The voters who powered Donald Trump back into the White House are increasingly unable to explain why they did it — and pollsters who sit in on focus groups say the war in Iran is what finally broke the spell.
Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster who worked on Kamala Harris's 2024 campaign, told The New York Times that the turn against the president picked up speed once he launched the war. Working-class voters who had backed Trump were "at a loss for words" when asked to justify the move, she said, particularly as gas prices climbed and they felt the cost in their own budgets.
Murphy called the moment a "watershed" — a decade into Trump's grip on American politics, his own supporters openly reckoning with the idea that he was never the person they thought he was.
The disillusionment is showing up in the data. Times' analysis found that white voters without college degrees, who broke for Trump better than two to one in 2024, have swung hard against him on the economy. Where they once approved of his economic record by 30 points or more, recent polls show them disapproving by double digits. On the cost of living, just 36 percent told the Times they approved.
Surveys that dive more deeply into questions around inflation or the cost of living are even bleaker for the president.
Among blue-collar white voters, Mr. Trump’s approval rating on the cost of living stood at just 36 percent in the Times survey. Fox News found that just 25 percent approved of his handling of inflation.
“There were certain things that he had made promises on the campaign trail that just didn’t come to fruition,” said Carl Wallnau, 35, who lives outside Fort Worth. He considers himself more libertarian and voted for Mr. Trump in 2024 based on those promises. “He was talking about, you know, lowering gas prices. Gas prices are up.”
Mr. Wallnau has more jobs in the gig economy — as a stagehand, in a comics store and setting up events — but described himself as “struggling to really thrive.” He now plans to vote for a third party in 2026.
“I’m reminded of Bill Clinton,” Mr. Wallnau said. “It’s the economy, stupid.”
[. . .]
Mr. Trump is not helping matters with his dismissive talk about the economic concerns of so many Americans. “I love the inflation,” he said in the Oval Office this past week. Previously, he waved off rising gas prices as “peanuts” and said when speaking about the timing of winding down the war in Iran, “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.”
The latter quote is already featured in Democratic ads, such as one targeting Representative Rob Bresnahan in Pennsylvania that uses the line three times from three camera angles in the opening 12 seconds, interspersed only with the words “gas,” “groceries” and “utilities.”
President Trump said that the United States and Iran would sign a peace deal on Sunday, though Iran’s foreign ministry publicly cautioned that the timeline could be slower.
“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Mr. Trump said in a post on his social media platform on Saturday. The post came hours after the prime minister of Pakistan, a key mediator in the negotiations, said the country was preparing for “the electronic signing of the peace deal” followed by “technical level talks next week.”
Neither the United States nor Iran has shared text of the initial deal being considered. But U.S. and Iranian officials have said that under a “memorandum of understanding,” Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and the current cease-fire would be extended for 60 days.
During that period, both sides would commit to holding detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, where differences persist and neither side has shown much willingness to compromise, and over the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Iran earlier on Saturday sought to temper expectations. Esmail Baghaei, a foreign ministry spokesman, said a deal would not be signed on Sunday, though he left open the possibility that one could be in the coming days, according to state media.
At high noon on Saturday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, one vigil gave way to another, as patrons and visitors pivoted from concerns over the center’s name to the fate of an institution mired in legal uncertainty.
About 150 people had gathered in front of the building under a blazing sun, having heard that the center had until noon to certify that President Trump’s name had indeed been removed from the facade, as a federal court had ordered.
The center filed the certification with the court before the deadline, but visitors looking to confirm the results with their own eyes were out of luck: The marble front remained shrouded in white- and blue-striped tarps, with no clear answer on when they would be removed.
KURTZLEBEN: Plus, he has knocked down the White House East Wing to build a ballroom and an underground military complex, and he's planning a massive arch near Arlington National Cemetery. The White House has defended many of these actions by pointing to past presidents' projects. And that's true to an extent, says Princeton professor of history Julian Zelizer.
JULIAN ZELIZER: You can find bits and pieces of what President Trump has done that are done very differently and with different purposes.
KURTZLEBEN: He points to boxing matches held by President Theodore Roosevelt and Truman's heavy White House renovations when the White House needed structural repairs. But all of Trump's side projects happen as the U.S. is at war with Iran, inflation has passed 4% and his approval has sunk. Russia's war in Ukraine, which Trump once vowed to end, rages on. And he has mostly stopped talking about a healthcare overhaul, all of which cast this weekend's fights in a different light.
ZELIZER: In addition to just how big it is and how much space it's literally and symbolically taking in his presidency at a moment the nation's in the middle of a war, it also raises all these conflict of interest questions, which are also different than having a boxing match in the White House.
KURTZLEBEN: A watchdog group has filed a lawsuit attempting to halt the fight, noting the money that UFC stands to make off the event and that Trump owns up to $50,000 of stock in the company that owns UFC. The DOJ has responded saying, in part, it would be too disruptive to halt an event a year in the making and noting past presidents' White House events. White House spokesperson Davis Ingle insisted to NPR there are no conflicts of interest and added that Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children. Speaking to NPR recently, the UFC CEO Dana White, who introduced Trump at the 2024 Republican National Convention, insisted Sunday's event is purely about America's birthday, not Trump's birthday. He added, though, that UFC fights do reflect Trump's personality.
University of Maryland entomologist Michael Raupp told Axios Friday that the odds of a winged invasion during Sunday’s festivities was 100 percent.
“This event is going to draw a big crowd,” Raupp said. “But guess what? There are going to be even more bugs joining.”
The swarm will include midges, mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, winged beetles, “a whole cadre of night-flying moths,” mosquitos, and possibly biting black flies. The buzz will also serve as a banquet for bats that feed on small, flying insects.
The unfortunate reality of the grounds has not been lost on UFC President Dana White, who told Boardroom that he had encountered a “holy shit” level of gnats during a visit last month to the White House’s recently renovated Rose Garden (an artifact of Jackie Onassis’s gentle touch that Trump has since paved with concrete).
“The amount of gnats that were flying around, I’m like, ‘Holy shit’,” White said.
“As soon as I got on the plane, I called my head of production and said, ‘Let me tell you about the gnat situation.’”
Fighters in the octagon will be lit by an enormous, five-ton lighting rig that includes more than 175 square feet of LED lighting—a setup that White observed would be the perfect magnet for all sorts of flying insects.
Beyond that, the bugs could cause a sticky problem between fighters. “In your nose, in your mouth while you’re trying to fight,” White noted while lamenting the complicated nature of outdoor events. He added that his team was considering installing large fans around the cage to keep the bugs away from the action. Those in attendance, however, are unlikely to find similar reprieve.
Today, Representative Lois Frankel (D-FL-22) sent a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY-01) and Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-CA-42) requesting the Committee issue long-overdue subpoenas for key witnesses in the Epstein case and put the local Palm Beach County prosecutors and officials responsible for Jeffrey Epstein’s failed prosecution under oath.
“I again respectfully request that the full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform come to Palm Beach County and subpoena key witnesses to testify under oath,” wrote Rep. Frankel. “Their testimony could provide critical insight into how Epstein secured such a lenient agreement, why survivors were denied the justice they deserved, and how we can prevent such failures in the future.”
Rep. Frankel has called for a hearing in Palm Beach County for years. Previous hearings were postponed at the request of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect the ongoing prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. Rep. Frankel believes it is past time that the Committee moves forward with this hearing—a belief strengthened after hearing directly from survivors last month at the Oversight Democrats field hearing in Palm Beach County.
Last month, through her role on the House Appropriations Committee, she also helped advance two provisions to:
-
Require the DOJ to remove and prohibit the further release of personally identifying information of Epstein survivors on DOJ websites and in public materials.
-
Direct the DOJ Inspector General to review compliance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) and examine reforms needed to ensure all survivors are guaranteed their rights under the law, including timely notification of plea agreements before they are finalized — addressing the very loophole exploited in Epstein’s secret 2008 non-prosecution agreement.
For full text of the letter, click here.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) called Wednesday for former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers to testify before the House Oversight Committee about his relationship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein.
Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the panel, told MSNow after a lengthy session with Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates on Wednesday that he believed Summers was “someone that needs to be in front of the Oversight Committee and that we need to hear from directly.”
Summers faced public and professional backlash after a November release of documents revealed that he maintained an intimate, longstanding relationship with Epstein. Shortly after, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into Epstein’s relationship with Summers and other high-profile figures.
His name surfaced again during Gates’ Wednesday interview. Midway through Gates’ testimony, Garcia stepped out to tell reporters that Gates had cited Summers as someone involved in meetings or other activities with Epstein.
“Mr. Summers is someone that we as a committee have not had the chance to speak with, that we would like to speak with,” Garcia said at the time. “It seems that his name continues to come up.”
Summers declined to comment, through a spokesperson, on whether he had been formally asked to testify.
The House Oversight Committee formally requested Friday that Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz testify about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein, marking the latest step in the panel’s widening investigation into Epstein and his associates.
In a letter to Dershowitz, Rep. James R. Comer (R-Ky.), who chairs the committee, asked him to appear on July 9 for an in-person, videotaped transcribed interview in Washington, D.C.
The committee wrote that it believes Dershowitz has information that would assist its investigation because of his role as Epstein’s attorney, public reporting, documents released by the Department of Justice, and records obtained by the committee.
Remarks as prepared
June 10, 2026
House Oversight Committee
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee—
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am here to answer your questions about my interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and to help contribute to the Committee’s important work. I support the release of all the Epstein files and sincerely hope that, through your efforts and those of others advocating on their behalf, the survivors of Epstein’s crimes can get the justice that they deserve.
At the outset, I want to state very clearly: I never witnessed nor had any indication that Epstein was engaged in ongoing criminal conduct. I never went to his island, his ranch, or his Florida home. I have never victimized anyone. While he may have sought to foster a personal relationship, I was never interested in that and never reciprocated.
I was introduced to Epstein in 2011 through people I trusted in my professional and philanthropic work. Epstein claimed he could raise billions of dollars for global health from people for whom he provided tax and estate services. I recall being aware that Epstein had faced prior legal issues, but I did not fully understand the extent of the crimes he committed. I accepted the introduction without applying the scrutiny I should have.
For almost two decades, my full-time focus has been global health and education. I have been guided by the belief that all lives have equal value, and that every child should have the chance to live a healthy life, no matter where they were born. I have committed my resources and my time to this effort, but my wealth alone cannot fill the enormous funding gap that remains. This is why trying to encourage others of significant means to invest in global health has become such an important element of my work.
My interactions with Epstein began with a limited number of preliminary meetings—three in 2011 and two in 2012—during which I talked about the goals of my work. We began more extensive conversations in 2013 and 2014. The discussions focused on identifying potential giving structures, such as donor-advised funds, and how to enroll individuals he claimed were interested in making significant contributions. I made it clear to Epstein from the outset that he would never play a role in any of the work or receive any compensation.
In 2014, after Epstein brought together a group he described as potential donors, I realized that our prior discussions—which should have translated into meaningful philanthropic support—were a dead-end. It was clear that no one in the group was interested enough to move forward. At that point, I concluded Epstein would never deliver on his promises. I told him we would go no further and stopped communicating or meeting with him. No vehicle for charitable giving was ever created and no funds were raised. Our interactions ended in December 2014, four years before new reports in the press and unsealed court documents shed light on the extent of his crimes.
It was during the same time period that an employee was in the process of transitioning out of my private office. This employee engaged Epstein to negotiate and advise him on the terms of the separation. I did not ask—nor did I want or need—Epstein to be involved in this matter. His involvement resulted in email exchanges, calls, and meetings with members of my team and me. However, the agreement we ultimately reached was not any different from what was previously agreed upon months in advance of Epstein inserting himself.
It was after this that I learned Epstein had become aware of sensitive information about my personal life, including the fact that I had been unfaithful in my marriage. These affairs had nothing to do with my interactions with Epstein, but they were painful for my family. As the public can now see, based on what has been released in the files, Epstein was working to use information about my infidelities—in addition to many lies that he layered on top—to pressure me to re-engage with him. He was unsuccessful in this effort, but it shows some of the ways he tried to leverage his interactions with me to further his agenda.
I should never have met with Epstein in the first place. Based on what I know now, I understand that even if he had delivered the new donors he promised, it would not have justified associating with him.
I see now that he sought to build an image of legitimacy around himself, using connections to reputable and powerful people to deflect scrutiny and attempt to rehabilitate his reputation. I was so focused on the possibility of raising funds for global health that I allowed that goal to override my better judgment. That is a sobering realization, and it has reinforced for me the importance of being more attentive to how access and reputation can be manipulated by people acting in bad faith.
In the work I do, reputation is the basis for developing partnerships that save lives. Meeting with Epstein was a grave error in judgement and put this work at risk. His behavior was antithetical to all my efforts to contribute to a world where everyone has a chance to live a healthy and productive life. If the time I spent with Epstein lent him any credibility, I am deeply sorry. I have learned a significant lesson and am now far more careful about who I engage with even in a limited capacity.
I look forward to answering all your questions about my interactions with Epstein—and the topics identified in the Chairman’s invitation to appear today.
This Committee’s work is essential. It is my sincere hope that those harmed by Epstein’s crimes will receive the justice they deserve.
Thank you.
In an article in The Times based on reporting for their upcoming book, “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump,” Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan conjured a story that sounds like a farcical fable. It limns a group of stupid, craven, power-hungry people who inflame a panic about pedophilia among the elites, propelling Trump forward, before it all goes sideways and comes back to bite them.
Many in the White House, including the president and Pam Bondi, “had either grossly underestimat The authors reveal the stunning scene where Trump advisers met clandestinely one July day last year to figure out how to get control over the Epstein story.
JD Vance, Susie Wiles, Todd Blanche, Steven Cheung, Karoline Leavitt and others gathered, blasphemously, in the Situation Room — a place designed to steer combat operations, not political rescue missions. Bondi and Kash Patel joined via speaker phone.
Talk about a situation! The vice president was panicky, the authors wrote. He seemed to subscribe to “the darkest theories about Epstein and a cabal of predators hidden within the country’s ruling class.” He had been pushing for the release of all the files.
“Vance had also floated to colleagues an extraordinary P.R. gambit — that the White House enlist Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in prison,” Haberman and Swan wrote. “It might help the president if Maxwell was willing to state that Trump had not been part of any wrongdoing with Epstein.”
Even as Trump used the government to exact petty revenge, Epstein was posthumously getting revenge on Trump for trying to shake him off and claim they weren’t that close and that he was “not a fan.”
“Behind the scenes,” Haberman and Swan wrote, “the Epstein crisis was paralyzing the Trump administration to a far greater extent than the public knew.” (After their article ran, 19 Epstein survivors came out against Blanche’s nomination to be attorney general over his participation in the secret meeting.)
In the Situation Room, someone mentioned an uncorroborated accusation about Trump and a girl in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring named Jen, who told another victim that she had sex with Trump and that he had a predilection for nipples, aggressively sucking and flicking hers. (This was surprising since Trump’s previous comments had him focused on grabbing another part of women’s anatomy.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, took to the Senate floor to mark the one-year anniversary of being tackled and forcibly removed by federal agents while attempting to conduct congressional oversight at a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press conference in Los Angeles. In his remarks, Padilla warned that the same abuses of power that led to that incident continue today and renewed his calls for accountability.
On June 12, 2025, Padilla was in a Los Angeles federal building conducting congressional oversight of federal operations amid the Trump Administration’s unjustified deployment of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, National Guard troops, and active-duty U.S. Marines across Los Angeles. He was scheduled to receive a briefing from General Gregory Guillot when then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem held a press conference in the same building. When Noem shared that the mission of the DHS operation was to “liberate” Los Angeles, Padilla stepped forward to ask Noem a question and was immediately tackled by federal agents, removed from the room, and forced to the ground.
“At that moment, I was compelled to speak up,” said Senator Padilla. “Because that’s not enforcing the law, that’s an abuse of the United States military and federal law enforcement. A reflection of the desires of a wannabe dictator, and as you’ve seen the video before, I couldn’t even get a question out, they did their best to try to silence me.”
Padilla argued that the concerns he raised before his forcible removal have only intensified over the past year, pointing to new barriers to legal immigration, attacks on DACA recipients, and reports of inhumane conditions in detention facilities. He also highlighted the public outcry that followed ICE and CBP’s escalation across the country, including protests outside detention centers and growing calls for greater oversight and accountability.
“They are also trying to shut down legal immigration altogether. Let me repeat that: they are trying to shut down legal immigration. By making it harder to seek asylum or even apply for a green card when you’re eligible,” continued Senator Padilla. “They’re increasingly targeting DACA recipients, with over 260 that have been swept up this last year, and at least 86 of them deported from the only home they’ve ever known. Even worse again, adding to the cruelty, this Administration is also running out the clock on renewing their DACA protections to the point where the protections expire and they become not just unemployable, but far more susceptible to deportation. But nothing exemplifies this Administration’s ongoing cruelty more than the conditions at detention centers like the Adelanto ICE processing center in my home state of California, the Dilley Detention center in Texas filled with children, and of course, Delaney Hall in New Jersey.”
One year later, the incident remains a stark reminder of why congressional oversight and accountability are essential. Padilla reaffirmed his commitment to fighting for immigrant communities facing family separation, detention abuses, and threats to due process.
“One year ago, tomorrow, I was handcuffed for trying to ask a question,” concluded Senator Padilla. “I got back up, and I spoke out, and I’ve continued to speak out. Not because I’m particularly brave, not because I’m particularly determined, but because the people expect and deserve answers. And they deserve leaders who, like them, refuse to be intimidated into silence.”
Over the past year, Padilla has continued to press for accountability over the Administration’s immigration enforcement tactics while advancing reforms to safeguard against government overreach. Last year, in response to Trump’s unlawful DHS takeover, Padilla and Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act to require immigration enforcement officers to display clearly visible identification during public-facing enforcement actions. Padilla also introduced the Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act to allow individuals — regardless of citizenship status — the right to sue federal law enforcement officers and agencies in civil court for violations of their civil and constitutional rights. Padilla also introduced the Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 amid the Administration’s indiscriminate immigration enforcement across the country. This bill would offer a forward-looking, strategic update to the outdated immigration system to counter the Administration’s demonization of undocumented immigrant communities.
Video of Padilla’s floor speech is available here.
Transcript of Padilla’s remarks is available below:
Mr. President, one year ago tomorrow, you may recall that I was in the federal building in West Los Angeles on business awaiting a scheduled briefing when I was physically forced out of a press conference, forced to the ground and handcuffed.
Not because I had broken any laws, mind you, but for the simple fact that I tried to ask a question of then-Homeland Security Secretary Noem. I was in that building. I was in that office in my capacity as a United States Senator for a scheduled briefing with the Four Star General in charge of Northern Command. Because I was seeking answers, I had been seeking answers not just for days, but for weeks and months of what became an unprecedented, unlawful, cruel immigration enforcement campaign that Donald Trump unleashed on Los Angeles.
You remember the visuals, masked ICE agents not identifying themselves, CBP officers also, armed as if they were heading into war indiscriminately stopping people, sweeping up immigrants, undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, even some United States citizens.
But they didn’t care because they were going after anyone who looked like an immigrant. Knocking down doors to homes without signed judicial warrants, breaking windows of cars and dragging people out of their vehicles, raiding work sites, parking lots of home improvement stores, even public parks where kids and families were playing.
This was all happening in a matter of days in Los Angeles, and it seemed like the Administration just was doing one thing after another to escalate tensions. The president not only federalized and deployed National Guard troops into Los Angeles to assist with this “mission.” At one-point, active-duty Marines were sent into Los Angeles, not for public safety reasons, because this was done against the wishes of the governor, against the wishes of the mayor, against the wishes of the police chief and the sheriff.
So, yes, I wanted answers. Answers that weren’t coming from the Department of Homeland Security here in the Senate during formal committee hearings. Answers that weren’t coming in response to formal inquiries that we’ve made as senators or letters that had been submitted by myself and several of my colleagues. And so instead, as I was in the federal building awaiting a briefing, and I’m told that my briefing is delayed because the general is in a press conference with the Secretary of Homeland Security. I thought, well, let me try to go in and listen, maybe I’ll hear some of the information that I’ve been trying so hard to get, and so I was escorted by a National Guard member and an FBI agent to the press conference where I stood to the side quietly, just listen. And when I heard, not for the first time, and not even for the first time that day, then Secretary Noem shared with the public that the mission of this operation was to quote “liberate” Los Angeles from its duly elected leaders. At that moment, I was compelled to speak up, because that’s not enforcing the law. That’s an abuse of the United States military and federal law enforcement. A reflection of the desires of a wannabe dictator, and as you’ve seen the video before, I couldn’t even get a question out, they did their best to try to silence me.
They were sending a message because it wasn’t just about me. They were trying to make it clear to anybody in Los Angeles, anybody throughout California, anybody throughout the country of what can happen if you dare disagree with this Administration. Because they don’t like being questioned. That’s for sure. They think they’re above the law. They think that the rule of law does not apply to them. The good news is that’s not what the American people believe. As one point of evidence, two days after that Homeland Security press conference experience, it was the first of the No King days that we’ve seen in the United States this last year, millions of people taken to the streets in their communities, cities across the country to declare “no kings.” Instead of being scared into silence, they did not feel intimidated. They stepped up and they spoke out, and the American people have continued to speak out for our rights ever since.
Across the country, Americans have been looking out for their friends, for their neighbors, for their coworkers and their communities. They have been documenting a lot of the abuses that they have seen in an effort to hold not just federal agents, but the federal government accountable. Speaking up for our rights, organizing, protesting, and not just in locations where raids and apprehensions and arrests have been taking place. We now see mobilizations around detention facilities, where we’ve heard reports of brutal, unsanitary, inhumane conditions.
Just a couple of weeks ago, my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Kim, was out there with protesters and again was a victim of cruelty, unnecessary physical abuse against a member of the Senate. No American should have had to experience that, but what we’ve also seen at the time, again, it’s not just the mobilization of the American people, the voice of the American people, we’ve seen the impact on the president’s approval ratings, and on his polling.
This Administration, I granted, by the numbers the president enjoyed strong approval ratings when it came to immigration, generally speaking. Flash forward to today, poll after poll shows that he has had historically low approval ratings, both overall but especially when it comes to the cruelty of his immigration agenda. And it turns out that when Americans witness the president’s policies, not as he campaigned on, right? Remember, he talked about going after the worst of the worst. What we’ve seen in practice is anything but.
So, what we’ve seen, the reality of what Donald Trump is doing, Americans don’t approve. They don’t approve of troops deployed into American cities. They don’t approve of federal agents making indiscriminate stops, arrests, detentions, or even deportations. They don’t approve of families being torn apart, of people being assaulted or pepper sprayed and arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights. They don’t approve of indiscriminate profiling of people based on their skin color. It’s shameful that they’re now termed the Kavanaugh stops. A Supreme Court justice sanctioning stops based on appearance, accent, occupation. You don’t enforce the law by violating the law, that’s racial profiling, plain and simple.
And, of course the American people have been horrified when they see United States citizens, including Alex Pretti and Renee Good, shot and killed in broad daylight by federal agents for exercising their First Amendment rights. This country has recoiled from this cruelty, because this is not who we are as a country. We’re better than this, and sadly, we know this Administration pays close attention to their polling numbers, so they know public opinion has turned. Instead of rectifying, instead of being smarter on this, more responsible on this, they’re simply just changing tactics, and what was once happening in plain sight is now intentionally being played out in areas that are a lot less visible, certainly not visible to the public. We’ve learned recently, for instance, that immigration courts are scheduling massive “mega-master hearings,” is what they’re calling them.
Instead of a judge processing maybe 15 cases at a time, that’s a significant workload. Now they’re hearing 100 or more. Oh, and by the way, there’s also a lot fewer judges hearing these cases, because the Administration has fired more than 100 judges. You combine fewer judges with less access to counsel by people who have a right to counsel. It comes down to the denial of true due process. That’s their recipe for ramming through and ramping up deportations.
They are also trying to shut down legal immigration altogether. Let me repeat that: they are trying to shut down legal immigration. By making it harder to seek asylum or even apply for a green card when you’re eligible. They’re increasingly targeting DACA recipients, with over 260 that have been swept up this last year, and at least 86 of them deported from the only home they’ve ever known. Even worse again, adding to the cruelty, this Administration is also running out the clock on renewing their DACA protections to the point where the protections expire and they become not just unemployable, but far more susceptible to deportation. But nothing exemplifies this Administration’s ongoing cruelty more than the conditions at detention centers like the Adelanto ICE processing center in my home state of California, the Dilley Detention center in Texas filled with children, and of course, Delaney Hall in New Jersey, that’s been in the news of late.
We’re constantly hearing reports of how overcrowded and unsanitary these facilities are. We’re hearing about detainees given food that’s infested with mold or maggots, inadequate access to clean drinking water, and how many are being denied medical care, including critical medical care. The damage this Administration is doing is incalculable, but we do know that conditions in these facilities have contributed to the deaths of 51 detainees since the start of the second Trump Administration, 19 of them just in this year alone? Again, most of these people do not have a criminal record. I got to point that out, because again, for all the talk by the President Trump, by the White House, by DHS, by a lot of our Republican colleagues about going after the worst of the worst. If this Administration was only targeting the dangerous, violent criminals that they so often talk about, there would be no debate, there would be no discussion, because there would be no disagreement.
But the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the people that have been detained, that have been arrested, that have been deported, do not have violent criminal convictions. And to the cruelty of the kicking down the door of your home, the terror of the broken car window and being dragged out, the pain of somebody being detained for days or weeks or months with challenging contact with family or lawyers, the conditions in these detention facilities. The vast majority of people that have been subject to this are not dangerous, violent criminals. Many may be undocumented, but they’re otherwise hardworking tax paying family raising contributors to communities and our economy.
Last year was the deadliest year for people in ICE detention, and this year we’re on track to suppress even that record. And now on top of that, we learned just yesterday that this Administration has detained 500 babies and toddlers who are now in ICE custody. That’s right, 500 babies and toddlers locked up in these ICE facilities. Are they the worst of the worst? No, are they the transnational gang leaders? Really? Babies and toddlers?
All immigrants are human beings and deserve to be treated like it. They deserve better than what this Administration is doing, which is why it’s important. for Americans to keep speaking out exposing these abuses, because exposing these abuses is part of our responsibility. Stopping them is the other responsibility. The American people deserve a better vision and a better plan for immigration than what this Administration is delivering. The American people deserve and expect a plan that is rooted not in fear but one that is rooted both in security and dignity, a plan that doesn’t strive to just be tough on immigration for the sake of being tough, but one that is smarter on immigration policy and how we administer it.
We can secure our borders. Let’s do it in a way that’s secure and orderly and humane, while ensuring pathways to seek safety for those who need it. That’s been the tradition of our country. We can and must modernize our legal immigration system to keep up with global competition, while protecting American workers. Those two objectives are not mutually exclusive. They do go hand in hand. We must ensure the law affords due process and keeps families together. We must provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, for farm workers, and other long-term residents of the United States.
Now I’m not naive enough to suggest that all this is easily done, but we have to keep trying, because the status quo confronting us today is clearly not working. Before we can even begin the work of modernizing our immigration system, we have to confront the abuses that are happening right before us. Again, it’s not one or the other. We have to strive to do both. The need for stronger oversight of ICE and CBP, which have been allowed to get away with far too much for too long, is undeniable. The need to ensure independent scrutiny of detention centers and these awful conditions is undeniable, but again, DHS is putting up roadblocks, even for members of Congress, to conduct our oversight responsibility in these federal facilities.
We need stronger protections for the civil liberties and constitutional rights that define us as Americans, beginning with the First Amendment. As should the American people. Vote Democrats into the majority next election, Democrats will wield every tool in our power to achieve these reforms. But the most important thing that we can do as Americans, in the meantime, is to never stop speaking up in the face of cruelty and injustice.
Again, one year ago, tomorrow, I was handcuffed for trying to ask a question. Not a day goes by that I don’t see somebody here in Washington and California, or many places in between, that don’t come up to me. Complete strangers acknowledging what happened, and how it hurt them. I thank them for sharing. I thank them for caring, and I remind them, don’t just remember that I was put to the ground and handcuffed. Remember what happened immediately after I got back up, and I spoke out, and I’ve continued to speak out. Not because I’m particularly brave, not because I’m particularly determined, but because the people expect and deserve answers. And they deserve leaders who like them, refuse to be intimidated into silence. A lot of the television cameras have moved on from what’s happening in communities.
The headlines have faded because there’s no shortage of challenges that this country is confronting from the threats of wars abroad, and an unauthorized war the president has dragged us into, economic pain. Right, we talked a lot about the cost of groceries, the cost of housing, the cost of health care, the cost of utilities that working families are struggling with, but the need for oversight on the Department of Homeland Security and ICE and CBP, especially, is absolutely there.
The need for accountability remains. The need to defend due process and civil liberties and basic human dignity has not faded away. One year ago, this Administration tried to send a message again, not just to me, to the country, and for the past year I’m so proud that the American people have been sending a message right back to the President.
As long as I have the privilege of serving in this chamber, I will continue to do the same. I’ll continue standing by the American people and to keep asking questions and demanding answers. We have a lot of work to do. Let’s keep going. Thank you, Mr. President.
###
-
DISCLOSURE DAY42 minutes ago
-
-
-
-
-
Chump has the trash touch23 hours ago
-
-
-
Idiot of the Week1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
Elon Musk, Human Ponzi Scheme1 day ago
-
