'Bear Alcatraz' floated as migrant center near alligators opens for Trump
Alaska responded to a Trump administration official's call for migrant detention centers similar to the newly opened one in the middle of the Florida Everglades to be built.
'Every governor of a red state, if you are watching tonight: Pick up the phone, call (the Department of Homeland Security), work with us to build facilities in your state so we can get the illegals and criminals out,' White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle earlier this week.
Alaska replied: 'We don't have alligators, but we have lots of bears.'
The unidentified spokesperson also said: 'I am not aware of any plans for an Alaska version of Alligator Alcatraz.'
It comes as President Donald Trump on Tuesday toured the 'Alligator Alcatraz' facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in Ochopee which can already house at least 3,000 migrants.
Florida officials noted that the center is surrounded by dangerous animals including alligators and pythons, as well as mosquitos, giving potential escapees a treacherous path ahead.
Trump praised the facility, which was first offered by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, and said the Sunshine State would be getting another a second one like it 'and probably a couple more'.
He said he wanted to see more such facilities in 'many states'.
'The incredible thing is picking the site because the site was one of the most natural sites. It might be as good as the real Alcatraz,' Trump said, referring to the infamous former maximum security prison at Alcatraz Island in California. More Trending
'Well, that's a spooky one too. That's a tough site. So I really think it could last as long as they want to have.'
The first group of migrants arrived at Alligator Alcatraz on Thursday.
'People are there,' said Uthmeier's Press Secretary Jae Williams, providing little other detail.
Alaska, nicknamed The Last Frontier, is home to roughy 100,000 black bears, 30,000 brown bears and 7,000 polar bears, according to its government.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Six dead and summer camp children missing as 'catastrophic' river floods sweep Texas
MORE: Frightening text message that caused plane to divert mid-flight
MORE: Truth behind Amelia Earhart's missing plane may have been solved after 88-year mystery
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk's 'America Party' stalled by FEC gridlock
Elon Musk could be facing a major challenge as he works to launch his new 'America Party'. The former 'First Buddy' announced the foundation of the new party on his X social media platform on Saturday. However, there currently exists a bureaucratic obstacle to Musk getting the new movement off the ground: the Federal Elections Commission. The FEC states that 'new party organizations must register with the FEC when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election .' So far, it appears no such registration has been made by Musk, as The New York Times reported the Tesla CEO's game plan to this point has been 'more conceptual than pragmatic.' Even if he had, however, there may be no potential approval coming from the FEC in the near future by design. The agency is meant to be run by six commissioners, appointed by the sitting president. Right now, there are three empty seats on the FEC, not enough to form what's known as a quorum necessary for governing. Three commissioners have stepped down since the president began his second term in January, leaving it essentially defunct until Trump makes those appointments. Trump has yet to name any potential nominees and the White House has yet to address Musk's intention to form a new party. has approached the White House for comment. Democrat Ann Ravel, who served on the FEC from 2013 to 2017, believes Trump may already want to leave it in shutdown mode for his own motivations. 'Clearly, there is no doubt that President Trump wants to purposely leave the FEC without a quorum,' she claimed to Open Secrets. The America Party's founding came after Musk created an online poll on July 4 asking his followers whether to establish the new party . The results came back 65.4 percent in favor, leading Musk to make the announcement. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk wrote. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Musk had been elevated to a prestigious role within the White House acting as a special advisor to the president and overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency . But in recent months a rift has emerged and the two former friends have been embroiled in embarrassing public spats played out over social media. Many had predicted that Trump and Musk's rosy bromance wouldn't last long and some pointed to betting markets on when they would turn on each other . Betters heavily favored a fallout before July 1, 2025, less than six months after Musk joined Trump's administration as a special advisor. In just a matter of months Musk went from spending $288 million for Trump's election campaign , to slinging insults about him online. The bust up occurred after Musk stepped down from DOGE over Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' which ends tax breaks for electric vehicles, which are Tesla CEO Musk's passion project . Musk also argued that the bill undercut DOGE's cost-cutting efforts by increasing the deficit. The rift deepened after the president rescinded his nomination offer to Musk-ally Jared Isaacman for NASA administrator over donations he made to the Democrats . Since then Trump and Musk have engaged in public mudslinging against each other. Musk accused the president of ingratitude and claimed he would have lost the election without him, while Trump branded him 'crazy '. Since their public break-up, Musk has threatened to start a new, third political party and buttress the reelection campaign of Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the no votes on Trump's big bill . Trump recently outed himself as the person who leaked details about Musk's alleged drug use, according to author Michael Wolff, who penned the eye-popping book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House . The New York Times reported that during the 2024 presidential campaign, the billionaire used so much ketamine he was having bladder problems and also used Ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and what appeared to be Adderall. Musk has denied The Times' reporting and released a drug test online since.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?
The United Nations and its agencies have long struggled with funding shortfalls. Now an entrenched problem is becoming an acute crisis in the shadow of Donald Trump's executioner's axe. The US is the biggest contributor, at 22%, to the UN's core budget. In February, the White House announced a six-month review of US membership of all international organisations, conventions and treaties, including the UN, with a view to reducing or ending funding – and possible withdrawal. The deadline for decapitation falls next month. Trump's abolition of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and scrapping of most aid programmes, has already badly damaged UN-led and UN-backed humanitarian operations, which rely on discretionary funding. Yet Trump's axe symbolises a more fundamental threat – to multilateralism and the much-battered international rules-based order. The basic concept of collective responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, and collaboration in tackling shared problems – embodied by the UN since its creation 80 years ago last week – is on the chopping block. The stakes are high – and Washington is not the only villain. Like the US, about 40 countries are behind in paying obligatory yearly dues. Discretionary donations are declining. The UN charter, a statement of founding principles, has been critically undermined by failure to halt Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine (and by last month's US-Israeli attack on Iran). China and others, including the UK, ignore international law when it suits. The number and longevity of conflicts worldwide is rising; UN envoys are sidelined; UN peacekeeping missions are disparaged. The security council is often paralysed by vetoes; the general assembly is largely powerless. By many measures, the UN isn't working. A crunch looms. If the UN is allowed to fail or is so diminished that its agencies cannot fully function, there is nothing to take its place. Nothing, that is, except the law of the jungle, as seen in Gaza and other conflict zones where UN agencies are excluded, aid workers murdered and legal norms flouted. The UN system has many failings, some self-inflicted. But a world without the UN would, for most people in most places, be more dangerous, hungrier, poorer, unhealthier and less sustainable. The US is not expected to withdraw from the UN altogether (although nothing is impossible with this isolationist, ultra-nationalist president). But Trump's hostile intent is evident. His 2026 budget proposal seeks a 83.7% cut – from $58.7bn to $9.6bn – in all US international spending. That includes an 87% reduction in UN funding, both obligatory and discretionary. 'In 2023, total US spending on the UN amounted to about $13bn. This is equivalent to only 1.6% of the Pentagon's budget that year ($816bn) – or about two-thirds of what Americans spend on ice-cream annually,' Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted. Economic development aid, disaster relief and family planning programmes would be gutted. The impact is potentially world-changing. Key UN agencies in the firing line include the children's fund, Unicef – at a time when the risks facing infants and children are daunting; the World Food Programme (WFP), which could lose 30% of its staff; agencies handling refugees and migration, which are also shrinking; the International court of justice (the 'world court'), which has shone a light on Israel's illegal actions in Gaza; and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's and others' nuclear activities. Trump is already boycotting the World Health Organization, the Palestinian relief agency (Unrwa) and the UN Human Rights Council, and has rescinded $4bn allocated to the UN climate fund, claiming that all act contrary to US interests. If his budget is adopted this autumn, the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals may prove unattainable. US financial backing for international peacekeeping and observer missions in trouble spots such as Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, currently 26% of total spending, will plunge to zero. The withdrawal of USAID support is already proving lethal, everywhere from Somalia and Sudan to Bangladesh and Haiti. UN officials describe the situation in post-earthquake, conflict-riven, aid-deprived Myanamar as a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. Research published in the Lancet found that Trump's cuts could cause more than 14m additional deaths by 2030, a third of them children. The WFP, the world's largest food aid supplier, says its projected $8.1bn funding deficit this year comes as acute hunger affects a record 343 million people in 74 countries. And other donor states are failing to fill the gap left by the US. So far in 2025, only 11% of the $46.2bn required for 44 UN-prioritised crises has been raised. The UK recently slashed its aid budget by £6bn, to pay for nuclear bombs. UN chiefs acknowledge that many problems pre-date Trump. António Guterres, the secretary general, has initiated thousands of job cuts as part of the 'UN80' reform plan to consolidate operations and reduce the core budget by up to 20%. But, marking the anniversary, Guterres said the gravest challenge is the destructive attitude of member states that sabotage multilateral cooperation, break the rules, fail to pay their share and forget why the UN was founded in the first place. 'The charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an à la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations,' he said. Guterres says the UN's greatest achievement since 1945 is preventing a third world war. Yet respected analysts such as Fiona Hill believe it's already begun. The UK and other democracies face some pressing questions. Will they meekly give in to Trump once again? Or will they fight to stop this renegade president and rogue states such as Russia and Israel dismantling the world's best defence against global anarchy, forever wars and needless suffering? Will they fight to save the UN? Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Can Israel and Hamas co-exist? Trump's ceasefire depends on it
After months of grim bloodshed there seems to be some movement. On Friday night, Hamas said it was 'seriously ready' to discuss a ceasefire. Whether it is ready to resolve the conflict by trading all remaining hostages in return for a lasting peace and thousands of prisoners remains unclear. President Trump, always quick with an upbeat take on international negotiations, said: 'There could be a Gaza deal next week.' He will meet Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, on Monday and has said he will be 'very firm' about the need to end the conflict. As this chatter went on, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) had already mounted days of heavy strikes, probably an attempt to force Hamas over the line. And indeed, it was only late last week that the Palestinian Islamist group signalled it was open to discussions, apparently overcoming a deep-seated scepticism after the collapse of two previous ceasefires. 'Although Hamas has been severely degraded and much of its leadership eliminated,' says Hasan Alhasan, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, 'it's difficult to see how Israel can apply any more pressure to the group.' Israel 's military response to the attack of October 7, 2023 — destroying the Hamas-led paramilitary organisation that had carried out the massacre — was effectively complete by early last summer. It probably accounted for the death or capture of most of the 25,000 militants serving at the start of war. Yet its success — achieved at the cost of thousands of civilian deaths — was temporary. Unable to end the conflict without collapsing Israel's governing coalition, Netanyahu cut troop levels and Hamas began to regenerate. By the time of the second ceasefire, intelligence assessments put the group's strength back at 15,000 to 20,000. Meanwhile, Israel had eliminated its senior leadership, including three men cited by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes: Yahya Sinwar, Hamas's overall leader in Gaza; Mohammed Deif, its military commander; and Ismail Haniyeh, its exiled political leader, assassinated in Tehran by Mossad. MOHAMMED SALEM/REUTERS When the January cessation began, the group attempted to deal with tensions within the Palestinian community by a combination of propaganda — stage-managed hostage releases — and coercion. Beatings increased, as did executions of those rebelling against Hamas's rule and blaming the group for dragging the people of Gaza into a disastrous war. Israel's answer to the question of how to put Hamas under additional pressure involved launching a huge military operation in mid-May to reoccupy most of the Gaza Strip and further squeeze relief operations. Israeli politicians generally deny using aid as a weapon, since it takes them into legally fraught territory. However, security officials have privately expressed their aim as being to free the Israeli hostages and bring about the eviction of the Palestinian militant leadership by ratcheting up pressure on ordinary citizens. Their have some anti-Hamas protests by Palestinians, including in Beit Lahiya in March REUTERS HAITHAM IMAD/EPA Given Gaza is hardly a democracy, and Hamas relies in part on coercion to exercise control, this strategy has clear limitations. But the Israeli argument is that it produced the two previous ceasefires that freed the great majority of its citizens being held in the strip. Now, Israel says, harsh measures have brought Gaza's rulers to the table again. Hamas 'is certainly weaker', says Colonel Eran Lerner, a military intelligence veteran now at the Jerusalem Institute for Security and Strategy, citing the reoccupation of large parts of Gaza and shattering of the command structure. But, he concedes, 'still they are persistent enough to be able to impose their authority on the people of Gaza, and the holding of the hostages gives them great leverage'. With new talks in prospect, what happened in March, when Israel abandoned the previous phased deal and resumed operations, stands as a significant obstacle. Thus, the Trump team's talk of a 60-day truce, during which a further ten hostages (out of an estimated two dozen still alive) would be released, appears to the Palestinian leadership to be an invitation to repeat exactly what happened at the start of this year. So, the Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nunu insisted last week that the movement was 'ready to accept any initiative that clearly leads to the complete end to the war'. For Hamas, there has always been an understanding that its survival is linked to the terms on which it surrenders the final hostages. And, while negotiations have explored such subjects as getting the top tier of the leadership to leave Gaza, or forming a broad-based administration to run the enclave, the group has tried to do everything possible to keep its cadres intact for the day after this war. The judgment now of whether satisfactory terms can be achieved will rest mainly with Izz al-Din al-Haddad, Hamas's surviving leader in Gaza. Also known as Abu Suhaib or the 'Ghost of Qassam', Haddad is a man whose rise up the chain of command has involved successive steps into dead men's shoes. Thus in 2021 he succeeded the assassinated commander of the Gaza City brigade, in November 2023 took charge of the northern part of the strip, when another leader was slain, and in May this year of the whole organisation, after an airstrike killed Mohammed Sinwar, who had himself stepped into his brother Yahya's place. Attempts this year to kill Haddad, a senior commander on October 7, took the lives of two of his sons. Mohammed Sinwar Haddad's home patch, in the north of the strip, was long regarded by the Israelis as Hamas's main stronghold. Consequently, the north, and Gaza City, have been subjected to the most intense military action of the past 20 months. Much of the population is now dispersed in the tented camps of the Al-Mawasi humanitarian zone on the coast. Haddad owes his position to good fortune — or divine providence, as his supporters might see it — and his ability to maintain a grip on the remaining Israeli hostages. Released captives speak of the close personal interest Haddad took in them, with visits where he spoke to them in Hebrew. He will not want to surrender this card unless he is confident his movement will survive. So the word is that Trump's people are trying to convince Hamas that the 60-day ceasefire will work this time as the opening phase of a comprehensive deal that ends the bloodshed. For their part, the Israelis acknowledge they cannot eradicate support for the Islamist movement, which, as Lerner puts it, may carry on, 'as long as [Hamas] are disarmed as a fighting organisation, and no longer in power'. This is not simply an Israeli demand. 'Hamas's crackdown on dissent is intensifying,' Moumen al-Natour, a Palestinian dissident and co-founder of the We Want to Live movement, wrote last week in the The Jewish Chronicle. 'As soon as the ceasefire is announced, Hamas militants will rise from their tunnels, hungry for revenge.' Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, bitterly opposed to the movement and its Muslim Brotherhood allies elsewhere in the region, also favour removing Hamas from power. But the issue is whether the group's political survival also allows it to retain a coercive hold. Qatar, having given a home to the Hamas leadership for years, has hitherto sought to ensure the movement's survival. Majed al-Ansari, Qatar's foreign affairs spokesman, effectively echoed the Palestinian movement's demands when he said late last month: 'We are trying to find that sustainable process that would bring us to lasting peace in the region.' But since the Iran-Israel war, Qatar's position may have shifted, Alhasan believes 'the key Arab states are mostly aligned on the need to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and put Israel off its current war footing in the hope of lowering tensions across the region'. So there may be a window of opportunity to halt the Gaza conflict. But the questions of who would dominate any post-conflict broad-based authority in Gaza, and who would provide its security muscle, remain vexed, to say the least. The killing in recent weeks of hundreds of people at aid points set up by the Israelis to break the militants' hold over food supplies serves as a grim portent. As desperate Gazans have rushed in, security contractors hired to protect the sites, Israeli troops, Palestinian tribal gangs and Hamas itself have all ended up with blood on their hands. Gazans mourn relatives killed while waiting for humanitarian aid KHAMES ALREFI/ANADOLU/GETTY IMAGES Some believe a lawless, divided enclave where the IDF can operate at will is precisely what Netanyahu wants. But for those who will be asked to invest in rebuilding the place, from the Gulf states to Europe, that will hardly be acceptable. They will want security, though until now have proved reluctant to commit forces to guarantee that future stability. • All of these challenges await the would-be peacemakers — and that is before we even look at the business of whether the currently constituted Israeli coalition could agree to a long-term peace deal, or whether Netanyahu will have to call an election to form such an administration. Given the disappointments of previous attempts, it's best not to get ahead of ourselves. The questions for next week will centre on whether the combination of bitter hardships in Gaza and White House guarantees are enough to convince Hamas to deliver. If it does, both the US and Israel will have to ask themselves just how much of a Hamas presence they can live with in the enclave after the guns have fallen silent.
