‘It felt different': U.S. citizens arriving at MIA report tense encounters with Customs
In April, a social-media travel-content creator was also detained at MIA for hours as officers looked through her social media accounts and asked about her father's immigration status.
And just weeks ago, a Miami intensive-care nurse who travels to and from Cuba often said he was stopped by Customs to have his bags checked — along with everyone else on his flight.
What they all have in common: They're American citizens, and their recent experiences with Customs at South Florida airports have left them perplexed and concerned.
While it's not new or illegal for Customs officers to detain and question U.S. citizens when they re-enter the country, there appears to be a surge in reports of citizens being detained at airports and asked to give officers access to their phones and social media accounts under President Donald Trump's second administration, stoking fears among travelers.
'I think it's because of Trump,' said Jorge López Gutiérrez, the Miami ICU nurse. Gutiérrez, 41, who immigrated from Cuba in 2010, travels to Cuba often to visit his wife. He's been stopped by Customs a couple of times before and quickly let go, he said, but the treatment during his recent returns from Cuba struck him as odd.
After he disembarking a May 7 flight, Gutiérrez said, Customs searched all passengers' bags before allowing them to leave the airport. 'It was white, Black, Latinos, everyone. They don't care if you're a citizen or a non-citizen,' he said. A similar incident happened on May 12. Gutiérrez said other passengers, though not him, on his flight had to turn over their phones and were questioned about cash. they had.
The Trump administration maintains that Customs is just doing its job. American citizens cannot be denied entry into the U.S., but travelers from other countries can be. Customs said in a statement to the Miami Herald that less than 0.01% of travelers have their devices searched and it is not true that it is searching more electronic media due to the new Trump administration.
U.S. citizens who say they may have been targeted or questioned because of their occupations or political views have made national headlines, like Amir Makled, a Michigan-based immigration attorney who represents a pro-Palestinian student protester. Makled was detained at the Detroit Metro Airport and asked to hand over his phone. Hasan Piker, a popular left-wing online streamer, said he was detained for hours at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago as agents asked him about his opinions on Trump, Gaza and other political topics.
'We are acting in the best interest of the country and enforcing the law accordingly,' a CBP spokesperson said in a statement. 'Allegations that political beliefs trigger inspections or removals are baseless and irresponsible,'
'Following the law, not agendas'
Sav, a young woman from Fort Lauderdale, usually posts light-hearted vlogs about her travels on her TikTok account using just her first name. But recently, her videos detailing her tense, hours-long encounter with Customs at MIA went viral.
Sav, who spoke to the Miami New Times in an interview and asked the publication not to publish her full name, landed at MIA on April 26 from a trip in Europe and went through Global Entry. In her original video about the incident, which has over 2 million views on the platform, Sav says officers prevented her from continuing through the airport, searched through her social media accounts and asked for proof of her income and information about her father's immigration status. An officer asked if she had any future travel plans outside of the U.S. When she answered no, he 'screamed in my face a good four times repeating the same exact question,' Sav said on TikTok.
While she doesn't know for sure why she was stopped, Sav told New Times she guessed it may have something to do with her brand Trump For The Dump, which sells anti-Trump merchandise like sweaters and hats. Sav noted that CBP never asked her about the brand. The Herald reached Sav over email but she did not agree to an interview.
On May 12, the Department of Homeland Security responded to a post that shared one of Sav's TikTok videos. 'FALSE: Claims that her political beliefs triggered the inspection are baseless. Our officers are following the law, not agendas,' DHS posted on its X account.
Amien Kacou, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida, said it's likely too early in the current administration to know if there is or will be a significant increase in the number of citizens being detained at re-entry. Regardless, fear among travelers is palpable as stories of detained citizens circulate online.
'Right now, the best explanation that comes to mind as to why this is in the zeitgeist is because some entrants, including immigrants but also citizens, have been targeted seemingly because of their free speech,' Kacou said. 'And so it's very logical that people should be anxious at this time, that they might be targeted for their free speech.'
Global Entry revoked
For some travelers, stories circulating online are cautionary tales about what may happen when returning from overseas. Some U.S. citizens, including lawyers, have started carrying burner phones or deleting social media off their phones when they come home from abroad.
'I feel concerned, as every attorney should be,' Kacou said. 'Especially attorneys who sue the federal government and sue the Department of Homeland Security.'
It's important to remember that travelers can be questioned or detained at any point in the airport, even beyond Customs, said Peter Quinter, a former U.S. Customs attorney and South Florida based lawyer that leads the U.S. Customs and International Trade Law Group at the Gunster law firm in South Florida.
'Even though you pass through Customs, through Global Entry, you're still subject to examination,' Quinter said. Global Entry is a Customs program that allows expedited clearance for pre-approved travelers who are considered low risk.
Jose G., a 37-year-old barber and hairstylist who lives in North Carolina, told the Herald he flew back to the United States from Nicaragua with his brother in January after visiting his mother. Jose, who asked not to have his full last name published out of fear of retaliation from the government, travels often and qualified for Global Entry a few months prior. His arrival at MIA was going smoothly, Jose said, until he got to baggage claim.
Customs officers were 'everywhere, which I've never seen before in my life,' he said. He said he noticed officers stopping random people and asking for their papers. He chuckled to himself and muttered, 'This is ridiculous.' An officer noticed.
As soon as he got his bags, Jose said, officers stopped him and asked for his documents. Jose was under the impression that he wouldn't need to provide identification at baggage claim since he's a U.S. citizen who had cleared customs.
'I'm heavily tattooed, I've got piercings. I stick out like a sore thumb. But on the flip side, I had already gone through the process. Why are you asking me for this stuff if I've already gone through the process?' Jose told the Herald. 'So when they asked me for my stuff, I said, 'I don't need to show you because I already went through Global Entry. I don't feel comfortable showing you. Why do you need my papers?''
Jose and the officers went back and forth for a few minutes. Eventually, the officers told Jose that he was being detained and his Global Entry was revoked. Officers took him to a small room where they started going through his luggage.
After about 30 minutes, Jose was let go. A couple days later, he received an email from Customs confirming his Global Entry had been revoked.
Jose said he is concerned about what may happen the next time he travels to Nicaragua. He said his experience felt less like national security and more like intimidation, especially as 'a brown man with tattoos.'
'I hope no retaliation comes of it, but I think that it's important for people to know and be aware of what's happening,' he said. 'I've traveled internationally so many times. That was different. It felt different.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bessent calls for internal review of Fed but doesn't think Powell needs to step down
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is taking aim at both the Federal Reserve and the rules the Fed enforces as a supervisor of big banks but making it clear he doesn't think Fed chair Jerome Powell needs to step down immediately. Monday he said on X that there should be a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion renovation of its headquarters and a review of its non-monetary policy operations, arguing that 'significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission.' He posted the comments on the same day he spoke at the opening of a Fed conference designed to review the capital framework governing big banks. That conference continues Tuesday. There he made a separate call for 'deeper reforms' of the regulations governing the nation's biggest banks, arguing that 'outdated capital requirements' impose 'unnecessary burdens on financial institutions.' Specifically he suggested that regulators scrap a dual capital structure proposed during the last administration but never enacted, calling it 'flawed.' "We need deeper reforms rooted in a long-term blueprint for innovation, financial stability, and resilient growth," Bessent said in his remarks. But he made it clear in a Fox Business Network interview Tuesday that he doesn't think Powell should step down immediately. His boss President Trump has been calling repeatedly for Powell's resigantion. Bessent is among the candidates being considered to replace Jerome Powell as chair of the central bank once Powell's term expires in 10 months. Trump and other White House officials have been hammering Powell and the Fed over the slow pace of interest rate cuts, with none being made so far in 2025, as well as the costs involved in the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation of its headquarters complex along the National Mall in Washington. Bessent joined that chorus on Monday. 'While I have no knowledge or opinion on the legal basis for the massive building renovations being undertaken on Constitution Avenue, a review of the decision to undertake such a project by an institution reporting operating losses of more than $100 billion per year should be conducted,' Bessent said in his Monday post on X. Trump has considered firing Powell and Bessent urged him no to do so, according to The Wall Street Journal. Powell has said repeatedly that he intends to serve out his term as chair and that his removal is not permitted by law. Bessent in his Monday comments on X did express support for the Fed's independence on the subject of monetary policy, saying that autonomy is 'a jewel box that should be walled off' and that the Fed's independence 'is a cornerstone of continued US economic growth and stability.' But the White House has also made it known that it wants greater control over the Fed's operations outside monetary policy, including the supervision of the nation's biggest banks. Bessent earlier this year said he would be coordinating a broad re-examination of financial regulation, with an eye toward making it easier for banks to lend as a way of boosting the US economy. And he said again Monday that the Treasury would be playing a central role. "The department will break through policy inertia, settle turf battles, drive consensus, and motivate action to ensure no single regulator holds up reform," Bessent said of the Treasury. "We need deeper reforms rooted in a long-term blueprint for innovation, financial stability, and resilient growth." US regulators have already proposed one of the most dramatic rollbacks of bank capital rules since the 2008 financial crisis, saying last month they wanted to alter the so-called enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR). Banks have complained that this ratio penalizes them for holding lower-risk assets such as Treasury bonds. Doing away with it "should simplify bank capital management" and "that will bring down costs and help banks more effectively manage their capital levels," TD Securities analyst Jaret Seiberg said in a Tuesday morning research note. Even with proposed curtailing of this leverage ratio, large banks would still be bound by their risk weighted capital constraints, Seiberg said. "This is not going to produce material capital relief for banks," Seiberg added. More regulatory changes for big banks could still be on the way. Michelle Bowman, the Fed's top banking regulator appointed by Trump, said in a speech last month that revisiting the eSLR requirement is just the start of broader capital rollback considerations. "More work on capital requirements remains, especially to consider how they have evolved and whether changes in market conditions have revealed issues that should be addressed," she said. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coca-Cola to release soda with cane sugar after Trump pushed for it. Is it really better than high fructose corn syrup?
Coke confirmed that it will be changing all its American product to feature cane sugar this fall. Coca-Cola announced on Tuesday that it will release a new version of Coke using cane sugar later this year. 'As part of its ongoing innovation agenda, this fall in the United States, the company plans to launch an offering made with U.S. cane sugar to expand its Trademark Coca-Cola product range,' Coca-Cola said in a press release announcing its second quarter earnings. 'This addition is designed to complement the company's strong core portfolio and offer more choices across occasions and preferences.' The announcement came days after President Trump said in a social media post that the company had agreed with him to do so. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post last week. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' Other countries, such as Mexico, already use cane sugar in their version of the soda — but the American version of Coke uses high fructose corn syrup, a different type of sweetener that has the same amount of calories. Many people prefer the so-called Mexican Coke, which, while less common, is also available for purchase in stores and restaurants around the United States. What is real cane sugar? Why aren't we using it? First, let's explain what 'real cane sugar' means. Cane sugar comes from sugarcane plants and is a natural sugar. High fructose corn syrup, on the other hand, is made from corn. Chemically, the two are slightly different: Cane sugar is made of glucose and fructose bonded together, while high fructose corn syrup has free glucose and fructose mixed separately. Cane sugar fell out of favor for use in food manufacturing about 40 years ago, when then-President Ronald Reagan put a limit on sugar imports, raising the price of domestic sugar. Enter high fructose corn syrup, which was cheaper to produce on U.S. soil. Now high fructose corn syrup is in so many foods for sale in the United States, from Coke to packaged baked goods to some pasta sauces. Even some brands of cottage cheese contain high fructose corn syrup. (And it's important to note that high fructose corn syrup is not the same as the sweet, sticky corn syrup you can find at the grocery store — it's made available only by food manufacturers.) High fructose corn syrup and cane sugar (chemical name: sucrose) may taste very similar, but they are absorbed differently by the body. When you eat sucrose, your digestive system breaks it down into glucose and fructose before they're absorbed into your bloodstream. High fructose corn syrup already contains free glucose and fructose, so your body absorbs them directly without needing to break them apart first. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's secretary of Health and Human Services, has been a vocal critic of high fructose corn syrup. He called it 'a formula for making you obese and diabetic' in a promotional video during his own failed presidential run in 2024. However, this position has placed him at odds with corn farmers, according to the New York Times — many of whom supported Trump in the 2024 election. The Corn Refiners Association warned that removing high fructose corn syrup from U.S. foods could lower corn prices by up to 34 cents a bushel and cost farmers $5.1 billion in revenue, leading to job losses and economic harm in rural communities. But RFK Jr. is far from the first person to demonize high fructose corn syrup, and studies have been done to assess its true risks. Is high fructose corn syrup really worse than cane sugar? Both high fructose corn syrup and cane sugar come with health risks, especially when consumed in excess over time. They can raise blood sugar and contribute to weight gain and inflammation, leading to chronic issues like heart disease and diabetes. Sweetened soda is especially concerning from a health standpoint: A 2025 study found that drinking sugary beverages was linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, more so than consuming sugar within food. High fructose corn syrup, however, may be worse for you than cane sugar — at least, in theory. Because fructose is mainly processed by the liver, ingesting a lot of high fructose corn syrup can put extra stress on the organ, which may lead to the risk of liver problems and other health issues over time. A 2022 study also found that higher high fructose corn syrup intake in young adults led to more fat buildup in the liver and worse insulin sensitivity, both of which increase the risk of liver disease and type 2 diabetes. However, it did not compare high fructose corn syrup with sucrose, so it's unclear if sucrose would have also had the same effect. A 2022 study found that both high fructose corn syrup and sucrose had the same effects on weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar but that high fructose corn syrup caused a small increase in C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation. This could increase the risk of chronic inflammation over time, which may lead to conditions like heart disease, diabetes and other metabolic disorders. More research is needed to know if that difference really matters for long-term health. Some animal studies have raised public concern over high fructose corn syrup, such as a 2024 study that linked high fructose corn syrup to tumor growth and cancer cell acceleration. And a 2010 study from Princeton found that rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained more weight than those with access to table sugar even with diets of equal calories. But, again, these studies were not done in humans, so it's unclear what impacts they would have on our bodies. The bottom line More research must be done to assess the true harms of high fructose corn syrup versus cane sugar. What is clear: Diets high in sugar, in general, come with health concerns. Changing Coke's formula, should the company choose to do so, may or may not make a major impact on one's health — but drinking less of the sweet stuff could do your body a service. Solve the daily Crossword


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Graduate wage data can help restore public trust in higher education
President Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget reconciliation bill is now law, marking a watershed moment for higher education policy and renewing the debate about how to evaluate the return on investment of a college degree. College presidents, myself included, are accustomed to communicating the many benefits of their institutions, Yet it is also true that our sector has often resisted measuring and improving the financial returns of a college degree. Under the new policy framework adopted by Congress, it will no longer be possible for leaders to snub such disclosures. Despite the discomfort it will cause, I am hopeful that this policy transition will restore the public's trust in higher education through methods like those that Colorado Mountain College — the institution I lead — has employed for more than 10 years. Methods to measure the return on investment of a college degree have existed for decades. Nearly 40 years ago, my mentor Larry Leslie published the book 'The Economic Value of Higher Education.' When I studied under him a decade later, calculating social and economic returns was routine and not particularly controversial, as student debt was relatively low and most college degrees provided noteworthy positive results (they still do). More recently, the costs of college and average debt loads have grown dramatically, as has the pressure to demonstrate results. Despite these shifts, the active use of labor market data among higher education practitioners remains uncommon. Michael Itzkowitz, former director of the College Scorecard, describes higher education leaders as going through the 'five stages of grief' when confronted with the economic outcomes of their former students. Through my experience working in state government and now, as the president of a public institution, I have witnessed this firsthand. I distinctly recall being on the receiving end of one college executive dismissing a report my team and I prepared as 'lies.' Another prominent researcher called our findings 'deeply harmful,' arguing such data might discourage students from pursuing public-service degrees with lower financial returns. Labor market data is not deceitful. It is silent on the quality of academic programs, but it can reveal an uncomfortable reality: Students often end up with vastly different outcomes depending on their field of study and the type of credential they pursue. My home state of Colorado was one of the first to match the records of college graduates with post-graduation wages. This data-driven approach has informed educational policy for years, but it is seldom used at the institutional level. At our college, access to good-paying jobs isn't a luxury — it's essential. Our 11 campuses serve high-cost, rural-resort communities where many students work multiple jobs just to afford basic living expenses. For them, college is a pathway to financial stability and family security. Our students must weigh daily the varying opportunity costs of attending class or picking up an additional shift at work. Nearly a decade ago, we embraced this reality and began using 'labor market-aware' practices. We incorporated initiatives to better align our certificates and degrees to match critical local economic realities. From dental hygienists and nurses to first responders and specialists in addiction treatment, the school invests in programs that allow graduates to achieve economic stability. We don't create new programs unless they enable graduates to earn good jobs in our communities. The 'big, beautiful' law will, among many other things, tie federal funding to labor market outcomes at degree programs across the U.S. This new political reality may be disorienting to some schools, but given the rising costs of college, the ease with which students can accumulate significant debt and families' resulting worries about college affordability, it should surprise no one. Fortunately, labor market data is increasingly available, as higher education organizations, federal agencies and state governments have been analyzing, publishing and disseminating it for years. For the most part, the foundation is built, we just need to use it. Some national organizations provide accessible data on post-graduate earnings, identifying which institutions and programs produce strong outcomes and drive upward mobility — and which do not. Their work with states is helping scale these insights, filling a crucial gap in public understanding. The American Council on Education and the Carnegie Foundation also recently unveiled a new classification system that introduces labor market outcomes, giving policymakers and institutional leaders a new lens on social economic mobility, which should be a central goal of every college. As an educational economist and college leader, I embrace statistics — even those figures that make presidents a little queasy — and am accountable for demonstrating positive outcomes for all interested parties. Without question, wages aren't the only outcomes worth evaluating, but I believe that the active use of labor market data will create transparency that will go a long way toward restoring the public's trust in our institutions. I have questions about whether the Department of Education has sufficient capacity to manage program-level accountability. But I know that college presidents love their institutions and will do what is needed to deliver positive outcomes for their graduates. This moment is an opportunity for us to lead, to play offense and stop playing defense — and to reclaim higher education's status as America's preeminent investment opportunity for enabling economic growth and mobility. Matt Gianneschi is president of Colorado Mountain College, a local district Hispanic-Serving Institution with 11 campuses across the state.