He lost his wife to Trump's immigration crackdown — here's why he still backs Trump
A Peruvian immigrant, she had overstayed a work-study visa years earlier. But after marrying Bartell, she applied for legal status, and her case was under review when they flew to Puerto Rico for their honeymoon.
They thought it was safe to travel within U.S. territory while her application was pending. They were wrong.
You may have read their story. As they returned, Muñoz was detained under the newly inaugurated Trump's new executive order, which empowered federal agents to arrest and remove anyone lacking documentation, regardless of circumstances. She spent 49 days in a Louisiana detention center while Bartell, back in Wisconsin, scrambled to work with lawyers and prove her ties to the community.
'It was tough,' he told me. 'I was missing a piece … [There was] a lot of extra stress.'
And yet, Bartell doesn't regret his vote for Trump and still supports the president.
That may seem baffling. Why keep supporting a politician whose policies disrupted your own marriage? But that kind of critique assumes there's only one 'right' reason to vote for someone — and it's usually not the one people like Bartell have in mind.
For years, the press has seized on such contradictions in Trump supporters' lives. These voters are often portrayed as punchlines: too loyal, too misled, or too blind to see how their preferred policies come back to bite them. Sometimes, the claim is that their support stems from spite.
One recent Hill opinion column argued that 'Trump voters are okay with suffering, as long as other people hurt more.' By 'other people,' the author meant Black Americans — citing white farmers who supposedly don't mind the sting that tariffs put upon them because of the perceived harm to Black farmers. There was no polling, no quotes, no evidence — just conjecture and sweeping generalizations to assume the worst motives.
In my conversations with Trump-supporting white farmers, they have acknowledged the pain caused by tariffs but said they understood Trump's reasoning: to hold countries accountable for unfair trade practices. Many also appreciated the subsidies they received to offset the impact.
Bartell has heard similar assumptions about Trump supporters. 'If you support Trump, it makes you racist — or a lot of other nasty things,' he said. 'But you can't really understand somebody you don't know personally.'
Bartell doesn't see himself as voting against his own interests.
'Of course you aren't going to agree all of the time with the way things are done,' he said. 'But Trump is taking action, which is better than nothing.' He believes the immigration system was broken long before Trump. His wife's detention raised questions for him — but not so much about the man in the White House.
The idea that voters should cast their ballots based solely on immediate personal gain is not only simplistic but it is also inconsistently applied. When a billionaire supports a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, he is praised as principled and civic-minded. When a working-class Trump voter backs a policy that might hurt him personally, he is mocked.
Why is one seen as virtuous and the other as foolish?
And this goes far beyond immigration. Trump's proposed 'One Big Beautiful Bill' includes cuts to Medicaid, threatening coverage for many Americans—including some of his own voters. In rural areas, where hospitals depend on Medicaid, Trump supporters could lose access to care and safety-net programs. These cases are often used as proof that voters don't know what's good for them. But maybe they reflect something else entirely.
'Self-interest' isn't objective or universal. Some voters care more about law and order, cultural preservation, or a sense of national purpose than they do about how government can directly improve their personal situation. Is that really less rational than voting to raise your own taxes for the greater good?
That's how Bartell sees it. For him, Trump's immigration crackdown brought short-term pain for himself and his wife — but it didn't invalidate the broader reasons he supports the former president or his immigration policies.
Bartell told me that even during the hardest moments, no friends or family challenged his political views. 'They may not have agreed entirely,' he said, 'but there was no challenge in mature conversations.'
And he's not alone. Other Trump supporters have stood by him despite being caught in the consequences of his policies. One headline read, 'Detained in immigration raids, MAGA mom still has faith in Trump's mass deportation plan.' Another: 'Husband refuses to take down Trump flags after wife detained by ICE.'
These stories rarely get beyond a surface-level analysis, because the details complicate the caricature. Mocking these voters sends a message that only some values matter, and only certain types of sacrifice are valid.
Muñoz is home now, and life has returned to something closer to normal. But the experience hasn't shaken Bartell's support for Trump. 'Humans are complex,' he said. 'Everyone's reasons and situations [for supporting a candidate or policy] will be different.'
He's right. And if we took that complexity seriously, we might begin to understand each other a little better.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
School choice may be the fix to DC's crime crisis
Washington, D.C., faces a serious crime crisis, with violence and homicide rates dangerously high. Even government officials have been targeted. While the Trump administration's plan to increase federal involvement may help temporarily, relying on permanent federal intervention is unsustainable. The long-term solution requires tackling root causes — especially chronic disengagement from education, which is widespread in D.C.'s traditional public schools and contributes significantly to youth crime. In the 2023–2024 school year, more than half of all high school students in Washington, D.C., were chronically absent, meaning they missed 10 percent or more of the school year. This absenteeism represents a failure to keep students connected to constructive environments and opportunities for success. When young people are not in school, evidence overwhelmingly shows they are at much higher risk of engaging in criminal behavior. The academic outcomes for D.C. public school students further illustrate the crisis. On recent standardized tests, only about 32 percent of students in grades 3–5 met or exceeded expectations in English Language Arts, a slight improvement from the previous year but still alarmingly low. Just 11 percent of high school students met or exceeded math standards. These outcomes are a direct reflection of an education system unable to provide the foundation students need for success, making disengagement and subsequent criminal activity more likely. Charter schools offer a proven, evidence-based alternative that can disrupt this cycle. Unlike traditional public schools in D.C., charter schools provide students with 30 to 50 percent more instructional time, effectively giving students up to four additional months of schooling each year. This extra time in the classroom correlates with improved academic performance and stronger student engagement. A landmark study conducted by Harvard and Princeton researchers demonstrated that winning a lottery to attend a New York City charter school almost completely eliminated the chance of incarceration for male students in the study sample. The same study also found a 59 percent reduction in teen pregnancy rates for female students who attended charter schools through the lottery. Another study, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that winning a lottery to attend a school of choice in Charlotte, N.C., halved the rate of criminal activity among high-risk male students. And research on Milwaukee's voucher program found that students attending charter schools were significantly less likely to commit crimes by their mid-twenties compared to matched peers in public schools. Despite delivering compelling results, D.C.'s charter schools face significant funding disparities compared to traditional public schools. Though only a few studies have examined the precise funding differences between charter schools and public schools, one found that charter schools in D.C. receive approximately 41 percent less funding per pupil than public schools, averaging $17,525 per student compared to $29,808 per student — a gap of $12,283. This significant disparity limits charter schools' ability to expand facilities, attract qualified staff and improve programs. Meanwhile, demand for charter school seats far exceeds supply, with 17,047 students on waiting lists during the 2021–2022 school year, reflecting strong parental preference for alternatives to the struggling traditional system. Despite this funding disparity, evidence shows that public charter schools in Washington, D.C., specifically, continue to outperform traditional public schools. The success of charter schools in other cities demonstrates what could be achieved if D.C. removed these barriers and increased support. New York City's Success Academy, whose student population is 98 percent non-white and predominantly low-income, achieved remarkable academic results: 96 percent of students passed state math exams and 83 percent passed English Language Arts exams. This starkly contrasts with New York City's overall public school proficiency rate of around 49 percent, illustrating that well-supported charter schools can deliver superior outcomes even among disadvantaged populations. Washington, D.C. must view charter school expansion and equitable funding as integral parts of its strategy to reduce crime. Increasing access to quality education through charter schools addresses the root causes of criminal behavior by keeping youth engaged in structured, rigorous environments that foster academic achievement and discourage delinquency. Ultimately, no city can arrest or incarcerate its way out of a crime crisis. Long-term, sustainable solutions demand investments in education and opportunity. The District of Columbia has a proven tool in charter schools to disrupt the cycle of violence and provide at-risk youth with a pathway out of crime and into success. It is time for policymakers to remove funding disparities, lift arbitrary caps, and prioritize school choice as a core component of public safety reform in the nation's capital.
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success
BRUSSELS — The greenlight given by President Trump on U.S. backup for a European-led force to police any future peace agreement in Ukraine vastly improves the likelihood it might succeed. European leaders said Trump offered his backing during a call they held ahead of his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday. The effectiveness of the operation, drawn up by the so-called coalition of the willing of around 30 countries supporting Ukraine, hinges on U.S. backup with airpower or other military equipment that European armed forces do not have, or only in short supply. EU leaders regularly have underlined how the United States is 'crucial' to the success of the security operation dubbed Multinational Force Ukraine. But the Trump administration has long refused to commit, perhaps keeping its participation on hold as leverage in talks with Russia. After a meeting Wednesday between Trump and European leaders, European Council President Antonio Costa welcomed 'the readiness of the United States to share with Europe the efforts to reinforce security conditions once we obtain a durable and just peace for Ukraine.' French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump had insisted NATO must not be part of these security guarantees, but the U.S. leader agreed 'the United States and all the (other) parties involved should take part.' 'It's a very important clarification,' Macron said. Trump did not publicly confirm he would allow U.S. backup, and no details of possible U.S. support were made public, but U.S. Vice President JD Vance sat in on the coalition meeting for the first time. More than 200 military planners have worked for months on ways to ensure a future peace should the war, now in its fourth year, finally halt. Ukraine's armed forces also have been involved, and British personnel have led reconnaissance work inside Ukraine. The exact size of the force has not been made public, although Britain has said it could number 10,000 to 30,000 troops. It must be enough to deter Russian forces, but also of a realistic size for nations that shrank their militaries after the Cold War and are now rearming. The 'reassurance' force's mission 'will be to strengthen Ukraine's defenses on the land, at sea, and in the air because the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression,' U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey told lawmakers last month. 'It will secure Ukraine's skies by using aircraft,' Healey said, 'and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black Sea Task Force with additional specialist teams.' Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey launched that naval force a year ago to deal with mines in Black Sea waters. The force initially will have its headquarters in Paris before moving to London next year. A coordination headquarters in Kyiv will be involved once hostilities cease and it deploys. European efforts to set up the force have been seen as a first test of the continent's willingness to defend itself and its interests, given Trump administration warnings that Europe must take care of its own security and that of Ukraine in future. Still, U.S. forces clearly provide a deterrent that the Europeans cannot muster. Details of what the U.S. might contribute were unknown, and Trump has changed his mind in the past, so it remains to be seen whether this signal will be enough to persuade more countries within the coalition to provide troops. Greece has publicly rejected doing so. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said last month that those discussions were 'somewhat divisive' and distracted from the goal of ending the war as soon as possible. Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said Rome won't contribute troops, but she previously has underlined the importance of working with the U.S. on ending the conflict and called for the participation of an American delegation in force coordination meetings. Cook writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Emma Burrows in London contributed to this report.
Epoch Times
26 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Putin Praises Trump's Ukraine Peace Push, Suggests US–Russia Nuclear Arms Deal
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday praised the Trump administration's 'energetic and sincere' efforts to end the war in Ukraine and suggested that a nuclear arms control agreement could emerge from broader peace talks. Putin made the remarks during an Aug. 14 meeting with senior Russian officials to brief them on negotiations with Washington ahead of his Aug. 15 summit with President Donald Trump in Anchorage, Alaska.
