Ex-ICE Lawyer Reveals Just How Miserable Stephen Miller Makes Agents

Federal immigration officials are looking for their own path away from the Trump administration.

Veronica Cardenas, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor, told MSNBC Sunday that many ICE agents are “unhappy” and experiencing “very low” morale.

“I have been contacted by people on the inside, stating, ‘How did you leave?’ and ‘What process did that take?’” Cardenas said.

“Even at the time that I left, people were, number one, surprised—because when you join the government, people believe that there’s this sort of trajectory to it. When you leave, it does catch people off guard,” she continued. “I think people are going through that struggle, and what I would say to them is that your voice has so much power. You don’t have to do things that are unjust or wrong. Believe in yourself, step out of that.”

Although President Donald Trump has heaped endless praise on the federal deportation agency, ICE agents have reportedly never been so miserable, forced to primarily detain noncriminal immigrants in order to meet their quota of 3,000 arrests per day, in line with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s demands.

Speaking to her own experience exiting the agency, Cardenas said that taking the jump to leave boils down to a “moral conflict.”

“We all take oaths, right? When we step into that job, we are taking an oath to protect the Constitution and to follow the rule of law,” Cardenas told MSNBC. “And then when you get into that space, and you’re looking at these decisions that are being made, and the way that they’re being made: People are being harmed, people are dying in ICE detention, in custody.

“You have this conflict with yourself: ‘These laws cannot be right, and I don’t want to enforce it anymore,’” Cardenas told the network. The former assistant chief counsel then underscored that institutional change against America’s immigration is “not coming from the inside” but the outside.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday urged President Donald Trump to release more Epstein files, lest his base turn against him.

The Georgia lawmaker wrote on X that Trump, having entertained a number of conspiracy theories (to which she, of course, also subscribes), must now either deliver on them or face his supporters’ wrath.

“If you tell the base of people, who support you, of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of The People,” Greene wrote. “If not. The base will turn and there’s no going back.”

“Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies,” she continued. “They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else.”

Greene’s threat comes as Trump is still attempting to pacify supporters who are disillusioned with his handling of the case of deceased financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Earlier this month, Trump’s Justice Department and FBI displeased his base with a memo deflating Epstein-related conspiracy theories previously elevated by the president’s team (despite Trump’s own storied past with the disgraced financier). Trump has since disowned his supporters who remain interested in Epstein, calling them “weaklings” and claiming that this MAGA cause célèbre was actually a Democratic “scam” all along.

On Saturday, the president, evidently realizing the controversy isn’t going anywhere, announced that he’d requested the release of grand jury testimony related to the case of United States v. Epstein (which, if granted, would only occur after lengthy legal processes—and, even then, would fall short of many’s hopes for the release of all Epstein-related DOJ files.)

In announcing his request, Trump complained on Truth Social that “nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more.” The president appended the post with the exclamation “MAGA!”—but for swathes of his supporters, including Greene, making America great again will require more transparency than he now seems willing to provide.

Immigrants detained as part of Donald Trump’s deportation scheme are being treated like animals, according to a horrifying report published by Human Rights Watch Monday. 

The report found that detainees had been subjected to “conditions that flagrantly violate international human rights standards and the United States government’s own immigration detention standards,” as the number of detainees ballooned under the Trump administration’s direction to ramp up the rate of arrests. 

The report, which focused on three immigrant detention centers in Florida—Krome North Service Processing Center, the Broward Transitional Center, and the Federal Detention Center—was based on interviews with 11 detainees, 14 immigration attorneys, and the family and friends of seven detainees who were held in detention between January and June 2025. They alleged that in these facilities, detainees suffer medical neglect and physical abuse, and are deprived of access to legal representation and safe living conditions. 

Human Rights Watch found that officers at these facilities were often abusive to the detainees. In one instance, after a group of detainees waited hours to receive food, officers forced the men to eat while their hands were bound. “We had to bend over and eat off the chairs with our mouths, like dogs,” one man said, according to the report.  

In another instance, detainees in a crowded cell became agitated when officers ignored a man who was coughing up blood for hours. Eventually, officers stormed the cell and forced everyone to the ground, binding their hands with zip ties. One detainee said he heard an officer demand that the cell’s CCTV be turned off, and another said one of the officers slapped him.

In multiple cases, facility staff were dismissive and neglectful toward detainees experiencing medical emergencies, and punished those experiencing mental health crises. Authorities at Broward Transitional Center created a chilling effect by placing detainees experiencing emotional distress in solitary confinement for weeks at a time. “If you ask for help, they isolate you. If you cry, they might take you away for two weeks,” said one woman. “So, people stay silent.”

One man said that what detainees were subjected to was akin to “psychological abuse.”

“The guards treat you like garbage. Even if they speak Spanish, they pretend not to understand,” he said, adding, “You feel like your life is over.”

Detainees were forced into overcrowded cells where they would eat substandard food and sleep on cold concrete floors, with one man even convinced that he would get hypothermia because of the temperatures. Another woman, who was confined for days in an intake cell at Krome, an all-male facility, said staff refused to allow detainees to clean the single toilet, which was covered in human feces. “We begged the officers to let us clean it, but they just said sarcastically, ‘Housekeeping will come soon.’ No one ever came,” she said. 

Another woman who was kept in the same intake room said the toilet was visible from visitation rooms, where men were being held. “If the men stood on a chair or on the desk, they could see right into our room and the toilet. And sometimes they got up to look at us,” she said. 

Human Rights Watch reached out multiple times to the all three facilities, but only heard back from the company that manages Krome. That company, Akima Global Services, LLC, stated,  “We cannot comment publicly on the specifics of our engagement.”

This latest report comes at the heels of stories out of Alligator Alcatraz, the Trump administration’s premier wetland-themed concentration camp, where detainees say they are kept “in cages like chickens.”

Republicans are trying to loosen gun laws in the nation’s capital.

On Sunday, the House Committee on Appropriations released the text of its financial services and general government, or FSGG, appropriations bill—and much of it contains anti–home rule riders that take even more sovereignty from Washington, D.C, and its residents.

The most alarming rider in the bill would “permit anyone with a concealed carry permit from any state or territory to carry a concealed handgun in D.C. and on [public transportation].” Current D.C. law requires the permit and weapon itself to be registered with the city’s Metro Police.

This is just one aspect of the Trump administration’s effort to recreate the city in MAGA’s image. Republicans have long cast D.C. as some unstable, crime-ridden hell hole, even as crime has gone down in nearly every category except motor vehicle theft. Robbery is down 28 percent, homicides are down 8 percent, and violent crime in general has dropped 25 percent.

Even if crime in D.C. were as bad as Trump wants us to believe, how exactly would loosening concealed carry restrictions help that? A guy from a different state with an itchy trigger finger would be able to pull out his piece on the Metro. That’s supposed to make the city and its residents feel safer?

This is just one dark aspect of the Republicans’ attempted takeover of D.C. The rest of the bill focuses on destroying D.C.’s right to control its own funds, particularly on political issues. As longtime D.C. House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton reported, the bill:

• Would prohibit the use of funds to commercialize recreational marijuana.
• Would prohibit D.C. from spending its own local funds on abortion services for low-income women.
• Would prohibit D.C. from spending its own local funds to enforce its vehicle emission standards.
• Would prohibit D.C. from using local funds to carry out its automated traffic enforcement law.
• Would prohibit the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce any COVID–19 mask or vaccine mandate.
• Would prohibit the use of funds to implement the Insurance Regulation Amendment Act of 2024, which relates to reproductive health care and gender-affirming care.

This is a real city being treated like a vassal state of MAGA.

“I am outraged at the number and scope of anti-D.C. home rule riders in the bill released today,” Norton said in a press release on Sunday. “In my long career representing D.C. residents in Congress, I have rarely seen a bill as unreasonable and patronizing to the more than 700,000 people who live in the nation’s capital as this one. I will use every tool at my disposal to stop these riders from becoming law, and I commit to reminding my fellow lawmakers across the aisle that D.C. residents deserve the same consideration as their own constituents at every opportunity.”

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Monday issued an opinion for our times, ordering the Trump administration “to stop violating the law!”

Specifically, the Clinton-appointed judge ruled that Trump’s Office of Management and Budget broke the law by taking down the public apportionment website where, under a 2022 law that Congress made permanent in 2023, it’s mandated to report executive decisions on federal spending within two business days.

The administration removed the website in March, and, soon after, OMB Director Russell Vought sent a letter to lawmakers saying the office decided to flout Congress and scrap the database due to the purportedly “sensitive,” “pre-decisional,” and “deliberative” nature of the information it is required to reveal.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy—watchdog organizations that rely on the OMB database—challenged the move, and Sullivan on Monday issued a partial summary judgment ordering that the administration comply with the law and bring back the website.

According to Sullivan, Trump and Vought relied on “an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power” to “claim that their apportionment decisions—which are legally binding and result in the actual spending of public funds—cannot be publicly disclosed because they are not final decisions about how to administer the spending of public funds.”

While the Trump administration argued that the 2022 law encroaches on the executive branch’s authority, its objections amount to “a policy disagreement” with no “constitutional foundation,” Sullivan wrote.

“Defendants are complaining about the extra work the 2022 and 2023 Acts require. This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,” he wrote. And the fact that the office had previously maintained the database for nearly three years “further diminish[es] any argument that complying with the disclosure requirement is overly cumbersome or places an impossible burden.”

“The law is clear,” said Sullivan: “Congress has sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress,” and “there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money. Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

Remember all of those hefty handouts Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski won in exchange for sealing the deal on Donald Trump’s behemoth budget bill? It looks like the president has found a way to get out of delivering.

“I feel cheated,” Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News Friday. “I feel like we made a deal and then hours later, a deal was made to somebody else.”

Ahead of the bill’s passage earlier this month, Murkowski had co-sponsored an amendment to ease the phaseout of tax credits for solar and wind energy under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. Her measure would ensure a 12-month window for clean energy projects, which would end in 2027. These tax credits would help to alleviate a looming energy crisis along Alaska’s Railbelt, the electrical grid that serves roughly 75 percent of the population, due to declining resources of natural gas.

Trump threw a wrench in that agreement Friday when he issued an executive order to “end market distorting subsidies” for green energy projects. The order directs Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to take actions to “strictly enforce the termination of the clean electricity production and investment tax credits.”

Now Murkowski claims that she and her pals were duped. “Do I feel like the administration was not being up-front with us? Yes,” she told the Anchorage Daily News.

She torched Trump’s order as “reckless,” claiming that it directly “goes against” what he signed into law earlier this month with the budget.

Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” through the Senate, green-lighting the gutting of social programs such as SNAP and Medicaid while extending tax breaks for the rich, and agreeing to add trillions to the national deficit. She’d sent the bill back to the House with the hopes that lawmakers would continue to refine the massive tax and spending bill, only for it to be immediately passed and then signed into law.

But under the Trump administration, which regularly skirts congressional authority to withhold federal spending and obliterate government agencies, lawmakers should know better than to think the president actually cares about the law of the land.

The U.K.’s Stop Trump Coalition and other protesters are planning to put Vice President JD Vance’s luxury vacation spot on blast.

Vance and his family have a trip scheduled for the Cotswolds, a countryside region in Southwest England often frequented by the rich and famous (Ellen DeGeneres currently resides there). They’re expected to be met with a wide variety of demonstrators—anti-Trump, pro-Palestinian, trade union members, and environmentalists.

“JD Vance is every bit as unwelcome in the UK as Donald Trump,” a representative from the Stop Trump Coalition told The Telegraph. “We remember how Vance cut short his ski trip in Vermont because he was so enraged by the sight of a few protesters. We are sure that, even in the Cotswolds, he will find the resistance waiting.” The group also plans to protest President Trump’s upcoming visit to Scotland, which begins on Friday.

Vance will be in London in mid-August, then head to Cotswolds, and later to Scotland. The vice president has been met with vitriol on his vacations thus far, speaking to the mostly negative feelings that much of the public has for the current administration, both home and abroad. He and his family were booed ruthlessly while they were at Disneyland earlier this month.

“Hope you enjoy your family time, @JDVance,” California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “The families you’re tearing apart certainly won’t.”

According to a new report, Jeffrey Epstein’s first accuser, on two occasions, mentioned Donald Trump’s name to law enforcement as an associate worth investigating. The revelation raises the possibility that files related to the case of the deceased sex trafficker contain information that would embarrass the president.

Artist Maria Farmer, who worked for Epstein from 1995 to 1996 and says she was sexually assaulted by him and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, told The New York Times that, when she spoke to law enforcement about Epstein in 1996 and 2006, she urged them to investigate his associates, including now-President Trump.

The Times report describes an unpleasant encounter Farmer recalls with Trump at Epstein’s Manhattan offices in 1995.

After Farmer was called in to work by Epstein one night, she said Trump arrived and “started to hover over” her, while staring “at her bare legs.”

Farmer, who was wearing running shorts, grew frightened, before Epstein entered and told Trump, “No, no, She’s not here for you.”

Epstein and Trump then are said to have left the room, at which point Farmer heard Trump speculate that she was 16 years old.

While Farmer reports having no “alarming interactions” with Trump afterward and “did not see him engage in inappropriate conduct with girls or women,” her experience—which the White House fervently denies happened, but which is corroborated by accounts from her mother and sister—was apparently enough for her to bring up Trump’s name when speaking to the New York Police Department and FBI.

The report, as the Times notes, shows how the Epstein files may “contain material that is embarrassing or politically problematic to” the president, as he continues to dismiss the case as a Democratic hoax, disowning his supporters who remain invested in it after his DOJ effectively closed the case earlier this month.

Details about Trump’s long-documented relationship to Epstein are continuing to surface. Days before the Times report, The Wall Street Journal unearthed a sexually suggestive birthday card Trump reportedly gave Epstein in 2003. (Trump has denied the veracity of the report and is now suing the paper.)

Meanwhile, when asked whether his name appears in the Epstein files, Trump has insisted that the files were concocted by the previous two Democratic administrations.

Donald Trump has become so desperate in trying to change the subject from Jeffrey Epstein, that he’s now started ranting about imprisoning former President Barack Obama.

During a posting spree on Truth Social Sunday night, Trump posted a series of lame memes attacking Obama, after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard suggested last week that the former president should be prosecuted for participating in a “treasonous conspiracy.”

Gabbard released a declassified report alleging that members of the Obama administration had “manufactured and politicized” intelligence to create the narrative that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. It’s worth noting that shortly after the 2016 election, the Obama administration insisted that hackers had not affected the vote tallies.

Gabbard said she would deliver her findings to the Department of Justice to seek long-awaited accountability on behalf of Trump, who, despite twice finding his way back into the White House anyway, obviously never emotionally recovered from the so-called Russiagate “hoax.”

On Truth Social, Trump posted a Brady Bunch–style photo grid of Obama Cabinet officials wearing prison jumpsuits, and a video of different Democratic officials declaring that “no one is above the law” while circus music played. He also shared an AI-generated video of Obama being arrested in the Oval Office and donning prison orange.

This is the third week of fallout from the Trump administration’s disastrous rollout of the Epstein files—or lack thereof. The Justice Department announced earlier this month that the sex offender kept no incriminating “client list,” even though Trump’s attorney general claimed one had been sitting on her desk, sparking widespread backlash among Trump’s conspiracy-addled following. Now Trump hopes to shift the flames by tossing them another political enemy.

Donald Trump just made good on his threat to sue The Wall Street Journal for reporting on his lewd birthday note to alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The president filed a lawsuit in Miami court Friday against Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, and two Wall Street Journal reporters, according to Reuters. The two journalists named in the lawsuit are likely Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, whose names appeared in the story byline.

The Journal reported Thursday that in 2003, Trump penned Epstein a “bawdy” note inside of a doodle of a voluptuous woman as part of a book of birthday notes for the financier. The president wrote that he had “certain things in common” with the child sex offender, and wished his “pal” that “everyday may be a wonderful secret.”

In a post on Truth Social Thursday night, Trump fumed over the report, threatening legal action.

“The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” he wrote.

Trump said he’d insisted the letter was fake, but that the publication had proceeded with the “false, malicious, and defamatory story anyway.”

“President Trump will be suing The Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, and Mr. Murdoch, shortly,” Trump wrote.

By the next morning, Trump was ranting about getting Murdoch to testify in court. And within 24 hours of the story being published, a lawsuit had been filed. Talk about promises made and promises kept.

Trump’s lawsuit against the publication isn’t the least bit surprising—he has a tendency to sue any outlet that makes him look bad.

Paramount recently agreed to a $16 million settlement with Trump over the editing of CBS’s 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, despite CBS calling the suit “completely without merit.” The settlement summoned criticism that Paramount was attempting to ease its sale to Skydance Media, which will require approval from the Trump administration. On Friday, there was rampant speculation that openly criticizing the deal had cost Stephen Colbert his late-night gig.

Earlier this year, ABC News agreed to pay Trump $15 million to settle his defamation lawsuit over George Stephanopoulos’s use of the phrase “liable for rape” while discussing Trump’s E. Jean Carroll case verdict, which technically found Trump liable for sexual abuse, not rape. That settlement showed the then president-elect exactly how he can silence the press during his second administration.

This story has been updated.