Immigration

Home Immigration

Noem Impeachment Calls Escalate As ICE Shooting Fallout Continues

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem receives a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center CECOT with the Minister of Justice and Public Security Gustavo Villatoro in Tecoluca, El Salvador, March 26, 2025. (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)

Prominent Democrats are escalating calls to remove Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing her of rushing to defend federal officers involved in two separate fatal shootings — a push that Republicans are likely to view as more partisan pressure on law enforcement than a serious, evidence-based accountability process.

According to Axios, a House Democratic caucus phone call on Sunday “lit up” with demands to impeach Noem after the death of Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by federal agents on Saturday.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) reportedly warned colleagues that if Noem refuses to step down, “we will have no other option but to begin impeachment,” according to anonymous sources cited by Axios.

House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-MS) — “who was once reticent about impeachment” — also called for Noem to be impeached during the same call, Axios reported.

Outside Washington, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) also demanded Noem’s removal, writing, “@Sec_Noem has forfeited her right to lead. I’m calling on her to resign.”

Hochul went further, adding, “Gregory Bovino must also be fired,” referring to a senior Border Patrol official who publicly defended the shooting at a press conference Sunday.

Democrats point to pattern; Republicans see familiar impeachment politics

Democrats argue Noem is showing a troubling pattern of defending federal officers before facts are fully established, pointing to a similar incident earlier this year.

The article notes that Renee Good was “shot four times and killed” on Jan. 7 by “officer Jonathan Ross,” and that Noem also immediately said the officer acted in self-defense.

Noem’s supporters — and many Republicans — are likely to counter that federal officers operating in volatile environments, including protests and border-related enforcement actions, deserve the presumption that they were responding to a real threat until evidence proves otherwise, especially amid increasingly aggressive anti-police rhetoric.

Republicans have also criticized Democrats for using impeachment as a political weapon in recent years, arguing that removing Cabinet officials should be reserved for clear misconduct, not disputed narratives still under investigation.

Border Patrol official calls Pretti “assaultive,” claims he interfered with federal action

At Sunday’s press conference, Bovino described Pretti as an “assaultive subject” who was “assaulting” officers and interfering with a federal action — language that underscores how federal officials are framing the encounter as a fast-moving confrontation rather than an unprovoked shooting.

Bovino’s comments, however, are now being disputed by Democrats and major media outlets that reviewed video from the scene.

Video review raises questions about the Trump administration’s initial account

Major news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, reviewed bystander footage and reported that “Bystander footage appears to tell a different story” than the Trump administration’s claims.

The Journal reported: “A frame-by-frame review by The Wall Street Journal shows a federal officer pulling a handgun away from Pretti. Less than a second later, an agent fires several rounds. Pretti died at the scene.”

Both The Journal and The New York Times concluded that “At least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds.”

Political fallout likely to intensify as facts emerge

The dispute is now shifting into familiar political territory: Democrats are pressing for impeachment and firings, while Republicans are likely to insist that the federal government should not allow high-pressure incidents involving officers to be immediately adjudicated by political opponents — especially before investigators have fully reviewed evidence, witness statements, and body camera footage, if available.

Latino District Flips To Trump As Democrats Confess ‘Massive Shift’ On Border Policy

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.

First Judge Approves Trump’s Use Of Alien Enemies Act For Venezuelan Deportations

0
Image via Pixabay

On Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ruled that President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged illegal immigrant gang members complies with the law.

Haines, a Trump appointee with a background as a prosecutor in Pennsylvania, ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members is legally valid, citing TdA’s actions as a “predatory incursion” under the law.

As The Hill reports:

Haines, a Trump appointee, emphasized her “unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written.” 

“Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote in her 43-page ruling. 

The new split comes as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has filed a wave of lawsuits across the country challenging Trump’s use of the AEA, calls on the Supreme Court to immediately take up the issue and swiftly provide a nationwide resolution.

“The Alien Enemies Act — historically invoked during wartime, including World War II — empowers the president to detain or deport nationals of enemy nations. Trump’s application of the law targets TdA, a Venezuelan transnational gang designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization during his second administration, despite ongoing legal debate over whether gang activity constitutes an “invasion” or “incursion.”

Tuesday’s ruling contrasts with other federal judges’ decisions, such as Judge Fernando Rodriguez’s May 1, 2025, injunction against the AEA’s use, highlighting a judicial split that may lead to a Supreme Court challenge.

Acting ICE Director Resigns

Indian Affairs Committee Hearings to examine Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act successes and opportunities at the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service, in Washington, DC on September 17, 2025. (Official U.S. Senate photo by Ryan Donnell)

Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is stepping down after a turbulent tenure defined by record deportations, internal tensions, and mounting political pressure.

Lyons submitted his resignation Thursday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, saying he plans to remain in the role through May to help with the transition. His departure comes as Mullin takes over the department following Kristi Noem’s exit.

“Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer,” Mullin said in a statement. “We wish him luck on his next opportunity in the private sector.”

No official reason was given for Lyons’ resignation, capping a 20-year career at the agency he joined in 2007. He was appointed to lead ICE in March of last year, replacing Caleb Vitello, and quickly became a central figure in President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation push.

During his tenure, ICE carried out roughly 584,000 removals, a record pace that drew praise from allies and scrutiny from critics. Lyons also faced backlash over high-profile controversies, including the fatal shooting of Renee Good during Operation Metro Surge. At a January congressional hearing, Lyons declined to apologize to Good’s family.

A month later, he said two ICE officers involved in a separate January shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant had made “untruthful statements” under oath. Both officers were placed under investigation by the Justice Department.

Behind the scenes, Lyons navigated reported divisions within the Department of Homeland Security. He was closely aligned with Border Czar Tom Homan on deportation strategy, while other officials, including Noem and former Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino, took different approaches. The split fueled ongoing reports of internal friction.

Homan defended Lyons’ record on Thursday, telling NBC that under his leadership, “ICE achieved a record number of removals in the first year of this Administration, despite unprecedented challenges.”

“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan added.

Lyons also faced intense pressure from the White House, where Trump and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pushed for daily deportation targets in the thousands.

“Todd is a phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader who has been at the center of President Trump’s historic efforts to secure our homeland and reverse the Democrats’ sinister border invasion,” Miller said.

The strain appeared to take a toll. Lyons was hospitalized at least twice in recent months, and current and former officials described him as “visibly upset and struggling” under the weight of the administration’s demands.

His tenure also drew legal challenges. In January, a federal judge ordered Lyons to appear in court to explain why ICE repeatedly failed to carry out court-ordered bond hearings for detained immigrants.

Now, as Lyons prepares to step down, ICE faces another leadership transition at a time when immigration enforcement remains one of the administration’s most politically charged priorities.

Trump Border Czar Defends Hefty Immigration Plan Pricetag

6
Trump at the border wall via Wikimedia Commons

Incoming Trump administration border czar Tom Homan told NewsNation’s Ali Bradley there is no “price tag” for the mass deportations planned by the incoming administration

“What price do you put on national security? I don’t think it has a price tag,” Homan said. “What price do you put on the thousands of American moms and dads who buried their children? You want to talk about family separation; they buried their children because their children were murdered by illegal aliens that weren’t supposed to be here. I don’t put a price on that. I don’t put a price on national security. I don’t put a price on American lives.”

Homan further defended the mass deportations’ $86 billion price tag, saying it would save American taxpayers money in the future.

“This operation would be expensive,” he acknowledged. “However, it’s going to save taxpayers a lot of money in the long run. Right now, we’re spending billions of dollars on free airline tickets, free hotel rooms, free medical care, free meals, the education system.”

Homan, however, said they will also need help from Congress.

“We need more resources; we need funding. We obviously need to buy more detention beds because everybody we arrest, we have to detain to work on those removal efforts and get travel documents, get flight arrangements. So we need more detention beds,” said Homan.

Homan said the Trump administration doesn’t plan on separating families but rather deporting them together. He said the administration is looking into using halfway houses to hold U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

“As far as U.S. children, that’s going to be a difficult situation because we’re not going to change your U.S. citizenship,” he said. “Which means they’re going to be put in a halfway house or they can stay at home and wait for the officers to get the travel arrangements and come back and get the family. You know the best thing to do for a family is to self-deport themselves.”

Florida In Talks With Trump Admin To Shutter Alligator Alcatraz

3

Florida officials are reportedly in talks with the Trump administration about shutting down the controversial migrant detention center nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” after the Department of Homeland Security concluded the massive facility may be too costly to keep running.

According to a Thursday report from The New York Times, the detention center — which opened in July 2025 with strong backing from President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — has already cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars to operate.

The facility became a national flashpoint almost immediately after opening.

Just days before detainees arrived, Trump toured the site alongside then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and DeSantis, praising Florida’s aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration and taking a swipe at former President Joe Biden.

During the visit, Trump joked that Biden “probably wanted to put me in there,” while admiring the heavy-duty detention setup designed to house illegal migrants deep in the Florida Everglades.

But the project quickly ran into legal and political trouble.

A federal judge ordered the facility shut down in August after environmental groups and a local Native American tribe sued over concerns about the impact on nearby land and wildlife. An appeals court later blocked the shutdown order, allowing operations to continue while the legal fight played out.

The center has also faced criticism from immigrant advocacy groups and detainees, who alleged poor conditions inside the facility, including claims of maggot-infested food, withheld medication, and overcrowded living quarters.

Despite the backlash, supporters argued the facility symbolized the tougher immigration enforcement policies championed by Trump and embraced by Republican leaders frustrated with years of border chaos under Biden-era policies.

Now, with costs reportedly spiraling, Florida and federal officials appear to be reconsidering whether “Alligator Alcatraz” is sustainable long term.

Trump Administration Moves To Deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia – To Uganda

Gage Skidmore Flickr

New court filings reveal that the Trump administration is threatening to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda — a move his attorneys describe as coercive. Abrego, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year, declined a plea deal tied to human smuggling charges. In response, prosecutors withdrew an offer that would have allowed him to enter Costa Rica — a safe, Spanish-speaking country where he’d face no detention after serving time — and instead pursued deportation to Uganda.

His attorneys argue immigration authorities are essentially offering a forced choice: accept guilt and a path to Costa Rica, or refuse and risk being sent to Uganda, where his safety — and legal protections — are uncertain at best.

As The Hill reports:

Federal prosecutors on Thursday offered Abrego Garcia the option to “live freely” with refugee or residency status in Costa Rica after serving prison time for federal human smuggling charges in exchange for a guilty plea, per his lawyers in the Saturday filings.

Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador, declined the offer on Friday to instead return to his family in Maryland. He had been imprisoned in a Tennessee jail.

After his return to Maryland, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys were notified later in the day that he must report to an Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) field office in Baltimore on Monday — and that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to deport him to Uganda.

“The only thing that happened between Thursday—Costa Rica—and Friday—Uganda— was Mr. Abrego’s exercise of his legal entitlement to release under the Bail Reform Act and the Fifth Amendment…,” Abrego Garcia’s defense team wrote.

Saturday’s revelations mark a significant escalation, as Uganda recently entered into a U.S. agreement to accept third-country deportees— but explicitly excluding individuals with criminal records or unaccompanied minors. Abrego’s legal team contends that his criminal charges make such deportation both inappropriate and potentially dangerous.

READ NEXT: Dem Forced To Eat Words After Defending Alleged Criminal

Judge Rebuked Twice By Supreme Court Deals New Blow To Trump Immigration Agenda

A federal judge already twice rebuked by the Supreme Court is back at it—this time blocking the Trump administration from ending legal protections for thousands of Ethiopian migrants.

Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, temporarily halted the administration’s plan to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from more than 5,000 Ethiopians—a move that would have made them deportable within 60 days.

Murphy said the Department of Homeland Security didn’t follow the law when it pulled the plug on the program.

That ruling lands right in the middle of the administration’s broader push to shrink TPS and tighten immigration enforcement.

But it also lands on a judge with a track record.

Murphy has repeatedly tried to block Trump-era deportation policies—especially efforts to send migrants to third countries. The Supreme Court has stepped in twice to reverse him, even issuing a rare 7–2 clarification saying he ignored its orders. An appeals court also shut down one of his more recent rulings just last month.

Critics say this is more of the same.

“This rogue judge lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to issue this order,” Sen. Eric Schmitt said. “The assault on the rule of law continues.”

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley piled on, warning that “this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level.”

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan pointed to what he sees as a fundamental problem: the law itself.

“One big problem for Murphy is the statute: It explains TPS determinations aren’t reviewable. Another is the Supreme Court, which has stopped similar orders twice,” Wessan said. “He finds neither statute nor SCOTUS stops him. I’m unconvinced.”

Murphy, for his part, insists he’s not defying the high court. He noted that the Supreme Court hasn’t fully explained its recent TPS-related rulings—and hasn’t stepped in on every similar case.

“There is no reason to assume” the justices have settled the issue, he wrote.

The lawsuit behind the ruling claims the administration’s TPS rollback isn’t just procedural—it’s discriminatory. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the policy is aimed at reducing non-white immigration, writing that the effort targets “the nationals of majority Black countries” in particular.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal, setting up yet another round in a growing legal fight between the Trump administration and a judge who keeps standing in its way.

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Admin. From Deporting Migrants To Guantanamo Bay

7

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.”

Supreme Court Rules Trump May Rescind Biden-era Immigration Policy

1
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant immigration win on Friday…

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a lower court order that blocked the Trump administration from deporting roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. 

Fox News reports:

The Supreme Court decision stays, for now, a lower court ruling that halted Trump’s plans to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for some migrants living in the U.S., which allows individuals to live and work in the U.S. legally if they cannot work safely in their home country due to a disaster, armed conflict or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” 

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer asked justices earlier this month to allow the administration to proceed with its decision to revoke the status for the migrants, accusing U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of improperly intruding on the executive branch’s authority over immigration policy.

“The district court’s reasoning is untenable,” Sauer told the high court, adding that the program “implicates particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy.”

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.