Democrat accuses Trump of unleashing ‘campaign of terror' on illegals as LA riots rage
DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is a U.S. immigration policy that defers deportation for eligible immigrants who arrived in the country as children.
Speaking just outside the Capitol building Wednesday, Ramirez accused Trump, border czar Tom Homan, Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller and the entire administration of targeting anyone they consider "undesirable." She also pushed a conspiracy theory that the president will target U.S. citizens the same way he has deported criminal migrants.
"Trump, Homan, Miller and this whole regime has waged a campaign of terror against our neighbors, against our families, our loved ones, as they advance their fascist agenda and try to cast immigrants as a public enemy," Ramirez said.
"Let us say it, and I'm going to say it unapologetically," she added. "We don't need bans, We don't need walls. We don't need raids. We don't need kidnappings. We don't need masked agents terrorizing our communities. We don't need military attacking our neighbors. We have to demand an end to the terror tactics."
Los Angeles has been rocked by fiery riots and clashes with police and federal authorities since Friday. The rioting began Friday in response to immigration enforcement operations by ICE throughout the city.
In response, Trump deployed federalized National Guard troops and several hundred Marines to assist in restoring order.
This move has been heavily criticized by Democrats, who have accused Trump of intentionally provoking rioters.
"The unlawful actions used against immigrants today will be used tomorrow on anyone who this regime deems undesirable because fascism always demands a public enemy," Ramirez claimed. "It is why we must stand with DACA recipients, and we must also stand with their parents.
"We must also stand with their uncles and their sisters and their tias and our small businesses and our teachers and our LGBTQ and every single person this regime is attacking."
Despite Ramirez's characterization of the Trump administration targeting innocent "tias," federal immigration authorities have detailed criminal charges against the illegals arrested by ICE.
This week, ICE published information on charges against illegals arrested in Los Angeles during the ongoing riots. On Wednesday, ICE said it had arrested Jesus Romero-Retana, a Mexican national who the agency said had been convicted of battery and threatening with intent to terrorize.
ICE also said it arrested a Cambodian illegal named Mab Khleb in Los Angeles Tuesday. The agency said he had been sentenced for lewd acts with a child, battery and multiple drug offenses. ICE said it arrested the criminal illegal "despite the best efforts of anti-ICE protestors in the city."
A source familiar with the operations shared with Fox News Digital a listing of some of the arrests made by ICE in the last week.
These arrests included a Salvadoran national arrested in Los Angeles for sodomy of a child, a Mexican national arrested in Chicago for criminal sexual assault of a child, a Mexican national arrested in Houston for indecent sexual contact with a child, a Honduran national arrested in El Paso for possession of child pornography and a Laotian national arrested for murder and attempted murder.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Hitting Trump With Major $6.8 Billion Lawsuit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Nearly half of the country's states and the District of Columbia (DC) sued the Trump administration on Monday for $6.8 billion over education funding being withheld. The coalition of 24 states and DC launched the suit against President Donald Trump, Linda McMahon in her capacity as secretary of education, the Education Department, Russ Vought as the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the OMB. The suit alleges that the Trump administration has "unlawfully frozen over $6 billion in education funding for K-12 schools and adult education." The states say the freeze is unlawful because the funds were appropriated by Congress to be given to the states on July 1 and are currently being withheld by the president for a "review." The Education Department and OMB have been contacted via email for comment. Why It Matters The states suing the Trump administration allege these funds are vital for several key educational programs and needs, including those for people learning English, technology in the classroom lessons, and extracurricular programs. The plaintiffs have said that withholding these funds "will irreparably harm the Plaintiff States, their schools, and the students and families they serve." This is one of several suits faced by the White House over withholding congressionally approved funds. What To Know Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Senate Appropriations hearing, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Education Secretary Linda McMahon speaks during a Senate Appropriations hearing, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File/AP Photo The suit alleges that the Trump administration is withholding these funds "without any statutory or constitutional authority," as Congress has already earmarked this money and the White House has no legal right to prevent congressional funds from being used. The plaintiffs said they are eligible for the funding due to compliance with the conditions set out by the Education Department, and have submitted state plans which were approved by the Education Department. They have been receiving these funds for decades without incident until this year. According to the plaintiffs, they received the following letter from the Education Department on June 30, the day before they were set to receive their funds: "Given the change in Administrations, the Department is reviewing the FY 2025 funding for the [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] grant program(s), and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year. Accordingly, the Department will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review. The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President's priorities and the Department's statutory responsibilities." This suit was launched by attorneys general from 22 states with the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, all Democrats. It comes as the Supreme Court ruled Trump can lay off nearly 1,400 workers from the Education Department, overruling a previous judge's ruling to reinstate the workers. Discussing that suit, Secretary McMahon said: "The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education. We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most—to students, parents, and teachers." The Department of Education has not released a statement yet on this lawsuit. What People Are Saying Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in a press release: "The President does not have the authority to decline spending funds appropriated by Congress, and as long as this Administration continues to violate our laws, I will continue to hold him accountable." Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul in a press release: "With the start of the school year only a month away for many Illinois students, the Trump administration's illegal funding freeze is wreaking havoc on school budgets, suspending programs and causing stress and anxiety for families who depend on them." Education Secretary Linda McMahon on the Supreme Court's ruling in a press release: "Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies." What Happens Next The states are suing for injunctive relief, meaning they want the freeze to end and the funds allocated to them away of the upcoming academic year. This case, like many others against the Trump administration, will likely find itself in court.
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump's New Russia Policy Is A Turning Point But Will It Be Enough?
Trump announced a new policy towards Russia and supporting Ukraine on July 14th, 2025.(Photo by Anna ...) On July 14, in an announcement that caught both allies and critics off guard, former President Donald J. Trump issued his strongest rebuke yet of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine. Trump's new Russia policy gave a 50-day deadline to the Russian leader: start peace negotiations or face a 100% tariff on all Russian exports, along with sanctions on third-party nations that continue to buy Russian oil. He also announced the sale of Patriot missile systems to NATO allies—though not directly to Ukraine—and restated his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, sending troops, or invoking the Budapest Memorandum. Although these steps don't amount to a full strategic shift, they mark an important change: for the first time, Trump seems to recognize the threat posed by Putin not only to Europe but to global peace—and eventually, to American leadership. A Tentative Step in the Right Direction. This new stance warrants recognition. It embodies a growing realism that Moscow's aggression in Ukraine cannot be ignored, minimized, or postponed. But if this truly marks the start of a renewed American approach to international order, it will require more than tariffs and arms sales. It will need moral clarity, sustained commitment, and global leadership. (In the spirit of full disclosure, the writer is a past President of the Canada Ukraine Foundation and a senior advisor to the Centre for Eastern European Democracy in Toronto). There are compelling reasons why helping Ukraine is not only consistent with American interests—it is essential to preserving them. While Trump's new measures are a step forward, they also expose the limits of his policy: These omissions create critical gaps. A containment strategy that delays decisive support risks prolonging the war and emboldening other autocratic regimes. A Time to Lead, Not Hesitate President Trump's New Tone on Ukraine Is Appreciated, but It Cannot Mark the End of the Discussion. The stakes are too high. China is observing. Iran is too. America's allies are watching as well. Ukraine has earned our support not just through shared ideals but through action, sacrifice, and resilience. The cost of peace must not lead to abandoning those who have stood with us. America's legacy is built on resolve, not retreat. If we are to remain leaders of the free world, let this Trump's new Russia policy be the start of a broader strategy —one that balances strength and stands firm when freedom itself is at stake.
Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Capital One, Walmart: A look at some of the consumer cases dropped by the CFPB under Trump
NEW YORK (AP) — In the nearly six months since the Trump administration has had control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the bureau's leadership has focused almost exclusively on rolling back any punishments, fines and penalties made against companies during the Biden administration. In some cases, companies that were supposed to refund their customers or pay a penalty for unfair or deceptive practices are no longer bound to make their customers whole. Other companies facing charges of fraud of deceptive practices saw their lawsuits dropped in the early days of the Trump administration. Here are some of the Trump administration's rollbacks: Navy Federal Credit Union The CFPB accused Navy Federal Credit Union, the nation's largest credit union, of having unfair and deceptive overdraft fee practices. NFCU settled with the bureau and agreed to refund its members $80 million in overdraft fees. However, when the new administration took over, NFCU asked to have the order dismissed, which the CFPB agreed to do without giving a reason. Navy Federal has not said whether it would refund their members, which are mostly service men and women, families and veterans. Reduced overdraft fees The CFPB proposed new regulations that would have reduced overdraft fees to $5 from their industry average of $27. The regulations focused on a bureau analysis on what it actually cost banks to make short-term loans to customers to cover those purchases when a customer's account went negative. The banking industry stood to lose billions of dollars in overdraft revenue, although banks have been weening themselves off overdraft fee revenue for years. The regulations were overturned by the Republican-controlled Congress in April. Capital One In the last days of the Biden administration, the CFPB sued banking giant Capital One for allegedly cheating its customers out of $2 billion in interest payments on their savings accounts. The case involved a product that Capital One sold known as 360 Savings, which the bank advertised as having the best savings rate in the country. Capital One failed to tell some customers that it had another product with a higher savings rate. The case was dropped within days of the Trump administration taking over the bureau. WalMart The CFPB filed a lawsuit in December against WalMart and workforce company Branch Messenger, accusing the companies of deceptively steering delivery drivers to open accounts with Branch, in order for those employees to get instant access to their wages. However, the CFPB said these Branch accounts came with high fees and deceptive marketing, and said Wal-Mart and Branch should return $10 million to harmed drivers. Both Wal-Mart and Branch denied the accusations. The lawsuit was dropped by the CFPB in the first weeks of the Trump administration. Zelle The parent company of Zelle, the peer-to-peer payment system, as well as some of the nation's largest banks, were sued by the CFPB late last year over accusations they failed to protect hundreds of thousands of consumers from rampant fraud on Zelle, in violation of consumer financial laws. The CFPB's lawsuit claimed hundreds of thousands of customers lost approximately $870 million in funds to fraud over the seven years that Zelle had been in existence. That lawsuit was dropped by the CFPB in March.
