Protesters gather outside of the Federal Building in Milwaukee to denounce the arrest of Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin are pushing for the release of Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, who has been held in immigration detention since June. Rojas, a Mexican-born man who has lived in the U.S. since 2018, has no criminal record, Urban Milwaukee reported, and was arrested by immigration officers despite not being the target of their operation. 

An immigration judge ordered  Cirrus Rojas  released on  bond in July. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed his release and Cirrus Rojas remains in the Dodge County Jail. 

The judge’s order was vacated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), followed by the denial of a federal court petition challenging the legality of Cirrus Rojas’ detention. Cirrus Rojas has had no contact with his wife and infant daughter for the 200 days during  which he has been detained. 

ACLU attorneys working for his release, say  Cirrus Rojas has a pending asylum claim and is  at risk of being tortured if deported to his home country. The hearing for Cirrus Rojas’ asylum claim has been rescheduled. Earlier this month, ACLU attorney Jennifer Bizzotto filed an emergency motion in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pushing to overturn previous denials to release Rojas. 

“We have seen hundreds of cases nationwide in which federal judges have ruled that [immigration enforcement] cannot hold people in Cirrus Rojas’ position without bond hearings, and that has not deterred [immigration enforcement] from continuing to lock up people while flagrantly violating the law,” ACLU staff attorney Hannah Schwarz said in a statement.

An ever larger portion of ICE arrests involve people like Cirrus Rojas  who have no   criminal record 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview with Fox News outside the White House on March 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A panel of appellate judges seemed skeptical during Thursday oral arguments that the Trump administration erred in relying on a decades-old statute to require millions of noncitizens to register with the federal government and carry documentation.

But they did take issue with the paperwork required of immigrants without legal status as well as the consequences for those who fail to register, and questioned if the practice violated due process and self-incrimination rights.

In February, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the agency would enforce a rule under the Immigration and Nationality Act that requires all immigrants in the country without legal status to register with the agency or risk fines or potential jail time.  

A federal court in April sided with the Trump administration, allowing the registration requirement to go through.

The suit, brought by immigration rights advocates, does not challenge the statute from 1940 requiring those without legal status to register, but instead the process used by DHS in rolling out the policy without a proper notice and comment period. The suit also challenges a penalty for not filling out paperwork, as the form is only in English and can only be accessed with an internet connection.

Administration position

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Kartik N. Venguswamy from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said a notice and comment period is not needed because the form is just procedural and a new rule is not created. 

He added that the rule does not cause irreparable harm, because any harm is from outside forces, such as immigration enforcement or deportation that could follow registration with the federal government.  

Judges Patricia A. Millett, Gregory G. Katsas and J. Michelle Childs heard the case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Former President Barack Obama nominated Millett; President Donald Trump nominated Katsas in his first term; and former President Joe Biden nominated Childs.

The judges raised concerns with the form itself, including one question that requires the noncitizen to report any crimes they have committed, regardless of whether they were charged or convicted. 

That wades into violation of the 5th Amendment’s protections against self incrimination, one judge said.

“That’s asking you to confess to things that no government authority is aware of,” Millett said of the final rule. “And it’s a big step toward the 5th Amendment.”

The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, estimated that between 2.2 million and 3.2 million immigrants will have to register. The registration requirement could be a powerful tool in the Trump administration’s efforts to carry out mass deportations.

Rule has gone unenforced

Michelle Lapointe, arguing on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said the federal government has not enforced the rule for nearly 80 years. 

The registration requirement is authorized under a wartime act known as the Alien Registration Act of 1940 that was first used in World War II. It was rarely used after that, but briefly in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

During that time, any noncitizen males older than 16 who hailed from 25 countries with a Muslim majority had to register with the federal government. But the program led to no terrorism convictions and was eventually dissolved in 2016.

Lapointe said because the rule would apply to as many as 3 million immigrants without legal status, a notice and comment period must occur. Under the rule, immigrants 14 and older who are required to register will need to carry registration documents at all times or risk potential prison terms or fines of up to $5,000.

“It is solely for the process of deportation,” Lapointe said.

As the Trump administration continues with its immigration crackdown, federal immigration officials could carry out their plans for mass deportations by having easy access to records of immigrants unlawfully in the country.

But Childs seemed skeptical that the federal government couldn’t use the statute, because it’s on the books.

Katsas also said the rule is not new — the government has just decided not to enforce it since 1940.

“It seems like a more fair account” that the government is ending a long policy of not enforcing a rule that, on its face, “covers all aliens,” he said.

But Katsas said the “rule does expand the category of information and that’s new.”

That category of information includes the requirement to detail to the federal government any crime the individual has committed, which Lapointe argued would violate 5th Amendment rights. 

Registration form debated

Childs and Millett questioned the roll-out of the form, the fact that it’s only accessible online and in English, and the penalty for not registering with the federal government.

“These are forms regulating a community … where English is not their native language,” Millett said. 

Venguswamy said the forms were in English because “English is the language of the United States government at this point.” 

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to adopt English as the official language, including paperwork.  

Millett asked Venguswamy if it’s the government’s position that an immigrant who doesn’t understand English will not be charged or issued a penalty for failing to register. 

“I’m not in a position to speak to whether or not that is the position the government will take,” Venguswamy said. 

Millett then asked why a proper notice and comment period is not needed for a new process, even if it’s not creating a new statute. 

She gave Venguswamy an example of the IRS not changing the tax code, but issuing a new tax form for taxpayers to fill out.

“We’re gonna issue new tax forms, for everyone to fill out their taxes, we’re not creating tax obligations, just new forms in Ancient Biblical Greek,” Millett said. 

She asked Venguswamy if a proper notice and comment period would be needed for those new tax forms.

He said it would not, because it’s a change in procedure, not a change to the rule.

“Wow,” Millett said. “We can all be criminally prosecuted for not filling out our taxes unless we can find the five people in the United States who know how to speak Ancient Biblical Greek.”

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to a crowd holding a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the ICE building in Baltimore, Maryland, on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

WASHINGTON — The wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after a federal judge ordered his release earlier Thursday, according to his attorneys and an immigrant rights group that has advocated his case.

CASA, the immigrant rights group that has supported Abrego Garcia and his family since he was erroneously deported to a brutal Salvadoran prison, told States Newsroom he was released from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania before a 5 p.m. Eastern deadline set by the judge. He has remained there since September. 

 However, it remained unclear Thursday night if the Department of Homeland Security will follow the judicial order, and the White House press secretary said the Department of Justice would swiftly appeal the decision.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to States Newsroom the “order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts.”

She did not respond to a follow-up question if ICE would follow the order from U.S. District Court of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis to release Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland resident who cast a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown after he was wrongly deported.

Abrego Garcia was imprisoned in a brutal prison in El Salvador and returned to the United States to face criminal charges in Tennessee. After he was ordered released from U.S. marshals custody by a federal judge, ICE detained him again at an appointment at the Baltimore, Maryland, ICE field office.

‘Without lawful authority’

Xinis, in a ruling highly critical of the administration’s actions in the case, found that since Abrego Garcia was brought back to the United States, he was detained “again without lawful authority,” because the Trump administration has not made an effort to remove him to a third country, due to his deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador. 

The order comes after Abrego Garcia challenged his ICE detention in a habeas corpus petition. Xinis was mulling a Supreme Court precedent that deemed immigrants cannot be held longer than six months in detention if the federal government is not actively making efforts to remove them.

“Separately, Respondents’ conduct over the past months belie that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal, lending further support that Abrego Garcia should be held no longer,” Xinis wrote in her opinion.

Costa Rica has agreed to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, but in court, Department of Justice lawyers did not give Xinis a clear explanation of why the Trump administration would not remove him to Costa Rica. Instead, the Trump administration has tried to deport Abrego Garcia to several countries in Africa. 

Prolonged detention found

In her opinion, Xinis said that Abrego Garcia’s release is required under the Supreme Court’s precedent, referred to as the Zadvydas v. Davis case, because his nearly four-month detention at an ICE facility in Pennsylvania had been prolonged. 

“Respondents’ persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option, their threats to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that never agreed to take him, and their misrepresentation to the Court that Liberia is now the only country available to Abrego Garcia, all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the ‘basic purpose’ of timely third-country removal,” Xinis said.

She also noted witness testimony from several ICE officials who were unable to provide any information on efforts to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country where he would not face torture, persecution or deportation to El Salvador.  

“They simply refused to prepare and produce a witness with knowledge to testify in any meaningful way,” she said of the Department of Justice.

While the Trump administration has floated removing Abrego Garcia to Eswatini, Ghana, Liberia and Uganda, the Department of Justice is moving forward with criminal charges lodged against Abrego Garcia that stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 

The judge in that Nashville case is trying to determine if the human smuggling of immigrants charges against Abrego Garcia – to which he has pleaded not guilty – are vindictive. 

Missing order of removal

Another issue Xinis pointed out was the Department of Justice’s inability to produce a final order of removal for Abrego Garica.  

“No such order of removal exists for Abrego Garcia,” she said. “When Abrego Garcia was first wrongly expelled to El Salvador, the Court struggled to understand the legal authority for even seizing him in the first place.”

She also cited the ICE officials’ testimony, which did answer whether a removal order existed. 

“Respondents twice sponsored the testimony of ICE officials whose job it is to effectuate removal orders, and who candidly admitted to having never seen one for Abrego Garcia,” she said. “Respondents have never produced an order of removal despite Abrego Garcia hinging much of his jurisdictional and legal arguments on its non-existence.”

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have argued if there is no order of removal, there is no basis for his ICE detention.

Abrego Garcia is not challenging his deportation, and has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, but has remained in ICE detention since August.

William J. Ford contributed to this report. 

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Arizona, speaks to the media during a primary election-night party at El Casino Ballroom in South Tucson on July 15, 2025. Grijalva claims she was pepper-sprayed during an ICE raid in Tucson on Dec. 5, 2025, but the Department of Homeland Security denies it. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

Arizona’s U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva was involved in a clash with federal agents during a protest of immigration raids in west Tucson Friday, during which she claims she was hit with pepper spray. 

According to a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency partnered with the Internal Revenue Service to carry out as many as 16 warrants in southern Arizona in a “years-long investigation into immigration and tax violations.” In videos posted to social media by community advocates, several masked federal agents in tactical gear can be seen near the westside location of popular Mexican seafood and grill restaurant Taco Giro. 

The raids prompted a protest and federal agents deployed tear gas and pepper spray against the crowd. The Arizona Daily Star reported that multiple employees who live near the west Tucson restaurant were detained. At least one protester was among those taken into custody by federal agents. AZ Family reported that Taco Giro locations in north Tucson, Casa Grande and Vail were also targeted. ICE spokesman Fernando Burgos-Ortiz confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that multiple people were arrested, but didn’t clarify how many or confirm claims that agents had pepper-sprayed a sitting U.S. Congresswoman.

Tricia McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed Grijalva’s account. McLaughlin accused Grijalva of hindering the work of federal agents and appeared to question Grijalva’s claim that she was pepper-sprayed by highlighting her lack of visible physical reaction in the video. 

“If her claims were true, this would be a medical marvel,” McLaughlin wrote. “But they’re not true. She wasn’t pepper sprayed. She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement. In fact, 2 law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that (Grijalva) joined. Presenting one’s self as a ‘Member of Congress’ doesn’t give you the right to obstruct law enforcement.”

Tucson Sentinel reporter Paul Ingram, who was on-the-ground covering the ICE raid and protest, reported that federal agents shot pepper spray into his face and eye, even though he was clearly identified as a member of the press.

A video from Univision reporter Óscar Gómez shows federal agents shooting pepper spray directly into the faces of protesters, with Grijalva in close proximity. An agent is then seen coming after Gómez directly, covering his camera with pepper spray, even as Gómez appeared to be backing away.

The large-scale raid of several Taco Giros in Southern Arizona is the second time this year a restaurant chain was the subject of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, a division within ICE, that ensnared multiple employees who lack legal immigration status. 

In July, federal agents raided Colt Grill BBQ and Spirits locations in Northern Arizona. The operation was the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a money laundering and labor exploitation scheme. Along with the husband-and-wife owners of the Northern Arizona restaurants, and two undocumented immigrants who were involved in recruiting and exploiting other immigrant workers, several more undocumented employees were also arrested. 

In a video posted to her X account, Grijalva described as many as 40 agents gathered at the westside location she visited with her staff for lunch, and said that she was treated with hostility even after identifying herself as a member of Congress. 

“I was here, this is like the restaurant I come to literally once a week, and was sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive,” she said. “I was asking for clarification which is my right as a member of Congress.” 

A video of the incident posted to Grijalva’s social media accounts shows a federal agent spraying several bursts of pepper spray directly at demonstrators in the street, close to where Grijalva is standing. Grijalva’s staffer jumps in front of her. Coughing can be heard offscreen. Later in the video, a pepper ball appears to explode inches from Grijalva’s feet as she walks away.

Grijalva, Arizona’s first Latina congresswoman, has been a fierce critic of immigration enforcement activity in her district. Earlier this week, she publicly condemned a Border Patrol raid of a humanitarian group’s migrant aid station in the desert on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, criticizing it as an example of President Donald Trump’s “cruel (and) unconstitutional” mass deportation agenda. 

 In a statement issued shortly after she said she was pepper-sprayed, Grijalva said her office was working to get more information on Friday’s immigration arrests.

“Our residents deserve to know whether these raids are targeting genuine public safety threats – or law-abiding neighbors who have called our communities home for decades,” she wrote. “ICE has become a lawless agency under this Administration – operating with no transparency, no accountability, and open disregard for basic due process.”

While Trump administration officials have time and again emphasized their intent to detain the “worst of the worst”, many of the immigrants that ICE has arrested during Trump’s second term have no criminal record. A June survey of people in immigration detainment facilities at the time found that nearly half, 47%, lacked any criminal history and fewer than 30% of them had been convicted of crimes.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state’s top legal officer, denounced the incident on social media. In a post on X, the Democrat, who has long criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics, called the incident “unacceptable and outrageous.”

“Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions,” Mayes wrote. “Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

Grijalva voiced concern for how federal officials interact with people who don’t have her authority, in light of how she was mistreated on Friday.

“While I am fine, if that is the way they treat me, how are they treating other community members who do not have the same privileges and protections that I do?” she questioned, in her written statement. 

***UPDATE: This story has been updated with eyewitness reporting from the Tucson Sentinel and Univision. 

The Bottles and Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Enhancement Act became law on Nov. 25, 2025. The bipartisan legislation aims to strengthen protocols for Transportation Security Administration employees handling breast milk, formula and related items. (Getty Images) 

After years of advocacy efforts, a bipartisan measure became law last week to make travel easier for parents who encounter problems going through airport security with breast milk and formula.

Congress passed a law in 2016 that deemed breast milk, formula and toddler drinks “medically necessary liquids” that can go on planes and in carry-ons in quantities larger than 3.4 ounces, along with ice and gel packs and other related accessories. But airport security officers are not always trained on the policy, and parents continue to face issues nearly a decade later, States Newsroom reported, sometimes experiencing flight delays or being forced to dump milk handled unhygienically. 

Three years ago, after a bad experience in an airport, engineer and science TV host Emily Calandrelli called on Congress to make the Transportation Security Administration enforce its own breast milk policy. She’s championed the legislation alongside lobbying groups like Chamber of Mothers, founded by working moms in 2021. 

The group’s cofounder and CEO Erin Erenberg said in a statement that the measure’s passage was “a victory for every parent who has been mistreated or dismissed while simply caring for their baby.”

The Bottles and Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Enhancement Act was approved unanimously in both chambers of Congress this year. It ensures that TSA streamlines standards and requires officers to follow protocol when screening passengers who are breastfeeding and carrying milk, formula or juice on planes for their babies. Within 90 days of the bill being signed by President Donald Trump on Nov. 25 — and then every five years after that — the agency must issue or update guidance to minimize the risk of contamination.

“I’m thrilled to say that the BABES Act is officially the law of the land,” said Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California in a statement Monday. “As a husband and father, I know how challenging it can be to fly with a newborn. … This is about dignity, peace of mind, and protecting families at one of the most vulnerable moments of parenthood.”

“This bill guarantees clear rules, proper training, and full transparency so parents can travel knowing their baby food will be protected, not mishandled or thrown away,” said Republican Florida Rep. Maria Salazar in a statement. 

Under the measure, TSA agents must maintain hygiene standards when handling breast milk, formula and related items — ice packs or other cooling devices, for example — to lessen the chance of contamination. The law also directs the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to audit TSA compliance with the law and submit a report to Congress within one year of enactment.

Salazar cosponsored the bill in the House alongside GOP Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna and Democratic Reps. Swalwell and Brittany Pettersen of Colorado. 

“Like so many moms, I’ve experienced the frustration of having to throw out milk or pumping supplies, despite them being TSA-approved. Outdated regulations or lack of training shouldn’t add to an already stressful situation,” Pettersen said in a statement. 

The Senate passed the bill with unanimous approval in May. GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Steve Daines of Montana carried the bill in the upper chamber along with Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. 

“Our bipartisan legislation will ensure the TSA keeps its employees up to speed on their own policies and updates those policies as necessary. It’s the least we can do to help parents travel through airports with the dignity and respect they deserve,” Duckworth said in a statement. 

This year is the first time the bill advanced in both chambers despite being introduced several times in previous sessions. 

During his testimony before the bill’s passage in the House on Nov. 17, Swalwell thanked Calandrelli for speaking out about her experience of being forced to check her ice packs and being questioned for needing breastfeeding supplies while traveling without an infant. 

“It is a success story for anybody who believes that they can write to their legislator and see a change in the laws that govern us,” Swalwell said.

Calendrelli said the same thing to her followers on Facebook.

“But now, 3.5 years later — we turned a terrible experience into a Bill that will become a law. That humiliation to legislation pipeline, amirite?”

A Delray Beach, Fla., police officer speaks with a driver in 2019. The Trump administration wants access to state driver’s license data through a computer network used by law enforcement to share records across state lines. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Four Republican states have agreed to help the Trump administration gain access to state driver’s license data through a nationwide law enforcement computer network as part of the administration’s hunt for alleged noncitizen voters.

The Trump administration said as recently as October that federal officials wanted to obtain driver’s license records through the network.

The commitment from officials in Florida, Indiana, Iowa and Ohio comes as part of a settlement agreement filed on Friday in a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit was originally brought by the states last year alleging the Biden administration wasn’t doing enough to help states verify voter eligibility.

The settlement, between the states and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, requires the federal department to continue its development of a powerful citizenship verification program known as SAVE. Earlier this year, federal officials repurposed SAVE into a program capable of scanning millions of state voter records for instances of noncitizen registered voters.

In return, the states have agreed to support Homeland Security’s efforts to access the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, an obscure computer network that typically allows law enforcement agencies to search driver’s license records across state lines. Nlets — as the system is known — lets police officers easily look up the driving records of out-of-state motorists.

The Trump administration and some Republican election officials have promoted the changes to SAVE as a useful tool to identify potential noncitizen voters, and Indiana had already agreed to provide voter records. Critics, including some Democrats, say the Trump administration is building a massive database of U.S. residents that President Donald Trump or a future president could use for spying or targeting political enemies.

Stateline reported last week, before the settlement agreement was filed in court, that Homeland Security publicly confirmed it wants to connect Nlets to SAVE.

A notice published Oct. 31 in the Federal Register said driver’s licenses are the most widely used form of identification, and that by working with states and national agencies, including Nlets, “SAVE will use driver’s license and state identification card numbers to check and confirm identity information.”

A federal official also previously told a virtual meeting of state election officials in May that Homeland Security was seeking “to avoid having to connect to 50 state databases” and wanted a “simpler solution,” such as Nlets, according to government records published by the transparency group American Oversight.

The new settlement lays out the timeline for how the Trump administration could acquire the four states’ records.

Within 90 days of the execution of the agreement, the four states may provide Homeland Security with 1,000 randomly selected driver’s license records from their state for verification as part of a quality improvement process for SAVE.

According to the agreement, the states that provide the records will “make best efforts to support and encourage DHS’s efforts to receive and have full use of state driver’s license records from the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System” and state driver’s license agencies.

The language in the agreement is open-ended and doesn’t make clear whether the pledge to help Homeland Security obtain access to Nlets is limited to drivers from those four states or is intended to require the states to help the agency acquire the records of drivers nationwide.

An agreement to help

The agreement could pave the way for Republican officials in other states to provide access to license data.

Nlets is a nonprofit organization that facilitates data sharing among law enforcement agencies across state lines. States decide what information to make available through Nlets, and which agencies can access it. That means the four states could try to influence peers to share Nlets data with the Trump administration.

“They’re not just talking about driver’s license numbers, they’re talking about the driver’s records. What possible reason would DHS have in an election or voting context — or any context whatsoever — for obtaining the ‘full use of state driver’s license records,’” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, said in a statement to Stateline that the settlement agreement provides another layer of election integrity and protection as officials seek to ensure only eligible voters are registered. He didn’t directly address questions about Nlets access.

“The SAVE program provides us with critical information, but we must also continue to utilize information from other state and federal partners to maintain clean and accurate lists,” Pate said in the statement.

Two weeks before the Nov. 5, 2024, election, Pate issued guidance to Iowa county auditors to challenge the ballots of 2,176 registered voters who were identified by the secretary of state’s office as potential noncitizens. The voters had reported to the state Department of Transportation or another government entity that they were not U.S. citizens in the past 12 years and went on to register to vote, according to the guidance.

In March, Pate said his office gained access to the SAVE database and found 277 of those people were confirmed to not have U.S. citizenship — just under 12% of the individuals identified as potential noncitizens.

Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Matthew Tragesser, a spokesperson for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — the agency under Homeland Security that oversees SAVE — told Stateline last week that USCIS was committed to “eliminating barriers to securing the nation’s electoral process.”

“By allowing states to efficiently verify voter eligibility, we are reinforcing the principle that America’s elections are reserved exclusively for American citizens,” Tragesser said in a statement.

The SAVE program — Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — was originally intended to help state and local officials verify the immigration status of individual noncitizens seeking government benefits. In the past, SAVE could search only one name at a time. Now it can conduct bulk searches; federal officials in May also connected the program to Social Security data.

“It’s a potentially dangerous mix to put driver’s license and Social Security number and date of birth information out there … where we really don’t know yet how and when and where it’s going to be used,” Minnesota Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon said in an interview on Monday.

Democratic states object

As the Trump administration has encouraged states to use SAVE, the Justice Department has also demanded states provide the department with unredacted copies of their voter rolls. The Trump administration has previously confirmed the Justice Department is sharing voter information with Homeland Security.

The Justice Department has sued six, mostly Democratic, states for refusing to turn over the data. Those lawsuits remain pending.

On Monday, 12 state secretaries of state submitted a 29-page public comment, in response to SAVE’s Federal Register notice, criticizing the overhaul. The secretaries wrote that while Homeland Security claims the changes make the program an effective tool for verifying voters, the modifications are “likely to degrade, not enhance” states’ efforts to ensure free, fair and secure elections.

“What the modified system will do … is allow the federal government to capture sensitive data on hundreds of millions of voters nationwide and distribute that information as it sees fit,” the secretaries wrote.

The secretaries of state of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington signed on to the comment.

The settlement agreement purports to make this year’s changes to SAVE legally binding.

The agreement asks that a federal court retain jurisdiction over the case for 20 years for the purposes of enforcing it — a move that in theory could make it harder for a future Democratic president to reverse the changes to SAVE.

But Becker, of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he doesn’t expect the settlement agreement would make it more difficult for a future administration to undo the overhaul.

“Should a different administration come in that disagrees with this approach,” Becker said, “I would expect that they would almost certainly completely change how the system operates and how the states can access it and what data the federal government procures.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch reporter Robin Opsahl contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

A makeshift memorial of flowers and American flags honoring the late West Virginia National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom stands outside the Farragut West Metro station on Dec. 1, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has accelerated his drive to curb legal immigration, after a native of Afghanistan who had been granted asylum was accused in a shooting in the nation’s capital that left one member of the West Virginia National Guard dead and another in critical condition.

“In the wake of last week’s atrocity, it is more important than ever to finish carrying out the president’s mass deportation operation,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during Monday’s press briefing. “They must go back to their home countries.”

The Trump administration at the beginning of the president’s second term launched an unprecedented crackdown on all forms of immigration. The deadly shooting on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday, in a commercial area of the District of Columbia just blocks from the White House, has intensified the push.

The Department of Homeland Security in a social media post after the Wednesday attack called for immigrants to “remigrate,” which is a far-right concept in Europe that calls for the ethnic removal of non-white minority populations through mass migration.

“There is more work to be done,” Leavitt said, “because President Trump believes that he has a sacred obligation to reverse the calamity of mass unchecked migration into our country.”

The suspect in the guard shooting is a 29-year-old Afghan national who entered the country during the Biden administration through a special immigrant visa program for Afghan allies after the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from the country in 2021. 

Authorities identified him as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who worked for a CIA counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan, according to the New York Times. He was granted asylum under the Trump administration earlier this year.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia plans to charge Lakanwal with first-degree murder after one of the National Guard soldiers, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died as a result of her injuries. 

Still hospitalized is U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24. Trump has indicated he intends to honor both Beckstrom and Wolfe at the White House.

District officials said the shooting of guard members was “targeted,” but the motive remains under investigation. 

Pauses on asylum

Leavitt said the Trump administration will continue “to limit migration, both illegal and legal,” after the shooting.

Separately on Wednesday, the administration ended Temporary Protected Status for more than 330,000 nationals from Haiti, opening them up for deportations by February. 

Within hours of Wednesday’s shooting, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services halted all immigration requests from Afghanistan nationals. On Thursday, USCIS head Joseph Edlow announced that by direction of Trump the agency would reexamine every green card application from “every country of concern,” which are the 19 countries on the president’s travel ban list.  

And by Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed all U.S. embassies to suspend all visa approvals for individuals with passports from Afghanistan. 

Over the weekend, Trump told reporters that those pauses on asylum could last “a long time,” although it’s unclear what authority the executive branch has to suspend a law created by Congress through the 1980 Refugee Act. 

This is not the first time Trump has tried to end asylum this year, as there is a legal challenge to the president barring asylum seekers from making asylum claims at U.S. ports of entry.

Venezuelan boat strikes

During Monday’s press conference, Leavitt also defended the Trump administration’s continued deadly strikes on boats off the coast of Venezuela allegedly containing drugs. The attacks have been occurring since September. 

The president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have stated, without evidence, that the boats’ operators are narco-terrorists and that the strikes are legal, since they have taken place in international waters. Roughly 80 people have been killed in nearly two dozen attacks since September. 

Leavitt disputed any questions of wrongdoing by the administration during a Sept. 2 strike, when two survivors clinging to boat wreckage were allegedly killed by a follow-on strike, as first reported by The Washington Post Friday.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war,” Leavitt said, adding that Hegseth authorized a military commander to conduct the operation.

However, the attacks have raised concern among members of Congress, and following the Post story, the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services committees moved to open bipartisan inquiries into the military strikes, with a focus on the alleged follow-on attack that killed two survivors. 

How the National Guard wound up in the district

Trump initially mobilized 800 National Guard troops to the nation’s capital in August after claiming a “crime emergency” in the district, despite a documented three-decade low in crime.

Many were instructed they would be carrying service weapons, The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 17. The White House effort was accompanied by a heightened U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence in the district.

The mobilization then became tied up in court for months.

A federal district judge in the District of Columbia found the administration’s deployment of more than 2,000 guard troops in the city illegal but stayed her Nov. 20 decision for three weeks to give the administration time to appeal and remove the guard members from the district’s streets.

The guard troops had been expected to remain in the district through the end of February.

The administration filed an emergency motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for a stay to be issued on the order by Thursday. The administration filed the emergency motion the same day as the attack on the two National Guard members.

Trump ordered an additional 500 guard members to the district following the shooting.

The Joint Task Force District of Columbia has been overseeing guard operations in the district, including units from the district, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia.

A sign is seen outside the FEMA Disaster Recovery Center at Weaverville Town Hall on March 29, 2025 in Weaverville, North Carolina. (Photo by Allison Joyce/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The review council that President Donald Trump tasked with overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency was supposed to release its recommendations before Monday but missed the deadline. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security declined to say when the report would be published, but wrote in a statement that it would “inform this Administration’s ongoing efforts to fundamentally restructure FEMA, transforming it from its current form into a streamlined, mission-focused disaster-response force.” 

A congressional staffer, not authorized to speak publicly, said the report could be published as soon as mid-December.  A spokesperson for Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a council member, said the review council will vote to finalize the report at an upcoming public meeting. 

Trump established the 12-person council through an executive order he signed back in January and tasked the group with releasing the report within 180 days of its first meeting, which it held on May 20. 

That should have meant a release this past weekend, though it’s possible staff writing the report were furloughed or tasked with other work during the 43-day government shutdown. 

Hegseth, Noem are co-chairs

The council, co-chaired by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, held three public meetings earlier this year, where members spoke about possible ways to restructure FEMA but didn’t preview what recommendations they would actually put in the report. 

Trump said in June “the FEMA thing has not been a very successful experiment” and that he would like states to shoulder more of the responsibility for natural disaster response and recovery. 

“When you have a tornado or a hurricane, or you have a problem of any kind in a state, that’s what you have governors for,” Trump said. “They’re supposed to fix those problems. And it’s much more local. And they’ll develop a system. And I think it will be a great system.”

The FEMA Review Council’s report is supposed to include an 

• “assessment of the adequacy of FEMA’s response to disasters during the previous 4 years,”
• “comparison of the FEMA responses with State, local, and private sector responses” and
• “analysis of the principal arguments in the public debate for and against FEMA reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” among several other elements. 

FEMA action underway in Congress

Any major changes to FEMA would likely need to move through Congress before they could take effect. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers hasn’t waited for the review council’s suggestions to get started. 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 57-3 in September to send a bill to the floor that would make significant changes to FEMA, including making it a Cabinet-level agency. 

House GOP leaders have yet to schedule the legislation for a vote. If passed, it would need Senate approval and Trump’s signature to become law.