Latest news with #ImmigrationAndCustomsEnforcement
New York Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Pushes Allies on Military Spending at NATO Summit
President Trump has cut funding and specialists from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which helps protect the nation's power grids, elections and water utilities. Soon after the United States bombed Iran's critical nuclear facilities, the Trump administration warned that Iran could seek revenge by inspiring violent extremists or launching cyberattacks against U.S. networks. But many of the federal programs or resources that would defend the nation against such attacks have been scaled back significantly in recent months, after Mr. Trump slashed the federal bureaucracy and reoriented much of the national security apparatus to help with his immigration crackdown. Mr. Trump has cut funding and specialists from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, which helps protect the nation's power grids, elections and water utilities. In a sign of the heightened risk of a cyberattack, the F.B.I. directed officials in recent days to assist the cybersecurity agency in protecting critical infrastructure, according to an email obtained by The New York Times. But that directive came after F.B.I. officials tasked with working on cybersecurity or counterintelligence were asked to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement on routine deportations. The administration has also purged decades of experience at the highest ranks of the F.B.I., heightening concerns that the bureau might be unprepared to deal with myriad crises that the agency faces on a daily basis, let alone the possibility of Iran taking revenge on American soil. Image The F.B.I., led by Kash Patel, has directed officials in recent days to assist the cybersecurity agency in protecting critical infrastructure. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times And the administration has proposed breaking up a little-known office tasked with detecting potential chemical, biological and nuclear attacks against the United States. 'We are less safe now than we were on Jan. 20 because of the indiscriminate cuts by DOGE, that shift in priority to focus exclusively on immigration and not on counterterrorism or other national security threats, and the loss of institutional knowledge about those national security threats,' said Mary Ellen Callahan, the former assistant secretary of homeland security for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office, which Mr. Trump has proposed disbanding. 'We are less safe now and the risks are higher now.' Mr. Trump's aides maintain that his policies have restored national security to the United States by tightening its borders and pursuing sweeping deportations of immigrants in the country without legal status. The Department of Homeland Security has been quick to publicize arrests over the weekend of 11 Iranians in the United States illegally, including one who was on a terrorism watch list. And the White House has sought to redirect attention to the Biden administration's border policies, contending that the record number of migrants who crossed into the United States in recent years posed a significant risk to the nation. 'We're doing everything that we can to keep our people safe,' Vice President JD Vance said on Sunday. 'This is one of the reasons why border security is national security: is if you let a bunch of crazy people into your country, those crazy people can eventually take action. We're going to do everything that we can to make sure that doesn't happen and to keep Americans safe.' The approach by the Trump administration, however, ignores some of the more modern ways that Iran or its proxy groups could target the United States, according to national security officials. And even though Iran and Israel have agreed to a cease-fire, national security officials warned that the nation was still exposed to retaliation from Iran or its proxies, particularly one cloaked in sensitive computer systems. Image A rally in support of the Iranian armed forces in Tehran on Tuesday. Credit... Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times 'We are not out of the woods yet in terms of what Iran will try to do as payback,' said Thomas S. Warrick, a former counterterrorism official in the Trump, Obama and Bush administrations. 'But there's a host of D.H.S. programs that were intended to help defend the United States homeland from those attacks, and we're going to find that many of those programs have been adversely affected.' Mr. Trump and his allies have long held animosity for CISA, the agency he signed into law in his first term that would eventually declare the 2020 election was one of the best-run in history — undercutting Mr. Trump's claims. In early March, Mr. Trump slashed more than $10 million in funding to two critical cybersecurity intelligence-sharing programs that helped detect and deter cyberattacks and alerted state and local governments about forthcoming attacks on cybernetworks. CISA has also canceled contracts that affected more than a hundred cybersecurity specialists with a range of specialties. In its 2026 budget request, the administration also proposed cutting more than 1,000 positions from the agency, which is funded to hire more than 3,700 people. 'It takes a huge toll on our readiness to meet the challenges like what we may face if Iran chooses to retaliate in the United States in some way,' said Suzanne Spaulding, a homeland security under secretary for cybersecurity and critical infrastructure in the Obama administration. 'Not only do you have a decimated work force and fewer people — you've lost experts and institutional knowledge, and expertise has walked out the door.' In that budget request, the administration also proposed dismantling the office tasked with countering weapons of mass destruction and absorbing its functions into other parts of the department — an action that Ms. Callahan said would 'dissipate the mission.' At the same time, Mr. Trump is hoping to secure about $175 billion in new spending to enforce his ambitious anti-immigration agenda through his domestic policy legislation, which is still making its way through Congress. The administration has also redirected many federal agents to assist ICE for its deportation campaign, including F.B.I. agents who have been pulled from their usual tasks of cybersecurity, counterintelligence or criminal work. Image ICE agents in New York last month. Thousands of federal agents have been pulled into Mr. Trump's immigration plans. Credit... Dakota Santiago for The New York Times The Times reported in May that the Justice Department decided that about 2,000 of its federal agents — from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — were required to help find and arrest undocumented immigrants for the remainder of the year. But in the days since the attack on Iran, F.B.I. officials are pivoting to address the threats posed by Iran. 'Perhaps, in hindsight, forcing out the most experienced national security senior executives, and having counterterrorism and counter intelligence agents and analysts spend their time assisting on immigration roundups, might not have been the most well-thought-out ideas,' said Michael Feinberg, a former F.B.I. agent who spent years handling national security matters before abruptly leaving the bureau several weeks ago. The F.B.I., in a statement, declined to comment on personnel decisions but said the agency does 'continuously assess and realign our resources to respond to the most pressing threats to our national security and to ensure the safety of the American people.' Mike Sena, the president of an association representing information-gathering 'fusion centers' spread across the country that are partially funded by the Department of Homeland Security, said he noticed that many of the federal officials who worked with state and local law enforcement agencies had left their jobs. Many of his peers in the law enforcement community are also concerned that they may not be able to rely on federal funding. 'How do you sustain and maintain the capabilities from even a year ago when folks aren't there anymore?' Mr. Sena said.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
ICE Insists That Congress Needs Its Permission To Conduct Oversight
This week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released new guidance on "facility visit and engagement protocol for Members of Congress and staff." "ICE detention locations and Field Offices are secure facilities. As such, all visitors are required to comply with [identity] verification and security screening requirements prior to entry," it specified. "When planning to visit an ICE facility, ICE asks requests to be submitted at least 72 hours in advance." Incidentally, it's perfectly legal for members of Congress to visit ICE detention facilities, even unannounced. And ICE's attempt to circumvent that requirement threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, which funded the government through September 2024, specified that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may not "prevent…a Member of Congress" or one of their employees "from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens" or to modify the facility in advance of such a visit. It also clarified that the DHS cannot "require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility." ICE's new guidance tries to get around this by stipulating that "ICE Field Offices are not detention facilities and fall outside of the [law's] requirements." Nevertheless, it adds that "while Member[s] of Congress are not required to provide advance notice for visits to ICE detention facilities, ICE requires a minimum of 24-hours' notice for visits by congressional staff" (emphasis in the original). Further, "visit request[s] are not considered actionable until receipt of the request is acknowledged" by ICE. The new rules also stipulate that visiting members of Congress may not bring in cellphones or recording devices, they must be escorted by ICE staff at all times, and they may not "have any physical or verbal contact with any person in ICE detention facilities unless previously requested and specifically approved by ICE Headquarters." In recent weeks, Democratic lawmakers have tried to enter ICE facilities, only to be turned away or threatened with imprisonment. Last week, authorities charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D–N.J.) with three felony counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers. McIver and other lawmakers visited Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility in Newark last month. A scuffle apparently ensued when authorities arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing, though those charges were later dropped. This week, four members of Congress who visited the ICE Processing Center in Broadview, Illinois, were apparently denied access when they arrived. "We have reports that immigrants are being detained here without access to their attorneys, sleeping on the floor and without food," Rep. Chuy Garcia (D–Ill.), one of the members in attendance, alleged in a post on X. The DHS replied from its official account, "Congressman, all members and staff need to comply with facility rules, procedures, and instructions from ICE personnel on site." On Wednesday, Reps. Jerry Nadler and Dan Goldman (D–N.Y.) visited an office in Manhattan where migrants were allegedly being kept, only to be denied entry by Bill Joyce, the deputy director of the field office. Joyce denied it was a detention facility, saying that even though migrants were being kept on-site, ICE was simply "housing them until they can be detained." In video captured at the scene in Manhattan, Goldman said he and Nadler had requested permission to visit—even though they "have the authority to show up unannounced"—but were denied. This isn't uncharacteristic of the agency: Earlier this year, ICE agents denied Reason's C.J. Ciaramella access to an immigration court at a federal detention facility in Miami, in defiance of both federal law and guidance listed on the agency's own website. (ICE later admitted the facility was "open daily to the public.") Regardless of the actual conditions of any ICE facility, it's clear Congress' intent was to establish its legislative oversight role over an executive agency. Checks and balances are a key feature of American government: Each of the three branches has the power to keep the others in check. For ICE to claim an all-encompassing right to operate in the dark, apart from the prying eyes of even a co-equal branch of government, flies in the face of the Constitution's clear meaning. "This unlawful policy is a smokescreen to deny Member visits to ICE offices across the country, which are holding migrants – and sometimes even U.S. citizens – for days at a time. They are therefore detention facilities and are subject to oversight and inspection at any time," Rep. Bennie Thompson (D–Miss.), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. "There is no valid or legal reason for denying Member access to ICE facilities and DHS's ever-changing justifications prove this….If ICE has nothing to hide, DHS must make its facilities available." The post ICE Insists That Congress Needs Its Permission To Conduct Oversight appeared first on
Miami Herald
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Do Americans support or oppose ICE? Here's what a poll found amid LA protests
Public opinion is hotly divided over Immigration And Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency responsible for handling deportations, according to new polling. In the latest YouGov/Economist poll, roughly equal shares of respondents expressed support for and opposition to ICE. And, while there is little appetite for abolishing the agency, most respondents think ICE agents should be required to adhere to certain practices. Here is a breakdown of the results from the poll, which comes after anti-ICE protests erupted in Los Angeles, California, leading President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops to the area. Favorability of ICE In the poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6 to 9 — a slim plurality of respondents, 45%, said they held a favorable view of ICE. Meanwhile, 43% said they had an unfavorable view. On this question, there was a yawning partisan divide, with 81% of Republicans holding a positive view and 79% of Democrats holding a negative view. Independents were about evenly split — 41% unfavorable vs. 40% favorable. Abolishing ICE? Despite this fierce divide, a sizable plurality of respondents, 45%, said they oppose abolishing ICE and replacing it with a different agency. Less than a third of respondents, 27%, said they would favor shutting down ICE. But, again, there were significant differences based on partisanship. Most Republicans, 69%, said they oppose abolishing ICE, while a plurality of Republicans, 47%, said they are in favor of this idea. A plurality of independents, 39%, oppose this. Uniforms and masks By and large, Americans favor requiring ICE agents to clearly identify themselves and refrain from hiding their identities, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More than two-thirds of respondents, 68%, said ICE officers should be required to wear uniforms when conducting operations. Just 18% opposed this. Further, a plurality of respondents, 47%, opposed allowing ICE officers to wear masks to conceal their identities during arrests. Thirty-nine percent said this should be allowed. In recent weeks, ICE agents have been documented carrying out operations in plain clothes and equipped with masks, according to the Houston Chronicle and Reuters. Anti-ICE protests A separate YouGov poll — conducted on June 9 with 4,231 U.S. adults — asked respondents about the anti-ICE protests that sprang up in Los Angeles during the first weekend of June, resulting in more than 50 arrests. Following the outbreak of demonstrations, Trump dispatched around 2,000 National Guard troops to the area. 'If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now,' the president wrote on Truth Social on June 10. Trump also threatened to arrest California Gov. Gavin Newsom for obstructing the federal government's immigration enforcement policies. Newsom responded by suing the Trump administration, arguing that the president has illegally federalized the California National Guard. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom wrote on X. '(Trump) is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' In the poll, a plurality of respondents, 45%, said they disapprove of the anti-ICE protests, while 36% said they approve of them. Most Republicans, 73%, and a plurality of independents, 41%, oppose them, while most Democrats, 58%, are in favor. That said, most respondents, 56%, believe state and local authorities should take the lead in responding to the protests. Just 25% said the federal government should organize the response. Most Democrats and independents — 72% and 56%, respectively — favor a state- and local-led response, while a plurality of Republicans, 46%, want the Trump administration to spearhead the response. Further, respondents were about evenly divided when it came to the nature of the Los Angeles protests, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 2 percentage points. A slim plurality, 38%, said they are mostly peaceful, while 36% said they are mostly violent. Most Democrats, 64%, labeled the protests as mostly peaceful, while most Republicans, 66%, described them as mostly violent. Independents were about evenly split — 35% mostly peaceful vs. 33% mostly violent.
The Independent
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Federal judge blocks immigration authorities from revoking international students' legal status
A judge in California blocked the Trump administration Thursday from terminating the legal status of international students nationwide while a court case challenging previous terminations is pending. The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in Oakland bars the government from arresting, incarcerating or moving students elsewhere based on their legal status until the case is resolved. Students could still be arrested for other reasons and their legal status can still be revoked if they are convicted of a violent crime carrying a prison term of more than a year. Most courts hearing these types of cases have granted protections to the person suing, but White said the government's actions 'wreaked havoc" not only on the lives of plaintiffs but other nonimmigrants in the U.S. on student visas. White, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, a Republican, issued the nationwide injunction sought by attorneys for about two dozen students who sued after their legal status was abruptly terminated in early April by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. More than 4,700 international students had their permission to study in the U.S. canceled this spring, with little notice or explanation, as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigrants and foreign nationals. In court hearings, Department of Homeland Security officials said they ran the names of student visa holders through an FBI-run database that contains the names of suspects and people who have been arrested, even if the charges were dropped or they were never charged with a crime. Some students left the U.S. rather than risk being deported to a third country. Government lawyers say the administration is exercising its prerogative to administer the Immigration and Nationality Act. They say students do not need the court's protections because ICE reinstated legal status and was mailing status reactivation letters to affected students. But White found those actions insufficient. He said that the erroneous revocation remained in the students' record, impacting their ability to obtain a new visa or change their nonimmigrant status. Some students are still dealing with fallout from the previous terminations and there is no guarantee they won't have their legal status revoked again on a whim. He also chastised the administration for unveiling new policies or new actions in an apparent attempt to satisfy the courts' concerns. 'It is unclear how this game of whack-a-mole will end unless Defendants are enjoined from skirting their own mandatory regulations,' White wrote. A survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs research found that even the visa revocations for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests are more unpopular than popular. About half of U.S. adults oppose this policy, and only 3 in 10 are in support. Among college educated adults, 6 in 10 strongly oppose, compared with 4 in 10 who aren't college graduates.
