Trump wants to reopen Alcatraz. Californians are deeply skeptical.
But on 'The Rock' - the nickname for this craggy piece of land a mile from the San Francisco waterfront - the president's proposal looked like a longshot. Visitors to the site, now a popular tourist attraction, said it seemed like an outlandish idea as they surveyed the prison's remaining buildings, all in varying states of disrepair. Locals took it as yet another attack on the legendarily liberal city, long one of Trump's favorite punching bags. And elected officials treated it as both dangerous and distracting, vowing to either impede or ignore the plan.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'The chances of Alcatraz being repurposed as a prison are about as large as landing a man on Pluto,' said Aaron Peskin, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who regularly swims in the frigid bay waters surrounding the island. 'If I had my way, there would only be one prisoner in that place, and it would be Donald Trump.'
Advertisement
Trump, continuing to claim that the country is overrun by violent crime despite evidence to the contrary, first said he would direct his administration to 'reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt' Alcatraz to house America's 'most ruthless and violent' offenders. He has sent mixed signals about the plan since, appearing to walk it back as 'just an idea I've had' in one set of comments before doubling down in another.
William K. Marshall III, the director of the Bureau of Prisons, said in a statement that he had 'ordered an immediate assessment to determine our needs and the next steps' to reopen Alcatraz.
But much remains unclear about the project, which would be astronomically expensive and extraordinarily difficult to enact.
As Trump worked to finesse his plan, tourists continued flocking to the island, lining up to take the 15-minute ferry ride from San Francisco's Pier 33 to the decommissioned prison, which is now managed by the National Park Service.
Nearly all were skeptical of Trump's proposal.
'He's not going to get it approved,' said Ashley Macey, a 27-year-old Brit and true crime devotee who said a chance to visit Alcatraz was the main motivation for her transatlantic trip. Trump's statements, she said, were 'wishy-washy.'
Others, like 29-year-old Kevin Sumlin, worried about the message such a move would send.
'I think it would put a dirt cloud back over the prison,' said Sumlin, in town from Connecticut, as he waited to board the ferry.
Yesenia Valencia, an 18-year-old from California's Central Valley, was visiting the prison on a high school class field trip. She and her fellow students left home before sunrise Monday
to make the journey and saw Trump's comments while en route.
Advertisement
'We watched it on the way to San Francisco and thought, 'What the heck?'' she said. 'It's crazy. I feel like he shouldn't be doing that.'
Another visitor, a 46-year-old from Iowa, said reopening Alcatraz would be 'a waste of money.' She spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid a dispute with her husband, a Trump voter.
And several international tourists - from Argentina, Poland, and the Netherlands - declined to speak on the record out of fear that they would not be allowed to travel freely in the United States or obtain visas to live here if they were quoted disagreeing with the president.
'It's like a horror movie,'
a 70-year-old Dutch traveler said of Alcatraz, adding that it would be 'insane' to reopen it.
One visitor interviewed, Marivic Hammari, a 43-year-old from nearby Sausalito, said she agreed with Trump's mission, despite the cost, because 'it would be nice to use the building.'
Several state and local Democrats issued muted reactions, dismissing Trump's plan as a lark meant to divert attention from other negative headlines, including the ongoing ripple effects of his tariff regime.
A spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom said, 'Looks like it's distraction day again in Washington, D.C.' And San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said it was 'not a serious proposal.'
But state Senator Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, said Trump in his second term has shown more follow-through than in his first and leaders cannot afford to write off even his far-out musings.
Advertisement
'It's a combination of ridiculously stupid and scary,' Wiener said. 'If he does this, he's literally setting taxpayer money on fire.'
A constellation of local small businesses relies on revenue generated by the nearly 1.5 million tourists who visit Alcatraz each year, from tour guides to ferry companies and restaurants along the water. The island, along with the Golden Gate Bridge, is one of San Francisco's biggest draws, a boon especially as the city looks to recover from a pandemic-induced malaise.
This week marks the second time this year Trump has targeted an iconic San Francisco property under federal jurisdiction. In February, the president moved to make cuts to the Presidio Trust, which oversees Presidio National Park, a beloved swath of green space at the city's northernmost tip.
'He clearly doesn't like San Francisco,' Wiener said. Of the Alcatraz plan, he added: 'If there's any way for us to gum this up, we will try to gum it up.'
But logistical, financial, and bureaucratic hurdles may be gummy enough on their own.
When Alcatraz closed in 1963, it was in such bad shape that the federal government ruled it would be more cost effective to abandon it and open another prison elsewhere. It was nearly three times more expensive to run than the average federal facility, and it needed millions of dollars in renovations.
'It hasn't gotten any better,' said John A. Martini, an Alcatraz historian who worked on the island as a Park Service ranger when the agency took over its operations in the 1970s. 'If this were a TV show, like on Home and Garden, the prison would be a teardown.'
The island lacks basic utilities: No running water or sewage system and spotty electricity that relies on fuel shipped in by boat.
Advertisement
'It has essentially become a stabilized ruin,' Martini said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
37 minutes ago
Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is 'solidly' pro-Trump: ANALYSIS
President Donald Trump may not have a perfect rubber stamp in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is finding little willingness by the six-justice conservative majority to stand in his way. As the justices begin the traditional summer recess, the sweeping impact of their judgments from the recently concluded term -- in 56 cases argued and more than 100 matters from the emergency docket -- is coming into focus for the administration and the country. Despite the nation's narrow political divide, the court delivered rulings disproportionately advantageous to interests of the Republican political establishment in power. "Time and again, the Supreme Court came down on one side, and solidly so -- on the very conservative side," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Most notably, the court imposed dramatic new limits on the ability of federal judges to check presidential power, coming one year after it established sweeping, presumptive immunity for presidents engaged in "official acts." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies," explained Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her historic opinion allowing Trump to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, which has been the law of the land for more than a century. In 14 other emergency appeals Trump brought to the high court, the justices granted his request -- at least in part -- on 12 occasions. The conservative majority gave the green light to the Trump administration's mass layoffs of federal workers, the removal of openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, deportation of noncitizens to third countries with little due process, and access for DOGE staffers to Americans' most sensitive information held by the Social Security Administration. The court did narrowly block Trump's request to continue a freeze of $2 billion in foreign aid money owed to nonprofit groups for services rendered and denied a bid to dismiss the legal case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland migrant and alleged gang member whom the administration deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order, and other alleged Venezuelan criminals. The successive decisions have increasingly incensed the court's liberals. "Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote bluntly Thursday in a dissent from the court's decision clearing the way for the government to send eight migrants to South Sudan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in extraordinarily stark and impassioned language in dissent in the birthright citizenship case, accused her conservative colleagues of creating an "existential threat to the rule of law" by frequently overriding lower court judges. "This Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise," she wrote. Many legal scholars don't share Jackson's ominous view, including several critical of Trump. "I'm pretty confident that within a matter of weeks … there's going to be basically nationwide coverage of declarations or injunctions making clear that the birthright citizenship contention of the government is just absolutely absurd, insane, and unlawful," said George Conway III, a prominent conservative lawyer who now leads a coalition of attorneys opposed to actions of the Trump administration. As for a broader fear about the erosion of judicial authority, Conway suggested fixation on the court system as a check on the president might be misplaced. "We can't expect the courts to save us. Even if every district judge in the country and every appellate court in the country, and every justice … on the Supreme Court agrees that this administration is violating the law, left and right," Conway said. "They can't save us. The people have to save themselves here." Still, the Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is giving Trump significant leeway -- with potentially more to come headed into the summer. The justices will soon decide whether to roll back a temporary nationwide injunction currently barring the Trump administration from moving forward with large-scale reductions of the federal workforce across 19 agencies and offices. They are also expected to weigh in on whether to let the president move forward with elimination of most employees at the Department of Education in an effort to dismantle the agency while litigation over its future continues in federal court. Many veteran court watchers have decried a lack of explanation from the justices for its decisions in these consequential cases. "This court not only militantly refuses to talk about the effect of their decisions, they kind of gaslight us into pretending that the effects of their decision won't be what they are," said Sherrilyn Ifill, Howard University law professor and former director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Chief Justice John Roberts -- who was the justice most often in the majority last term at 95% of the time -- was the first member of the court to speak out publicly after the flurry of controversial decisions. In rare televised remarks at a federal judicial conference in North Carolina, Roberts confronted what he called "some sharp adjectives" directed at the court amidst a wave of critical public opinion. "The idea that we're responsible for whatever somebody is angry about -- it just doesn't make any sense, and it's very dangerous," Roberts said of the critics. "What they're angry about or upset about is probably not that you applied the principle … It's that they lost whatever they were looking for." A judge's role, Roberts said, is to "interpret the law to the best of our ability," not to write the laws.
USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
To new and struggling teachers: Don't give up. America's kids need you.
If I could talk to my younger self, I'd tell him about the thousands of students who were going to need him by the time they reached high school ‒ and why I'm glad I stayed. I began teaching in the midst of crisis ‒ a crack epidemic, gang violence, racial strife and police conduct that led to civil unrest. Now, at the close of my 34th year in the classroom, I find that my students, my colleagues and me in crisis again ‒ kids and their families in fear for their freedom as a president, unrestrained by Congress or the Supreme Court, wages war on immigration, much of it on the streets of our Los Angeles, against the Latino community. Those who don't get abducted on the streets by masked immigration agents still face an uncertain future with the recent Supreme Court decision not to reject President Donald Trump's executive order revoking automatic birthright citizenship for all. Trump's order is not retroactive ‒ not for now ‒ but the cruelties we have seen on our streets make it difficult to believe that anything is off the table. I keep asking myself ‒ as do so many educators and other Americans ‒ how things got to this point? A dysfunctional nation, a dysfunctional education system It is a complicated question with complicated answers, but for much of my teaching career, I have worried about the way our schools treat kids: Demanding compliance over excellence. I am afraid that we have raised too many Americans willing to vote for and bend to authoritarian-leaning leaders. And now here we are, with a president virulently expanding his power, coercing and silencing opposition, and militarizing the streets of our city. Much other dysfunction also persists in our education system, and it hurts our kids as much as ever. Politics, profiteering, narrow mindedness and laziness are a big part of the collective incompetence that many of us struggle against every day in classrooms across this country. We ought to keep demanding ‒ or pleading for ‒ systemic change and a greater investment of money and imagination in our schools, even at a time when the federal government seems intent on dismantling public education. For years now, I have been critiquing and complaining, here at USA TODAY and elsewhere, about the systemic rot in our public schools. Whatever the small impact of my words, I know that I've accomplished far more through the work of teaching and through the help I've been able to give new and struggling teachers. Opinion: LA isn't burning. ICE has terrorized many into an ominous silence. For the sake of the next generation of kids, we cannot wait for systemic change. For the sake of those kids, we have to find ways to be the effective and inspiring teachers our kids need and deserve. We have to keep pushing for change in the governance and priorities of our schools; change in the way that teachers are prepared, supported and compensated; and, in the meantime, rise as much as possible above everything that undermines us, that makes our job sometimes seem impossible, and that discourages so many young, idealistic, passionate educators. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. To frustrated new teachers, I was once like you Many new teachers don't last five years, and in many places it is not uncommon for demoralized new teachers to quit midsemester or even midday. I don't blame those frustrated young educators. I almost didn't make it past my first semester, and now I try to encourage as many struggling teachers as I can to believe in their students and themselves. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Because when you see countless students grow up and some overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. When you hear their words of appreciation for your part in it. When you find yourself teaching multiple branches and generations of once distressed and now flourishing families. When you see students transform from selfishness or misery or self-destructiveness to become productive adults doing their small part to improve their community and the world and help others do the same ‒ then you know it was worth it. The problem is that too many educators are defeated before they can even imagine such successes, and we don't do enough to affirm the small successes that they themselves might not even recognize. If some tech innovator could create a time machine so I could go talk to my younger self as a discouraged new teacher, I would tell that frazzled young educator about the thousands of children who were going to need him by the time they reached high school ‒ and how glad I've been to be there for them, how sad that it won't last forever, and how much I hope to pass on what the students have taught me over the years. An army of dedicated, patient and talented educators may be the only hope for this new generation. In that regard, there is no greater gift to the world than making the sacrifices, braving the indignities, and enduring the uncertainties and failures to become a really good teacher. Which is why I've written "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond: Wisdom and Advice for Brave Teachers." I did so on behalf of our kids, now and in the future, and for those courageous souls who want to help them all to find their brilliance, their voices, their idealism and their place in this crazy world. Perhaps they can help to steer us away from the dystopian nightmare we seem to be careening toward. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is also the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher.' You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
How the lone farmer running a state government is navigating Trump's turbulent policies
Those relationships are all the more important. Nebraska agriculture runs our economy. There's other things that are really important, too. Manufacturing. Our Air Force base is off the charts. And we have the most significant insurance industry in the United States. We've got an incredibly strong economy, but agriculture drives it. We feed the world from Nebraska agriculture and save the planet, and we raise way more than we can consume in the United States and in Nebraska. So international trade is gigantic, and those relationships are important. Everybody we do business [with] understands that we have to have fair, long-term relationships. I've been a big advocate my whole life that we've been messing up with how we do trade. It has to be fair. It's got to be free. And it's got to be balanced. So when the country is out of whack with trade deficits that we're being severely taken advantage of, it hurts us in a few spots. We're getting dinged right now a little bit [in the agriculture sector], but we're in it for the long haul. Nebraska, farmers and ranchers. We're not publicly traded companies. We're not looking for a return next quarter. We're in it for the next generations. What President Trump's doing, I'm 100 percent with him. The reconciliation bill includes cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which benefits 155,000 Nebraskans, 8 percent of the population. What do you think about the state potentially taking up that burden? Here's what's really, really important to understand. Number one, the people in Nebraska, we've got each other's backs. We step up and take care of people and solve problems. If the federal government is going to have mandates on us and not [support them] economically, we're going to have conversations. If we have to pay for it, we're going to run it our way. It's simple, we're going to take care of the vulnerable Nebraskans. But again, if the federal government has a program that we have to pay for, we're going to do it the Nebraska way, not the federal government's way. 'The First Furrow' by artist James Penney hangs in a vestibule of the Nebraska State Capitol. | Shia Kapos/POLITICO What is the Nebraska way? The Nebraska way is education and innovation, not regulation. People aren't buying pop and candy, they're getting the best value to feed their family. A bill that you supported during the legislative session would restrict business dealings with foreign adversaries. Would that impact your company doing business with Smithfield Foods, which is owned by a Chinese company?
