US completes deportation of 8 men to South Sudan after weeks of legal wrangling
The immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan arrived in South Sudan on Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate them in a case that had gone to the Supreme Court, which had permitted their removal from the U.S. Administration officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S.
'This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people,' said Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival in South Sudan, a chaotic country in danger once more of collapsing into civil war.
By Friday evening, that judge had issued a brief ruling concluding the Supreme Court had tied his hands.
The men had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 6, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 6, 2025. WEIJA JIANG: We turn now to Kevin Hassett. He is the director of the National Economic Council and one of President Trump's top advisors. He's also very popular on that driveway where I'm usually alongside about a dozen reporters. So, Kevin, thank you so much for your time this morning. I want to start with trade, because there's a big deadline coming up on Wednesday. As you know, that 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs that the President announced back in April is set to end. So far, the US has announced a few deals; the UK, Vietnam, and you're inching closer to a final agreement with China. Do you expect to get any more deals done with America's biggest trading partners by Wednesday? KEVIN HASSETT: Yeah. First, I do have to take- take a pause and share your thoughts and prayers with the people of Texas. It's an incredible, heartbreaking story, and Kristi Noem and the President have instructed the federal government to throw everything they've got at helping the survivors and helping clean up that place. So, anyway, I'm really heartbroken today to see these stories, and I want you to know that in the White House, everybody is putting every effort they can into helping the people of Texas today. On trade, there's going to be quite a bit of news this week. And, I think, the headline of the news is that there are going to be deals that are finalized. There are a whole number that Jameson Greer has negotiated with foreign governments, and then they're going to be letters that are sent to countries saying, here's how we think it ought to go, because the deals aren't advanced enough. And the headline is going to be that countries are agreeing around the world to open their markets up to our products, and to allow us to put some kind of tariff on their products when they come into the US. At exactly what the numbers will be, will be things that you'll find out in the news this week,. WEIJA JIANG: Kevin, you said there are going to be deals. For those really important trading partners, if there's not a deal by Wednesday, is the President going to extend this pause? KEVIN HASSETT: You know, the United States is always willing to talk to everybody about everything that's going on in the world. And there are deadlines, and there are things that are close, and so maybe things will push back the dead- past the deadline, or maybe they want- in the end, the President's going to make that judgment. WEIJA JIANG: And you also mentioned those letters that will start going out tomorrow, according to President Trump. He said about 10 to 12 countries will receive them. Do you- can you tell us who's going to get one and what they say? KEVIN HASSETT: Because- because, again, the part of the letter that could be happening right is that we're close to a deal, we're not really satisfied with the progress that we're making at the deal, and so we're saying, okay, fine, we're going to send a letter, but maybe you get a deal at the last minute too. Until we see everything that plays out, I think that we need to just hold our fire and watch for the news this week. WEIJA JIANG: Is it fair to say that those notices are going to go to our smaller trading partners, as you negotiate with our bigger ones? KEVIN HASSETT: I think that it could be that it'll be both. But also, don't forget, that when we have great trade deals, our smaller trading partners could become much bigger trading partners. And that's, I think, one of the reasons why countries are racing to set deals up with us ahead of the deadline. WEIJA JIANG: I have to ask you about the deadlines, Kevin, to make these deals, because you just mentioned you're always open. The president said there's not really any flexibility left between now and Wednesday. Less than two weeks ago, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that deals would be wrapped up by Labor Day. So, I wonder, you know, if- how can companies plan if the goal posts keep moving? How can countries negotiate if they don't even know how much time they have left? KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well, the rough outlines of the deals are becoming clear to everybody, because we have some deals like the UK, and the Vietnam deal that are starting to be, you know, I guess, guidelines for what might happen. But, one of the things that we're seeing that's really interesting to me, is that people are just on-shoring production of the US at a record rate. As we've had record job creation, record capital spending, and this is even ahead of the Big, Beautiful Bill. And so, I think what's happening is that people are responding to President Trump's, you know, potential threats to have high tariffs on countries by moving their activity here into the US, which is creating jobs, more than 2 million jobs, since he took office, and raising wages. You know, wage growth is heading up towards the really, really high pinnacles that we saw in 2017. And so, I think there's a race right now to get activity into the US. And, in part, that race has been kicked off by President Trump. WEIJA JIANG: I remember after these reciprocal tariffs were announced, you told me that there were about 15 deals that countries were bringing to the President. How close, if you could give us any number at all, what number are we going to see this week? KEVIN HASSETT: Yeah, you'll have- you'll have to get that from Jameson and the President. I think that, you know, we've seen lots of deals that have been finalized by our negotiators, and then the President finds things that could make them better. And so, it's- I'm not going to get ahead of the President on the number of deals. WEIJA JIANG: Okay, thanks, Kevin. We'll look out for that. I want to move now to the One Big, Beautiful Bill that, of course, the President signed into law on Independence Day. You have it, and now you have to pay for it. And there's a consensus that this bill adds tremendously to the deficit. I know that you are so familiar with these numbers. The Yale Budget Lab estimates it will add $3 trillion to the debt. The Tax Foundation says this tax portion of the bill could also add $3 trillion to the deficit. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which factors in interest on the debt, says it could add up to $5 trillion over the next decade. And on this very program, even Speaker Johnson answered in the affirmative when asked if this bill would add over $4 trillion to the deficit. I know that the administration says the bill will actually shrink the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Help me understand why there is such a drastic difference between your number and all those others. KEVIN HASSETT: Well- well, first of all, let's remember that science is not democracy. Truth is not democracy. Our estimates are based on modeling that we used last time, when I was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to say what would happen if we had a bill, how much growth we would get. And we said, and we were criticized soundly, that we would get 3% growth. And we even had the really technical macroeconomic models that said that we would get 3% growth. We run the same models through this tax bill, it's even better. And what we're seeing is that if you get 3% growth again, then that's $4 trillion more in revenue than the CBO and these other bodies are giving us credit for. They have been wrong in the past, and they're being wrong again, in our belief. But, the thing that disappoints me is that if I put out a model and I say, hey, here's what's going to happen, we're going to get 3% growth. And then it turns out it's 1.5% growth, then, as an academic economist, as a scientist, then it's my duty to say, what did I get wrong? What did my model miss? These people aren't doing that. And that's the thing that I find disappointing, because we put peer-reviewed academic stuff on the table, said we're going to get that 3% growth, and then we got it right last time, and we believe we're going to get it right this time. But, if you think that 1.8% growth is what's going to happen over the next 10 years, then you should agree with the CBO number. But, there's another part of the CBO number that you need to worry about. And that is that if we don't pass the bill, that it's the biggest tax hike in history. And with that big tax hike, that of course, we would have a recession. The CEA says that we'd have about a 4% drop in GDP and lose 9 million jobs. If we had a 4% drop in GDP and we lost 9 million jobs, what would happen to the deficit? And so, I don't think that the CBO has a very strong record. I don't think these places have a very strong record. And what they need to do is get back to the basics of looking at macroeconomic models. There's a really famous macroeconomist at Harvard named Jim Stock. They should go back and read everything Jim Stock has written for the last 15 years, and fold those into their models, and then maybe we could talk. WEIJA JIANG: I want to talk too, Kevin, about another number that I know you and the President disagree with, but that Democrats and many Republicans are worried about, and that's the CBO's projection that as many as 12 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage because of this law. What is the NEC's estimate for how many people could lose coverage? KEVIN HASSETT: Well- well, yeah. Let's- let's unbundle that a little bit. Because, first, on the CBO coverage, so what are we doing? So, what we're doing is we're asking for a work requirement. But, the work requirement is that you need to be looking for work, or even doing volunteer work, and you don't need to do it until your kids are 14 or older. And so, the idea that that's going to cause a massive hemorrhaging in availability of insurance, doesn't make a lot of sense to us. And then, if you look at the CBO numbers, if you look at the big numbers, they say that people are going to lose insurance. About 5 million of those are people who have other insurance. They're people who have two types of insurance. And so, therefore, if they lose one, they're still insured. And so, the CBO numbers on that side don't make any sense to us at all. But, on the other side, go back to 2017 when we had work requirements for Obamacare, they said that we lose about 4 million insured between 2017 and 2019, and about double that over the next 10 years. And, in fact, the number of insured went up. It went up quite a bit, by more than 10 million over those two years, because the bottom line is, the best way to get insurance is to get a job. And we've got a Big, Beautiful Bill that's going to create a lot of job creation and a lot of insurance, and the CBO is just not accounting for that. And again, they need to go back and look at all the things that they got wrong. You realize that they're underestimating Medicaid spending by 20%. They should look back at all the things they got wrong, and explain what they're going to do to get it right in the future, and to do a better job. And if they do that, we'll take them more seriously. But right now, I don't think any serious thinker could take them seriously, because they've done so wrong, and wrong for so long. Even back- if you go back to when President Obama passed Obamacare, they got every single number there wrong about how many people would get private insurance and how few people would get Medicaid, and so on. And so, their record in this modeling space is about as bad as it's possible to be. In fact, you could, kind of, roll the roulette wheel and come up with a better set of numbers, better history, track record than CBO. WEIJA JIANG: Kevin, what about the enhanced subsidies? Is that number wrong too? That the ACA allows about $705 for people to help pay for their health insurance. That doesn't sound like the waste, fraud, and abuse that I know you and the President have talked about eliminating. That just sounds like people who cannot afford coverage, and now it's going to be even more so with the subsidies gone. KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well- well, if you're- if you're looking at the- the change in the tax on the providers, which is something that has been a key talking point for the Democrats, they say that that's going to close down rural hospitals. What has happened is that, rather than let the states- the states have this game where they give a dollar to a hospital and then the federal government matches the dollar, and then the state taxes some of the dollar away. In other words, that we have an agreement with the states that they're going to match, but then they have this they have this trick where they tax the hospitals after they give them the money, so really, it's the federal government giving them the money. And that's why we've been overspending Medicaid by 20% since this trick started happening. And so, what we've done is that we've put a haircut on that. But, we've also put $50 billion into a trust fund to make sure that the rural hospitals are there to treat the sick. So, I think this is a prudent form. It's sound budgetary politics. And I think that nobody's going to lose their insurance. WEIJA JIANG: Kevin Hassett, we will watch for how that ages. Thank you very much. Really appreciate -- KEVIN HASSETT: - And if I get it wrong, we'll check, and we'll talk about why I got it wrong. I promise. WEIJA JIANG: Thank you. We'll have you back. Thank you very much, Kevin.
Time Business News
an hour ago
- Time Business News
Heartbreaking Truths: Ward Sakeik's 140 Days in ICE Detention—A Newlywed's Ordeal and America's Immigration Challenge
Ward Sakeik, a 22-year-old stateless Palestinian woman and newlywed from Texas, has spoken out after enduring 140 days in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention. Her harrowing experience, described as being 'treated like cattle,' has ignited a national debate about the treatment of stateless individuals and the broader realities of the US immigration system. Sakeik's account, delivered at an emotional press conference in Dallas-Fort Worth, has become a flashpoint for human rights advocates, legal experts, and immigrant communities across the United States and India. Ward Sakeik's story has become a rallying point for immigrant rights activists across the United States. Her detailed account of life in ICE detention has sparked protests outside federal buildings and detention centers, with demonstrators demanding better treatment for detainees and urgent reforms to immigration enforcement. Placards bearing her name and story have appeared at rallies, and her case is being cited in petitions to lawmakers calling for the end of prolonged detention for stateless individuals and those with pending legal status. The psychological scars left by Sakeik's detention are evident in her public statements. She has spoken about the constant fear and uncertainty that defined her daily existence, never knowing when she might be transferred, deported, or allowed to speak with her loved ones. The lack of access to basic comforts, such as fresh air, sunlight, and nutritious food, contributed to feelings of isolation and despair. Sakeik has described how even small acts of kindness from fellow detainees or rare moments of communication with her husband became lifelines in an otherwise bleak environment. Legal experts following her case point out that Sakeik's ordeal exposes significant gaps in the U.S. immigration system's handling of stateless persons. Without a country willing to accept her, Sakeik was trapped in a legal limbo, unable to return to her birthplace or move forward with her life in the United States. Advocates argue that her experience demonstrates the urgent need for new legislation that addresses the unique challenges faced by stateless individuals, including clearer guidelines for release and protection from indefinite detention. The broader implications of Sakeik's experience are being debated in legal circles and among policymakers. Some lawmakers have called for congressional hearings to investigate ICE detention practices and to consider reforms that would prevent similar cases in the future. There is growing support for the creation of a pathway to legal residency or citizenship for stateless residents who have lived in the U.S. for many years and have established deep ties to the community. Ward Sakeik's ordeal began in February 2025, shortly after returning from her honeymoon in the US Virgin Islands with her husband, Taahir Shaikh, a US citizen. The couple had deliberately chosen the Virgin Islands, a US territory, to avoid complications with international travel due to Sakeik's pending green card application. Despite these precautions, Sakeik was detained by ICE at Miami International Airport, still wearing her wedding ring and carrying documentation outlining her immigration status. Sakeik, who has lived in the United States since she was eight years old, was immediately separated from her husband and placed in handcuffs. 'I was just coming back from my honeymoon with my husband,' she recalled. 'Instead, I was shackled, handcuffed for 16 hours without food or water, and moved around like cattle.' Her initial shock quickly turned into a months-long ordeal marked by uncertainty, deprivation, and fear. During her 140 days in ICE custody, Sakeik was transferred between at least four detention facilities. She described being repeatedly shackled, forced to wear a gray tracksuit, and transported for hours without basic necessities. 'I was handcuffed for 16 hours without any water or food on the bus,' she said, recalling the physical and emotional toll of her detention. 'I was moved around like cattle. The US government tried to dump me in a part of the world where I had no idea where I was going, what I was doing.' Sakeik also reported being denied access to a phone for days at a time, unable to contact her husband or attorney. 'There were stretches—36 hours, 50 hours—when I was not allowed to call my attorney or my husband,' she recounted. 'ICE thugs told me I could contact my family and lawyer 'when you get to the country or when you get to the transfer or whenever you get wherever you're getting.'' The uncertainty and lack of communication exacerbated her distress, leaving her feeling powerless and alone. Sakeik's statelessness—born in Saudi Arabia but holding no citizenship—complicated her case. Despite living in the US for most of her life and being married to a US citizen, she was subject to a final removal order that had been in place for over a decade. Her family's original asylum request had been denied, but they were not deported due to their stateless status and instead placed under an order of supervision, requiring annual check-ins with immigration authorities. ICE attempted to deport Sakeik on at least two occasions, even as federal court orders barred her removal. The first deportation attempt involved taking her to the Israel border amid regional conflict, and the second came just a day before her eventual release. Both times, Sakeik was given no opportunity to contact her family or legal team. 'These deportations, they just happened all of a sudden—I was not given a phone call,' she said. Her legal team has condemned ICE's actions as unlawful and inhumane. The Department of Homeland Security has denied allegations of mistreatment, insisting that all detainees receive proper meals, medical care, and opportunities to communicate with family and lawyers. 'Ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of individuals in our custody is a top priority at ICE,' said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. 'Any claim that there is a lack of food or subprime conditions at ICE detention centers are false.' However, Sakeik's account has resonated with advocates and the public, many of whom see her experience as emblematic of broader issues within the US immigration system. Human rights organizations have called for independent investigations into ICE detention practices, while legal experts argue that the treatment of stateless individuals like Sakeik exposes fundamental flaws in current policies. The case has also drawn attention in India, where debates about statelessness, refugee rights, and the treatment of immigrants are ongoing. For Sakeik, the psychological impact of her detention has been profound. 'I lost five months of my life because I was criminalized for being stateless, something I have absolutely no control over. I didn't choose to be stateless,' she said. The experience has left her questioning the values she was taught growing up in America. 'The humanity that I was taught in school growing up is not the humanity that I've seen. It was stripped away from me.' Her release, just 48 hours before her press conference, was a moment of overwhelming relief. 'I was overfilled with joy and a little shock,' she said. 'It was my first time seeing a tree in five months.' Sakeik is now focused on rebuilding her life, reuniting with her husband, and advocating for others who remain in detention. Sakeik's husband, Taahir Shaikh, has emerged as a vocal advocate for her and others in similar situations. He has given interviews describing the emotional toll of being separated from his wife and the frustration of navigating a complex and often unresponsive bureaucracy. His efforts to raise awareness have included organizing community meetings, reaching out to elected officials, and collaborating with immigrant support organizations to push for systemic change. The outpouring of support for Sakeik has extended beyond the United States, with international human rights groups and diaspora communities expressing solidarity. In India, where issues of statelessness and refugee rights are also pressing concerns, her story has resonated with activists and policymakers. Debates in Indian media have drawn parallels between Sakeik's ordeal and the experiences of stateless populations in South Asia, highlighting the global nature of the problem. Despite her release, Sakeik continues to face uncertainty regarding her future in the United States. Her legal team is working to secure her permanent residency, but the process is fraught with bureaucratic hurdles and the risk of further detention. Sakeik has expressed determination to use her experience as a platform to advocate for others, vowing to speak out until meaningful change is achieved for all stateless individuals in America. Her case has also prompted discussions about the mental health needs of detainees. Medical professionals and psychologists have called for increased access to counseling and support services for those held in immigration detention, noting the long-term effects of trauma and isolation. Sakeik's willingness to share her story publicly has helped destigmatize the mental health struggles faced by many in detention. Ward Sakeik's 140-day ordeal in ICE detention has become a symbol of the urgent need for immigration reform and greater compassion in the treatment of vulnerable individuals. As her story continues to inspire advocacy and debate, it serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of bureaucratic indifference and the resilience of those who refuse to be silenced by injustice. Author Credits TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs sweeping domestic policy bill at White House ceremony
It was a victorious moment for President Trump, signing his tax and spending bill during a White House July 4th celebration. Democrats are poised to highlight the bill in the upcoming midterm elections given its cuts to social safety net programs but Republicans are touting its tax cuts and funding for Trump's immigration policies. NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell reports.
