Ice officers to be allowed to continue wearing masks despite controversy
Date: 2025-07-21T10:24:25.000Z
Title: Ice chief says he will continue to allow agents to wear masks
Content: Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog. I'm Tom Ambrose and I'll be bringing you all the latest news lines over the next couple of hours.
We start with news that the head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) said on Sunday that he will continue allowing the controversial practice of his officers wearing masks over their faces during their arrest raids.
As Donald Trump has ramped up his unprecedented effort to deport immigrants around the country, Ice officers have become notorious for wearing masks to approach and detain people, often with force. Legal advocates and attorneys general have argued that it poses accountability issues and contributes to a climate of fear.
On Sunday, Todd Lyons, the agency's acting director, was asked on CBS Face the Nation about imposters exploiting the practice by posing as immigration officers. 'That's one of our biggest concerns. And I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks,' Lyons said.
Read the full story here:
Meanwhile, we have a report on how migrants at a Miami immigration jail were shackled with their hands tied behind their backs and made to kneel to eat food from styrofoam plates 'like dogs', according to a report published on Monday into conditions at three overcrowded south Florida facilities.
The incident at the downtown federal detention center is one of a succession of alleged abuses at Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (Ice) operated jails in the state since January, chronicled by advocacy groups Human Rights Watch, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and Sanctuary of the South from interviews with detainees.
Dozens of men had been packed into a holding cell for hours, the report said, and denied lunch until about 7pm. They remained shackled with the food on chairs in front of them.
The full story can be found here:
In other developments:
An 82-year-old man in Pennsylvania was secretly deported to Guatemala after visiting an immigration office last month to replace his lost green card, according to his family, who have not heard from him since and were initially told he was dead. According to Morning Call, which first reported the story, longtime Allentown resident Luis Leon – who was granted political asylum in the US in 1987 after being tortured under the regime of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet – lost his wallet containing the physical card that confirmed his legal residency.
Donald Trump has said that he would move to block the Commanders' plans to build a new stadium at the old RFK Stadium site in Washington DC unless they changed their name. It is unclear if Trump would be able to do so. The RFK Stadium site was once on federal land but Joe Biden signed a bill earlier this year – one of his final acts in office – transferring control to the DC city government for a 99-year term. Trump also posted that the call to change names applied to Cleveland's baseball team, which he called 'one of the six original baseball teams'.
Scores of scientists conducting vital research across a range of fields from infectious diseases, robotics and education to computer science and the climate crisis have responded to a Guardian online callout to share their experiences about the impact of the Trump administration's cuts to science funding. Many said they had already had funding slashed or programs terminated, while others feared that cuts were inevitable and were beginning to search for alternative work, either overseas or outside science.
Ever since Donald Trump began his second presidency, he has used an 'invented' national energy emergency to help justify expanding oil, gas and coal while slashing green energy – despite years of scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels has contributed significantly to climate change, say scholars and watchdogs. It's an agenda that in only its first six months has put back environmental progress by decades, they say.
Trump said he would help Afghans detained in the United Arab Emirates for years after fleeing their country when the US pulled out and the Taliban took power.
Polls released on Sunday showed falling support among Americans for Trump's hardline measures against illegal immigration, as the Republican president celebrated six months back in power. Polls from CNN and CBS show Trump has lost majority support for his deportation approach.
A growing group of African Americans are ditching corporate big-box retail stores that rolled back their DEI programs and instead are shopping at small, minority- and women-owned businesses they believe value their dollars more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
a minute ago
- STV News
Protesters urged to be 'peaceful' during President Donald Trump's visit to Scotland
Protestors have been urged to remain 'peaceful' and notify police of their plans during Donald Trump's visit to Scotland The US President will visit both of his golf courses in Scotland: Turnberry in Ayrshire and Menie in Aberdeenshire, between July 25 and 29. The President will meet with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer while in Aberdeen, while plans are being put in place for the President to meet First Minister John Swinney, according to the Scottish Government. Police are working on the assumption that there will be protests in Ayrshire, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh Assistant chief constable Emma Bond, who is heading up the operation, said Police Scotland will take a 'proportionate' approach to ensure people can protest safely, with the force offering to engage with demonstrators ahead of time on a 'no surprises' basis. Bond told STV News 'We will absolutely look to accommodate and communicate with protest groups to make sure they are able to exercise those rights. 'Anybody who does plan to attend, I'd ask them to get in contact and speak to our protest liaison officers so we can maximise our no surprises approach. 'We have a style and desire that our approach is one that is a focused and positive one.' A warning was also issued to any supporters of Palestine Action planning to attend any protests during the President's visit. The ACC stated that people deemed to be supporting the proscribed group would be 'liable to arrest' under the Terrorism Act. The policing operation will be the biggest the force has faced since the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 2022. Although Trump's first visit since being voted in for a second term is 'complex', the large scale operation is something Police Scotland are 'very experienced' in dealing with, according to the ACC. The current plan involves local, national and specialist officer from Police Scotland as well as other forces following a request for mutual aid. ACC Bond said: 'It is a complex policing operation. 'One that focusses on maintaining public safety, ensuring we balance people's right to peaceful protest and making sure we minimise disruption to wider communities. 'It is a significant event but one where Police Scotland are very experienced in terms of planning operations and events at this scale.'. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
The supreme court is giving a lawless president the green light
Just when we thought the US supreme court couldn't sink any lower in bowing and scraping to Donald Trump, it issued a shocking order last week that brushed aside important legal precedents as it ruled in the president's favor. In that case, the court's rightwing supermajority essentially gave Trump carte blanche to dismantle the Department of Education, which plays an important role in the lives of the nation's 50 million public schoolchildren, sending federal money to schools, helping students with disabilities and enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Many legal experts, along with the court's three liberal justices, protested that the court was letting Trump abolish a congressionally created federal agency without Congress's approval. In their dissent, the liberal justices warned that the court was undermining Congress's authority and the constitution's separation of powers. Not only that, we should all be concerned that the court was giving dangerous new powers to the most authoritarian-minded president in US history. In the Department of Education case, the court issued a one-paragraph, unsigned order that lifted a lower court's injunction that blocked the Trump administration from making wholesale layoffs that went far toward dismantling the department. Recognizing that Article I of the constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund federal agencies and define their responsibilities, prior supreme court decisions have held that presidents don't have the power to defy what Congress has legislated and gut an agency without Congress's approval. In a stinging dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: 'Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive's task, by contrast, is to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Sotomayor added that the court's order 'permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department' was 'indefensible'. Making the court's move even more maddening was its failure to include any reasoning to explain its action – it was the most recent in a string of brief 'emergency docket' orders which, without giving any rationale, ruled on Trump's behalf. The rightwing justices might argue that this was a harmless, minor order, merely lifting a lower court's injunction until the case is fully adjudicated. But by vacating the injunction, the court let Linda McMahon, the secretary of education, speed ahead with her plan to slash the department's workforce by over 50%, a move that will gut the agency and prevent it from carrying out many functions that Congress authorized it to do. The supreme court's order is likely to leave the department an empty shell by the time the judiciary issues a final ruling on whether Trump broke the law in gutting the department – and there's a good chance the judiciary will conclude that Trump acted illegally. The Trump administration insisted that it wasn't dismantling the education department, that it had merely ordered massive layoffs there to boost efficiency. But the district court judge didn't buy the administrations' arguments, especially because Trump had spoken so frequently about killing the department. Sotomayor wrote that the constitution requires all presidents, including Trump, to faithfully execute the law. But in this case, Trump seemed eager to execute the Department of Education, while showing scant concern for executing the law. Noting Trump's repeated vows to abolish the department, Sotomayor chided the supermajority, writing: 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' With that language, the three dissenting justices were in essence accusing the supermajority of aiding and abetting Trump's defiance of the law. In the court's 236-year history, rarely have dissenting justices been so emphatic in criticizing the majority for 'expediting' a president's lawlessness. Sotomayor hammered that point home, writing: 'The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Constitution's separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle.' If the US constitution means anything, it means that the supreme court should stand up to a president who seeks to maximize his power by defying the law. But far too often today's rightwing supermajority seems to lean in to back Trump. The court leaned in for Trump last year in Chief Justice John Roberts' much-criticized ruling that gave Trump and other presidents vast immunity from prosecution. The supermajority leaned in for Trump last month when it gave Elon Musk and his Doge twentysomethings access to sensitive personal information for over 70 million Americans on Social Security. One would think the nine justices would be eager to strengthen the pillars that uphold our democracy: the separation of powers, fair elections, respect for the law, limits on the power of the executive. But the Roberts court has too often weakened those pillars: by giving Trump huge immunity from prosecution, by turning a blind eye to egregious gerrymandering that prevents fair elections and by letting Trump fire top officials from independent agencies long before their terms end. In late June, the supermajority curbed district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions to put a brake on Trump's rampant lawlessness – by that time, lower court judges had issued over 190 orders blocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they deemed unlawful. In the Department of Education case, the court again weakened a pillar upholding our democracy; it gave Trump a green light to ignore Congress's wishes and take a wrecking ball to the department. It's hugely dismaying that the court undercut Congress's power at a time when Trump has transformed the nation's senators and representatives into an assemblage of compliant kittens by intimidating them with a social media bullhorn that bludgeons anyone who dares to defy his wishes. Instead of shoring up Congress's power in the face of such intimidation, the Roberts court has seemed happy to undermine Congress and hand over more power to Trump. On top of all that, it is galling to see the court issue so many pro-Trump orders without giving any rationale. When the US is so polarized and the court so widely criticized for its many pro-Trump rulings, it would seem incumbent upon the court, when issuing orders, to explain why it's doing what it's doing. But the court has repeatedly failed to sufficiently explain its decisions, revealing an unfortunate arrogance and obtuseness. Justice Samuel Alito has complained about those who criticize the court over the rushed, unexplained decisions on its emergency docket. Critics have faulted the court for issuing too many orders through that docket, which uses abbreviated procedures to issue orders that remain in force while the courts adjudicate whether Trump's actions are legal. Alito maintains that with the crush of cases, the court doesn't have the time to write its usual, carefully wrought decisions. Alito has suggested, rather outrageously, that many critics of the court are engaged in improper bullying. He said that some critics of the emergency docket suggest it has been 'captured by a dangerous cabal' that uses 'sneaky' methods. Those criticisms, Alito warned, fuel 'unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court'. When the court issues one order after another that favors Trump, the most lawless president in US history, often without explanation, the court should expect to be criticized for doing too little to defend our democracy and the rule of law. Alito shouldn't be so thin-skinned or paranoid about supposed intimidation; he does have life tenure. The court's critics aren't seeking to intimidate the justices. Rather they're pleading with the rightwing supermajority to stop bowing to Trump and become more resolute in enforcing the law against the most authoritarian president in history, a president who said he could 'terminate' parts of the constitution and who claims sweeping powers to singlehandedly nullify laws. The court's supermajority should remember: we are supposed to have a government of laws, not of strongmen. Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
UK border officials to use AI to verify ages of child asylum seekers
Officials are to start using artificial intelligence to help estimate the age of asylum seekers who say they are children. Angela Eagle, the immigration minister, said on Tuesday the government would test technology that judges a person's age based on their facial features. It is the latest example of Labour ministers turning to AI to help solve problems with public services without spending significant amounts of money. The decision was announced on the same day that David Bolt, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, published a highly critical report into the haphazard way in which officials estimated the age of new arrivals. Eagle said in a written statement to parliament: 'We have concluded that the most cost-effective option to pursue is likely to be facial age estimation, whereby AI technology – trained on millions of images where an individual's age is verifiable – is able to produce an age estimate with a known degree of accuracy for an individual whose age is unknown or disputed. 'In a situation where those involved in the age assessment process are unsure whether an individual is aged over or under 18, or do not accept the age an individual is claiming to be, facial age estimation offers a potentially rapid and simple means to test their judgments against the estimates produced by the technology.' Eagle is commissioning a pilot scheme to test the technology, with a view to integrating it into official age verification checks over the course of next year. John Lewis announced earlier this year it would become the first major UK retailer to use facial age estimation to help approve online knife sales. The Home Office already uses AI in other areas, such as helping detect sham marriages. That tool has been criticised however for disproportionately flagging certain nationalities. Despite concerns about AI tools exacerbating bias in government decision-making, ministers are exploring other potential uses. Peter Kyle, the science and technology secretary, announced on Monday a deal with OpenAI, the company which runs ChatGPT, to explore deploying AI in areas including justice, security and education. Bolt's report warned that the mental health of young asylum seekers was suffering because of failures in the age verification systems, especially at Dover where small boat arrivals are processed. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion 'Many of the concerns about policy and practice that have been raised for more than a decade remain unanswered,' Bolt warned, saying arduous conditions at the Dover processing facility could make it harder to accurately estimate ages. He added: 'I have listened to young people who felt disbelieved and dismissed by the Home Office, whose hopes have been crushed, and whose mental health has suffered.' His findings echo a report by the Refugee Council which found that at least 1,300 children had been incorrectly deemed to be adults over an 18-month period. Last month researchers at the London School of Economics and the University of Bedfordshire recommended that the Home Office be stripped of the power to make decisions relating to lone child asylum seekers.
