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.
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.
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 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.
Republican senators are rallying behind senior White House aide Stephen Miller as some GOP lawmakers privately grumble that his blunt style and hardline immigration messaging could complicate the party’s midterm prospects.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) dismissed the idea that Miller is in trouble inside Trump’s inner circle, calling him a key architect of the administration’s aggressive border agenda.
“People can disagree with Stephen on rhetoric or policy,” Graham told The Hill, “but the question is, is he in jeopardy in Trump World? Absolutely not.”
Graham argued Republicans should stop hand-wringing over internal personality clashes and instead focus on going on offense against what he called the failures of the Biden years. He pointed to an upcoming Senate vote targeting sanctuary city policies, saying Miller played a central role in shaping the effort.
Miller’s defenders say he has been instrumental in delivering on the promises Trump made to voters — from tougher immigration enforcement to cracking down on fentanyl trafficking. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), who represents a major battleground state, credited Miller with helping advance priorities that matter to working families.
Other prominent Republicans, including Senate GOP Conference Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), also praised Miller’s long-standing role in border security and law enforcement policy.
Still, the controversy highlights growing tension inside the Republican conference as lawmakers head into an election cycle. Some senators, including Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have criticized Miller’s demeanor and influence, arguing the White House should broaden its circle of advisers.
The debate comes as Washington faces a looming Homeland Security funding deadline, with Democrats threatening to block extensions unless the administration agrees to restrictions on ICE operations. Democrats have also escalated calls for investigations, impeachments, and removals of Trump officials tied to immigration enforcement — part of a broader effort to portray the administration as extreme.
Miller has also drawn attention for his unapologetic stance on Greenland and U.S. strategic power in the Arctic, which critics say risks alienating allies. Supporters counter that Trump’s tougher posture has strengthened America’s defensive position and forced long-overdue conversations about national security.
For many Trump allies, the bottom line is simple: Miller remains one of the president’s most trusted advisers — and Republicans who want to win should focus less on palace intrigue and more on policy fights Democrats are increasingly out of step on.
As Graham put it, Miller is “Karl Rove to MAGA,” and anyone betting on his downfall, he suggested, doesn’t understand how Trump’s White House works.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a roundtable discussion on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station Friday, April 5, 2019, in Calexico, Calif. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
The creator of ICEBlock—an iPhone app designed to alert users to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming federal officials violated his free-speech rights by urging Apple to pull the app from its store.
Joshua Aaron, the developer behind the app, contends in his complaint that building, distributing, and promoting ICEBlock is “First Amendment-protected speech.” He alleges that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other administration officials engaged in a coordinated “pressure campaign” to force Apple to remove the app, calling the effort an unlawful act of censorship.
“We’re basically asking the court to set a precedent and affirm that ICEBlock is, in fact, First Amendment-protected speech and that I did nothing wrong by creating it,” Aaron told The Associated Press on Monday. “And to make sure that they can’t do this same thing again in the future.”
The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to bar any criminal prosecution of Aaron, citing what he describes as “unlawful threats” from Bondi, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons, and White House Border Czar Tom Homan—all of whom, according to Aaron, indicated they would investigate him for creating the app.
He told the AP that one of his motives for suing is “to basically have them stop threatening myself and my family.”
Why the App Was Removed
Apple removed ICEBlock and similar apps in October after Bondi publicly warned that the tools endangered federal immigration officers by allowing the public—including individuals seeking to evade law enforcement—to monitor ICE activity in real time.
Bondi defended the removal in a Fox News interview, arguing that Aaron’s app could compromise officer safety. “He’s giving a message to criminals where our federal officers are. And he cannot do that,” she said. “And we are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not protected speech.”
The dispute comes amid the Trump administration’s continued efforts to restore aggressive federal enforcement of immigration law—an agenda that has been a central pillar of the president’s policy platform. ICE has been directed to prioritize arrests of criminal offenders, expand cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies, and counter efforts by progressive “sanctuary” jurisdictions to obstruct federal operations.
Officials like Noem, Homan, and Bondi have repeatedly emphasized the dangers facing ICE officers on the ground. From hostile sanctuary-city policies to the rapid spread of mobile apps that help individuals avoid lawful apprehension, the administration argues that these challenges make it more difficult to enforce immigration laws and protect communities.
The Trump administration suffered a significant legal setback on Wednesday after a federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit challenging “sanctuary” immigration policies in four New Jersey cities, ruling the federal government lacks standing to bring the case.
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin threw out the DOJ’s lawsuit against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken, concluding that even if the administration prevailed, New Jersey’s statewide immigration restrictions would remain in effect, meaning the court could not provide the relief the federal government was seeking. The case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the DOJ could refile if it establishes standing.
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in May 2025, arguing that the four cities’ policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
The complaint described the municipal policies as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws and the federal authorities that administer them,” arguing they prevent willing local law enforcement agencies from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
According to Politico, Padin said the administration’s argument ignored a critical legal reality.
“The Federal Government’s case has a fundamental flaw—it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not,” Padin wrote.
The judge noted that New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently limits how state and local law enforcement cooperate with federal civil immigration authorities. Because that directive would remain in force regardless of what happened to the four cities’ individual policies, striking down the local ordinances would not remedy the federal government’s alleged injury.
The Immigrant Trust Directive, originally issued in 2018 under then-Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration, was codified into state law earlier this year by Gov. Mikie Sherrill. It sharply limits voluntary cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities except where required by law. The directive has already survived multiple legal challenges, including lawsuits brought by Republican-led counties that were rejected by both the U.S. District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The DOJ argued that portions of Newark’s, Jersey City’s, and Hoboken’s local policies went further than the statewide directive and therefore could be challenged independently. Padin disagreed, finding those differences either too minor or too speculative to justify continuing the case.
The ruling marks the latest courtroom setback for the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions. Earlier this week, another federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ sanctuary city ordinance, dealing another blow to the administration’s effort to compel greater local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Neither President Donald Trump nor the White House has publicly commented on the ruling.
Border patrol agents at the Texas-Mexico border made two interesting finds while searching vehicles last weekend, resulting in the arrests of three people in two separate incidents.
According to Fox News, a 20-year-old man and a 21-year-old woman, both U.S. citizens, were crossing into the United States through the Anzalduas International Bridge when their vehicle was flagged by CBP agents for a second inspection on Sunday.
Upon investigation, officials discovered a spider monkey stowed inside a backpack in the vehicle. The two individuals were taken into custody and the monkey was transported to Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora protects certain types of monkeys and their importation is regulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to CBP officials. However, monkeys are not permitted to be imported as pets.
On the same day, CPB agents at the Hidalgo International Bridge stopped a 68-year-old Mexican citizen crossing into the U.S. for a second inspection.
Agents discovered approximately 73 pounds of alleged cocaine stashed inside the man’s Ford Explorer. Authorities estimate the alleged narcotics have a street value of approximately $980,000.
Breaking: 🚨 Texas border patrol found another spider monkey trying to be smuggled into America over the weekend!
And with the MAHA news: 🚨 $980K in cocaine was intercepted at the Texas-Mexico border over the weekend!
The man was taken into custody by Homeland Security and the cocaine was seized by CBP.
The suspects identities have not yet been released by officials.
“Our frontline CBP officers and agriculture specialists continue to remain vigilant as they conduct their inspections; their attention to detail and inspections experience led to an interception of an endangered species and a significant narcotics seizure in two separate enforcement events,” Hidalgo Port Director Carlos Rodriguez said in a statement. “We remain committed to preventing the exploitation of protected animals and the spread of animal diseases. Seizures of narcotics also reinforce our continued commitment to our border security mission.”
Illegal Immigration in the United State via Wikimedia Commons
History in the making…
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have reportedly come to an agreement to allow ICE to access taxpayer information to locate illegal immigrants subject to deportation.
According to Fox News, the Trump administration filed a memorandum of understanding late Monday with a court to create guardrails and a process for ICE requests to the IRS to further investigations of criminal illegal immigrants who have failed or refuse to leave the United States 90 days after a judge has issued a final order of removal.
“The Internal Revenue Service and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement have entered into a memorandum of understanding to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement’s efforts to combat illegal immigration,” a Treasury Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement.
“The bases for this MOU are founded in longstanding authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals,” the statement said. “After four years of Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump’s highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people.”
A senior Treasury Department official said the illegal immigrants have been given due process but have overstayed 90 days post a judge’s removal order.
The MOU outlines a process to ensure that sensitive taxpayer data information is protected while allowing law enforcement to pursue criminal violations, the official said.
A draft agreement reported last month by the Washington Post said it would limit ICE to confirm the addresses of illegal immigrants who have final removal orders.
The deal would allow ICE to submit the names and addresses of illegal immigrants to the IRS, who could then cross-check those immigrants’ tax records and provide the immigration agency with current address information.
The significant step forward comes amid the Trump Administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had earlier mandated the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return by midnight, emphasizing that his deportation was an “administrative error.” The Department of Justice (DOJ) acknowledged the mistake but argued that the court’s injunction was “patently unlawful,” asserting that the government lacks the authority to retrieve him from El Salvador.
By Casa Presidencial El Salvador - https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotospresidencia_sv/54351745159/, CC0,
El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele told President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Monday that he has no plans to return a Maryland man wrongfully deported to a prison in his country.
Bukele’s Oval Office meeting with President Trump was the first since the Supreme Court ruled last week that the U.S. must “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
However, both Trump and Bukele suggested they don’t have the power to return the Maryland man and Salvadoran national to the U.S.
“How could I return him to the United States? I smuggle him to the United States? Of course I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous,” Bukele said, going on to refer to Abrego Garcia as a terrorist.
“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States. I’m not releasing — I mean, we’re not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country,” he added, saying El Salvador is no longer the murder capital of the world.
Before Bukele spoke, Trump and a number of his aides suggested the decision would rest with El Salvador.
“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said.
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court ruled, referencing a lower court decision.
“The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps,” the order reads.
White House aide Stephen Miller said seeking Abrego Garcia’s return would equate to kidnapping him.
“A district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here. That issue was raised at the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components reversed, 9-0, unanimously stating clearly that neither the secretary of state nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador, who again, is a member of MS-13,” Miller said during the meeting.
