Tag Archives: united states

Alternet: Donald Trump just debunked his own lie — and it should get him sued | Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

Walmart, Apple , and Amazon, the most successful companies in the U.S., base their corporate strategies on data: consumer behavior data, market research, financial, product, and competitive analysis data.

Any CEO who deliberately relied on falsified data, or who demanded cooked books, would be fired immediately — and likely sued by the Board of Directors.

Any CEO of any company who tried to manipulate the appearance of short-term success for his own personal gain, at the expense of long-term viability for the company, would also be fired and likely sued for malfeasance, and worse.

A successful CEO knows that falsifying economic or financial data can lead to charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and other financial crimes, because false data can ruin investors, corporations, and markets overnight.

Enter Donald Trump, whose self-proclaimed governing philosophy is “running the country like it’s a business.” Debunking the lie of his own manufactured image as a “successful businessman,” last Friday Trump angrily fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner because he didn’t like her data — even as he wears 34 felony convictions for falsifying records.

Dr. Erika McEntarfer, a widely respected statistician, enjoyed bipartisan support, including confirmation votes from Marco Rubio and JD Vance. Appointed commissioner under the Biden administration, she holds a Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech, and served at the Census Bureau for two decades under both parties prior to her BLS appointment.

By federal law, McEntarfer’s appointment ends in 2028. Trump fired her anyway because he was embarrassed by jobs data that didn’t match his own hype.

In May, the White House said that April’s jobs report “proved” that Trump was “revitalizing” the economy. In June, Trump posted, “GREAT JOBS NUMBERS.” After the Labor Department released revised jobs figures for those months — a common practice because jobs reports are sample projections that get adjusted when actual employer data come in — Trump fired the messenger.

Trump’s penchant for hiding and falsifying data has put American corporations and the economy in more danger. Just as he scrubbed government websites of climate data to bolster his fossil fuel donors, just as he ordered the Smithsonian to remove an exhibit accurately reflecting his own impeachments, Trump thinks reality is whatever he says it is.

As he fantasizes about returning America to the Gilded Age, where robber barons extracted the earth’s resources for unimaginable profit while laborers worked for starvation wages, he’s forgetting that his oligarch donors need accurate economic data too. At least oligarchs creating real products and delivering real services—as opposed to merely speculating in Trump’s image—need real, reliable, and uncooked data.

McEntarfer should sue

When Trump fired McEntarfer in a social media post, he declared that her numbers were “phony.” He wrote on Friday, “In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,” adding: “But, the good news is, our Country is doing GREAT!”

He said the numbers had been manipulated for political purposes, and announced he fired McEntarfer as a result.

Trump also baselessly accused McEntarfer of manipulating jobs numbers before the November election to advantage Kamala Harris. Trump said to reporters, “I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election, and there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing.”

When asked what his source was, he said, “my opinion,” confirming that there was no evidence to back up his reckless claims, claims that permanently tanked the reputation of a celebrated career professional.

Presidents not immune from civil prosecution

No doubt Trump slurred McEntarfer based on his own “opinion” to avoid defamation liability, but an opinion that implies a false fact is still defamatory, it is still actionable, and presidents are not immune from civil lawsuits for defamation.

The four legal elements of defamation are easily found here: false statement; publication; negligence in repeating the falsehood; and reputational harm.

More, a president has immunity from civil lawsuits only for actions taken in furtherance of his core constitutional powers. One of the main “core constitutional powers” of a president is ensuring the faithful execution of laws, such that acting to impede the execution of federal law would fall outside core official responsibilities. (As an aside, even under the disastrous Trump v. US criminal immunity ruling, Trump’s J6 conduct would likely have fallen outside his core function, had it proceeded to trial.)

Trump knowingly and intentionally lied about the BLS commissioner in a manner that directly conflicts with the Department of Labor’s statutory mission; as such, it was not a “core Constitutional function.” Announcing that previous labor reports were “falsified” causes immediate reputational harm to the Commissioner, the Department of Labor, and the US economy overall. It directly impedes the accurate compilation of labor data, a charge mandated by the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act.

By implicitly directing that all future US data should be falsified to suit his own political narrative, Trump’s statements not only harm America’s economy, but they hinder rather than aid the faithful execution of laws.

As McEntarfer’s predecessor puts it, McEntarfer’s “totally groundless firing” sets a dangerous precedent and “undermines the statistical mission of the bureau.”

“We need accurate Jobs Numbers,” Trump told reporters, suggesting McEntarfer’s jobs numbers weren’t.

“She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified,” he added, suggesting McEntarfer was neither.

Missing the risible irony as he seeks manipulated jobs data for his own political purposes, Trump added, “Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.”

Donald Trump just debunked his own lie — and it should get him sued | Opinion

https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trump-lie-debunked

San Francisco Chronicle: Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids

Posted on by
Reply

Any attorney who files or argues in favor of this appeal should be disbarred!

Any justice who votes in favor of this appeal should impeached and removed!

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow officers to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants in Southern California because of how they look, what language they’re speaking and what kind of work they’re doing, factors that federal judges have found to be baseless and discriminatory.

Last month’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California,” D. John Sauer, the Justice Department’s solicitor general, said Thursday in a filing with the Supreme Court. “This Court should end this attempted judicial usurpation of immigration-enforcement functions” and suspend the injunction while the case is argued in the lower courts, Sauer wrote.

The Central District, which includes Los Angeles County and six other counties, has nearly 20 million residents, more than any other federal court district in the nation. It became the focus of legal disputes over immigration enforcement after President Donald Trump took control of the California National Guard in June and sent thousands of its troops to the streets in Los Angeles to defend immigration agents against protesters of workplace raids.

A 9th Circuit panel upheld Trump’s commandeering of the National Guard, rejecting a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Frimpong, an appointee of President Joe Biden, ruled July 11 that immigration officers were overstepping legal boundaries in making the arrests, and issued a temporary restraining order against their practices.

In a ruling Aug. 1 upholding the judge’s decision, another 9th Circuit panel said federal officers had been seizing people from the streets and workplaces based on four factors: their apparent race or ethnicity, the language they spoke or accent in their voice, their presence in a location such as a car wash or an agricultural site, and the type of work they were doing.

That would justify the arrest of anyone “who appears Hispanic, speaks Spanish or English with an accent, wears work clothes, and stands near a carwash, in front of a Home Depot, or at a bus stop,” the panel’s three judges said. They agreed with Frimpong that officers could not rely on any or all of those factors as the basis for an arrest.

But the Trump administration’s lawyers said those factors were valid reasons for immigration arrests in the Central District.

In April, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a similar order against the Border Patrol, prohibiting immigration arrests in the Eastern District of California unless officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person is breaking the law. The district is based in Sacramento and extends from Fresno to the Oregon border.

“You can’t just walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” Thurston, a Biden appointee, said at a court hearing, CalMatters reported. The Trump administration has appealed her injunction to the 9th Circuit.

The administration’s compliance with the Central District court order was questioned by immigrant advocates on Wednesday after a raid on a Home Depot store near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, in which officers said 16 Latin American workers were detained. An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Mohammad Tajsar, said the government “seems unwilling to fulfill the aims of its racist mass deportation agenda without breaking the law.”

There is ample evidence that many businesses in the district “unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs — like day labor, landscaping, and construction — are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paperwork; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Central America; and that many only speak Spanish,” Sauer told the Supreme Court.

“No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal immigrant, the Justice Department attorney said. “But in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.”

The Supreme Court told lawyers for the immigrants to file a response by Tuesday. 

The case is Noem v. Perdomo, No. 25A169.

Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to let officers arrest suspected undocumented immigrants in Southern California because of how they look.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/scotus-immigration-california-20809308.php

CBS News: Border agents directed to stop deportations under Trump’s asylum ban, sources say

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. border agents have been directed to stop deporting migrants under President Trump’s ban on asylum claims, following a federal court order that said the measure could not be used to completely suspend humanitarian protections for asylum-seekers, two Department of Homeland Security officials told CBS News.

The move effectively lifts a sweeping policy that had closed the American asylum system to those entering the U.S. illegally or without proper documents. It’s a measure the second Trump administration has credited for a steep drop in illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, where officials last month reported the lowest monthly level of migrant apprehensions on record.

Mr. Trump’s asylum crackdown was unprecedented in scope. The proclamation underpinning it, issued just hours after he returned to the White House in January, gave U.S. border officials the power to summarily deport migrants without allowing them to request asylum, a right enshrined in American law for decades. 

Mr. Trump said the extraordinary action was necessary due to what he called an “invasion” of migrants under the Biden administration, which faced record levels of illegal crossings at the southern border until it too restricted asylum last year. 

On Friday, a federal appeals court lifted its pause on a lower judge’s ruling that found Mr. Trump’s decree violated U.S. asylum laws. While the appellate court narrowed the lower court’s order, saying Mr. Trump’s proclamation could be used to pause access to the asylum system, it also ruled the U.S. government could not disregard other laws that bar officials from deporting migrants to places where they could be tortured or persecuted.

Those laws require the U.S. to grant legal protections — known as “withholding of removal” and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture — to migrants who prove they would likely face persecution or torture if deported to their home countries. Unlike asylum, those protections do not allow recipients to get permanent U.S. residency or protect them from being deported to a third party country.

Officials at Customs and Border Protection were instructed this weekend to halt deportations under Mr. Trump’s proclamation and to process migrants under U.S. immigration law, which affords foreigners on American soil the right to request humanitarian refuge, the two DHS officials said, requesting anonymity to discuss an internal directive.

CBP officials received instructions to process migrants through different mechanisms, including through a fast-track deportation procedure known as expedited removal, according to the DHS officials. While expedited removal allows for relatively quick deportations, migrants processed under the policy are also allowed to apply for asylum if they convince officials that their fears of being harmed if deported are credible.

For months, U.S. border agents had been using Mr. Trump’s asylum ban to swiftly deport those crossing into the country illegally to Mexico, their home countries and, in some cases, third party nations that had agreed to accept them. Internally, officials have dubbed those deportations “212(f) repatriations,” in reference to the legal authority Mr. Trump invoked in his proclamation.

While the lifting of Mr. Trump’s order may reopen the U.S. asylum system, those caught crossing the southern border illegally will likely remain detained while officials vet their claims. The Trump administration has largely stopped the practice of releasing migrants into the U.S. while they await their court dates, limiting releases to cases involving extraordinary circumstances. 

The Justice Department could also try to get Friday’s court order suspended by the Supreme Court, in a bid to revive Mr. Trump’s asylum ban.

In a statement to CBS News late Monday, CBP said Friday’s court order affirmed “the President’s authority to deny asylum to aliens participating in an invasion into the United States.”

CBP said the Trump administration is “committed to ensuring that aliens illegally entering the United States face consequences for their criminal actions.”

“This includes prosecution to the fullest extent of the law and rapid removal from the United States,” the agency added. “CBP will continue to process illegal/inadmissible aliens consistent with law, including mandatory detention and expedited removal.”  

After soaring to record levels in late 2023, illegal border crossings dropped sharply in former President Biden’s last year office, following increased efforts by Mexico to interdict U.S.-bound migrants and an order issued by Biden in June 2024 to restrict access to the American asylum system. But they have plunged even further since Mr. Trump took office for a second time.

In July, Border Patrol encountered just 4,600 migrants along the southern border, the lowest monthly tally ever publicly reported by the agency. It’s also a figure the Biden administration recorded in 24 hours on many days.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-agents-directed-to-stop-deportations-under-trumps-asylum-ban-after-court-order

Raw Story: GOP trolled as planes circle major cities with three-word taunt

Posted on by
Reply

Some daring pilots took to the friendly skies over the capitals of Democratic-led states Monday with a three-word taunt meant to troll President Donald Trump and Texas Republicans, according to HuffPost.

Several planes were spotted over Albany, New York; Springfield, Illinois; and Annapolis, Maryland, while trailing banners that said simply, “Mess with Texas.”

Planes towing the message were also seen over Augusta, Maine; Trenton, New Jersey; and Sacramento, California, Politico reported.

The banners were a play on the Texas slogan, “Don’t Mess With Texas,” which is seen as a declaration of state pride.

But the “anonymous group of self-described democracy advocates” altered the slogan in a plea to lawmakers in Democratic states “to help fight what many view as a gerrymandering scheme going down in Texas that will help secure Republicans’ control in the U.S. House after the midterm elections in 2026.”

Some 56 Democratic lawmakers fled Texas for blue states to prevent a quorum as Republicans sought to vote for a redistricting map that could give the GOP up to five new congressional seats. The ploy was orchestrated by President Donald Trump, who told CNBC on Tuesday that Republicans “had the right” to the seats because he swept the state so soundly in the 2024 presidential elections.

The Democrats say they’re hunkered down for the long haul away from home, even as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton issued warrants for the arrests. Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) asked the FBI to get involved in the hunt in a letter to MAGA director Kash Patel.

https://www.rawstory.com/gerrymandering-2673861437

Inquisitr: ICE Arrests Plummet in Embarrassing Setback for Stephen Miller

Posted on by
Reply

Despite pressure from White House policy strategist Stephen Miller to escalate migrant detentions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recorded a 19 percent drop in daily arrests from June to July. This surprising downturn shows the limits of their aggressive immigration tactics.

According to the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE booked an average of 990 arrests per day between July 1 and July 27. That’s down markedly from 1,224 arrests per day during June, representing a nearly 20 percent decline in a single month.

These figures bring into stark relief the discrepancy between on-the-ground performance and Miller’s high-pressure expectations. The former White House deputy chief of staff has relentlessly pushed for 3,000 arrests per day, an unprecedented rate intended to realize former President Trump’s plans for the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history. Instead, ICE is operating at roughly one-third the pace Miller demanded.

Miller, widely viewed as the architect behind many of Trump’s toughest immigration policies, allegedly threatened to fire ICE field office leaders whose offices ranked in the bottom 10 percent for arrest activity. Such aggressive oversight and internal pressure were intended to turbocharge enforcement, but the data shows the policy has not translated into scaled results.

The TRAC data signals potentially growing internal friction within ICE. Enforcement resources, legal constraints, staffing levels, and logistical complexities appear to be undermining Miller’s push for rapid, large-scale migrant arrests.

Whether administrative resistance, legal challenges, or operational capacity is at fault remains unclear, but the numbers do. A drop from 1,224 to 990 arrests per day means ICE detained roughly 7,758 fewer people in July than would have been expected under June’s pace, despite White House demands to ramp up enforcement.

Critics say the gap between Miller’s strategy and ICE’s actual output underscores a deeper disconnect within the immigration apparatus, between political directives from the top and the reality of enforcement on the ground. They argue this is a cautionary tale about over-reliance on high-intensity quotas that neglect operational feasibility and legal safeguards.

Supporters of Miller’s agenda argue that even the 990-per-day arrest rate in July signals a robust, no-exception enforcement posture, and the decline may reflect fewer available targets or improved border deterrence.

Still, the shortfall is stark. If ICE had met the 3,000-per-day benchmark for July, it would have booked around 90,000 arrests in the month. Instead, at its current pace, it would come in closer to 28,000 arrests total, missing the goal by a factor of more than three.

Even more, the drop comes at a critical time. As summer progresses and border crossings and migration patterns shift, policy advocates emphasize that maintaining, or increasing, enforcement momentum is crucial to sustaining broader deterrence goals.

From a political standpoint, the trend presents a public relations challenge for Miller. Suppose enforcement agencies cannot deliver on his demands. In that case, critics may question the realism of his approach to immigration control and the decision to push staff with threats instead of sustainable support.

Looking ahead, ICE may attempt to recalibrate, temporarily increasing internal operations or focusing on more enforceable cases. But any future uptick will face scrutiny: Is the agency capable of scaling to match Miller’s specified targets, or was the strategy always out of sync with practical limitations?

In sum, the nearly 20 percent drop in ICE arrests from June to July marks a humbling moment for immigration hardliners. Despite intense pressure from Miller to meet ambitious quotas, the agency’s output fell sharply and well below the aggressive benchmarks laid out by the former deputy chief of staff.

Inquisitr: ICE Arrests Plummet in Embarrassing Setback for Stephen Miller

Tampa Free Press: Colorado Judge Rebukes AG [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi, Sides With Immigrant Family Over Paperwork Rule 

Posted on by
Reply

Appeals Court Vacates Immigration Ruling, Finds Agency Erred on Signature Requirement

In a decision concerning immigration procedures, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado has vacated a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The court’s ruling, filed on Tuesday, in the case of Cortez v. United States Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi, determined that the BIA was incorrect to reject an appeal from a Salvadoran mother and son based on a technicality regarding a signature.

Ana Sofia Cortez and her minor son, M.Y.A.C., who are natives of El Salvador, had their initial application for relief from removal denied by an immigration judge.

Their attorney subsequently filed an appeal with the BIA using the Electronic Courts and Appeals System (ECAS). The BIA, however, rejected the filing, stating that the proof-of-service section on the form was not signed.

The court’s opinion, authored by Judge Hartz, found that the BIA’s requirement for a signature on this section constituted a legal error.

The court highlighted the instructions on the BIA’s own form, which stated that a signature for the proof of service was required “if applicable.” Since the attorney filed electronically through ECAS, the system automatically served the opposing party, making a separate service and, therefore, a signature on that section, unnecessary.

The government, represented by the Office of Immigration Litigation, had argued that the petitioners’ challenge to the rejection was untimely. However, the Tenth Circuit chose not to consider this argument, noting that the BIA had not relied on that specific ground in its decision.

“The BIA’s rejection of Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was predicated on an error of law and must be set aside,” the court stated in its opinion.

As a result, the court has vacated and remanded the case back to the BIA for further proceedings. This decision allows the petitioners a renewed opportunity to have the merits of their appeal considered. The ruling underscores the importance of agencies adhering to the clear language of their own procedural instructions and forms.

Colorado Judge Rebukes AG Bondi, Sides With Immigrant Family Over Paperwork Rule
Appeals Court Vacates Immigration Ruling, Finds Agency Erred on Signature Requirement In a decision concerning immigration procedures, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado has vacated a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The court’s ruling, filed on Tuesday, in the case of Cortez v. United States Attor…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-judge-rebukes-ag-bondi-sides-with-immigrant-family-over-paperwork-rule/ar-AA1JXQk8

Raw Story: Supreme Court used wrong statute to make monumental birthright citizenship ruling: expert

Posted on by
Reply

Conservative legal scholar Jack Goldsmith revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court relied on an incorrectly cited statute to justify its shocking birthright citizen ruling.

Goldsmith, a former United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under the George W. Bush administration, wrote that the decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett contained a key error, as Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern summarized.

“Justice Barrett’s opinion in the universal injunction case rests on an error: For the purposes of historical analysis, she looked at the wrong statute and got the relevant date wrong by nearly *a century,*” wrote Stern on Bluesky Tuesday.

Goldsmith’s analysis looked at 18 interim orders that deal specifically with President Donald Trump’s administration. Notably, he specified that the cases involving a kind of ban on universal injunctions came amid lower courts’ efforts to temporarily pause Trump’s executive orders from going into effect until after they can be litigated.

The ruling in June stated that injunctions should only affect those involved in legal challenges, and shouldn’t be applied over huge swathes of the public.

It specifically referred to injunctions involving challenges to Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship — a Constitutional law that states anybody born in the U.S. is a citizen. It said injunctions could only affect individuals or groups involved in the legal action, not the nation as a whole.

“The Court stated that Section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 ‘endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over ‘all suits . . . in equity,’ and still today . . . ‘is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies,'” the article cites the ruling.

However, he noted, it appears the Court didn’t look at the text or context of Section 11 when making its ruling.

“The Court’s claim that equitable remedies are authorized by Section 11 and thus ‘must have a founding-era antecedent’ is novel,'” the article continues, meaning that it’s new or unusual. “It [is] also questionable since Section 11 cannot have authorized equitable remedies in CASA.”

That’s when Goldsmith drops the hammer, saying “Section 11 is a jurisdictional statute” and that the jurisdiction in the CASA case was “based on federal question jurisdiction and suits against the United States. Neither head of jurisdiction is mentioned in Section 11, because neither existed until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. And none of the three heads of subject matter jurisdiction in Section 11 has any legal connection to CASA.”

So, under the Supreme Court’s logic “that jurisdictional statutes authorize equitable remedies, it should have looked to the state of remedies beginning in 1875, when the federal question jurisdiction statute was enacted, not 1789.”

So it seems that Amy Coney Barrett is not much brighter than the fascist who nominated her in 2020.

Supreme Court used wrong statute to make monumental birthright citizenship ruling: expert

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett

Guardian: Trump administration cuts New York City’s anti-terrorism funding days after skyscraper attack

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Emergency Management Agency says city will receive $64m less this year from its urban area security fund

The Trump administration said it would cut terrorism prevention funding for New York City, according to a grant notice posted days after a gunman killed four people inside a Manhattan skyscraper.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) stated in a grant notice posted on Friday that New York City would receive $64m less this year from its urban area security fund. The amount was listed in a single line of an 80-page Fema notice on the grant program.

US Congress created the program to help cities prevent terrorist attacks.

“It makes absolutely no sense, and no justification has been given to cut NY’s allocation given the rise in the threat environment,” a spokesperson for the New York state division of homeland security and emergency services said in a statement on Monday afternoon.

Manhattan has been the site of two attacks on high-profile corporate executives in the last year. The most recent attack came from a gunman armed with an assault-style rifle in late July, who killed four people inside an office building that houses the headquarters of the NFL and several major financial firms.

New York governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, highlighted the attack in her late July letter to the US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem, asking why the Trump administration had not announced the amounts each city would receive from the program this year. Fema is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Noem’s office did not respond to two messages from Reuters asking why the federal government cut New York’s funding.

In December 2024, the chief executive of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was shot dead on the street in Manhattan in a targeted attack. And security has been particularly tight in New York City ever since the al-Qaida terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, which killed almost 3,000 people in lower Manhattan when Islamist extremists flew hijacked passenger jets into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

Fema uses “an analysis of relative risk of terrorism” to decide how much money cities will receive, according to the grant notice posted on Friday. The agency may change the amounts later, according to the notice.

The Mamdani effect: how his win spurred more than 10,000 progressives to consider run for officeRead more

In 2023, the agency considered city visitor counts, population density and proximity to international borders, among other factors, to determine the totals, according to a report signed by then Fema administrator Deanne Criswell.

Fema has been decreasing terrorism prevention money for New York City each year since at least fiscal year 2022. The drop is much more drastic this year at 41% year-over-year.

The New York City police department has used the funding in the past to pay for the Domain Awareness System, a network of cameras, license plate readers and detection devices, according to a 2016 statement from the former mayor Bill de Blasio’s office.

Trump administration cuts New York City’s anti-terrorism funding days after skyscraper attack
Federal Emergency Management Agency says city will receive $64m less this year from its urban area security fund

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/05/new-york-city-anti-terrorism-funding-trump-cuts

Rolling Stone: ICE Taps FEMA Employees to Help Ramp Up Deportation Blitz

Posted on by
Reply

Some FEMA employees are being forcibly reassigned to help carry out Trump’s brutal immigration crackdown

The Department of Homeland Security has moved to forcibly reassign a subset of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), threatening them with termination if they do not agree. 

According to an email obtained by The American Prospect, a “select” number of probationary employees at FEMA were informed that they would be reassigned to positions “located at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office (ICE).”

“You will receive the position description and information about new position separately,” the  email continued. “You may either accept or decline this MDR within seven (7) calendar days from your receipt of this letter. … If you choose to decline this reassignment, or accept but fail to report for duty, you may be subject to removal from Federal service.” 

In a statement to The Washington Post, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin confirmed the authenticity of the email and the decision to bolster ICE operations through FEMA. “Through the One Big Beautiful Bill, DHS is adopting an all-hands-on-deck strategy to recruit 10,000 new ICE agents,” she said. “To support this effort, select FEMA employees will temporarily be detailed to ICE for 90 days to assist with hiring and vetting … Their deployment will NOT disrupt FEMA’s critical operations. FEMA remains fully prepared for Hurricane Season.”

The Post reported that dozens of FEMA employees have been reassigned.

The move comes as ICE embarks on a nationwide recruitment effort aimed at intensifying its already brutal crackdown on undocumented immigration. As the agency attempts to access more funds and personnel, FEMA has become a target for ransacking. Last month, DHS reallocated $608 million in FEMA funds to various states for the construction and expansion of migrant detention centers. 

DHS is now taking personnel from the disaster relief agency while appealing to the public to join its ranks. DHS posted to social media on Wednesday that prospective ICE agents would no longer be required to hold an undergraduate degree to apply. 

“Serve your country! Defend your culture! No undergraduate degree required!” the post read. The agency also announced that it would be removing the department’s age cap for applicants in its quest to hire 10,000 new agents, prompting White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to encourage prospective applicants to “fulfill your destiny.”

In a statement to reporters, Trump Border Czar Tom Homan elaborated on the new policy. “You got a lot of patriots, I think the age limits are decades old,” he said. “If someone comes in and they’re 55, maybe they can’t carry a badge and gun but they can certainly do administrative duties.” 

“I’m 63 and I would love to put a badge and gun on and go do these things,” he added. 

As previously reported by Rolling Stone, ICE has listed job openings in over 25 cities across the country. “Are you ready to defend the homeland?” one posting read. “Launch a dynamic and rewarding career as a Deportation Officer with Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO) at ICE! Join a dedicated team safeguarding U.S. borders and upholding immigration laws, playing a key role in defending our nation.”

Quasi-celebrities are joining in on the recruitment effort, as well. In a video posted on social media, washed up Superman actor Dean Cain encouraged his followers to “join ICE” to “help save America.” Cain seemingly forgot that his claim to fame is his portrayal of a literal alien often at odds with the federal government.

Hired to aid disaster recovery, Shanghai’d to staff ICE!

ICE Taps FEMA Employees to Help Ramp Up Deportation Blitz
The Department of Homeland Security has forcibly reassigned a subset of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees to ICE.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fema-employees-reassigned-ice-deportation-1235402269

NBC News: Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that they say led to chilling of free speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

Stanford University’s student newspaper sued the Trump administration Wednesday over two provisions in federal immigration law that it says the officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views.

The Stanford Daily, in addition to two former college students, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing the administration of using the provisions to threaten deportation and the revocation of visas. They say the situation has led to censorship and violations of free speech rights.

The paper’s staff members who are on visas have self-censored and declined assignments related to the war in Gaza, fearful that their reporting could jeopardize their lawful immigration status, the lawsuit said.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

A senior State Department official declined to comment and directed NBC News to comments Rubio has about visa holders and complying with U.S. law.

In April, Rubio wrote in an opinion piece published on Fox News that he would be taking a “zero-tolerance approach to foreign nationals who abet terrorist organizations.”

“The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that visa holders or other aliens cannot use the First Amendment to shield otherwise impermissible actions taken to support designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, or the Houthis, or violate other U.S. laws,” Rubio said.

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described the lawsuit as “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs take aim at the Deportation Provision and Revocation Provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion.

As the lawsuit points out, the Trump administration has cited the Deportation Provision as the basis for trying to deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested and detained for more than three months. Similarly, the administration used the Revocation Provision to detain Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who has also since been released.

Because of the administration’s use of the statutes, the lawsuit said, the Stanford Daily has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles. Many international students have stopped speaking to the paper’s journalists, and current and former writers have asked for their opinion editorials to be taken down, the lawsuit said.

“The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,” the lawsuit said. “And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.”

One of the unnamed plaintiffs appeared on the Canary Mission, the suit said. The website, run by an anonymous group, has published a detailed database of students, professors and others who it says have shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints. It has been accused of doxxing and harassment, in addition to launching personal attacks that depict pro-Palestinian activists as being in “support of terrorism,” the Middle East Studies Association of North America said. The plaintiff has stopped publishing and “voicing her true opinions” on the Palestinian territories and Israel, the suit said.

Canary Mission has told NBC News that it documents people and groups who “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews” across the political spectrum. It did not respond to criticisms of its work.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that block the officials from using the provisions against them based on engaging in what they consider protected speech.

“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, the Stanford Daily’s editor-in-chief, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that has chilled free speech
The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stanford-student-newspaper-sues-trump-officials-immigration-law-rcna223477