Noem defends conditions at ‘Alligator Alcatraz' detention facility
In an interview on NBC News's 'Meet the Press,' moderator Kristen Welker asked Noem about claims from Democrats that, in the facility, more than 30 people are 'stuffed into a jail cell' and that the detainees 'get their drinking water and they brush their teeth from the same place where they go to the bathroom.'
'Our detention centers at the federal level are held to a higher standard than most local or state centers and even federal prisons. The standards are extremely high,' Noem responded, noting the facility is 'state run.'
Noem also pushed back on the term 'jail cells,' calling them, instead, 'secure facilities' that are 'held to the highest levels of what the federal government requires for detention facilities.'
Noem suggested there is a double standard in the way Democrats react to the facilities under the Trump administration and under past Democratic administrations.
'I wish they would have said that back during the Biden administration and back when Democrats were in the White House and they were piling people on top of each other on cement floors and literally didn't have two feet to move,' Noem said about claims that the migrants are in 'cages' in the facility. 'They never did that, and that's why this politics has to end.'
Noem said she would take cameras in the facility to 'show people what these facilities look like.'
'Because if you compare them to what happened under the Biden administration and under the Obama administration, these centers are at the highest levels,' she continued. 'And they're even higher than what our federal prison standards are or state or local often are.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
House GOP blocks second Dem attempt to release Epstein files
House Republicans on Tuesday voted down another Democratic procedural maneuver aimed at forcing the Justice Department to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. Why it matters: It's the second time this week Democrats have forced their GOP colleagues to choose between loyalty to President Trump and a MAGA base that is furious at his administration over its handling of the Epstein files. Democrats are already promising future votes: "That was probably not the last time that you're going to see us deal with this issue," House Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told Axios. Republicans dismissed the vote as a cynical partisan ploy, with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) telling Axios: "It's just politics, it's not about protecting little children. And that ticks me off." What happened: The House voted 211-210 against allowing a House vote on Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) measure to force the DOJ to publish the Epstein files online within 30 days. Democrats' procedural motion would have scuttled the GOP's legislative agenda for the day in favor of the Khanna bill, making it difficult for Republicans to vote for it. The vote fell along party lines, with all Democrats who were present voting for their party's maneuver and all Republicans voting against it. It came after Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted Monday night against attaching the Epstein language to a broader cryptocurrency and defense funding vote. What they're saying: Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who voted for the Khanna measure in the Rules Committee on Monday, told Axios he did so because "I believe in transparency, I believe in putting things on the table." But, with regards to the Tuesday vote on the House floor, he said he believes Attorney General Pam Bondi has "an independent party that's looking at it," which he called "the right course." Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) offered a simpler explanation: Republicans generally vote against such Democratic procedural motions, and this time shouldn't be an exception. The other side: "These guys have [trafficked] in conspiracy theories for as long as I can remember, and it's coming home to bite them in the ass and they don't know how to deal with it," said McGovern. "They riled up a base that is demanding more information, and because they're more afraid of Trump than they are their own constituents, they're providing him a circle of protection," the Massachusetts Democrat added. Yes, but: Despite his party rejecting the Khanna measure, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in an interview that "we should put everything out there and let the people decide it."
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
House Dems press GOP to hold hearing on Epstein files
A group of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are demanding their Republican counterparts hold a public hearing on the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein documents. Why it matters: Democrats have homed in on a strategy this week of squeezing Republicans on the issue as President Trump comes under fire from his own base. "We must submit to public scrutiny President Trump's and MAGA's longstanding claims about the 'Epstein files,'" the Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), wrote to chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
Medical debt remains on credit reports after Biden-era rule tossed by judge
Consumers were dealt a blow after a federal judge in Texas tossed out a Biden-era rule that would have banned the inclusion of medical debt on credit reports. In a move that advocates told USA TODAY eliminates a vital consumer protection, U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan on July 11 granted a request from President Donald Trump's administration and two financial industry groups to vacate the medical debt rule. The medical debt rule, finalized in January before former President Joe Biden left office, would've banned medical debt on credit reports and prohibited lenders from using a person's medical debt history to make lending decisions. The rule was scheduled to take effect in March, but the two trade groups sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to halt the rule, and Jordan issued a stay, delaying the rule's start date. In late April, the Trump-appointed CFPB leadership opted not to oppose the lawsuit and filed a joint motion with the financial industry groups – the Consumer Data Industry Association and Cornerstone Credit Union League – to ask the judge to vacate the medical debt rule. Jordan, appointed during Trump's first administration, agreed with the trade groups that it was "fair, adequate and reasonable" to vacate the medical debt rule because it exceeded the CFPB's authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Medical debt 'will likely get worse' Patricia Kelmar, senior director of health care campaigns at the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said rule was necessary due to protect consumers from medical debt errors on credit reports. Medical bills accounted for more than half of debt collection on consumers' credit records, according to a 2022 report from the CFPB. "The problem is still here and will likely get worse," Kelmar said. "Medical debt on credit reports is disputed nearly three times as frequently as credit card debt." She said many of the 15 million Americans with medical debt on their credit reports are "penalized with lower credit scores, not because they owe the bill, but because they are still fighting it, or the hospitals reported it wrong." But industry groups cheered the decision. The medical debt rule would've potentially dealt lenders an "inaccurate and incomplete picture when making lending decisions," Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, said in a statement. "Information about unpaid medical debts is an important element in assessing a consumer's ability to pay," Smith said. "This is the right outcome for protecting the integrity of the system." Paid medical debts, unpaid medical debts less than a year old and medical debts less than $500 already have been removed from credit reports by the three largest credit reporting companies. However, with the medical debt rule scrubbed, consumers can still expect larger medical debts to appear on credit reports. The decision comes as the Trump's sweeping tax cut and spending law could jeopardize health insurance coverage for millions of Americans in the coming years. The law would cut about $1 trillion from Medicaid and Affordable Care Act insurance plans, eliminating insurance coverage for 11.8 million people over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Another 5 million could lose health insurance because the law doesn't extend Biden's COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that made ACA plans cheaper for consumers, according to a previous CBO analysis.
