2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility
Federal officials prevented two members of Congress on Sunday from entering an immigration detention facility in Manhattan where the representatives were seeking to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors.
The representatives, Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez, both Democrats from New York, said officials at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building had denied them access to the 10th-floor detention area because it was a 'sensitive facility.'
The building, at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks from City Hall, has been the site of recent protests against the transport of migrants there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also houses immigration courts where ICE has been making arrests in recent weeks.
Members of Congress are allowed special access to any Department of Homeland Security facility, including those operated by ICE, as long as they give at least 24 hours' advance notice, according to visitation guidelines.
'Today, ICE violated all of our rights,' Representative Espaillat said at a news conference on Sunday after being turned away. 'We deserve to know what's going on on the 10th floor.'
He added, 'If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to go in to see it.'
Representative Velázquez said she was outraged about being turned away. 'Our duty is to supervise any federal building,' she said.
'This is not Russia; this is the United States of America,' she added. 'The president of the United States is not a king.'
A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said Sunday evening that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they 'would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.'
The representatives arrived a day after dozens of protesters at the complex tried to block ICE vehicles carrying migrants. Many held up signs, including some that said 'Stop Deportations!' and 'To Get Our Neighbors You Have To Get Through Us!'
That demonstration erupted in a clash with police officers, some of whom blasted protesters with pepper spray. The police said 22 people were taken into custody. Most were issued summonses or asked to return to court at a later date, according to a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney.
'This is the nightmare scenario we've been taught to fear since childhood,' said John Mark Rozendaal, 64, of Manhattan, who has protested at the building over the last three weeks.
We need to 'stand up to the repression that's coming into our nation,' he added.
Santiago Castro, 28, a student who is from Colombia, said he had come to the demonstration for a personal reason: ICE agents arrested his father in Manhattan on Tuesday.
Mr. Castro said he was demonstrating 'for my family.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Republican plans to overhaul Medicaid are already shaking up the 2026 midterms
Senate Republicans have yet to finalize their version of President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy proposal, but GOP lawmakers up for reelection in 2026 are bracing for the political impact of the bill's Medicaid cuts. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is pushing for a provider relief fund. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina has warned GOP leaders about how many in his state could lose care. And Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa has picked up a crop of Democratic challengers campaigning off her 'Well, we all are going to die' response to a town hall protester. Tens of thousands of people could lose coverage in each of those three senators' states, according to a KFF analysis on the version of the bill passed by the Republican-led House last month. Beleaguered Democrats, meanwhile, hope that laser-focusing on health care will help them chip away at the Republicans' 53-seat Senate majority and take back the House. A key part of Democratic messaging has been to tie the Medicaid cuts, which would largely affect low-income Americans, to tax breaks for the wealthy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the changes would reduce federal Medicaid spending by roughly $800 billion over 10 years, largely by instituting work requirements for certain adults eligible for Medicaid and postponing a Biden administration rule intended to simplify enrolling and renewing coverage. 'It is crazy politics for them to do this,' said Brad Woodhouse, a longtime Democratic operative and executive director of Protect Our Care, a health care advocacy group that launched a $10 million campaign this year to oppose Medicaid cuts. 'Everyone is going to be unhappy with this bill, unless you're a very high net worth individual: a millionaire, a multi-millionaire, a billionaire, or a large corporation.' Many Republicans have argued that the cuts to Medicaid are meant to sustain the program for those who need it most. They're also betting that the rest of the bill will be more popular. Paul Shumaker, a longtime North Carolina GOP strategist who advises Tillis and other Republican leaders in the state, said he was 'bullish' on the midterm elections because he believes voters will support Republican arguments about rooting waste, fraud and abuse out of Medicaid. He also thinks voters will back other policies in the legislative package like cutting taxes on tips and overtime pay and raising the child tax credit. 'Democrats are basically staking themselves out on issues that resonate with one-third of the voters, whereas Republicans have staked themselves out on issues that resonate with two-thirds of the voters,' Shumaker said. 'They have put themselves into a box.' Democrats are betting that a narrow focus on the bill's health care provisions will have the most impact, even in states like Iowa, where Democrats are hoping to oust Ernst, contest an open governor's seat and two US House seats. Ernst, who is seeking a third term next year, picked up a Democratic challenger earlier this month after she told a town hall protester 'well, we all are going to die' in response to comments about cuts to Medicaid. Ernst doubled down on the remarks in a video filmed in a cemetery. An Ernst spokesperson pointed to Ernst's full comments, in which she said she wants to leave Medicaid funding for the 'most vulnerable' and 'those that are eligible.' 'While Democrats fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is focused on protecting Medicaid for the most vulnerable,' reads a statement from the senator's office. 'She will continue to stand up for Iowa's rural hospitals, clinics, and community health centers that serve our state.' Iowa state Rep. J.D. Scholten announced his campaign soon after Ernst's town hall, becoming the second candidate in the race after Democrat Nathan Sage, who announced in April. Some election forecasters shifted the race slightly – from solid to likely Republican — after he launched his campaign. 'We're seeing people, just everyday people calling Ernst 'Joni Hearse,'' Scholten told CNN. 'You just get that sense, politically, that if we can tap into that … this is where our foot's in the door to a lot of voters who have not been voting Democrat.' It's also motivating Democratic voters in the state. Melinda Magdalene Wings, a 65-year-old retired hospice nurse from Iowa City, Iowa, told CNN she's worried cuts to Medicaid funding would impact the assisted living home where her 86-year-old parents, including her mother who has advanced dementia, reside. In February, she started writing her representatives about the bill. 'As Iowa's elected officials, I expect them to vote for what's best for Iowa — for the people of Iowa — and not for this administration,' she said. 'Money going to millionaires doesn't make any sense.' A handful of Senate Republicans, including Tillis and Collins, have raised concerns about the impact the reconciliation bill could have on their states, particularly a Senate proposal that would limit how much states can raise provider taxes, a key source of revenue. The provider tax provision is among a handful that Senate Republicans are revising after the chamber's parliamentarian ruled they didn't meet the strict budget rules that allow the legislation to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. 'I've been very concerned about the cuts in Medicaid and the impact on my state, but other states as well,' Collins told CNN's Manu Raju on Tuesday. 'I've also been concerned about the health of rural hospitals, nursing homes, health centers and have been working on a provider relief fund. But that doesn't offset the problem with the Medicaid cuts.' Tillis said Tuesday that while the bill's Medicaid cuts are 'directionally right,' Republicans 'have to do it at a pace that states can absorb, or we're gonna have bad outcomes, political and policy.' Tensions within the Senate GOP caucus have also spilled out into the open. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell told colleagues with concerns about the bill during a private GOP conference meeting that 'failure is not an option' and people in their states raising concerns about the bill's Medicaid provisions would 'get over it,' according to a report from Punchbowl News. Democrats quickly latched onto the comments. 'I hope Republicans can 'get over it' when they lose their seats in the midterms,' DNC communications director Rosemary Boeglin said in a statement. A spokesperson for McConnell said the senator was referring to people who are 'abusing' Medicaid and 'should be working,' and the need to 'withstand Democrats' scare tactics' on the issue. 'Senator McConnell was urging his fellow members to highlight that message to our constituents and remind them that we should all be against waste, fraud, and abuse while working to protect our rural hospitals and have safety nets in place for people that need it,' the statement read. Nearly 8 million more people would be uninsured in 2034 because of the Medicaid provisions in a version of the bill passed by the House last month, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Most of those cuts come from the legislation's work requirement, which calls for able-bodied adults without dependent children to work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month. A proposal unveiled by the Senate this month would expand that requirement to adults with children over the age of 14, which would likely result in even more people losing coverage. Republicans have argued they are reforming Medicaid to sustain the program for people who need it the most. They've focused their messaging on work requirements, which are popular with voters, and policies that would penalize states for covering undocumented immigrants with their own funds. 'President Trump and Senate Republicans are working to protect Medicaid for Americans who truly need it,' Nick Puglia, a National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson, said in a statement to CNN. 'Voters will reject Democrats' lies, fearmongering, and attempts to use taxpayer benefits to subsidize illegal aliens and their open border policies.' Republicans are also framing a vote against the reconciliation bill, which extends the individual income tax cuts in the 2017 GOP tax policy overhaul that are set to expire at the end of the year, as a vote for tax increases. 'I think in the end, this bill will play out on the Republicans saying, 'We got it done. We passed it, the economy's good. We spared you from having to pay more taxes,'' David McIntosh, the president of Club for Growth, told reporters recently. 'And then pivot to say, 'but if my Democrat opponent gets elected, they want to undo it … vote for us so that we can stop them from raising your taxes.'' A Washington Post-Ipsos poll released June 17, before the Senate released its framework, found overwhelming support for some provisions in the bill. Seventy-two percent of Americans support raising the child tax credit, 71% support extending tax cuts for individuals making less than $100,000 and 65% support eliminating taxes on tips. But, as whole, 42% of Americans oppose the bill, while 23% support it and 34% said they had no opinion. A KFF poll released the same day found that 64% of adults had an unfavorable view of the House's version of the bill. The poll found that 68% of adults – including 51% of Democrats, 66% of independents and 88% of Republicans – support work requirements, but that support for work requirements dropped to 35% when adults heard the argument that 'most people on Medicaid are already working' or unable to work. Democrats have described the work requirements as an intentional bureaucratic hurdle. Health policy experts and Democratic campaigns have also focused on the ripple effects cuts to Medicaid funding could have on the system as a whole, including rural hospitals and nursing home care. 'A lot of Medicaid patients seek care from the same providers or same types of providers,' said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at Harvard University. 'So when you're pulling dollars out of the system and away from those providers, it doesn't just hurt the patients who no longer have insurance through Medicaid.' CNN's Manu Raju, Alison Main and Fredreka Schouten contributed to this report.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
