say, “You know what? This is wrong”,’ he said.

‘It’s crazy that this is happening. It’s just crazy that this is even allowed in this country. That’s the problem. It shouldn’t even be thought that this should be okay,’ he said.

Mr Brown, a veteran who served 20 years in the military, said he won’t stop fighting for his wife. ‘My wife is not a criminal,’ he said. He is now caring for their horses on their nine-acre farm near Troy, Missouri.

A GoFundMe for Donna states it was created to help prepare and support her husband’s ‘fight for justice and freedom of his wife, Donna Hughes-Brown, who was wrongly detained and incarcerated this past July.

‘The goal is to raise the resources necessary to cover the lawyers and court fees, and help Jim and Donna navigate these difficult, stressful and expensive times,’ the appeal reads.

‘Jim and Donna are both very strong supporters and helpers of our community. They are often involved with multiple volunteer organisations and projects. They both are hard-working, honest, and caring individuals. They are good servers of God; humble people who are always willing to help, and kind friends that share knowledge and wisdom with anyone in need.’

In May of this year, Cliona Ward was released from custody in the US where she had been arrested after she returned from visiting her dying father in Ireland.

The 54-year-old Dubliner lives in Santa Cruz, California, and was detained by ICE over minor convictions from almost 20 years ago, which were supposed to have been expunged from her record.

CNN: Trump claims he can do anything he wants with the military. Here’s what the law says

Having rebranded the Department of Defense as the Department of War, the president is going on offense with the US military.

Donald Trump has foisted National Guard troops on Washington, DC, and Los Angeles. Other cities are on edge, particularly after he posted an apparently artificially generated image of himself dressed up like Robert Duvall’s surfing cavalry commander in “Apocalypse Now,” a meme that seemed to suggest he was threatening war on the city of Chicago.

Trump later clarified that the US would not go to war on Chicago, but he’s clearly comfortable joking about it. And he’s of the opinion his authority over the military is absolute.

“Not that I don’t have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States,” he said at a Cabinet meeting in August, when he was asked about the prospect of Chicagoans engaging in nonviolent resistance against the US military.

He’s reorienting the US military to focus on drug traffickers as terrorists and told Congress to expect more military strikes after the US destroyed a boat in the Caribbean last week.

All of this projects the kind of strongman decisiveness Trump admires.

A lot of it might also be illegal.

A ‘violation of the Posse Comitatus Act’

US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled this month that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth committed a “a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act” when they deployed federalized troops to Los Angeles over the objections of the state’s governor and mayor.

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed by Congress in 1878 as Southern states worked to oust federal troops and end Reconstruction. Questions over how and whether troops can be used to enforce laws goes back to the pre-Civil War period, when federal marshals sought help from citizens and militiamen in recovering fugitive slaves and putting down the protests of abolitionists, according to the Congressional Research Service.

It is not clear why Trump has not yet, as he has promised, called up the National Guard to patrol in Chicago, but he may be waiting for the Supreme Court, which has been extremely deferential to his claims of authority, to weigh in on a preliminary basis.

Trump has more authority to deploy the military inside Washington, DC, which the Constitution says Congress controls. But Congress has ceded some authority to locally elected officials in recent decades. DC’s Attorney General Brian Schwalb has sued the Trump administration over the deployment.

Testing the War Powers Act

Trump’s strike on a boat in the Caribbean is also on murky legal ground.

After Vietnam, Congress overrode Richard Nixon’s veto to pass another law, the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military strike. And Trump did do that, at least his third such notification since taking office in January. Trump also sent notifications to Congress about his strike against an Iranian nuclear facility and Houthi rebels who were attacking shipping routes.

The Reiss Center at New York University maintains a database of War Powers Act notifications going back to the 1970s.

Cartels as terrorist organizations

In the notification about the Caribbean strike, Trump’s administration argued that it has declared drug cartels are terrorist organizations and that he operated within his constitutional authority to protect the country when he ordered the strike.

Strikes against terrorists have been authorized under the catchall vote that authorized the use of military force against Islamic terrorists after the 9/11 terror attacks.

But Congress, which the Constitution puts in charge of declaring war, has not authorized the use of military force against Venezuelan drug cartels.

Lack of explanation from the White House

Over the weekend, CNN’s Katie Bo Lillis, Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen reported that the Pentagon abruptly canceled classified briefings to key House and Senate committees with oversight of the military, which means lawmaker have been unable to get the legal justification for the strike.

Many Americans might celebrate the idea of a military strike to take out drug dealers, and the administration is clearly primed to lean on the idea that the cartels are terrorists.

Here’s a key quote from CNN’s report:

“The strike was the obvious result of designating them a terrorist organization,” said one person familiar with the Pentagon’s thinking. “If there was a boat full of al Qaeda fighters smuggling explosives towards the US, would anyone even ask this question?”

Few details

It’s not yet clear which military unit was responsible for the strike, what intelligence suggested there were drugs onboard, who was on the boat or what the boat was carrying.

“The attack on the smuggling vessel in the Caribbean was so extraordinary because there was no reported attempt to stop the boat or detain its crew,” wrote Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal advisor now at International Crisis Group for the website Just Security. “Instead, the use of lethal force was used in the first resort.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US could have interdicted the boat and made a legal case against those onboard, but it decided instead to blow up the boat. The notice to Congress makes clear the administration will continue with other strikes.

War crime? Vance doesn’t ‘give a sh*t’

“The decision to blow up the boat and kill everyone onboard when interdiction and detention was a clearly available option is manifestly illegal and immoral,” Oona Hathaway, a law professor and director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School, told me in an email.

The view of the administration could be best summarized by Vice President JD Vance stating that using the military to go after cartels is “the highest and best use of our military.”

When a user on X replied that the extrajudicial killing of civilians without presenting evidence is, by definition, a war crime, Vance, himself a Yale-educated lawyer, said this:

“I don’t give a sh*t what you call it.”

That’s not an acceptable response even for some Republicans.

“Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” wrote Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in his own post on X. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Congress has power it likely won’t use

Congress has the power to stop Trump’s campaign against boats in the Caribbean. The War Powers Act allows lawmakers in the House and Senate to demand the president seek approval before continuing a campaign longer than 60 days. But that seems unlikely to occur at the moment.

After the strike against Iran earlier this year, Paul was the only Republican senator to side with Democrats and demand Trump seek approval for any future Iran strikes.

During his first term, seven Republicans voted with Senate Democrats to hem in Trump’s ability to strike against Iran after he ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. But there were not enough votes to overcome Trump’s veto that year.

Trump’s authority to use military force without congressional approval of the Caribbean operation technically expires after 60 days after he reports on the use of force, although he can extend it by an additional 30 days, although he could also declare a new operation is underway.

The use of these kinds of tactics has likely been in the works for some time.

In February, Trump designated drug cartels, including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, as foreign terror organizations. In April, CNN reported the CIA was reviewing whether it had authority to use lethal force against drug cartels.

But the military strike against the alleged cartel boat happened as part of a broader campaign against Venezuela, including positioning US ships, aircraft and a submarine in the Caribbean, according to a CNN report.

Trump may have campaigned as a president who would end wars, but he’s governing like a president who is very comfortable using his military.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/venezuela-trump-military-strike-war-powers-explainer

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

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

Salon: Sotomayor says SCOTUS ruling lets ICE “seize anyone who looks Latino”

Sotomayor worried that the ruling made Latinos living in Los Angeles “fair game” for ICE harassment

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to allow wide-scale ICE raids and immigration stops in Los Angeles to continue on Monday. In a scathing dissent, she said the court was giving the Department of Homeland Security a green light to “seize anyone who looks Latino.”

The Monday ruling lifted an injunction on “roving” ICE actions in Southern California. That order from a lower court judge barred agents from carrying out detentions based on ethnicity, languages being spoken, employment or location.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling was unsigned, it appeared to be supported along partisan lines as all three liberals dissented. Writing for the liberal justices, Sotomayor called the order “unconscionable” and said it made Latinos throughout the region “fair game.”

“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 wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring with the unnamed majority, said ethnicity was a  “a ‘relevant factor’” for ICE agents to consider. He added that  “many” undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area “do not speak much English,” and work low-wage, manual labor jobs.

“Under this Court’s precedents, not mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.

In her dissent, Sotomayor raised concerns about how the ruling could impact constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be free from arbitrary interference by law officers,” she wrote. “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.salon.com/2025/09/08/sotomayor-says-scotus-ruling-lets-ice-seize-anyone-who-looks-latino