WE GOT THEM! — Trump Just Had Them Arrested at the Airport
ICE Expands Arrests of Illegal Migrants To New Locations
President Trump rode into office promising to secure U.S. borders and embark on a program of mass deportations of the millions of people in the country illegally.
By any measure, Trump’s policies have been wildly successful—but he’s not done yet.
Federal immigration agents have arrested multiple travelers at airports across the country this month, detaining individuals at departure gates, on jet bridges, and near terminal shops as the Trump administration continues its push to reach a goal of 2,000 immigration arrests per day.
Airport arrests are part of a broader effort by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to expand immigration enforcement through a variety of tactics, including increased scrutiny of travelers with expired visas.
Earlier this month, for example, a woman was detained at an airport in the Washington, D.C., area while traveling to Texas for her father’s funeral, according to her attorney, Joe Moravec.
Moravec said the woman, who requested anonymity, entered the United States legally and is currently seeking asylum. She is now being held in Virginia, CNN reported.
Moravec also said another of his clients was detained at Chicago’s airport.
According to the attorney, that individual was also legally present in the United States and is currently being held by ICE.
That said, border czar Tom Homan has repeatedly stated that immigration enforcement agents are only targeting illegal alien criminals and anyone who has been issued an order to leave the country by an immigration judge but has failed to do so, regardless of whether they initially entered the U.S. legally.
He has also stated that many foreigners who come into the country on a visa overstay and fail to leave when the visa expires.
A DHS spokesperson said in a statement to CNN that “this administration is working diligently to ensure that aliens in our country illegally can no longer fly unless it is out of our country to self-deport.”
“Not that an airport is a sacred place, but for sure, enforcement at airports is nothing we’ve ever seen, neither is cooperation between TSA and ICE,” Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told the outlet.
“That’s the mousetrap. That’s the cheese,” he added, a reference to aliens who are in the immigration process and being detained at airports.
“If the new expectation is that if you have a pending application, you can’t travel … that would be very, very new,” he added.
Senior Department of Homeland Security officials adjusted immigration enforcement operations following two fatal shootings involving ICE officers this month.
Both incidents, one in Houston and the other in Maine, began after ICE officers initiated traffic stops. And in both, ICE agents say the suspects attempted to strike them with their vehicles.
Courts have repeatedly found that law enforcement officials can consider vehicles to be deadly weapons.
Although airport arrests are not a new enforcement tactic under the Trump administration, immigration attorneys and advocates say they have become increasingly common in recent weeks, CNN said.
“When you’re under pressure to ramp up arrests, it’s all about what is the fastest and easiest way to get people into custody,” said John Sandweg, former acting ICE director under the Obama administration.
President Obama deported so many illegal migrants he was nicknamed “Deporter-in-Chief.”
There are several reasons immigration agents may choose to conduct arrests at airports, CNN noted.
Through the Transportation Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security receives passenger information before flights, allowing authorities to identify individuals of interest in advance.
Airports also provide a controlled environment where security screening means travelers are generally not carrying weapons, former officials say.
“It makes for an easy immigration arrest for ICE,” Sandweg told the outlet.
“You can now take custody of that person in a secure environment. They come to you,” he added.
“You know exactly when and where they’re going to be. And because you’re getting them in a secure environment, you need less agents.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
