Trump to visit 'Alligator Alcatraz' migrant detention center this week: Report
Jun 30, 2025 09:56 AM IST
US President Donald Trump is expected to attend the opening on Tuesday of a temporary migrant detention center in southern Florida dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz", a source familiar with the matter said. Betty Osceola of the Miccosukee Panther Clan uses a bullhorn as pro-immigrant protesters, environmental groups, Everglades advocates, members of the Miccosukee Native American community and residents gather outside the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport as they rally against the state's forthcoming 'Alligator Alcatraz' ICE detention center in Ochopee, Florida(REUTERS)
The step comes as Trump, a Republican, has sought to ramp up the detention and deportation of migrants, saying the measure was needed after millions crossed the border illegally under Democrat Joe Biden.
The center got the nickname from its remote location in the Everglades, a vast subtropical wetland teeming with alligators, crocodiles and pythons that a Florida official said this month provides natural barriers, requiring minimal security.
Trump will be accompanied by Kristi Noem, the secretary of Homeland Security, who asked him to visit, said the source, who spoke on Sunday, on condition of anonymity.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The numbers in federal immigration detention have risen sharply to 56,000 by June 15, from 39,000 when Trump took office, government data show, and his administration has pushed to find more space.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
How Trump had his way in Nato's Hague Summit
Nato allies spared no effort in putting the US president at ease at the two-day Hague summit. However, it was more evident than ever that the US and Europe no longer see themselves as sharing a common enemy read more The Nato Summit, held recently on June 24–25 in The Hague, has been described as both 'transformational' and 'historic'. 'We're witnessing the birth of a new Nato,' said Finland's President Alexander Stubb. Following the conclusion of the summit, the White House stated: 'In a defining moment for global security, President Donald J Trump achieved a monumental victory for the United States and its allies, brokering a historic deal to dramatically increase defense contributions across the Nato alliance — marking a new era of shared responsibility and strength in the face of global threats.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nato is a political and military alliance of countries from Europe and North America. Its members are committed to protecting each other from any threat. It was created by 12 countries from Europe and North America on April 4, 1949. Since then, 20 more countries have joined Nato through 10 rounds of enlargement. At present, Nato has 32 member countries—30 from Europe, besides the USA and Canada. These countries, called Nato Allies, are sovereign states that come together through Nato to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus. The principle of collective security is at the heart of Nato's founding treaty. Article 5 of Nato's Charter says that 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,' and that 'if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area'. Recent geopolitical shifts, particularly Trump's stance on burden-sharing, have raised concerns about Nato's future. In his first term as president, Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe as part of his 'America First' policy. Moreover, Trump had also declared that he was not going to protect Nato members that failed to meet their defence spending targets. Therefore, during the run-up to the Nato Summit at The Hague, there were anxieties among the other Nato members that if the US withdrew from Nato, it would have enormous strategic consequences as Russia would get emboldened to be more aggressive towards its European neighbours. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2023, the US Congress had passed a legislation requiring Congressional assent for any US withdrawal from Nato. Even so, the procedure for withdrawal remains relatively straightforward, requiring only one year's notice under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Given Trump's threats in his first term that he would not protect allies who failed to spend enough on defence and even quit Nato, the stakes for this intergovernmental military alliance have been high. Not surprisingly, Trump's Nato allies spared no effort in putting him at ease at the two-day summit, and he completely dominated the summit. There are some important takeaways from the recent Nato Summit. The first takeaway is the big hike in defence spending. Nato members have committed to a 5 per cent defence spending target which has to be reached within a decade. It's a remarkable jump from the current 2 per cent guideline, which too isn't met by eight Nato members out of 32. Only 3.5 per cent of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons. The remaining 1.5 per cent can be shown as being for 'defence-related expenditure'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thus, Trump returned to Washington with a deal which he was happy with. The other member states had agreed to increase their Nato spending, which is what he wanted. As he put it, 'I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their country.' However, not all European Nato members came on board. Spain officially refused to be a party to the agreement, while Slovakia had reservations. The second major takeaway, which is important from the point of view of the European countries, is that the Nato Summit declaration reaffirmed its commitment to provide support to Ukraine. The declaration called it an 'enduring sovereign commitment' towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. The declaration also stated that the security of Ukraine contributes to their own, and to this end they would make direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is generally felt that the European Nato members persuaded Trump to agree to this in return for their pledges to increase defence spending. Significantly, the declaration stated that contributions to Ukraine's security could be included by members when calculating their own defence spending. This is important in the context of their being able to meet the 5 per cent defence spending target. The third takeaway is that there are some important signals about how things are changing. The recent Nato summit communique is much shorter and its language much weaker as compared to previous years. The statement issued after last year's Nato Summit in Washington had stated that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security. It had also said that Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the Nato Allies' security. In contrast to this, the declaration issued after the recent Nato Summit in The Hague does not even mention the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though it does make a reference to 'the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Again, while the Nato Summit held in Washington last year under then-US President Joe Biden had issued a declaration that mentioned Ukraine 59 times, this year's much shorter declaration only has two mentions of Ukraine. It is clear that other Nato leaders were deferential towards US President Donald Trump, who has for years embraced Putin and sharply criticised Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The fourth big takeaway is that The Hague summit declaration is not only very short, but it is also focused on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. The declaration of every Nato summit after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: 'We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.' The declaration issued by The Hague Summit on June 25 conspicuously does not have any mention of international law, the UN Charter or a rules-based international order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the unfolding scenario, questions regarding the future of Ukraine are particularly important, particularly as US support for Ukraine has dried up under Trump. Last year, at the Nato Summit in Washington, Zelenskyy was feted by the then US President Joe Biden and secured a pledge from Nato that Ukraine's push for membership was 'irreversible'. This year – despite Nato chief Mark Rutte insisting that remains the case – the final declaration of the summit had no mention of Ukraine's bid to join. In essence, Trump has ruled out Nato membership for Kyiv, and Zelenskyy, who has been vociferous on the subject before, was quiet this time round at the Nato Summit in The Hague. In fact, Zelenskyy was left largely on the margins of this Nato summit, though he managed to get a closed-doors meeting with US President Donald Trump. While Zelenskyy was successful in securing aid for Ukraine from Europe, he did not make much progress with the US, which had been Ukraine's most important benefactor and whose equipment had been critical for checking Russia's advance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At a press conference following the meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump acknowledged that it is 'possible' that Putin has ambitions to invade a Nato country, but when asked whether money and equipment will still flow from Washington to Kyiv, he appeared to show reluctance. On the issue of giving Ukraine additional Patriot air defence systems, which it badly needs, Trump said that 'we're going to see if we can make some available — they're very hard to get". As regards financial aid to Ukraine, Trump said, 'As far as money going, we'll see what happens.' Though there were none of the bumper pledges of new weaponry to Kyiv that had been a hallmark of earlier gatherings, a consolation for Zelensky was Trump's remark, 'I had a good meeting with Zelensky. He's fighting a brave battle. It's a tough battle.' Trump added, 'Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time'. While Trump said that he would talk again soon to Russian President Vladimir Putin to push stalled peace efforts, he made no mention of any possible sanctions on Moscow for stalling on these talks. Trump called the summit outcome 'a monumental win for the United States' and 'a big win for Western civilisation'. However, what this recent Nato summit and the run-up to it made quite clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having the same common enemy. Europe is focused on Russia as the major threat to international peace, while the US is devoting more attention to the increasingly bellicose China. Their perceptions are not identical at all, and this undeniable fact is important for understanding how global geopolitics is unfolding. The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump revives proposal for Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza, release of hostages: Report
After a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, US President Donald Trump has revived talks for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the release of remaining hostages taken during the October 7 terrorist attack, according to a report. read more Israeli military patrols near the Al Shifa Hospital compound in Gaza City amid the ongoing ground operation against Hamas in the northern Gaza Strip on November 22, 2023. (Photo: Reuters) After brokering a ceasefire in the Israel-Iran war, US President Donald Trump has revived talks to end the war in the Gaza Strip, according to a report. The Israel-Hamas deal reached in January collapsed in March and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel ordered the resumption of attacks. Several thousands of Palestinian casualties have been reported since the resumption of attacks, many of them as they gathered to receive humanitarian aid. The Jerusalem Post has reported that Trump has revived talks for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and the release of remaining hostages taken during the October 7 terrorist attack. A US source said that the administration was 'optimistic' about reaching the deal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump came to power with the promise of ending wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Instead, he entered a new war with Iran. Moreover, instead of ending the war in Gaza, he has become party to the conflict by announcing the takeover of Gaza and conversion of the strip into a resort town after the expulsion of all Palestinians. The declaration, which critics say amounts to ethnic cleansing, would effectively killed the two-state solution. 75% work done for Israel-Hamas deal: Source A source told The Post that 75 per cent of issues have been resolved in recent weeks. 'The remaining 25 per cent includes key matters such as the humanitarian situation, the conclusion of the war itself, and the guarantees Israel is demanding to prevent Hamas from rearming,' the source said. One option being discussed is the exile of Hamas leaders from Hamas once a ceasefire is reached, according to the newspaper. Hamas has previously rejected the idea. Around the same time that the report emerged, it was reported that Netanyahu held a meeting with senior ministers and defence officials on Sunday to discuss the war in Gaza. The Post reported that that one of the questions discussed in the meeting was whether Israel should send a delegation for indirect talks with Hamas either to Qatar or Egypt.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27 minutes ago
- First Post
Iran's fatwa against Trump and Netanyahu: How serious is this threat?
Iran's top Shiite cleric has issued a fatwa labelling Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu as enemies of Islam, urging Muslims to resist them. Framed in religious language and referencing divine punishment, the fatwa follows renewed tensions in West Asia. But is this decree a serious threat or a symbolic act? read more US President Donald Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, US, April 7, 2025. File Image/Reuters A fatwa (powerful religious decree) has been issued by Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, one of Iran's top Shiite clerics, naming United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as enemies of the Islamic community. This fatwa — delivered following recent escalations between Iran, Israel and the United States — directly identifies both leaders as mohareb, or individuals who wage war against God. The religious order explicitly calls on Muslims globally to confront those who 'threaten the leadership and integrity of the Islamic Ummah.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Under Iranian Islamic law, the designation of mohareb is a serious one, legally warranting harsh penalties that may include execution, crucifixion, amputation of limbs, or exile. 'Those who threaten the leadership and integrity of the Islamic Ummah are to be considered warlords,' Makarem declared. Further urging the faithful to act, the fatwa states that Muslims who endure hardships in their opposition to these leaders would be considered mujahid fi sabilillah — warriors in the path of God. 'May God protect the Islamic community from the evil of the enemies and hasten the reappearance of the Master of the Age and Time,' the ruling added, alluding to the Shiite messianic figure known as the Mahdi. The fatwa arrives shortly after a period of armed conflict now being referred to as the '12-Day War.' On June 13, Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, resulting in the deaths of prominent scientists and military commanders. In retaliation, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israeli cities. The United States soon entered the conflict by striking three nuclear sites in Iran. This conflict was the culmination of months of rising tensions, marked by repeated warnings from Trump himself that any move by Iran toward weapons-grade uranium enrichment would prompt US intervention. What we know about fatwas A fatwa, by definition, is a legal or theological ruling made by an Islamic scholar or authority. These decrees have historically spanned a wide spectrum — ranging from legal clarifications on ethical matters to highly politicised calls for violence. While many fatwas are benign or even humanitarian in their focus, others have been used to justify violent acts against individuals seen as blasphemous or adversarial to Islam. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The case of Salman Rushdie remains the most well-known example in modern history. In 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa condemning Rushdie to death following the publication of The Satanic Verses. The decree, though non-binding in a legal sense, had life-altering consequences. Rushdie spent years in hiding and survived a near-fatal stabbing in 2022 — 33 years after the fatwa was first declared. Despite Iran's political shifts over the years, including the more moderate presidency of Mohammad Khatami in the late 1990s, that fatwa was never officially rescinded. Religious decrees of this nature are not bound by time. There is no expiry. In the eyes of many believers, a fatwa from a revered authority is eternal and sacred. In his post on X (formerly Twitter), British-Iranian commentator Niyak Ghorbani criticised the recent fatwa against Trump and Netanyahu, describing it as a calculated act of state-endorsed extremism. ⭕️Very Important: This is not just a threat to Iranians — it's a global danger. A top Iranian cleric has issued a fatwa openly calling for violent jihad against Western leaders, not just Iranian dissidents. This is a clear act of state-backed incitement to international… — Niyak Ghorbani (نیاک) (@GhorbaniiNiyak) June 29, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The West must realise: the Islamic Republic is not only targeting its own people — it is preparing for global violence in the name of religion,' he wrote. A history of fatwas inciting violence The global implications of such fatwas are not theoretical. In many cases, they have resulted in violence, assassinations, and lasting fear. In 1992, Egyptian intellectual Farag Fouda was shot dead by Islamist militants after being accused of apostasy. His assassination followed a fatwa from religious scholars labeling him an enemy of Islam. Two years later, Egyptian Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck by an extremist influenced by another fatwa. Several Western figures have also been targeted. Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who co-created a short film critical of the treatment of women in Islam, was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. He was shot and stabbed by a Dutch-Moroccan Islamist who reportedly acted in line with religious directives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Dutch politician Geert Wilders received death threats after his statements on Muslim immigration led to a fatwa calling for his beheading, issued by Australian imam Feiz Muhammad in 2010. In the United States, television host David Letterman became a target when a Muslim militant called for his assassination after he joked about the killing of an Al Qaeda figure on his show. The creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, were similarly threatened after depicting the Prophet Mohammed — albeit in a bear suit — sparking outrage and warnings of violent retaliation. Even religious figures outside Islam have been fatwa targets. Jerry Falwell, the American evangelical pastor, once described Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist in a 2002 interview. A fatwa for his death followed, though Falwell later died of natural causes. Fatwas can also lead to mass political consequences. Al-Qaeda's 1998 fatwa calling for jihad against Americans and Israelis followed the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That fatwa, signed by Osama bin Laden, justified its stance as a response to perceived Western aggression against Muslims. Not just extremism: Fatwas can also be peaceful While many fatwas attract attention due to their violent implications, others highlight peace, ethics, and coexistence. In 2005, a group of North American Islamic scholars issued a fatwa declaring all acts of terrorism forbidden in Islam. They stated, 'It is haram, forbidden, to cooperate or associate with … any act of terrorism or violence.' The fatwa also encouraged Muslims to work with law enforcement in protecting civilians. Fatwas reflect the intentions and beliefs of the clerics issuing them, and their weight largely depends on the influence and credibility of those scholars among their followers. In places like India, institutions such as the Darul Uloom in Deoband (Uttar Pradesh) issue thousands of fatwas each year. These rulings often address questions of daily life, ethics or personal conduct within an Islamic framework. The Darul Uloom's 12-volume fatwa compilation has even been compared to US Supreme Court proceedings in terms of its complexity and reach. So how serious is the threat against Trump and Netanyahu? Although fatwas are non-binding religious opinions, their danger lies in how they are interpreted and acted upon. Clerics with a vast audience can mobilise not only devout followers but also extremists willing to act violently. In a world already polarised by ideology and religion, a fatwa from a prominent authority can be seen as a divine command. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As history has shown, even decades-old fatwas can incite violence long after their original context is forgotten. Rushdie's near-fatal stabbing in 2022 serves as a chilling reminder. It is not only sanctioned operatives that carry out such attacks — self-radicalised individuals, lone actors or religious vigilantes often act without state direction. The fatwa from Ayatollah Makarem thus poses a long-term risk. While it may not lead to immediate action, it could inspire attacks in the years to come, carried out by individuals who believe they are fulfilling a religious duty. With Makarem calling for Trump and Netanyahu to be made to 'regret their words and mistakes,' the fatwa stops short of a direct death order, but the implications are clear to those familiar with such rhetoric. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
