Trump hails new 'Alligator Alcatraz' migrant detention center
The $450 million camp has been built on a disused airfield deep in the Florida Everglades and is surrounded by swamps that are home to creatures including alligators and poisonous snakes.
"Very soon this facility will house some of the most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet," Trump told reporters.
"We're surrounded by miles of treacherous swampland and the only way out is really deportation."
The steaming hot, mosquito-infested site is a symbol of the Republican administration's determination to look tough as it pursues its policy of mass deportations of undocumented migrants.
The name "Alligator Alcatraz" is a reference to Alcatraz Island, the former prison in San Francisco, that Trump recently said he wanted to reopen.
- 'Cops in the form of alligators' -
Protesters against "Alligator Alcatraz" held the latest in a series of demonstrations outside the site as Trump visited on Tuesday, but the Republican embraced the controversy.
AFP | Giorgio VIERA
"A lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops in the form of alligators -- you don't have to pay them so much," Trump said.
"I wouldn't want to run through the Everglades for long. It will keep people where they're supposed to be."
Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who greeted Trump on the tarmac, said "we want to cut through bureaucracy... to get the removal of these illegals done."
The 79-year-old Trump admiringly looked at bunk beds in cages made of metal fencing at the facility, which is built to house 1,000 people, but could later be expanded to house 5,000.
When asked earlier in the day if the idea behind the detention center was that people who escaped from it would get eaten by alligators or snakes, Trump answered "I guess that's the concept."
AFP | ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS
Making a zigzagging motion with his hand, he quipped to reporters at the White House: "We're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator, okay?
"If they escape prison, how to run away. Don't run in a straight line. Run like this. And you know what? Your chances go up about one percent."
But after the quips, Trump later embarked on one of his dark diatribes about immigration, saying that he eventually wanted to start deporting criminals who had been naturalized as Americans.
"It's controversial but I couldn't care less," he said.
He described an influx of undocumented migrants under Democratic predecessor Joe Biden as "disgusting" and falsely conflated most migrants with "sadistic" criminal gangs.
- Environmental concerns -
"Alligator Alcatraz" is the latest in a series of measures designed to portray the Trump administration as tough on migration.
It has already sent some undocumented migrants to a mega-jail in El Salvador, and others to the former "War on Terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
AFP | ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS
Environmentalists have also criticized the creation of the camp in the Everglades conservation area.
The Everglades are particularly known as a major habitat for alligators, with an estimated population of around 200,000. They can reach up to 15 feet in length when fully grown.
Attacks by alligators on humans are relatively rare in Florida.
Across the entire state there were 453 "unprovoked bite incidents" between 1948 and 2022, 26 of which resulted in human fatalities, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Trump meanwhile insisted his plan for the notorious original Alcatraz jail was still on track, despite California officials saying it would be impractical and expensive.
"Conceptual work started six months ago, and various prison development firms are looking at doing it with us. Still a little early, but lots of promise!" Truth said on his Truth Social network.
By Andrew Caballero-reynolds With Danny Kemp In Washington
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
35 minutes ago
- IOL News
US demands on exemption from South Africa's BEE requirements yet to be discussed with Ramaphosa
The Freedom Front Plus delegation in Washington last week. Image: Facebook/FFPlus FF Plus leader Corné Mulder says he has yet to brief President Cyril Ramaphosa on claims that the Trump administration has demanded that US entities be exempted from all Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) requirements as a precondition for normalising bilateral relations with South Africa. There are more than 600 US companies based in South Africa. Mulder made the claims as a FF Plus delegation returned from the US where they met with senior White House officials. This demand is part of a broader set of conditions that include addressing farm attacks, condemning the "Kill the Boer" chant, and ensuring fair market compensation for land expropriation. According to Mulder, the White House officials expressed concern that these conditions have not been adequately addressed. In May President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation embarked on a working visit to the US to meet with US president Donald Trump to help reset strained relations between the two countries and secure a favorable trade deal after a fallout over the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel that had been instituted by South Africa. Mulder, who held a press briefing on Wednesday, said the delegation is committed to normalising relations between South Africa and the US and described Ramaphosa's visit with Trump in May as 'premature'. "We have a clear understanding of the US Administration's expectations," Mulder said. "The delegation has undertaken to communicate these pre-conditions to both the South African government and the broader public in the interest of transparency, accountability, and the restoration of strong bilateral ties,' said Mulder. Mulder added that they had not gone to the US to complain. He said that discussions on claimed genocide did not arise and they did not meet with the 50 white Afrikaners that were granted refugee status by the Trump administration. Southern African Agri Initiative chairman Theo de Jager, and National Employers' Association CEO Gerhard Papenfus were part of the delegation. According to business group Sakeliga's CEO Piet le Roux, this development marks a substantial escalation in international pressure against South Africa's 'race-restrictive economic policies'. "The international backlash against BEE and other race-restrictive policies of the South African government is set to escalate further in the coming months and years," Le Roux said. Le Roux noted that the US demand elevates race-restrictive legislation beyond domestic affairs to the level of international economic and diplomatic relations This could lead to a ratcheting up of US-led bilateral or multilateral pressure opposing restrictive legislation in South Africa. Speaking on BEE, De Jager said there was only one way to avoid economic migrants and that was by improving their livelihoods. "The principle here is that there must be equal citizenship…there must be respective property rights and there must be an environment where we can also do business. 'They (Trump administration) said to us that they had heard us on the BEE matter, that it is a non-trade tariff barrier and they said that they would not restore any trade relationship if these preconditions are not adhered to. 'The biggest war of our generation is poverty and hunger and the only way we can deal with that is to create wealth…So we are gradually losing investment because of the likes of BEE and the threat to expropriate your property without compensation. You cannot invest in a country where you are not safe. 'We need an environment that will safeguard investment whether you are black or white. As Afrikaners we don't have access to production financing anymore. We need that kind of access,' said de Jager. Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri told IOL that the group was pursuing its "own agenda". "Our experience is that State actors do not use non-state actors as intermediaries; therefore, Freedom Front Plus (VF Plus) visit and subsequent pronouncements will be viewed as nothing more than their ambitions," he said. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya did not respond to questions on how the South African government would react to the US demands. However, Ramaphosa has previously indicated that he would not back down from implementing BEE policies. "BEE is not holding back the economy, but rather the concentrated nature of our economy is," Ramaphosa said. He defended using racial designations as a means to address economic disparities, although he acknowledged that this might not be necessary in the future.
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Israel's top diplomat urges seizing chance after Trump ceasefire push
Israel's top diplomat on Wednesday said any chance to free hostages held in Gaza "must not be missed", after US President Donald Trump urged Palestinian group Hamas to agree to a 60-day ceasefire that he said had Israel's backing. Nearly 21 months of war have created dire humanitarian conditions for the more than two million people in the Gaza Strip, where Israel has recently expanded its military operations against Hamas militants. The civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed at least 33 people on Wednesday. Trump on Tuesday urged Hamas to accept a 60-day ceasefire, saying Israel had agreed to finalise such a deal. Without directly mentioning Trump's remarks, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said that "a large majority within the government and the population is in favour of the plan to free the hostages" held by Hamas in Gaza. AFP | Jack GUEZ "If the opportunity arises, it must not be missed!" Saar wrote on X. Out of 251 hostages seized by Palestinian militants during Hamas's 2023 attack that triggered the war, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. On the ground in southern Gaza, civil defence spokesman Mahmud Bassal told AFP that five members of the same family were killed in an Israeli air strike on Wednesday that hit a tent housing displaced people in the coastal Al-Mawasi area. Despite being declared a safe zone by Israel in December 2023, Al-Mawasi has been hit by repeated Israeli strikes. - Children covered in blood - AFP footage from the area showed makeshift tent structures blown apart as Palestinians picked through the wreckage trying to salvage what was left of their belongings. One man held a pack of nappies, asking: "Is this a weapon?" "They came here thinking it was a safe area and they were killed... What did they do?" said another resident, Maha Abu Rizq, against a backdrop of destruction. AFP footage from nearby Khan Yunis city showed infants covered in blood being rushed into Nasser Hospital. One man carrying a child whose face was smeared with blood screamed: "Children, children!" Some appeared terrified while others lay still on hospital beds in bloodied bandages and clothes as medics treated them. AFP | - Further north, Bassal said four people from the same family were killed in a pre-dawn Israeli air strike on a house in Gaza City, and another five in a drone strike on a house in the central Deir el-Balah area. Bassal later reported seven killed in a strike in Gaza City, five more killed by Israeli army fire near an aid distribution site close to the southern city of Rafah, and a further death following Israeli fire near an aid site in the centre of the territory. They are the latest in a string of deadly incidents targeting those waiting for much-needed food aid. He said a further four people were killed in an air strike on a tent for displaced people southwest of Gaza City and two in an air strike on a school housing displaced people in Gaza City's Zeitun neighbourhood. Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by rescuers. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military said it "is operating to dismantle Hamas military capabilities" in line with "international law, and takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm". On Tuesday the military said that in recent days its forces had expanded operations across Gaza, "eliminating dozens of terrorists and dismantling hundreds of terror infrastructure sites". - Ceasefire push - After months of stalled mediation efforts to bring an end to the war, Trump on Tuesday said on social media that a new ceasefire push has Israel's support. "Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War," Trump said. He added that Qatari and Egyptian mediators, who have been in direct contact with Hamas throughout the war, would deliver "this final proposal". AFP | - "I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better -- IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE." Nadav Miran, the brother of hostage Omri Miran, told AFP that he was against a partial agreement that "would leave Hamas in place". Such an agreement "would not ensure the return of all the hostages... they must all be brought back at once," added Miran, who is part of a grouping of hostage relatives opposed to negotiations with Hamas. Trump is due to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House next week. Israel launched its offensive in response to Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack which resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures. Israel's retaliatory military campaign has killed at least 57,012 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians, according to Hamas-run territory's health ministry. The United Nations considers these figures to be reliable. By Alice Chancellor With Afp Team In Gaza
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
NATO's Defence Spending: Washington's Political Will Trumps Brussels' Consensus Diplomacy
US President Donald Trump (C) flanked by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (L) and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Image: AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance's strategic orientation. At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO's spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will. When NATO's 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump's framing was blunt: 'Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?' In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump's foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence. Trump's foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed. Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This further aligns with Trump's broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump's domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American. With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO's total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance's coherence. Another component of Trump's rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump's advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity. Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force. The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance's resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China's assertiveness. The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance's operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world." This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO's direction is now synchronised with Washington's political will rather than Brussels' consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance. Trump's assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO's military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump's insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance's strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO's long-term trajectory. Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal? A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump's scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump's demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying. Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as 'Brusselian cockroaches,' signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO's view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity. By meeting Trump's demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine's war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe's collective security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump's 'decisive action in Iran' and describing him as a 'man of peace' who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO's growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte's comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump's primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority. This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China's rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance. If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.
