ICE’s Sweeping L.A. Arrests Aren’t Even Catching Criminals: Report

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is getting exactly what he wants: One in seven people arrested as part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s sweeping raids in Los Angeles earlier this month had no criminal convictions, the Los Angeles Times reported. 

Between June 1 and June 10, ICE arrested 722 individuals across the greater Los Angeles area. But 69 percent of those arrested had no criminal conviction, and 58 percent had never even been charged with a crime, according to a Times analysis published Tuesday of data from UC Berkeley Law’s Data Deportation Project. 

Despite the Trump administration’s hollow assurances that ICE would target criminals, the reality of the government’s massive deportation scheme has targeted average upstanding individuals, ripping family members, friends, and neighbors out of their communities. 

But to Miller, who is on a campaign to ethnically cleanse the country, that must be music to his ears. 

As ICE’s sweep of Los Angeles began at the beginning of June, Miller was reportedly furious when he heard that ICE officers had narrowed their field to undocumented immigrants with criminal records. 

“Stephen Miller wants everybody arrested. ‘Why aren’t you at Home Depot? Why aren’t you at 7-Eleven?’” one official recalled after a tense meeting between the ghoulish homeland security adviser and officials from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security.  

But DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin insisted to the Times that ICE arrests were “highly targeted.” 

“We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability,” McLaughlin said. But reports of other arrests suggest that ICE will detain someone even if they know they’re not the target. 

Wall Street was right about the president: Trump always chickens out.

Despite spending weeks fuming about the fact that investors had clocked him for repeatedly reneging on his tariff plan, Donald Trump has once again decided to extend the deadline to implement them.

The White House said Thursday that the deadline for countries to strike trade deals with the United States may be extended past July 9, a deadline that press secretary Karoline Leavitt described as “not critical.”

“The president can simply provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline,” Leavitt said during a press briefing. “And that means the president can pick a reciprocal tariff rate that he believes is advantageous for the United States and for the American worker.”

Ultimately, it’s a “decision for the president to make,” Leavitt noted.

The TACO theory was coined in early May by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong, who added a catchy acronym to the practice of loading up on stocks when Trump first announces tariffs and then selling when he ultimately backtracks on enforcing them.

So far, that’s been true for enacting additional tariffs on Mexico and Canada, postponing his “reciprocal” tariff plan on dozens of countries after his April “Liberation Day” announcement went south, delaying a tariff on imports from the European Union, and smashing his plan to fine China, decreasing tariffs on Chinese products to 55 percent from 145 percent.

At the end of last month, Trump threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on the European Union but quickly delayed the penalty to July after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen agreed to negotiate.

The extension for implementing practically all of Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, however, is set to expire July 8.

Trump’s tariff proposals haven’t won the U.S. too much negotiating ground. Instead, countries around the world began observing that—rather than playing the waiting game to meet with the White House over potential trade relief—China’s tough negotiating strategy with the former real estate mogul had actually gotten the Eastern powerhouse a significantly better deal.

In the end, it will be the U.S. that pays the price when the Trump administration runs out of time on its “90 deals in 90 days” promise. On Tuesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said that the central bank would wait to see the residual impacts of the country’s new tariff plan before reducing its key interest rate, as companies have already decided to increase product prices this year in reaction to hampered global supply chains.

The White House is embracing Donald Trump’s “Daddy” nickname in a pretty intense way for a guy whose name was in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The White House communications office released an eye roll–inducing supercut video Thursday about Trump’s trip to the NATO summit, declaring “Daddy’s Home,” using Usher’s song “Hey Daddy (Daddy’s Home).”

The video referred to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s cringeworthy comment during a press conference Wednesday about Trump’s surprise military strike in Iran.

“They’ve had it, they’ve had a big fight like two kids in a schoolyard,” Trump said of Israel and Iran, revealing just how elementary his understanding of the conflict actually was. “You know they fight like hell, you can’t stop ’em. Let ’em fight for about two to three minutes. Then it’s easy to stop ’em.”

“Daddy has to sometimes use strong language,” Rutte joked. It seems that “Daddy” liked his new nickname. Now he’s even selling ugly orange T-shirts that say it, complete with his glowering mug shot.

When asked about Rutte’s comment and whether Trump viewed his NATO allies as his children, Trump seemed to love the idea. “He likes me, I think he likes me. If he doesn’t, I’ll come back and I’ll hit him hard, OK?” Trump told reporters during a press conference Wednesday. “He did it very affectionately. ‘Daddy, you’re my daddy!’”

Of course, Trump’s not the only one with a daddy kink: MAGA has been quick to embrace the new nickname, as well. Fox News anchor Jesse Watters gushed about his newfound father figure, applauding Trump for not abandoning NATO.

“The media said Daddy was gonna leave the family, but look at him front and center in the family photo,” Watters said of a photograph of Trump posing with leaders at the summit.

The MAGA mouthpiece joined in on the administration’s complaining about a leaked Pentagon report that had undermined Trump’s claims about the strikes in Iran being successful. “If you stab Daddy in the back, you’re getting more than a spanking,” Watters said. “The punishment for treason: the death penalty.”

And former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—who has since split with Trump over the conflict in Iran—referred to the president as “Daddy” on the campaign trail.

“When Dad gets home, you know what he says? ‘You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now,” Carlson said at a Trump event in October, comparing the U.S. to a teenage girl.

Trump’s new embrace of the nickname seems particularly disgusting considering the president’s alleged involvement in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who faced allegations of trafficking minors.

Trump’s name already popped up in files released by his own government earlier this year. But one of his closest allies, Elon Musk, implied earlier this month that Trump could be more intimately involved in Epstein’s criminal activities, which explained why his administration was soft-footing the release of documents that it had previously promised to unveil.

The Trump administration is going full throttle against a CNN journalist.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt lost it on Natasha Bertand during a Thursday press conference, lashing the Pentagon correspondent for daring to report on Donald Trump and his aides.

Earlier this week, Bertrand really got under Trump’s skin when she reported on air that a leaked preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment of Saturday’s airstrike on three Iranian nuclear targets suggested it had not been as successful as the president had advertised, and had only set the country’s nuclear development back by some months, rather than by several years.

When asked about Bertrand’s report, Leavitt used the opportunity to bring up every story Bertrand has written that Trump doesn’t like. For more than two straight minutes, Leavitt flamed Bertrand for reporting that the Hunter Biden laptop controversy was “Russian disinformation” (the New York Post, which ran the original story on its front page, said in the aftermath of the report that the contents of the laptop were mixed with fake material and that most of the data could not be verified), while urging the crowd to agree that the story was a “lie” from the intelligence community.

She further claimed that Bertand had inaccurately reported on the origin of the Covid-19 virus, had taken Trump’s “suckers and losers” comment out of context, and had wrongly accused CIA Director John Ratcliffe of speaking “without any evidence” with regard to Iranian meddling in Trump’s presidential campaign.

“She should be ashamed of herself,” Leavitt said. “And that’s not what reporting is. Journalism is trying to find the facts and the truth, and this week we saw this same reporter being used to push a fake narrative to try to undermine the president of the United States, and more importantly, the brave fighter pilots who conducted one of the most successful operations in United States history.

“I think the American people fully know that this operation was a complete and total success,” Leavitt added.

Leavitt’s rant followed several days’ worth of anti-Bertrand comments by the president, who urged CNN to reprimand Bertrand and throw her out “like a dog.”

“It’s people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network,” Trump wrote. “Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn’t have what it takes to be an on-camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!”

CNN released a statement defending Bertrand Wednesday, declaring that they stand “100 percent” behind her journalism, specifically including her and her colleague’s reporting on Trump’s attack on Iran.

“CNN’s reporting made clear that this was an initial finding that could change with additional intelligence,” the network said. “However, we do not believe it is reasonable to criticize CNN reporters for accurately reporting the existence of the assessment and accurately characterizing its findings, which are in the public interest.”

The White House has rejected the Iran strikes report, rebuffing the whistleblower Tuesday as a “low-level loser,” though it still acknowledged that the report had been classified as “top secret.” On Wednesday, the administration had apparently thrown the U.S. intelligence out the window altogether, siding instead with a narrative pushed by the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission that the attacks had “rendered the enrichment facility inoperable.”

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has struck some notable provisions from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” leading a growing chorus of GOP lawmakers to call on Senate Majority Leader John Thune to overrule or fire her.

Being a reconciliation bill—which can pass with a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster—the legislation cannot contain provisions unrelated to the budget. Currently, MacDonough is tasked with whittling away “extraneous” measures that run afoul of that rule.

In doing so, she has incensed some MAGA hard-liners, most recently pushing some over the edge by lopping off a number of Medicaid cuts on Thursday morning.

Reacting to the news, Senator Tommy Tuberville on X accused MacDonough of advancing “a woke agenda,” writing, “THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP.”

Senator Roger Marshall joined Tuberville, citing the firing of Parliamentarian Robert Dove in 2001 and declaring that “we need to again fire the Senate Parliamentarian.”

The calls are coming from inside the House, as well.

Representative Dan Crenshaw—who was particularly upset about the removal of his proposal to ban federal Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care—said MacDonough “has shown clear political bias, applying ideology and not the rules of the Senate.”

Also pushing to remove or override MacDonough are Representatives Greg Steube, Keith Self, and Jeff Van Drew.

As the majority leader, Thune could theoretically call for a vote to overrule MacDonough, or fire and replace her. But the South Dakota senator seemingly has no intention of doing so, telling reporters on Thursday that overruling her “would not be a good option for getting a bill done”—echoing his previous comments.

“These are … short-term setbacks,” Thune said, according to The Hill. “Speed bumps, if you will.” GOP lawmakers endure these speed bumps as they race toward Trump’s July 4 deadline to pass the bill.

On Thursday Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is still set on removing fluoride from drinking water even after admitting that it did help prevent cavities and tooth decay in children. 

“What has been the response from dentists in America who may be concerned that some children in lower incomes in particular don’t get those regular dental, preventative-type situations where they can go in and get their teeth more indemnified and treated against cavities?” Fox News’s Harris Faulkner asked Kennedy Jr. as he sat next to Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt. 

“Well, people will still get indemnified for it to the extent that they’re already indemnified. But you know, it is an issue. It’s a balance. You’re gonna see, probably, slightly more cavities. Although in Europe where they banned fluoride they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide. Science is very clear on fluoride.” 

Europe has not “banned” fluoride, they just don’t add it to their public water supplies like we do here. Europeans still receive fluoride at the dentist. Even still, Kennedy has had his mind set on this fluoride ban for some time now.  

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” he wrote in November. “Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President ​Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump want to Make America Healthy Again.​”

Dental professionals nationwide are troubled by this development.

“The growing distrust of credible, time-tested, evidence-based science is disheartening. The myths that fluoridated water is harmful and no longer necessary to prevent dental disease is troublesome and reminds me of fictional plots from old movies like Dr. Strangelove,” said American Dental Association President Brett Kessler. “When government officials, like Secretary Kennedy, stand behind the commentary of misinformation and distrust peer-reviewed research it is injurious to public health.” 

Forget “Make America Great Again”—Donald Trump won’t even manufacture his own phone in the United States.

The Trump-branded cell phone, which launched mere days ago, has already scrubbed all language from its website that indicates the product is made in America. Instead, the phone is “designed with American values in mind,” with strange marketing promises that there are “American hands behind every device,” per the Trump Mobile website. That could, of course, mean anything.

The website also features a poorly photoshopped mock-up of the new Trump phone, which looks not too dissimilar to an iPhone save for its three copy-pasted cameras. The cell has a matte gold finish, along with a laser-engraved American flag and “T1” on the back.

A review of the site by The Verge found that the move away from American production wasn’t the only change made since the phone previewed last week. The advertised screen size of the Trump phone has also dropped significantly, changing from a 6.78-inch screen to 6.25 inches.

The site used to list the phone as having 12 gigabytes of RAM—now there are no RAM specifications whatsoever.

Further, the site had previously promised that the gimmicky gadget would ship in September, but that language no longer exists in marketing materials. Instead, the company is offering that it will be available “later this year.”

The Verge reported that the differences could mean that the Trump Organization had switched suppliers for the T1 phone.

The cell phone appears to be just another example in a long line of money-grabbing grifts for the president. Trump’s long list of election-year hustles included launching a remarkably ugly sneaker and a limited-edition $60 God Bless the USA Bible co-promoted by “God Bless the USA” singer Lee Greenwood.

Trump also took the parent company of his social media platform Truth Social public and stamped his name on a new cryptocurrency platform headed by his two sons, Eric and Don Jr., that even the president’s allies have criticized as a “huge mistake.” He and his wife also started their own cryptocurrencies, which critics have accused of being a method for wealthy foreigners to buy time and influence with the president.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the Supreme Court was “stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws” after it ruled 6–3 that states could defund Planned Parenthood on the grounds that Medicaid does not give patients a right to choose their provider.

Jackson offered a biting dissent, essentially calling the court’s decision a bastardization of the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, which bolstered laws against white supremacist terrorism.

“A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues. In this latest chapter, South Carolina urges our Court to adopt a narrow and ahistorical reading of the 1871 Act’s first section.… That venerable provision permits any citizen to obtain redress in federal court for ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States,’” Jackson wrote. “South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors. The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not. For that reason, I respectfully dissent.”

This ruling makes Planned Parenthood incredibly vulnerable to conservative attacks, as states can now nakedly use anti-abortion activism to deprive it of funds. Though all they’re really attacking is the contraception, cancer screenings, pregnancy testing, and other basic medical care that Planned Parenthood provides as an organization that accepts publicly funded insurance, like Medicaid. The Hyde Amendment already restricts public funding from being used for abortions. And Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of contraceptives and birth control in the country. Its absence will almost certainly lead to more accidental pregnancies—and more abortions, legal or illegal.

“At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them,” Jackson concluded in her dissent. “And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’”

A new bill introduced by U.S. Representatives Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat would seek to address the scourge of unidentified, masked and plainclothed agents abducting people off the streets in executing President Donald Trump’s deportation campaign.

The bill, dubbed “No Secret Police Act of 2025,” would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2022 to prohibit federal immigration from wearing masks. According to Goldman, it would “get rid of masks, would require all agents to show their identification and insignia, and ensure accountability for these horrible, horrible policies.”

The legislation comes as Trump administration officials defend Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ ability to act with anonymity. In a recent Washington Post letter to the editor, ICE acting Director Todd Lyons wrote that “officers wear masks for personal protection and to prevent doxing.”

But this purported right for agents of the state—who are empowered to use force in carrying out their duties—to shield their identities has, as Goldman put it, led to the use of “authoritarian tactics that resemble Soviet Russia more than they resemble a democratic United States.”

Indeed, one could be forgiven for mistaking footage of ICE arrests in recent months for kidnappings.

When a Tufts graduate student was seized by masked men in March (seemingly for merely having written a pro-Palestinian op-ed), a witness chided the agents, asking, “You want to take those masks off? Is this a kidnapping? Can I see some faces here? How do I know this is the police?”

In April, a woman who recorded ICE agents detaining three men outside of a Georgia courthouse (one of whom was reportedly released after proving he was a U.S. citizen), told a local news station, “I would have literally thought that they were kidnapping these three men.”

Goldman and Espaillat’s legislation resembles a bill introduced earlier this month by Representative Nydia Velázquez addressing the same issue, as well as state-level proposals like California’s recently introduced “No Secret Police Act” and “No Vigilantes Act.”

The Supreme Court just defined the tight window under which noncitizens can challenge their deportation for fear of torture.

The case of Riley v. Bondi began long before Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. In January 2021, an immigration judge blocked the final administrative review order, or FARO, to remove Pierre Riley, a Jamaican immigrant who overstayed a tourist visa, on the grounds that he feared gang violence in Jamaica.

That judge then sent Riley to what’s known as a “withholding-only” proceeding, where the only issue is whether a noncitizen can be removed from the United States. At this proceeding, Riley’s removal was deferred under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, or CAT, which prevents immigrants from being removed to countries where they may be subjected to physical harm or imprisonment.

The DHS then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, which decided he could be removed and to enforce the FARO for his removal. Three days later, Riley filed a petition to appeal the FARO with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court found that he had failed to do so within the 30-day deadline after the FARO was first issued, dismissing his petition and claiming that the deadline was “jurisdictional,” meaning that it must be strictly enforced.

The Supreme Court was charged with determining whether Riley’s challenge came too late, and whether the deadline was “jurisdictional.”

In a 5–4 decision Thursday, the high court found that Riley had in fact missed his window to challenge his removal. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito held “that a BIA order in a withholding-only proceeding is not a ‘final order of removal,’ and therefore the 30-day filing deadline cannot be satisfied by filing a petition for review within 30 days of the BIA’s withholding-only order.”

The “FARO is the final order of removal in this case, and withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order of removal,” Alito wrote. He was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, challenged the majority’s logic, finding that the removal order only became final when the board denied his appeal under CAT.

“Should Riley have appealed the Board’s order denying deferral of removal before the Board issued it? The answer ought to be easy. Yet the majority today renders the statute incoherent, holding that Riley should have appealed the order one year and three months before the Board entered it,” she wrote.

“One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists,” she wrote. “Incomprehensibly, the Court disagrees.”

“Time will tell whether the Court will extend its illogic beyond politically disfavored noncitizens,” Sotomayor wrote, adding later, “Today’s decision is the rare holding that benefits no one.”

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also joined the dissent, except for one section outlining the “untold damage to basic principles of finality and judicial review.”

The court also determined that the 30-day filing deadline was merely a mandatory claims-processing rule, not “jurisdictional,” and vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and remanded it back to the lower court.

Thursday’s ruling could come in handy to Trump, who has worked to deport as many people as possible as fast as he can—regardless of what circumstances await them in their destination.