Tourists pass by members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has authorized the thousands of National Guard troops deployed to the District of Columbia to carry their weapons as they patrol the city, the Pentagon said Friday.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump said he is considering declaring a “national emergency” to keep troops in the nation’s capital for longer than the 30 days allowed under the law, and also said he’s eyeing the Democratic-led cities of Chicago, New York and San Francisco for additional military deployments.

Carrying weapons would be a significant escalation in the show of force for the troops in the district.

“At the direction of the Secretary of Defense, (Guard) members supporting the mission to lower the crime rate in our Nation’s capital will soon be on mission with their service-issued weapons, consistent with their mission and training,” a Defense Department official said in a statement to States Newsroom.

The final decision will be made by Brig. Gen. Leland Blanchard II, who is the interim commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, and any coordination will occur with D.C. Metropolitan Police and federal law enforcement, the Defense Department official said.

There are 800 D.C. National Guard members now in the district, joined by more than 1,260 members from six GOP states called to assist Trump’s federal takeover of the 62 square miles of the district that is home to 700,000 residents.

National Guard members from the Republican-led states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia began arriving in the district this week.

It’s unclear if the 2,060 National Guard members will carry their “service-issued weapons” while on duty.

The change comes days before students in the district return to school.

The Pentagon did not respond to States Newsroom’s question on what type of weapons the National Guard members would be carrying, such as rifles or hand guns.

Typically a standard-issue weapon for most of the U.S. military is a M4 assault rifle, which is a variant of the AR-15.

More cities for military force

The president told reporters Friday in the Oval Office that Chicago, New York and San Francisco could be next for military deployment, similar to the federal takeover of the district.

“After we do this, we’ll go to another location and we’ll make it safe also,” Trump said. “Chicago is a mess…And we’ll straighten that one out probably next. That’ll be our next one after this.”

Because the district is not a state, the president has the sole authority over its National Guard members.

State governors have control over their National Guard members, but the president earlier this summer federalized California’s National Guard to respond to immigration protests — a test case for use of the state-based military forces. The Guard has since left Los Angeles.

Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the district on Aug. 11, even though violent crime in the district is at a 30-year low.

The president also invoked the district’s Home Rule Act in order to use the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,400-member police force for immigration enforcement.

National Guard troops have been sent to patrol Metro stations, the tourist-heavy National Mall and near federal buildings across the district.

“The D.C. National Guard remains committed to safeguarding the District of Columbia and serving those who live, work, and visit the District,” the Department of Defense official said.

Potential Trump declaration of ‘national emergency’

It’s unclear how long the National Guard will remain in the district and the president Friday said he is considering declaring a “national emergency” to keep troops in the nation’s capital.

Troops are currently staying in local hotels around the district, according to a Joint Task Force-District of Columbia spokesperson.

“If I have a national emergency, I can keep the troops there as long as I want,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Earlier Friday, Trump had said he was unsure of how long he would keep National Guard members in the district.

“The big question is how long do we stay? Because we want to make sure it doesn’t come back,” Trump said at another back-and-forth with reporters. “So we have to take care of these criminals and get them out.”

On Thursday, Trump visited a U.S. Park Police facility in a district neighborhood known as Anacostia, where he addressed local and federal law enforcement officials as well as National Guard members.

“You’re incredible people,” Trump said. “You make the country run.”

He thanked them for their service and had White House officials hand out hamburgers he said were cooked at the White House and pizza from a local restaurant.

Louisiana Illuminator Reporter Wes Muller contributed to this story. 

Then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton (R) listens to President Donald Trump as he and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte talk to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House July 18, 2019. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — FBI agents raided the home and office of former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, a one-time adviser to President Donald Trump who has become a frequent critic of the president, to investigate Bolton’s handling of classified documents, according to multiple media reports.

The raid on a former Trump adviser’s house represents an escalation from the Justice Department in targeting critics of Trump, whom he vowed to go after should he return to the White House for a second term.

Speaking to reporters Friday, Trump said he was not briefed on the raid of Bolton’s house in the wealthy suburb of Bethesda, Maryland, and office in Washington, D.C., according to White House pool reports.

But the president noted his longstanding feud with his former adviser.

“I’m not a fan of John Bolton,” Trump said. “He’s a real sort of a low life. He could be a very unpatriotic guy. We’re going to find out.”

Earlier this year, the president revoked the security detail for Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor from 2018 to 2019 and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration in 2005 and 2006.

Following his time in the Trump administration, Bolton, who was an important member of the Bush administration’s national security team that favored active military involvement in the Middle East, emerged as a chief Republican foreign policy critic of Trump, authoring a 2020 book that blasted the president and widened the public rift between the two men.

Bolton has not been charged with a crime and is not in custody, according to The Associated Press, which cited a person familiar with the matter.

The first Trump administration launched an investigation into Bolton to probe if he improperly used sensitive information in his book. The current search involves federal officials investigating Bolton’s actions over the last four years, according to the New York Times, which cited a federal law enforcement official.

Trump documents case

Trump himself was prosecuted for mishandling classified documents after the FBI raided his Florida golf course and main residence of Mar-a-Lago in 2022. A federal judge dismissed the resulting criminal charges against Trump.

FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on social media that “NO ONE is above the law,” and that FBI agents were “on mission.”

The FBI declined to comment.

In 2020, the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into Bolton’s book and tried to block its publication, but were stymied in court.

Patel also wrote a 2023 book where he lists Bolton, along with a dozen other people, as members of the “deep state” who are working against Trump, according to the Times. 

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Nashville press conference on July 18, 2025.  An appeals court on Aug. 21, 2025, said it will allow Noem and the Trump administration, for now, to move forward with ending temporary protections for 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — An appeals court late Wednesday said it will allow the Trump administration, for now, to move forward with ending temporary protections for 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua.

It means that Nepali immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, will lose their legal status – including work permits and deportation protections – immediately. Honduran and Nicaraguan holders will lose their status by Sept. 8.

The judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — Michael Daly Hawkins, Consuelo M. Callahan and Eric D. Miller — did not give a reason for their decision. Former President Bill Clinton nominated Hawkins, former President George W. Bush nominated Callahan and President Donald Trump nominated Miller in his first term.

Wednesday’s decision pauses a late July ruling from California District Judge Trina Thompson that found Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to end deportation protections for those nationals to be rooted in racism.

Instead, Thompson extended TPS for nationals from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua until Nov. 18 while the case proceeded through the courts.

“The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek,” Thompson wrote in her 37-page ruling. “Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees.”

As the Trump administration aims to carry out its plans of mass deportation of immigrants in the country without legal authorization, DHS has also moved to end the temporary legal status many immigrants have held.

Noem has acted to halt TPS for nationals from Haiti and Venezuela and end humanitarian protections for those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Supreme Court has allowed, for now, many of those moves by the Trump administration.

DHS praises decision

DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement called the decision from the appeals court a victory for the Trump administration.

“TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades while allowing hundreds of thousands of foreigners into the country without proper vetting,” McLaughlin said. “This unanimous decision will help restore integrity to our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe.”

Certain nationals are granted TPS because their home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to war, disaster or other unstable conditions.

Immigrants who are granted TPS go through vetting by DHS, including a background check, and have to re-apply roughly every 18 months to keep work permits and have deportation protections. A misdemeanor could result in the loss of TPS status for an immigrant. 

‘Fear and uncertainty’

“I am heartbroken by the court’s decision,” Sandhya Lama, a TPS holder from Nepal who is a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.

“I’ve lived in the U.S. for years, and my kids are U.S. citizens and have never even been to Nepal. This ruling leaves us and thousands of other TPS families in fear and uncertainty,” Lama continued.

Many immigrants are on TPS for lengthy periods due to their home country’s condition. Those from Nepal had TPS for more than 10 years and those nationals from Honduras and Nicaragua were on TPS for more than 26 years, attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is one of the groups that filed the suit, said.

“This administration’s attack on TPS is part of a concerted campaign to deprive noncitizens of any legal status,” Emi MacLean, an attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California said in a statement. “(Wednesday’s) ruling is a devastating setback, but it is not the end of this fight. Humanitarian protection–TPS–means something and cannot be decimated so easily.”

Organizations that filed the suit include the ACLU Foundations of Northern California and Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law and the Haitian Bridge Alliance. 

In an aerial view from a helicopter, the migrant detention center dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" is seen located at the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on July 4, 2025 in Ochopee, Florida. (Photo by Alon Skuy/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration moves to expand immigrant detention centers across the country through state partnerships, more than 60 Democratic lawmakers Wednesday pressed top immigration officials for details regarding a quickly constructed facility in the Florida Everglades, dubbed by Republicans as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

“Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals’ human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health, and violate federal law,” according to the letter signed by 65 Democratic members of Congress.

The letter comes after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tuesday announced a partnership with the state of Nebraska to open a 300-bed federal immigration detention center for its version of “Alligator Alcatraz,” dubbed the “Cornhusker Clink.”

Another facility in Bunker Hill, Indiana, nicknamed the “Speedway Slammer,” is being constructed to hold 1,000 immigrants.

Democrats addressed the letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, DHS Office of Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons and Acting Head of FEMA David Richardson.

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment regarding the letter from Democrats.

Lawsuits in Florida

As the Trump administration aims to carry out its plans of mass deportations, partnerships with states to detain immigrants for removal are key but are also provoking opposition.

The facility in the Everglades, where state and federal officials aim to detain up to 5,000 immigrants, is currently facing a legal challenge in federal court from immigration advocates over allegations of limited access to attorneys for detainees.

There is also a second lawsuit from environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe to pause construction of the site, arguing it violates federal environmental laws.

“Experts worry this novel state-run immigration detention model will allow Florida to create an ‘independent, unaccountable detention system’ that runs parallel to the federal detention system,” according to the letter.

Other states following Florida’s lead? 

Democrats also expressed concern that the facility in the Everglades would serve as a model for other states.

“Beyond human rights and due process issues, this plan raises serious environmental concerns,” according to the letter.

In the letter, Democrats are asking for information about the legal authority for the state of Florida to construct and operate a migrant detention facility; the agreement between the state and DHS related to the operation of the facility; and measures that are being taken to ensure clean water, food, temperature regulation and medical care are provided for detainees, among other things.

“Human rights experts have condemned the plan as ‘cruel and inhumane’ by design,” according to the letter. “Construction progressed at ‘turbo speed,’ and it remains unclear whether the facility has plans to ensure medical care, rapid hurricane evacuation, access to counsel, and sufficient infrastructure for sewage, running water, and temperature controls, despite being located in one of the ‘hottest parts of the state.’”

Democrats are also seeking inspection reports, environmental review documents and contracts of private vendors that are operating the facility.

The letter asks for a response by Sept. 3.

Democratic senators who signed the letter include: Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Tina Smith of Minnesota.

Democratic representatives who signed the letter include: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Frederica S. Wilson, Lois Frankel and Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida; Hank Johnson and Nikema Williams of Georgia; Betty McCollum of Minnesota; Rashida Tlaib and Shri Thanedar of Michigan; Valerie P. Foushee of North Carolina; Chuy García, Bradley Scott Schneider, Delia C. Ramirez, Danny K. Davis, Sean Casten, Mike Quigley and Jonathan L. Jackson of Illinois; Pramila Jayapal, Suzan K. DelBene and Adam Smith of Washington; Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia; Dina Titus of Nevada; Glenn Ivey and Sarah Elfreth of Maryland; Gwen S. Moore of Wisconsin; Luis Correa, Juan Vargas, Mark Takano, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Thompson, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, John Garamendi and Jim Costa of California; Janelle S. Bynum, Suzanne Bonamici, Maxine Dexter and Andrea Salinas of Oregon; Yvette D. Clarke, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Paul Tonko and Dan Goldman of New York; Sylvia R. Garcia, Jasmine Crockett and Veronica Escobar of Texas; Wesley Bell and Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri; Summer L. Lee and Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania; Jahana Hayes of Connecticut; Brittany Pettersen of Colorado; Yassamin Ansari of Arizona; Seth Moulton and James P. McGovern of Massachusetts; Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island; and Sarah McBride of Delaware.

A member of the National Guard stands alongside a military vehicle parked in front of Union Station, near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — Six Republican governors are sending more than 1,000 National Guard members to the District of Columbia after President Donald Trump last week activated 800 members from the district’s Guard as part of his federal takeover of the nation’s capital.

The deployment would bring the total number of National Guard troops to roughly 2,060 in the district’s 68 square miles, following the president’s “crime emergency” declaration, even though violent crime in the district is at a 30-year low.

Because the district, home to more than 700,000 residents, is not a state, the president has the sole authority over its National Guard members.

The president has not only activated the National Guard but through the district’s Home Rule Act is using the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,400-member police force for immigration enforcement.

The more than 1,000 National Guard members sent from the states are expected to arrive in the district Monday and through the coming days and are expected to be armed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry will send 150 members; Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine will send 150 military police from his state’s National Guard; Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves will send 200 members; South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster approved 200 members; Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee will send 160 National Guard members; and West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey will send up to 400 National Guard members.

McMaster and Morrisey added that the federal government would cover the cost of deploying state troops.

Unknown how long Guard will stay

It’s unclear how long National Guard members will remain on duty in the district. National Guard members are usually deployed for natural disasters and kept in reserve. Most have civilian jobs and families that they are pulled away from when they are activated.

The Department of Defense did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

The president has 23 days left in his emergency declaration and has signaled he wants to extend the emergency longer, as well as request funding from Congress to finance his plans for the district. He’s directed federal law enforcement officers to not only conduct local policing, but to clear out camps of homeless people.

It’s not the first time Republican governors have signaled they will deploy their National Guard members at Trump’s request. Iowa’s Kim Reynolds has stated she will send troops to help with the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, declined a request from the Trump administration to send the state’s National Guard to the district, according to Vermont Public.

DeWine, McMaster and Morrisey said the Pentagon made requests for additional National Guard members.

What other states might see deployments?

States Newsroom reached out to the offices of all 27 Republican governors to ask if the Trump administration had requested National Guard members.

The administration has not made any requests to Georgia, South Dakota and Virginia, according to spokespeople at those offices. Maryland, which borders the district and is led by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, has not received a request from the Pentagon to send in National Guard members, according to a spokesperson for Moore’s office.

A spokesperson for Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said there are no current plans for a deployment of National Guard troops from the state.

Laura Strimple, communications director for Republican Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska, said in a statement that the governor supported the president’s “initiatives to reduce crime and clean up the streets in our nation’s capital, including placing the Metropolitan Police Department under federal leadership and tasking the District of Columbia National Guard and National Guard troops from several nearby states with security in Washington.”

“At this time, the Nebraska National Guard is not part of this mission,” she added.

A spokesperson for Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis did not directly answer States Newsroom’s question if the state, which is preparing for Category 4 Hurricane Erin, had received a request from the Trump administration to send National Guard members to the district.

“We stand ready to mobilize any resources necessary in response to President Trump’s federal priorities,” the spokesperson said.

The rest of the state offices did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for comment. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and Metropolitan Police Department officers conduct a traffic stop near the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice will rewrite an order from Attorney General Pam Bondi that initially placed a Trump administration official in charge of the District of Columbia’s police force, after an emergency hearing late Friday afternoon on a lawsuit filed by the district.

Attorneys on behalf of the Justice Department told District of Columbia Judge Ana C. Reyes they would rewrite Section 1 of Bondi’s order by a deadline the judge set of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Friday.

In that section, Bondi’s late Thursday order named Terry Cole, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, as head of the Metropolitan Police Department.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb called that move a “brazen usurpation of the district’s authority” in his suit filed early Friday against the Trump administration.

Reyes, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, said if she did not receive the new order by the deadline, she would issue a temporary restraining order against the DOJ. She said she found that section of Bondi’s order “plainly contrary to statute” of the district’s Home Rule Act of 1973.

The exact changes to the order were not immediately available.

District filed suit Friday

Schwalb early Friday sued the Trump administration for taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,400 officers.

The suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia argued that President Donald Trump’s Monday executive order to federalize the district’s police force “far exceeded” the president’s authority under the Home Rule Act of 1973 that allows Washingtonians to elect their local leaders, but gives Congress control over local laws and the district’s budget.

Trump has warned he may pursue similar action in other Democratic-led cities that he sees as having “totally out of control” crime, though experts have questioned the legality and mayors already have raised objections.

“This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb, a Democrat elected in 2022, wrote on social media. “The Administration’s actions are brazenly unlawful. They go well beyond the bounds of the President’s limited authority and instead seek a hostile takeover of MPD.”

District Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back on Bondi’s order, and wrote on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

“Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President,” she said. “We have followed the law.”

The suit asks for a judge to vacate Bondi’s order and an order to prevent the Trump administration “from issuing any future orders or directives or taking any other action that attempts to place MPD under the control of anyone other than the Mayor and the Chief of Police, otherwise assert operational control over MPD, or otherwise attempt to direct local law enforcement activities.”

The suit does not challenge Trump’s decision to deploy 800 National Guard members to the district. Because the district, home to more than 700,000 residents, is not a state, the president has the sole authority over the National Guard members.

Carjacking preceded Trump order

Trump earlier this week declared a “crime emergency” after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured on Aug. 3 in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the Logan Circle neighborhood. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

Violent crime in the district is at a historic 30-year low.

The suit notes Trump’s previous comments about his plans for the district, from his time as a 2024 presidential candidate to his most recent remarks about taking over control of the district while at a February press conference.

“I think that we should govern the District of Columbia … I think that we should run it strong, run it with law and order, make it absolutely flawless … And I think we should take over Washington, D.C. … We should govern D.C. The federal government should take over the governance of D.C.,” Trump said in the court document.

Advocates and local leaders have criticized the president’s decision, arguing that the move is nothing more than an extension of the administration’s immigration crackdown. Checkpoints have popped up all over the city in communities with a high immigrant population. 

Additionally, the district’s police chief Thursday issued a new order to allow local police to aid federal officials in immigration enforcement for immigrants not in police custody.

Trump praised Thursday’s order, calling it “a very positive thing,” especially at checkpoints in the district.

“When they stop people, they find they’re illegal, they report them, they give them to us,” he said.

Police officers set up a roadside checkpoint on 14th Street Northwest on Aug. 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Local leaders and advocates Thursday said that President Donald Trump’s decision to seize the District of Columbia’s 3,400-member police force and deploy 800 National Guard members is a continuation of his administration’s immigration crackdown.

Since the president’s decision Monday to invoke the district’s Home Rule Act, checkpoints are being set up in busy neighborhoods, bulldozers are clearing out tents of people experiencing homelessness and Republican governors are volunteering their own National Guard members to bolster the president’s federalization of the district’s 68 square miles.

Videos of masked law enforcement officers making Washingtonians step out of their cars and conducting arrests have been posted on social media by journalists, drawing concern over civil liberties.

While Trump’s control of the district’s police force ends in 28 days, he’s signaled he wants Congress to extend his authority to deter the “crime emergency.”

Advocates questioned the situation. “There does appear to be evidence that non (Metropolitan Police Department) federal authorities may have exceeded the lawful bounds at some of those traffic stops … and there will be accountability if the law is violated,” said Norm Eisen, the executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, a litigation organization that has challenged many of the Trump administration’s actions, in a call with reporters.

Trump predicts enforcement ‘all over the country’

The checkpoints have drawn backlash from district residents and local elected leaders.

In a statement, district Councilmember Brianne Nadeau criticized the immigration enforcement at checkpoints.

“Last night what would have been a routine MPD traffic safety operation was co-opted by federal law enforcement agents,” she said. “Agents who are not trained in D.C. law. Agents who do not know our community. Agents who were not seeking to address traffic safety but rather were interrogating drivers on their immigration status.”

Trump Thursday said that law enforcement using the checkpoints as immigration enforcement was “a great step.”

“I think that’s going to happen all over the country,” the president told reporters at the White House after signing a proclamation celebrating Social Security‘s 90th birthday. “We want to stop crime.”

Violent crime in the district is at a historic 30-year low, according to the Department of Justice.

Eisen called the checkpoints unlawful.

“They’re using it as an immigration control checkpoint,” he said. “That is illegal.” 

Bulldozing camps for homeless people

Homeless camps across the district are also being cleared as part of the president’s directive.

Trump Wednesday signaled that he plans to send a request to Congress for “a relatively small amount of money” to make improvements to the district.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that if those people experiencing homelessness don’t agree to go to a shelter, they could face fines or jail.

“The homeless problem has ravaged the city,” Leavitt said. “Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services, and if they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time.”

The district has faced a backlog in getting vouchers to those experiencing homelessness, according to Street Sense Media, a news outlet that focuses on reporting on homelessness in the district.

Local police to aid feds on immigration actions

The district’s police chief Thursday issued a new executive order allowing local police to aid federal officials in immigration enforcement for immigrants not in police custody.

The new order does not change the district’s law that prohibits local police from sharing information with federal immigration officials about people in police custody. It’s a policy for which Trump has criticized the city, calling it a “sanctuary city,” but the policy does not bar immigration enforcement.

Trump called Thursday’s executive order “a very positive thing,” especially at checkpoints in the district.

“When they stop people, they find they’re illegal, they report them, they give them to us,” he said.

Since taking office for a second term, the president has intertwined military involvement in immigration enforcement, such as sending thousands of troops to the southern border and deploying thousands of National Guard members to Los Angeles after protests sparked by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

More National Guard movements possible

Additionally, the Trump administration is evaluating plans to establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” composed of 600 National Guard members to remain on stand-by in order to be quickly deployed to any U.S. city undergoing a protest or other civil unrest within an hour, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

On Wednesday, in another new twist, Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said he’s prepared to send his National Guard members to the district. Lee added that U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told him that the military might request states  send troops to the district for law enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

While the president has stated he also wants to send in National Guard members to other cities – Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – all heavily Democratic cities led by Black mayors, like he has done with the district, it can’t be replicated, said Abbe Lowell, a high-profile defense attorney.

“One thing that people need to remember about his assault on the District of Columbia, it is a very unique legal framework because of the Home Rule Act that gives him some ability to do something which he does not have in other states and cities where the governors still have some or the primary control over things like the National Guard,” said Lowell, who was with Eisen on the call with reporters.

A trial is underway this week challenging Trump’s move to federalize California National Guard members, in a suit filed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, after an appeals court temporarily upheld Trump’s move.

‘Racial undertones’ cited by Baltimore mayor

Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott said Trump’s singling out of those cities, including the district, can’t be ignored.

“Every city that he called out had a Black mayor, and we’re talking about Black-led cities,” he said on the call with Eisen and Lowell. “We cannot overstate the racial undertones here.”

Scott also criticized the Trump administration for pulling federal law enforcement officers – Drug Enforcement Agency, Homeland Security Investigations, FBI, Customs and Border Patrol – from their duties. Instead they are “patrolling neighbors of Washington DC, stopping residents and checking cars instead of doing their actual jobs,” Scott said.

“If the president really wants to help these cities continue to lower violence and crime, he could go back to sending agents to their actual agencies and having them help us work on gun trafficking, work on violent drug organizations, and not taking these agents off to work on this immigration brigade that he’s had them on,” Scott said.

He added that he’s working closely with Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore and “we’ll be prepared to take any legal and any other action that we need to take.”

Moore, who served in the U.S. Army, has criticized the president for calling in the National Guard to the district and raised concerns that service members do not have the same training as police officers.

Trump brushed those concerns off on Thursday.

“They’re trained in common sense,” the president said of National Guard members.

Emergencies

Eisen said Trump’s actions in the district are part of the president’s pattern of invoking “non-emergencies.”

On Inauguration Day, Trump declared a national emergency at the border, despite low levels of immigration.

In March, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law only used three times previously.

Trump’s decision to declare a “crime emergency” in the district earlier this week came after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the Logan Circle neighborhood. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

“Well, what he’s doing in the District of Columbia, including illegal traffic stops, what he’s doing is of a piece with that dictatorial approach,” Eisen said of the president. 

A member of the National Guard arrives at the Guard’s headquarters at the D.C. Armory on Tuesday,  Aug. 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump announced he is placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and will deploy the National Guard to the District to assist in crime prevention in the nation’s capital. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s move to deploy 800 National Guard members in the District of Columbia over claims that crime is plaguing the city – despite historic lows –  follows his use of the military in his administration’s growing immigration crackdown.

“(D.C.’s) out of control, but we’re going to put it in control very quickly, like we did on the southern border,” Trump said at a Monday press conference where he was flanked by members of his Cabinet, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He vowed to do the same in more cities governed by Democrats.

Trump’s return to the White House was led by a campaign promise of mass deportations, tying newly arrived immigrants at the southern border with high crime rates and the need to use troops to detain and remove those migrants.

Since Inauguration Day, the president has sent thousands of National Guard members to be stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border and has militarized strips of land along the border, putting migrants into contact with military personnel.

Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard in June in response to unrest over immigration raids was seen as a test case for use of the state-based military forces. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California wrote on X on Monday that Trump “was just getting warmed up in Los Angeles” with that order.

“He will gaslight his way into militarizing any city he wants in America,” Newsom said. “This is what dictators do.”

‘Quick Reaction Force’

Now the Trump administration is evaluating plans to establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” composed of 600 National Guard members to remain on stand-by in order to be quickly deployed to any U.S. city undergoing a protest or other civil unrest within an hour, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The groups, who would be armed with riot gear and other weapons, would be split evenly between Alabama and Arizona, according to the Post.

The DOD proposal also calls for a rotation of service members from Army and Air Force National Guard units based in Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee, according to the Post.

National Guard members are typically in reserve and are some of the first responders to natural disasters.

The Department of Defense and the National Guard did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment about the “Quick Reaction Force” plans. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Which cities are next?

At the Monday press conference, Trump specifically cited four cities that could see similar National Guard movements: Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – all heavily Democratic cities led by Black mayors. Violent crime in all those cities has continued to trend downward, according to each city’s police database.

Baltimore County, Maryland, Cook County, Illinois, New York City and the entire state of California also all are on a new “sanctuary jurisdiction” list issued by the Department of Justice on Aug. 5. They are identified as “having policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

But, unlike the district, where the president has control over the National Guard, state governors, under the law, have had control over their National Guard members.

Additionally, while Trump has seized control of the 3,400 officers in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department for 29 days due to the district’s Home Rule Act, experts don’t see how that can legally be done with other local police departments.

“What they are doing in D.C. cannot be replicated outside of D.C. All of this is only possible because D.C. is not a state,” said Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “There’s no playbook for them to do what they seem to want to do outside of D.C.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified Trump’s statements about sending in National Guard members into cities.

“The president is speaking about what he’d like to see take place in other cities across the country,” she said. “When the time comes we’ll talk about that. Starting with our nation’s capital is a great place to begin and it should serve as a model.”

Trump said he hoped other cities were “watching.”

“Maybe they’ll self clean up and maybe they’ll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,” the president said.

Nunn said that even if the president were to federalize a state’s National Guard, those members would be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

“There is no statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that allows the military to participate in local law enforcement,” Nunn said.

Los Angeles

A trial is underway this week challenging the president’s move to federalize California National Guard members, in a suit filed by Newsom, after an appeals court temporarily upheld Trump’s move.

The president deployed 4,000 members of the National Guard and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after protests erupted against aggressive immigration actions by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducting raids in Home Depot parking lots.

But the legal issue before a San Francisco court is not if the president’s actions were unlawful, but on the political question of who has authority over the National Guard.

Other governors in the states Trump mentioned as candidates for National Guard activation pushed back on the notion.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who served in the U.S. Army, said in a statement that the president’s decision to call in the National Guard to the District of Columbia “lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous.”

Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the president could not send in the National Guard to Chicago.

“Let’s not lie to the public, you and I both know you have no authority to take over Chicago,” he said.

The conflict between Trump and the Democrats comes at the same time Newsom has threatened to launch a redistricting of California’s congressional districts in order to nullify Texas’ attempt to redraw maps to add more Republican seats to the U.S. House.

And Pritzker is hosting in Illinois the Texas Democrats who left the state to prevent the state legislature from having a quorum after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session for redistricting.

Military forces

Since taking office for his second term, the president has signed five executive orders that lay out the use of military forces within the U.S. borders and extend other executive powers to speed up Trump’s immigration crackdown.

More funding also soon will be at hand for Trump’s mass deportations. The massive tax and spending cut bill enacted in July has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown. It bolsters border security, increases immigration detention capacity and adds fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.

Some Republican governors have agreed to deploy their own National Guard members to aid the Trump administration in immigration enforcement, such as in Iowa and Tennessee. The secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, sent National Guard to the southern border in Texas when she was governor of South Dakota.

Nunn said that while it’s not typically normal for states to use National Guard members for local policing there is some precedent, such as when New York had members stationed in the New York City subway.

“What is unprecedented is the federal government using military personnel for sort of crime prevention, for regular policing,” Nunn said.

President Donald Trump announces a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., during a White House press conference on Aug. 11, 2025. Standing behind Trump are, from left to right, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro. (Image via White House livestream)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump asserted control Monday of the District of Columbia police force and mobilized 800 National Guard troops in the nation’s capital under what he declared a “crime emergency.”

Trump took the step despite a three-decade low in violent crime in Washington, D.C., while warning he may pursue similar action in other Democratic-led cities that he sees as having “totally out of control” crime.

Trump at a press conference said that he hopes other Democratic-led cities are watching because Monday’s actions in the district are just the beginning.

“We’re starting very strongly with D.C.,” Trump said.

The president placed the Metropolitan Police Department of roughly 3,400 officers under federal control, citing the district’s Home Rule Act that allows for the federal takeover until an emergency is declared over, or 30 days after the declaration. Congress can also authorize the extension.

“We’re going to take our capital back,” Trump said.

The mayor of the district, Muriel Bowser, called Monday’s action “unsettling and unprecedented.” She added that she was not informed by the president that the district’s police force would be taken over.

DOGE staffer hurt

The escalation of federal control came after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the district neighborhood of Logan Circle. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

The president said he is prepared to send in more National Guard “if needed,” and that he will handle the city the same way he has handled immigration at the southern border. The Trump administration has been carrying out a campaign of mass deportations.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during the press conference that members of the National Guard will be “flowing into” the district sometime this week.

Local officials in the district protested Trump’s move. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, an elected official, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the Trump administration’s “actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful.”

“There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year,” Schwalb said.

“We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents,” he continued.

Trump at the press conference said that he’s also directed officials to clear out encampments of homeless people in the district, but did not detail where those people would be moved.

Hundreds of federal law enforcement officers, representing agencies from the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Interior Department, were deployed across the city Saturday and Sunday.

Los Angeles and beyond

The president’s crackdown in the district occurred after a federal appeals court this summer temporarily approved Trump’s move to take control of the California National Guard from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom for the purpose of quelling protests over the administration’s aggressive immigration raids.

The president Monday slammed several major Democratic cities – Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – and inaccurately claimed they had the highest murder rates. 

Trump said that he hopes other cities are “watching us today.”

“Maybe they’ll self clean up and maybe they’ll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,” the president said.

Trump pointed at Chicago, criticizing Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker.

“I understand he wants to be president,” Trump said of Pritzker, before taking a shot at the governor’s personal appearance. “I noticed he lost a little weight so maybe he has a chance.”

Pritzker is hosting Texas Democrats who left the state to prevent the state legislature from having a quorum after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session in order to redistrict the state to give more seats to Republicans in Congress.

GOP applauds 

The top Republican on the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the district, praised Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard and take over the police department.

“President Trump is rightly using executive power to take bold and necessary action to crack down on crime and restore law and order in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, said in a statement.

Comer added that the committee next month will hold a hearing with Schwalb, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Mayor Muriel Bowser.

While state governors have control over their National Guards, the president has control over the National Guard members in the district. The National Guard does not have arresting authority, under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

During Trump’s first term, he deployed roughly 5,000 National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in the district after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.

And despite requests from congressional leaders, Trump notably delayed activating National Guard members during the 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, when the president’s supporters tried to subvert the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

In one of Trump’s first actions on his inauguration day in January, he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters who were charged by the Department of Justice for their involvement in the insurrection.

Putin meeting

In a question-and-answer session after announcing the National Guard deployment, Trump told reporters he hoped his meeting this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin would help put that country on a path to peace with Ukraine, which he said would involve each country ceding some territory to the other.

Trump described the Friday summit in Alaska — Putin’s first visit to the U.S. in a decade — as a “feel-out meeting.”

Asked if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was invited to the summit, Trump said he was “not part of it.” Any framework for peace discussed between Trump and Putin would be relayed to Zelenskyy, he said.

An end to the war would have to come from direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy, which may or may not ultimately involve the U.S., he said.

“I’m going to put the two of them in a room, and I’ll be there or I won’t be there, and I think it’ll get solved,” he said of Putin and Zelenskyy.

Trump said he was “a little disappointed” that Zelenskyy did not immediately agree to cede territory to Russia, which invaded his country in February 2022. Zelenskyy has repeatedly said giving land to Russia was a nonstarter, including after Trump suggested it over the weekend.

“Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelenskyy said in a video address Saturday, according to The New York Times.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, left, and the top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, at a committee markup on Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Photos from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Thursday largely rejected Trump administration proposals to slash funding for education programs, medical research grants, health initiatives and Ukraine security assistance.

Instead, senators from both parties agreed to increase spending in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026, as well as the Defense bill, and rebuked the White House’s move to dismantle the Department of Education.

The pushback against President Donald Trump was significant as Congress heads toward a possible standoff and partial government shutdown when the fiscal year expires on Sept. 30.

In response to the Trump administration’s separate cancellation of grants and freezing of funds approved by Congress, senators also included language in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill to create deadlines for formula grants to be released to states on time.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said the bill to fund the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education “prioritizes funding to make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research through targeted funding.”

The measure provides $116.6 billion for HHS, an increase of $446 million in discretionary funding over the previous fiscal year. Included is a $150 million increase for cancer research and a $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s disease research, as well as a ban on an administration cap on indirect costs at the National Institutes of Health, according to a summary from Democrats. The cap on how much NIH pays research universities and medical schools for indirect costs is the subject of a permanent injunction in an ongoing lawsuit.

Trump’s budget proposal also cut funding for the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to $4.2 billion, but senators voted to instead allocate $9.1 billion for the agency.

Also included is $8.8 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and nearly $12.4 billion for Head Start.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, said that while the bill rejects many of the funding cuts from the Trump administration, it’s “only half of the equation.”

“We have an administration right now that is intent on ignoring Congress, breaking the law, and doing everything it can without any transparency, to dismantle programs and agencies that help families,” she said. “There is no magic bullet that will change that unfortunate reality.”

Murray also expressed her disappointment that the bill did not fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump sent what is known as a rescissions request to Congress, approved by both chambers, that yanked $1.1 billion in previously approved funding over the next two years for the agency, which funds NPR and PBS.

The Labor-HHS-Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026 passed out of the Senate committee with a bipartisan 26-3 vote.

Senators also passed the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026 on a 26-3 vote.

Dismantling of Education Department spurned

The bill text tightens requirements so that Education Department staffing levels must be sufficient to carry out the agency’s missions, and its work cannot be outsourced to other agencies or departments to fulfill statutory responsibilities, according to Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the spending panel dealing with Labor-HHS-Education spending. 

The agency saw a reduction in force, or RIF, earlier this year that gutted more than 1,300 employees and hit wide swaths of the department. The Supreme Court cleared the way earlier in July for the agency to temporarily proceed with those mass layoffs.

The bill also provides $5.78 billion for School Improvement Programs — which support before- and after-school programs, rural education, STEM education and college and career counseling, among other initiatives.

Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request had called for $12 billion in spending cuts at the Education Department but the committee allocated $79 billion in discretionary funding.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended Trump’s sweeping proposals while appearing in June before the Senate Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee.

During Thursday’s markup, Murray called the president’s proposal to defund the Department of Education “absurd.”

“I still hope we can do more when it comes to demanding accountability, transparency, and that this administration actually follows our laws,” Murray said. “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that.”

The agency has witnessed a dizzying array of cuts and changes since Trump took office, as he and his administration look to dramatically overhaul the federal role in education and dismantle the department.

The bill maintains the same maximum annual award for the Pell Grant from the previous award year at $7,395. The government subsidy helps low-income students pay for college.

Trump’s budget request had called for cutting nearly $1,700 from the maximum award.

Health spending

Baldwin said the overall bill is a “compromise.” She pointed to how Republicans and Democrats agreed to increase funds for the 988 Suicide hotline by $2 million and by another $20 million for substance abuse recovery.

The spending bill will also provide $1.6 billion for State Opioid Response grants, which is a formula-based grant for states to address the opioid crisis.

Senators rejected the Trump administration’s request to cut National Institutes of Health research by 40% and instead included a more than $400 million bump in funding for a total of $48.7 billion.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff said that he was grateful that the committee worked on a bipartisan basis to reject major Trump cuts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in his home state.

“I made (it) very clear that I would not accept the destruction of the CDC,” Ossoff said. “I am grateful that Republicans and Democrats on this committee are coming together to defend this vital institution based in the state of Georgia.”

Advocates for medical research praised the legislation.

“Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray deserve special recognition for their leadership in making this a priority. Thousands of ACS CAN volunteers from across the country have been writing to their lawmakers on this issue and it’s deeply encouraging to see their voices have been heard loud and clear,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in a statement.

AmeriCorps, Job Corps funding sustained

Trump’s budget request also proposed $4.6 billion in spending cuts at the Department of Labor. 

The spending bill also maintains funding for Job Corps, a residential career training program for young adults, at $1.76 billion.

Trump’s budget request sought to eliminate the program entirely.

The administration says the program is “financially unsustainable, has an exorbitant perparticipant cost, risks the safety of young adults, and has often made participants worse off,” according to a summary of the budget request.

The spending bill also includes $15 billion for the Social Security Administration, an increase of $100 million from the president’s budget request, to address staffing shortages.

The administration also proposed the elimination of AmeriCorps.

However, senators kept funding for AmeriCorps for fiscal year 2026 at $1.25 billion.

Defense spending also increased

The Defense appropriations spending bill for fiscal year 2026 that senators worked on represented an increase from the president’s budget request.

“I think not only the prior administration, but this administration as well, have underestimated the level of challenge that we have,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense appropriations panel.

The Kentucky Republican said the bill provides $851.9 billion for fiscal year 2026.

He said the topline is higher than the president’s budget request because “we cannot seriously address these challenges while artificially constraining our resources” — challenges such as the war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East.

The bill also rejects the Trump administration’s effort to slash funding to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia.

“Shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military’s efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield,” McConnell said.

During the markup of the defense spending bill, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, introduced an amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse costs to the Department of Defense for immigration enforcement.

As the Trump administration aims to carry out its plans for mass deportation of people without permanent legal status, it’s intertwined the U.S. military and immigration enforcement, ranging from deploying the National Guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles to housing immigrants on the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military base.

Durbin said that so far, DHS has cost the Defense Department $900 million, from personnel costs to housing immigrants on military bases.

Durbin said the cost to house 180 people on Guantanamo Bay cost the Department of Defense $40 million over three months.

His amendment failed on a 14-15 vote. 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Aurora, operated by private prison firm GEO Group, is pictured on Jan. 30, 2025. U.S. Rep.  Jason Crow said he was denied entry to the facility while attempting an oversight visit. (Chase Woodruff/Colorado Newsline)

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress filed a lawsuit Wednesday charging that the Trump administration is blocking lawmakers from conducting congressional oversight of federal immigration detention centers.

The suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia argues that the Department of Homeland Security’s new policy to limit or block lawmakers from visiting immigrant detention facilities is unlawful. The members cite an appropriations law in effect since 2019 that grants a lawmaker the ability to conduct oversight of such centers without prior approval from the department or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“This oversight informs potential legislation on the subject of immigration detention, ensures that administration officials are carrying out their responsibilities consistent with federal law, and ensures that funds appropriated to DHS and ICE are being used appropriately on the ground,” according to the suit.

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

As the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, one of the few tools Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress, have is oversight of immigration detention centers.

It’s already led to clashes between Democratic lawmakers and immigration officers after New Jersey Democrats protested the reopening of a detention center.

The lawmakers said that since June, they have tried to obtain information about conditions at DHS facilities “for the purpose of conducting real-time oversight of that facility” and each “of those attempted oversight visits has been blocked by” DHS.

For example, Colorado’s Jason Crow, who is part of the suit, said this month he was denied entry to an ICE facility to conduct oversight.

“​​As part of its campaign of mass deportation, the Trump-Vance administration has stretched the U.S. immigration detention system far beyond its capacity,” the suit said.

The suit cites the deaths of 11 people while in immigration custody in the past five months and the unlawful detainment of U.S. citizens, often without access to legal counsel.

“More people are being held by the United States in immigration detention than ever before, with many facilities housing more individuals than they were built to contain,” according to the suit. “Reports of mistreatment have been widespread and have included disturbing details of overcrowding, food shortages, lack of adequate medical care, and unsanitary conditions.”

The suit is being led by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, which is representing the House lawmakers, most of whom are in leadership roles or top Democrats on committees, such as Bennie Thompson of Mississippi on Homeland Security, Jamie Raskin of Maryland on Judiciary and Robert Garcia of California on Oversight and Government Reform.

The other Democrats include Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman of New York; J. Luis Correa, Jimmy Gomez, Raul Ruiz and Norma Torres of California; Crow and Joe Neguse of Colorado; and Veronica Escobar of Texas.

U.S. Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velazquez, both New York Democrats, speak to the media opposite the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building, where they unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding facilities to observe on June 8, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The massive tax and spending cuts package signed into law by President Donald Trump earlier this month will affect not only Latinos using federal safety net programs but also those living in communities vulnerable to environmental pollution, Democrats and advocates said during a Tuesday virtual press conference.

The president’s domestic policy agenda bill that congressional Republicans passed without Democrats’ approval, through a process known as reconciliation, made permanent the 2017 tax cuts and provided billions of dollars for immigration enforcement by cutting funds for clean energy, environmental justice grants, food assistance and Medicaid, a health care insurance program for low-income people.

The bill will add $3.394 trillion to deficits during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Adriano Espaillat, Democrat of New York, said the bill passed through reconciliation reduces spending on “Medicaid dramatically and (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) dramatically.”

He said Democrats in their messaging should focus on the changes coming for Medicaid and how the cuts will impact people across the United States. Republicans’ numerous changes to health programs, predominantly Medicaid, will reduce federal spending during the next decade by $1.058 trillion.

“It’s really a conversation about life and death, because if you’re on Medicaid and now they’re cutting your benefits, the treatment that you receive to save your life could be in jeopardy,” Espaillat said. 

Rural hospitals and Latinos

Rep. Raul Ruiz, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said the cuts to Medicaid are “devastating,” especially to hospitals in rural communities.

“First, what hospitals will do is they will close services that aren’t the money-making services for a hospital, like pediatrics, labor delivery and mental health, and then beyond that, they’ll eventually just close their hospital,” said the California Democrat, a former emergency room doctor.

“This is devastating because usually these rural hospitals serve a high Latino population, medically underserved, resource-poor areas,” Ruiz said. “If you have a medical emergency and you don’t have a local emergency department or hospital to go to, chances of your survivability during an emergency greatly drops.”

Antonieta Cádiz, the executive director of Climate Power En Acción, said that most of those effects, such as new reporting requirements for Medicaid patients that could result in people losing coverage, won’t be felt until after the midterm elections in 2026, when those changes go into effect.

Climate Power En Acción is an arm of the clean energy advocacy group Climate Power that focuses on reaching out to Latinos about the impacts of climate change.

$170 billion for immigration crackdown

Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, said the bill will also affect Latino communities because of its more than $170 billion increase for immigration enforcement.

She said Democrats should lean into immigration policy and push back against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and plans for mass deportations.

“Democrats need to take this opportunity and need to be able to bring people in to share in their vision of what a functional immigration system is,” she said. “It is very frustrating that we are not seeing again, more Democrats really leaning in on this issue.”

Espaillat acknowledged that Democrats’ communication strategy on immigration “has been one of our weaknesses.”

“We at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have done a good job at first, exposing the inequities and irregularities and discriminatory practices of immigration to the degree that now we’re seeing,” he said.

“In addition to that, I think it’s important that we message on Medicaid …  SNAP, and then, of course, environmental justice is one that’s also a real path for which we are working on having a very structured and disciplined message,” Espaillat continued.

Higher energy bills

Cádiz said the bill Republicans passed will lead to a loss of clean energy jobs and it also lessens incentives for energy efficient appliances, which will lead to higher energy bills for Latinos. Compared to the average U.S. family, Latino households pay roughly 20% more in energy costs, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

“It guts clean energy programs crucial for savings amid rising heat and energy demand, leaving us with higher bills,” she said of the bill. “This is a direct attack on Latino families, workers and every person struggling with rising costs to meet essential needs.”

She added that environmental justice grants totaling $300 million were eliminated, while roughly 15 million Latinos live in communities with high levels of air pollution.

Espaillat said that the cuts to clean energy programs provided by the Biden administration’s massive climate and clean energy bill, which also passed through the process of reconciliation but under Democratic control, benefited local communities.

“Now there’s going to be a major disinvestment for these programs,” he said. 

 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — House Democrats sent a letter Thursday to the heads of Homeland Security and the State Department seeking more information about the financial agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain more than 200 men at a notorious megaprison.

“Congress has the right and the obligation to conduct oversight over the executive branch and determine what deals our government has struck with a foreign dictator to imprison individuals seized in the United States in an effort to place them beyond the reaches of our court,” according to the letter by California’s Robert Garcia, Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson and New York’s Gregory Meeks.

In March, the Trump administration flew several planes to El Salvador containing 238 men removed either under an 18th-century wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, or because they are immigrants who had final orders of removal and are citizens of El Salvador. The men arrived at the notorious prison known as CECOT.

The letter challenges the Trump administration’s position publicly and in courts that any individuals removed to El Salvador to be detained are no longer in U.S. custody and any court order to facilitate the return of wrongly removed immigrants cannot be fulfilled.

According to court documents filed last week, testimony from Salvadoran officials noted that those individuals removed and detained at CECOT were considered in the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other state,” according to the court document submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

That document was submitted in a court case that relates to the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law, and whether or not officials violated a federal judge’s order to return the planes to the U.S. The planes still landed in El Salvador.

“Court filings last week suggest the Administration misled federal judges, Congress, and the American people about the legal status of individuals the U.S. government has spirited away to El Salvador and who are being held in torture prisons like Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT),” the Democrats wrote. 

The Democrats addressed the letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asking to see the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to accept non-Salvadoran citizens and information on the men detained at CECOT.

“This document indicates that the Department of Justice has misled federal courts in assertions regarding the agreement with El Salvador,” wrote the  Democrats, who sit on House committees on Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform.

$15 million payment to El Salvador

The State Department is paying up to $15 million to house immigrants removed from the U.S. at CECOT, but the agreement has not been made publicly available. Former State Department officials and foreign policy aides have raised concerns that the State Department payments violate a human rights law.

The Leahy Law bars financial assistance to “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations, such as CECOT.

The State Department has denied any wrongdoing.

The Trump administration has resisted court orders to return wrongfully deported men from CECOT, such as in the high-profile deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and a separate case out of Baltimore, Maryland concerning another wrongly deported man sent to the megaprison. Abrego Garcia detailed how he experienced physical and psychological torture while at CECOT.

Noem visited CECOT earlier this year, and said the prison would be one of the Trump administration’s tools amid its aggressive immigration crackdown. 

A “no trespassing” sign outside of Northwest ICE Processing Center, also known as Northwest Detention Center. (Photo by Grace Deng/Washington State Standard)

WASHINGTON — Immigration advocacy groups sued the Trump administration Wednesday for dismissing cases in immigration courts in order to place immigrants in expedited removal for swift deportations without judicial review.

As the White House aims to achieve its goals of deporting 1 million immigrants without permanent legal status by the end of the year and a 3,000 arrests-per-day quota for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, immigrants showing up to court appearances have been arrested or detained.

President Donald Trump’s administration has moved to reshape immigration court, which is overseen by the Department of Justice, through mass firings of judges hired during President Joe Biden’s term and pressuring judges to clear the nearly 4 million case backlog.

The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by immigration legal and advocacy groups the National Immigrant Justice Center, Democracy Forward, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Services and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

The suit is a proposed class action representing 12 immigrants who filed asylum claims or other types of relief and had their cases dismissed and placed in expedited removal, subjecting them to a fast-track deportation. 

The individual plaintiffs, who all have pseudonyms in the court documents, had their asylum cases dismissed and were arrested and placed in detention centers far from their homes.

One plaintiff, E.C., fled Cuba after he was arrested and raped after he opposed that country’s government. He came to the U.S. in 2022 and applied for asylum and appeared for an immigration hearing in Miami.

At his hearing, DHS attorneys moved to dismiss his case “without notice and without articulating any reasoning whatsoever” and when he tried to leave the court, ICE arrested and detained him, according to the suit.

E.C. is currently detained in Tacoma, Washington, “thousands of miles from his family, including his U.S. citizen wife,” according to the suit.

New policies

The groups argue new policies from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice are unlawful.

Those policies include the approval of civil arrests in immigration court, instructing ICE prosecutors to dismiss cases without following proper procedure, instructing ICE agents to put immigrants who have been in the country for more than two years in expedited removal and pursuing expedited removal when removal cases are ongoing.

“(DHS) has now adopted the policy that it will arrest a noncitizen and place them in expedited removal even if the immigration judge does not immediately grant dismissal or if the noncitizen reserves appeal of the dismissal—either of which means that the full removal proceedings are not over,” according to the suit. “In plain terms, DHS is disregarding both immigration judges who permit noncitizens an opportunity to oppose dismissal and the pendency of an appeal of the dismissal decision.”

The Trump administration has expanded the use of expedited removal, meaning that any immigrant without legal status who’s been in the U.S. for less than two years can be swiftly deported without appearing before an immigration judge.

“DHS and DOJ have implemented their new campaign of courthouse arrests through coordinated policies designed to strip noncitizens of their rights … exposing them to immediate arrest and expedited removal,” according to the suit.

The impact has been “severe,” according to the suit.

“Noncitizens, including most of the Individual Plaintiffs here, have been abruptly ripped from their families, lives, homes, and jobs for appearing in immigration court, a step required to enable them to proceed with their applications for permission to remain in this country,” according to the suit.

Detained immigrants’ stories

The suit details the plaintiffs’ circumstances.

One known as M.K., appeared in immigration court for her asylum hearing after she came to the U.S. in 2024 from Liberia, fleeing an abusive marriage and after she endured female genital mutilation.

DHS attorneys dismissed “her case without notice and, upon information and belief, without articulating any change in circumstances,” according to the suit.

“M.K. speaks a rare language, and because the interpretation was poor, she did not understand what was happening at the hearing,” according to the suit. “M.K. was arrested by ICE at the courthouse and detained; she was so distressed by what happened that she required hospitalization.”

She is currently detained in Minnesota. 

Another asylum seeker, L.H., came to the U.S. in 2022 from Venezuela, fleeing from persecution because of her sexual orientation, according to the suit. At her first immigration hearing in May, DHS moved to dismiss her case and has received an expedited removal notice.

ICE officers arrested L.H. after she had her hearing and she is currently detained in Ohio. 

In an aerial view from a helicopter, the migrant detention center dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" by Florida Republicans is seen at the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on July 4, 2025 in Ochopee, Florida.  (Photo by Alon Skuy/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former top immigration officials from the Biden administration warned Tuesday that billions for immigration enforcement signed into law earlier this month will escalate the rapid detention and deportations of immigrants.

During a virtual press conference with the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, the former Department of Homeland Security officials said they expect to see a trend toward states building “soft” temporary detention centers similar to Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz,” the name given by Florida Republicans to an Everglades detention center.

Funding for those initiatives will come from President Donald Trump’s tax break and spending cut bill signed into law earlier this month that provides roughly $170 billion for immigration enforcement, the former officials said.

Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill provides $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, making it the nation’s highest-funded law enforcement agency, to hire 10,000 new agents and carry out deportations. Another $45 billion will go to ICE for the detention of immigrants and $450 million in grants to states to partake in border enforcement.

Billions more are provided for border security and for the military to partake in border-related enforcement.

Andrea Flores, who directed border management for the National Security Council under former President Joe Biden said she expects to see states running their own immigration detention centers similar to the “Alligator Alcatraz” center that state officials quickly erected to hold immigrants. That state-run facility in the Florida Everglades is expected to house up to 5,000 immigrants.

Safety for migrants questioned

Jason Houser, who served as ICE chief of staff in the Biden administration, said the quickly built detention centers will likely create an unsafe environment for immigrants brought there. The lack of experience and training for employees running those centers will also put migrants at risk, he said.

“People are gonna get hurt,” he said. “They’re gonna die.”

He added that with the arrest quotas that immigration officials have been given, roughly 3,000 arrests a day, “ICE is going to focus on those (immigrants) that are easily reachable, those who have been complying and checking in,” either with immigration officials or appearing in immigration court.

“Hitting quotas is not in the national security interest,” Houser said.

Houser said with the rapid arrest and detention of immigrants, the need for detention centers will likely lead to states building the “soft sided” detention centers in “some of the most rural parts of the country where they cannot be properly staffed and resourced.”

Flores said if states work to build their own centers like the one in Florida, there will likely be a lack of oversight because DHS has significantly fired federal employees that ran the watchdog that conducted oversight of ICE — the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Flores currently serves as the vice president of immigration policy at FWD.us, which focuses on immigration policy and reform.

Increase expected in third-country removals

Royce Murray, a former DHS assistant secretary for border and immigration policy and a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official during the Biden administration, said she is concerned that the Trump administration will now be able to ramp up third-country removals with the increase in funding.

Any removals  to a third country “have to be to a country that is safe,” she said.

If an immigrant has a final order of removal but their home country will not accept their deportation, then the United States typically looks for another country that will accept the removal — a third country.

The Trump administration has tried to secure agreements with countries to take deportees, such as Mexico and South Sudan, which recently ended a civil war, but is still experiencing violence. The State Department warns against travel to South Sudan, but the Trump administration won a case before the Supreme Court seeking to use the East African country for third-country removals.

Murray said that the Trump administration is using third-country removals to “create a climate of fear” and get immigrants to self-deport.

She said if third-country removals are going to take place, they “need to be a place where people can successfully integrate.”

A protester holds a photo of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations in New York City on April 24, 2025. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, Maryland — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis seemed inclined during a Friday hearing to grant a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he is released from pretrial detention next week.

Xinis said if she granted a temporary restraining order, it would be narrow and would prevent immigration officers from deporting Abrego Garcia from the U.S. It would also keep the longtime Maryland resident at a detention center near Maryland as the immigration lawsuit about the conditions of his deportation under a final order of removal proceeds.

She also upbraided Justice Department attorneys for claiming immigration officials had a detainer on Abrego Garcia, but not producing the document.

The attorneys for Abrego Garcia’s case in Maryland, which was brought after the longtime resident was unlawfully arrested by immigration officials and mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March, are asking Xinis for a 72-hour restraining order if he is released from pretrial detention Wednesday.

Abrego Garcia awaits federal trial in Tennessee on criminal charges lodged while he was mistakenly removed to El Salvador.

The restraining order, if granted, would prevent the Trump administration from removing Abrego Garcia to a third country without proper notice and an opportunity to challenge his removal.

“The concern that we have here is that he’ll be gone in a blink and never to be heard from again,” Andrew Rossman, one of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, said.

Abrego Garcia detailed psychological and physical torture he experienced at the notorious Salvadoran prison CECOT. The U.S. is paying El Salvador up to $15 million to detain roughly 300 men at the prison.

Prosecution

As soon as Wednesday, Abrego Garcia could be released from pretrial detention on charges that accuse him of human smuggling that stem from a 2019 traffic stop. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in Tennessee federal court on an order pausing Abrego Garcia’s release, at his lawyers’ request over concerns the administration could deport him if he is released from jail.

DOJ attorneys have said that the Trump administration intends to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial in Tennessee is complete.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges. His attorneys have accused President Donald Trump’s administration of using the indictment to save face in light of court orders finding Abrego Garcia’s deportation unlawful and the Supreme Court’s order for the federal government to facilitate his return.

Abrego Garcia has had deportation protections in place since 2019, barring his removal to his native El Salvador due to concerns he would experience gang violence there.

The Trump administration has labeled Abrego Garcia a leader of the gang MS-13, but has not produced any evidence of those allegations in court.

Xinis also raised the concern that Abrego Garcia could face harm in a third country because the Trump administration has labeled him a gang leader.

She raised the possibility that if Abrego Garcia is deported to a third country, that country could then take him to El Salvador.

ICE detainer produced

The Trump administration has placed a detainer on Abrego Garcia upon his potential release, meaning U.S. Marshals would hold him until immigration agents can arrest him and take him into custody.

Xinis has repeatedly asked DOJ lawyers for a copy of the detainer to determine what statue Abrego Garcia is being detained on.

DOJ attorneys said they were still working on it and Xinis slammed them for not producing it and said she wouldn’t take the DOJ’s word that the detainer even existed.

“You have taken the presumption of regularity and you’ve destroyed it, in my view,” Xinis said.

Halfway through the hearing, DOJ attorney Sarmad M. Khojasteh produced the detainer and gave a copy to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, who have also been asking for a copy of the form.

Rossman said the detainer “has a massive hole in it.”

He said that according to the detainer, the reason for holding Abrego Garcia is a final order of removal.

However, a top Immigration and Customs Enforcement official testified Thursday that because Abrego Garcia is not in removal proceedings yet, the federal government cannot detail what actions it will take in removing him.

“We have an obvious chicken-and-egg problem,” Rossman said.

DOJ argument ‘defies reality’

Thomas Giles, ICE’s assistant director for enforcement and removal operations who testified Thursday, could not detail which track the Trump administration planned to take for Abrego Garcia. The agency is likely to try either deporting him to a third country or  challenge the bar on removal to El Salvador.

Xinis also expressed doubt that the Trump administration has not had conversations on what to do about Abrego Garcia, given the high-profile nature of the case.

Khojasteh said that an immigration officer would determine next steps for Abrego Garcia.

“It defies reality that this is going to be left to a desk officer,” Xinis said.

Xinis said she’ll make a decision before Wednesday on a temporary restraining order.

Protesters outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt rally on April 4, 2025, in support of Kilmar  Abrego Garcia, calling for him to be returned to the U.S. (Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom).

GREENBELT, Maryland — A top U.S. immigration official testifying in federal court Thursday did not give details of the Trump administration’s plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he is released from pre-trial detention next week in Tennessee.

Thomas Giles, the assistant director for enforcement and removal operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was noncommittal about how the agency would handle Abrego Garcia if he is released from jail in Tennessee where he awaits trial on federal charges, saying officials could not consider the question until he’s in ICE custody.

“There’s been no decision made as he’s not in ICE custody,” Giles said.

Department of Justice attorneys have said they would seek Abrego Garcia’s removal again, because he has a final order of removal, but have not detailed the process for that deportation, raising concerns of a lack of due process in the closely watched case that were not answered by Giles’ testimony Thursday.

Giles appeared after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration on Monday to produce a witness to detail the plan for Abrego Garcia’s removal.

The government is likely to pursue either a revocation of the deportation protections the El Salvador national and longtime Maryland resident has had since 2019 that bar deportation to his home country, or removal to a country other than El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia was wrongly removed in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador where he says he faced psychological and physical torture.

ICE detainer

Giles said that ICE placed a detainer on Abrego Garcia last month, meaning the agency requested the U.S. Marshals to notify ICE when he will be released so immigration officials can detain him. Abrego Garcia could be released July 16 after a pretrial hearing that day in Tennessee.

The Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face federal charges of human smuggling that stemmed from a 2019 traffic stop. Abrego Garcia has denied the charges.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said in court Thursday that they found out Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. through media reports and they were given no information by the Trump administration.

DOJ attorneys said that Abrego Garcia will be removed from the U.S. before his trial in Tennessee is complete.

Restraining order considered

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia said Thursday they are concerned he will again be removed without due process or the ability to challenge his removal to another country if he fears he will experience harm or persecution. 

Earlier in the week, they pressed for Xinis to have Abrego Garcia brought back to Maryland, rather than remain in Tennessee. 

Xinis is still mulling that request from Abrego Garcia’s attorneys. This week, she also denied the Department of Justice’s move to dismiss the case as moot, because Abrego Garcia had been returned to the U.S.

Xinis said Thursday she is considering issuing a temporary restraining order if Abrego Garcia is released on pre-trial detention. The order would last for 48 business hours and bar immigration officials from removing Abrego Garcia to a detention center outside of Tennessee or from the U.S.

She also called for a hearing on Friday at 9 a.m. ET on the temporary restraining order.

Vague answers

Sascha Rand, an attorney representing Abrego Garcia in the immigration case in Maryland, grilled Giles on how familiar he was with Abrego Garcia’s case.

Giles said that he had not directly overseen Abrego Garcia’s case and had about four hours to prepare for Thursday’s hearing.

Rand asked Giles which country Abrego Garcia would be removed to if not El Salvador.

Giles said that if Abrego Garcia is removed to a third country, it would take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to determine which country.  

Giles said that Mexico is one country that accepts nationals from other countries – including El Salvador – and has diplomatic assurance that an individual removed won’t face harm.

He added that South Sudan is also a country that the Trump administration has deemed acceptable to send deportees to.

In a ruling last month, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with removing eight men from different nationalities to South Sudan, which recently experienced a civil war. The U.S. State Department advises against traveling to the country.

Xinis asked Giles if Mexico, “at a minimum,” would be a country Abrego Garcia could be removed to.

Giles said that was possible.

Rand asked if South Sudan was a possibility.

Giles said that “we have removed people to South Sudan.”

Rand then asked Giles multiple times which path the Trump administration was considering for Abrego Garica, either deportation to a third country, or trying to remove the 2019 bar on removal to El Salvador.

“Do you have any actual knowledge of which one of these tracks Mr. Abrego Garcia might be put on next Wednesday?” Rand asked.

Giles said because Abrego Garcia is not in ICE custody, a discussion on the options for his removal is not happening. He said those determinations will be made once Abrego Garcia is in ICE detention.

Giles added that it’s also unclear where Abrego Garcia will be held in ICE detention, as it’s based on available bed space, meaning Abrego Garcia could be transferred anywhere in the U.S.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, joined demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, to protest the Trump administration's effort to strip birthright citizenship from the Constitution. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in New Hampshire Thursday issued a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order that would rewrite the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and granted a class certification to infants who would be affected by the order.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante came after the Supreme Court last month limited lower courts’ ability to grant nationwide injunctions. Multiple courts had blocked the president’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is granted under the 14th Amendment to any infant born on U.S. soil. There is an exception for children born to foreign diplomats. 

Laplante will stay his ruling for seven days to give the Trump administration time to appeal, according to his written order. Laplante was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

The high court in June deemed that lower courts should seek a narrower way to issue orders with wide effect, such as a class action suit. Under the ruling, the Trump administration’s executive order could take effect by July 27 in the 28 states that did not initially sue.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of immigrants whose babies would be affected by the order.

However, Laplante narrowed his injunction to focus on the infants as the plaintiffs rather than the parents.

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case. “We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn’t trample on the citizenship rights of one single child.” 

A protester holds a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, Maryland — A federal judge at a hearing Monday sought more information on the Trump administration’s plans for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are pressing to have him transferred to Maryland from a Tennessee jail.

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife and family before he was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in March. While there, he said he was tortured, physically and psychologically, by Salvadoran officials, according to court records.

Now he is in custody in Tennessee, where he faces federal criminal charges related to human smuggling. He could be released as soon as July 16, and Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis questioned Department of Justice lawyers about their intentions for him upon his release.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys expressed concern that once he is released, immigration officials would immediately detain the Maryland man and either quickly remove him to a third country or send him back to El Salvador by attempting to remove his earlier deportation protections.

“We do need protection from the government waking up tomorrow and upon Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from criminal custody, (removing him) to somewhere they haven’t identified,” said Andrew J. Rossman, of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn said removing Abrego Garcia to a third country is likely the path forward, but could not confirm or detail which country.

‘Jello to a wall’

Xinis set a Thursday afternoon hearing to obtain testimony from a witness who will be involved in making the decision about what will happen to Abrego Garcia.

“It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to figure out what happens next week,” she said of Abrego Garcia’s potential release on July 16 ahead of his trial.

Xinis said until she’s clear about what steps the Trump administration will take next, she’ll hold off on issuing an order bringing Abrego Garcia back to Maryland.

During the Monday hearing, Xinis also denied the Trump administration’s two requests to dismiss the case.

DOJ lawyers argued that because Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States, the case is now moot. Xinis said the case is not moot because the “status quo” has not been fulfilled — although Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., he is not back in Maryland, but instead is in the custody of U.S. marshals in Tennessee.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia made the same request last month, on an emergency basis to try to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues, but Xinis denied that request as well.

At that time she referred to an answer from DOJ attorney Guynn, who said Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country was not immediate, as part of her reasoning.

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said June 26 of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Rossman during Monday’s hearing also raised concerns that Abrego Garcia, yet again, would not receive proper due process if he is to be removed to a third country. He said Abrego Garcia must be notified where he will be sent and have time to appeal if he fears he will face harm in that country.

Xinis said while that will likely fall under an immigration judge, she does have the authority to have access to the information detailing how the Trump administration is going to remove Abrego Garcia.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. from El Salvador last month to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment by the Trump administration occurred while Abrego Garcia was in prison custody in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During Monday’s hearing, Xinis pressed Department of Justice attorney Bridget O’Hickey on whether the federal charges played a role in the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

“He was not indicted with the purpose of bringing him back,” O’Hickey said.  “He was indicted because he was under investigation.”

Xinis questioned the timing of the investigation, which began on April 21, when Abrego Garcia was in a Salvadoran prison and shortly after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

O’Hickey could not give an answer on when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but she said that he was “under investigation prior.”

Xinis also questioned O’Hickey on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case entirely in May.

On May 27, the Department of Justice told Xinis that nothing could be done to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador and therefore the case should be dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction. But federal charges were filed on May 21.

“Why else would you file an indictment against someone you couldn’t produce?” Xinis asked O’Hickey.

O’Hickey said that negotiations with El Salvador were ongoing and that it was not clear that the indictment would mean Abrego Garcia would be released from El Salvador.

“I am aware that the proceedings were moving in tandem,” she said. 

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters on Jan. 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended temporary protections Monday for nationals from Nicaragua and Honduras, opening up roughly 76,000 people to deportations by early September.

The move is the latest effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to wind down legal statuses, such as Temporary Protected Status, amid an immigration crackdown and pledge to carry out mass deportations.

So far, the Trump administration has moved to end legal statuses, including work authorizations and deportation protections, for more than half a million immigrants.

TPS has been used since the 1990s and is granted to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, natural disasters or other unstable conditions.

Roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans had temporary protections since 1999 following Hurricane Mitch, a Category 5 storm that destroyed parts of Central America and killed more than 10,000 people.

“Temporary Protected Status was never meant to last a quarter of a century,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

Noem determined that conditions in Nicaragua and Honduras had improved and TPS for the two countries is no longer needed, DHS said.

In late June, Noem traveled to Honduras, where she met with President Xiomara Castro de Zelaya regarding the repatriation of Hondurans from the U.S.

“It is clear that the Government of Honduras has taken all of the necessary steps to overcome the impacts of Hurricane Mitch, almost 27 years ago,” Noem said Monday. “Honduran citizens can safely return home, and DHS is here to help facilitate their voluntary return.”

Noem has also ended TPS for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Nepal and Venezuela.