By United States Government - https://x.com/PressSec/status/1882759560613527770, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159931598
The Trump administration has reportedly deported a planeload of more than 100 Iranians under a deal struck with the Iranian government.
Iranian officials confirmed to The New York Times that the planeload of migrants took off from Louisiana on Monday night and was expected to arrive in Iran via Qatar on Tuesday. A U.S. official also reportedly confirmed the plan to the outlet.
Monday’s round of deportations is the first step in a larger plan to deport approximately 400 Iranian nationals.
“The Trump Administration is committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to carry out the largest mass deportation operation of illegal aliens in history, using all the tools at our disposal,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News on Tuesday.
The deal marks a rare instance of cooperation between Tehran and the US, which saw heightened tensions in the wake of this summer’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Iranian officials told The Times that the deportation deal came about after months of discussions between the two nations.
The identities of the Iranian deportees are unknown, but The Times reported that the group included men and women, some of whom were couples. The outlet also noted, citing Iranian officials, that some of the deportees volunteered to leave the U.S. after spending time in detention centers, while others were not going voluntarily.
Iranian officials also told The Times that in almost every case, the deportees either had asylum requests denied or had yet to appear before a judge for a hearing on their requests.
“We have urged the American government to respect the rights of Iranian migrants and their citizenship rights under international law. They must not be denied consular services, fair judicial process, or the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Noushabadi told Tasnim news agency.
Another official told the news agency that the individuals being deported had left Iran legally, but how they entered the U.S. was “another matter.” For decades, the U.S. had granted refuge to Iranians fleeing political repression due to the regime’s reputation for brutal human rights abuses.
Some Democrats are finally acknowledging they need to course correct on their immigration stance.
A new report from The New York Times revealed some leading Democrat lawmakers have admitted that open borders and immigration are costing the party and
“When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump, that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas).
The report highlighted that Gonzalez witnessed President Donald Trump “win every county in his district along the border with Mexico.” Gonzalez’s 34th district in Texas has swung dramatically from voting heavily Democratic in recent presidential elections to going in favor of Trump in 2024.
“This is a Democratic district that’s been blue for over a century,” Gonzalez told the Times.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said the Democrat Party “got led astray by the 2016 and the 2020 elections, and we just never moved back.”
“We looked feckless, we weren’t decisive, we weren’t listening to voters, and the voters decided that we weren’t in the right when it comes to what was happening with the border,” Gallego told the Times.
In May, Gallego released a border security plan that would speed up asylum seekers’ claims and make other countries do their “fair share” in receiving asylum seekers, as well as take action against cartel violence.
The New York Times reported that various Democrats “are pushing for a course correction they see as overdue,” noting a new proposal from the Democratic policy shop and left-wing think tank Center for American Progress. The organization is calling for expanding legal immigration but also for ramping up border security and clamping down on abuse of the nation’s asylum system, the latter two of which are longtime Republican priorities.
Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, admitted to the Times that Democrats will have to adopt some level of border security policy.
“I’m happy to argue with Stephen Miller or anyone else about why they are wrong,” Tanden told the New York Times. “But the way we’re going to be able to do that is to also honestly assess that the border has been too insecure, that it allowed too many people to come through and that we need to fix that.”
The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to deport illegal immigrants as well as increase security at the U.S. border. The administration’s efforts have been criticized by progressives and violent anti-ICE protests recently prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard to California.
The Trump Administration is working hard to secure the border.
During a visit to Eagle Pass, Texas, a reporter asked Vice President Vance how he and the President would define “success” when it comes to the initiative and how much of the border needs to be “walled off” before the end of Trump’s administration.
“I think the president’s hope is that by the end of the term we build the entire border wall,” the vice president replied.
“And of course that’s the physical structure — the border wall itself — but we even heard today, there are so many good technological tools, so many great artificial intelligence-enabled technologies that allow us” to guard the southern border, he added.
The Hill reported that Vance also suggested the administration would employ artificial intelligence (AI) tools to aid with efforts to combat illegal immigration — a top priority for Trump, who promised while on the campaign trail to conduct the largest deportation operation in history. The vice president pointed to AI-enabled cameras that can spot migrants up to 2 miles away from the border, before they cross over.
“We’re using artificial intelligence to make us better at the job of border enforcement, but we’ve got to make sure that technology is deployed across the entire American southern border,” Vance said.
“We’re going to do it as much as we can, as broadly as we can, because that’s how we’re going to protect the American people’s security,” he added.
Building the wall was a centerpiece of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. During his first term, his administration reinforced more than 400 miles of the already existing wall and added about 80 miles of barrier to the border.
Trump administration officials recently told GOP senators that they’re running out of money to secure the border and need Congress to immediately pass $175 billion to complete the U.S.-Mexico border wall and hire more law-enforcement agents.
DES MOINES, Iowa — Speaking at the Iowa State Fairgrounds hours before Independence Day, President Donald Trump said he is drafting legislation to shield long-serving farm and hospitality workers from immigration enforcement actions.
“We’re working on legislation right now,” Trump told the crowd. “Farmers, look, they know better. They work with them for years.”
He referenced cases where immigrant workers had been employed for over a decade before being removed through federal action.
“You had cases… where people have worked for a farm for 14, 15 years, and they get thrown out pretty viciously. And we can’t do it,” Trump said.
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump announces he is working on legislation to protect long-time farm and hospitality workers who get "thrown out viciously," presumably referring to immigration raids.
"Radical right people, who I happen to like, may not be quite as happy, but they'll… pic.twitter.com/hH53kLKFSs
The remarks appear to address the impact of immigration raids, such as those reported at California farms, where labor shortages have followed large-scale enforcement. A significant portion of that workforce is made up of illegal immigrants.
After weeks of back-and-forth, Trump ultimately echoed her stance on Thursday night — arguing that those in agriculture and hospitality deserve more authority over who they employ. “We’re going to work with them, and we’re going to work very strong and smart,” he said. “We’re going to put you in charge. We’re going to make you responsible. And I think that’s going to make a lot of people happy.”
Acknowledging that the proposal may not sit well with his party’s immigration hardliners, Trump added: “radical right people, who I also happen to like a lot, they may not be quite as happy. But they’ll understand, won’t they?”
He then turned to Rollins and said, “Do you think they’ll understand that you’re the one that brought this whole situation up?”
The comments signal a more pragmatic tone on immigration from the president, who has long emphasized enforcement but now appears open to reforms aimed at stabilizing the labor force in key sectors.
Construction continues on new border wall system project near Yuma, AZ. Recently constructed border wall near Yuma, Arizona on June 3, 2020. CBP photo by Jerry Glaser.
In a disappointing turn for border security advocates, the Texas Legislature has officially canceled the state’s ambitious effort to build its own border wall — a project that Gov. Greg Abbott hailed in 2021 as a bold step toward protecting Texans in the absence of meaningful federal action. Despite allocating more than $3 billion to the initiative, only about 65 miles of wall — much of it scattered in rural areas — has been completed.
Gov. Abbott launched the state-funded wall project in December 2021 after Biden administration inaction left Texans on the front lines of an escalating border crisis. At the time, Texas was the first state to attempt such a massive undertaking — one born out of necessity as illegal crossings surged and federal authorities turned a blind eye.
Standing beside towering steel beams at the border, Abbott made it clear that Texas would do what President Biden refused to: secure the southern border. “It’s heavy and it’s wide,” he said. “People aren’t making it through those steel bars.” He was right — but it turns out they didn’t have to. Thanks to landowner restrictions, bureaucratic red tape, and court battles, the wall was never continuous. Instead, it became a patchwork of isolated segments that migrants — and cartels — could easily walk around.
According to The Texas Tribune, only 8% of the 805 miles identified for construction have been completed. Those segments — largely concentrated on privately owned ranches — often sit in remote areas with lower migrant traffic. In other words, the federal government’s refusal to act left the state with the toughest and most expensive terrain, forcing Texas to play defense on the hardest frontlines with both hands tied.
And while the total cost of the wall project now stands at more than $3 billion, legislators pulled the plug quietly, slipping the decision into the final state budget without debate or public notice.
The 2025-26 state budget, passed in early June, includes a substantial $3.4 billion allocation for border security — but none of that will fund further wall construction. Instead, those resources are being redirected to Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s ongoing border crackdown that mobilizes Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guard troops to deter illegal crossings and apprehend migrants.
Sen. Joan Huffman (R), who led budget negotiations, defended the shift, stating that wall construction “should have always been a function of the federal government.” Texas had stepped up, she said, because Washington had failed — and continued to fail.
Some GOP lawmakers have raised concerns not about the need for border security, but about the strategic wisdom of funding isolated wall segments. Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) questioned whether lawmakers were spending billions “to give the appearance of doing something rather than taking the problem on to actually solve it.” Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) was more blunt, calling it a “hamster wheel” strategy.
A second federal judge moved to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship Wednesday.
Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, ruled that the order is likely unconstitutional. This marks the second time a federal court has blocked the policy. The nationwide injunction is slated to remain in place while the case is adjudicated.
Boardman said the civil rights group plaintiffs, five pregnant women whose children would not be granted citizenship under the order, were likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs are represented by the CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.
Trump’s executive order seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the country unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The administration argues that children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Trump signed Executive Order 14156, titledProtecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, on his first day in office. The order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, but it has already encountered significant legal pushback.
Judge Coughenour issued a restraining order against its implementation, siding with several states that argued the executive action violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts long-standing Supreme Court rulings.
The executive order was set to take effect in February, marking a bold attempt to reshape the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil since its ratification in 1868. Many legal experts, however, argue that any effort to alter this constitutional guarantee would require far more than an executive order.
The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ nationality. This precedent has formed the legal backbone of birthright citizenship for over a century.
Speaking with reporters ahead of a flight to Florida on Tuesday, the president was asked about whether he would consider deporting the South African mogul.
“We’ll have to take a look,” Trump said. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon! Wouldn’t that be terrible?”
Watch:
Reporter: Are you going to deport Elon Musk?
Trump: We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies. pic.twitter.com/6I0OAIv7Js
After a brief ceasefire between the president and his former DOGE lieutenant, the war of words has ratcheted up again over the past 24 hours — with Musk revving up his criticism of the Trump-backed “Big, Beautiful” budget bill. Musk, in a Monday post on X, denounced the legislation and floated the idea of forming a new political party. (RELATED: White House Responds After Elon Musk Calls Trump Megabill A ‘Disgusting Abomination’)
It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!
Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.
“It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” Musk wrote. “Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.”
Musk followed his post up with another, targeting the House Freedom Caucus, whose members mostly voted for the House version of the bill. “How can you call yourself the Freedom Caucus if you vote for a DEBT SLAVERY bill with the biggest debt ceiling increase in history?” Musk asked, tagging Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Andy Harris (R-MD).
“Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” Musk later added, making a clear threat to help primary challengers to incumbent Republicans.
“Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one,” Trump wrote. “Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!”
Trump renewed that threat Tuesday morning outside the White House.
“He’s upset that he’s losing his E.V. Mandate, and he’s very upset about things,” Trump said. “But you know, he could lose a lot more than that, I can tell you right now. Hey, Elon can lose a lot more than that!”
Illegal Immigration in the United State via Wikimedia Commons
According to new reports, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller delivered a blunt ultimatum to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) leadership in mid-May: ramp up arrests to 3,000 per day or face personnel changes.
During a tense meeting at ICE headquarters in Washington, D.C., Miller reportedly warned that regional offices failing to meet the target would see their leadership replaced. Sources familiar with the meeting said Miller left no room for interpretation — improved numbers weren’t encouraged, they were mandatory. (RELATED: Legal Battle May Reveal Big Payouts Tied To Biden’s Border Policies)
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, also in attendance, struck a more measured tone. Still, the message was clear, according to NBC News: immigration enforcement efforts must intensify and take precedence:
Misdemeanor cases for border crossings are regularly appearing in federal court, a rarity in recent years. Justice Department teams focused on other issues are being disbanded, with members being dispersed to teams focused on immigration and other administration priorities.
And prosecutors say cases without immigration components have stalled or are moving more slowly, according to documents seen by NBC News and conversations with six current and former prosecutors and a senior FBI official, who described how immigration is now a central part of discussions around whether to pursue cases.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“Immigration status is now question No. 1 in terms of charging decisions,” an assistant U.S. attorney said. “Is this person a documented immigrant? Is this person an undocumented immigrant? Is this person a citizen? Are they somehow deportable? What is their immigration status? And the answer to that question is now largely driving our charging decisions.”
At least one U.S. attorney’s office abandoned a potential federal prosecution of someone who prosecutors felt was dangerous because the case against the person lacked an immigration component, an email obtained by NBC News showed. The office instead left the case to state prosecutors.
Mobilizing National Resources
Following the confrontation, ICE launched “Operation At Large,” a coast-to-coast initiative designed to supercharge apprehensions. The scale is unprecedented. Over 21,000 National Guard troops and 250 IRS agents have been folded into the effort, alongside thousands of ICE and federal law enforcement personnel. (RELATED: Police Case That Fueled 2020 Protests Returns To Supreme Court)
The operation’s reach has required coordination across agencies, pulling FBI and DOJ resources away from their usual focus areas and toward immigration-related priorities.
The Daily Mailhas more on Miller’s dramatic call to action:
He then reportedly gave them an open challenge and asked: ‘Why aren’t you at Home Depot? Why aren’t you at 7-Eleven?’
Miller further pushed, getting into what an official called a ‘p***ing contest,’ saying: ‘What do you mean you’re going after criminals?’
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
In a statement to the Examiner, ICE deputy assistant director of media affairs Laszlo Baksay said the descriptions were ‘inaccurate.’
However, the conservative-leaning outlet cited sources within ICE and DHS who claimed Miller’s remarks further eroded morale among rank-and-file agents, which was already low.
“He had nothing positive to say about anybody,” one official told the paper, describing the mood following Miller’s visit.
Another source painted a darker picture of the internal climate confronting ICE agents:
“They’ve been threatened, told they’re watching their emails and texts and Signals. That’s what is horrible about things right now. It’s a fearful environment. Everybody in leadership is afraid. There’s no morale. Everybody is demoralized.”
Despite the backlash, Miller defended the administration’s approach during an appearance with Sean Hannity, insisting the 3,000-arrest-per-day quota is only a temporary benchmark — and warning that agents should be prepared for that figure to rise.
Localized operations have revealed just how expansive the crackdown has become since Miller and Noem appeared at Potomac Center Plaza in Southwest D.C. Across the nation, agents have ramped up early-morning sweeps and workplace raids, often coordinated with minimal local notification. In Florida, a weeklong action labeled “Operation Tidal Wave” resulted in 1,120 arrests — the largest ICE enforcement action ever recorded in a single state.
Tennessee saw similar efforts, with 196 arrests in the Nashville area. The local response was sharply critical. Nashville’s mayor denounced the operation as out of step with the city’s values and implemented policies limiting cooperation with ICE. Republicans in Congress are now investigating whether the mayor’s office leaked information about ICE agents — a serious charge with national implications.
Focus on Career Criminals — But Collateral Arrests Are Rising
Officially, the crackdown targets individuals with criminal records or prior deportation orders. But internal ICE guidance reportedly encourages officers to make “collateral arrests” — detaining illegal immigrants encountered in the field, even if they weren’t the original target and have no criminal history.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/us_icegov/54295293536/in/photostream/, Creative Commons Attribution-Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal (CC BY-NC-SA 1.0)
The broader approach has raised legal and logistical concerns, as well as fears of potential overreach, according to immigrant advocacy groups.
Leadership Purge Signals Internal Pressure
It also hasn’t come without fallout inside ICE. Two senior officials — Kenneth Genalo and Robert Hammer — have been removed from their posts in recent weeks. Sources say the firings reflect internal friction over how aggressively to pursue the administration’s ambitious targets. They also serve as a warning to others who might be perceived as resistant to the push.
White House: Fulfilling the Mandate, Critics Question the Cost
The administration stands by the operation. Officials say it delivers on President Trump’s second-term promise: to secure the border and remove criminal illegal aliens.
Still, questions remain. Legal scholars are raising red flags over the breadth of federal involvement, and local-federal cooperation is growing more strained. As the operation continues, so does the debate — over strategy, law, and the real-world impact on communities nationwide.
A federal court on Sunday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from sending three Venezuelan immigrants held in New Mexico to the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp.
Lawyers for the trio said in a legal filing that the detainees “fit the profile of those the administration has prioritized for detention in Guantánamo, i.e. Venezuelan men detained in the El Paso area with (false) charges of connections with the Tren de Aragua gang.”
In the filing, the lawyers asked a U.S. District Court in New Mexico for a temporary restraining order to block the administration from flying them to the U.S. military base. The lawyers noted that “the mere uncertainty the government has created surrounding the availability of legal process and counsel access is sufficient to authorize the modest injunction.”
The filing came as part of a lawsuit on behalf of the three men filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and Las Americas Immigrant Advisory Center.
Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granted the temporary restraining order, according to attorney Jessica Vosburgh, who represents the three men.
“It’s short term. This will get revisited and further fleshed out in the weeks to come,” Vosburgh told The Associated Press.
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt separately said that flights carrying detained illegal immigrants had been sent to Guantánamo.
Immigrant rights groups sent a letter on Friday demanding access to people who are now being held at the U.S. naval station, arguing that the base should not be used as a “legal black hole.” Guantánamo has been criticized around the world for its inhumane abuse and torture of detainees, including interrogation tactics.
The immigrants are being held in the Guantánamo detention camp that was set up for detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. The immigrants are separated from the 15 detainees who were already there, including planners in the 2001 terrorist attack.
Trump has promised to expand the detention camp to hold up to 30,000 “criminal illegal aliens.”
A federal appellate court declinedto issue a stay on a lower court’s orders in a suit challenging the Trump administration‘s authority to deport Venezuelan nationals via a 1798 wartime law.
In a 2-1 decision Wednesday, a three-judge panel sided with the plaintiffs in the suit, further blocking the Trump administration’s ability to move forward with its deportation agenda.
Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals presided over Monday’s oral arguments, which they agreed to hear last week on an expedited basis.
In a concurring opinion of the ruling, Henderson, a Bush appointee, said: “At this early stage, the government has yet to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The equities favor the plaintiffs. And the district court entered the TROs for a quintessentially valid purpose: to protect its remedial authority long enough to consider the parties’ arguments.
“Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the request to stay the district court’s TROs should be denied.”
Their decision could ultimately be kicked to the Supreme Court for further review.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
