ABC News Parts Ways With Correspondent After X Post Critical of Trump Aide
ABC News is parting ways with correspondent Terry Moran, who published an incendiary post on X about Trump aide Stephen Miller.
An ABC News spokesman said in a Tuesday statement that the post 'was a clear violation' of its policies. He said the news organization was at the end of its agreement with Moran and decided not to renew it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
36 minutes ago
- Vox
Trump is frustrated by his own success on immigration
is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. The primary cause of this unrest has been less visible, but no less disorderly or disruptive. Behind the tensions in LA lies a radical escalation in the Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants. To accelerate deportations, top White House adviser Stephen Miller instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in late May to dispense with norms and legal niceties that had previously constrained its activities, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Since then, the agency has deprioritized the removal of immigrants implicated in crimes, opting instead to target undocumented workers at random. It has stopped drafting lists of immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally and started arresting day laborers at businesses like Home Depot and 7-Eleven en masse, ensnaring some US citizens in the process. One such raid ignited the LA protests. Under Joe Biden, ICE had generally refrained from raiding schools, churches, and hospitals. Now it is reportedly arresting new mothers in maternity wards and then denying them their right to legal counsel. Most alarmingly, some ICE agents have allegedly embraced violent and unconstitutional tactics, according to the Journal's report. A union organizer for Washington farmworkers was driving his wife to her job at a tulip farm, when ICE agents stopped him, smashed in his car windows, and pulled him from the vehicle, all without showing badges or identification. A Russian man with a pending asylum case was reporting for his scheduled check-in at an ICE office, when a team of agents arrested him and then allegedly beat him. And ICE has not merely been targeting undocumented immigrants, but also those who exercise their First Amendment rights on the undocumented immigrants' behalf. In Irvine, California, ICE sent a 'phalanx of military vehicles' into an Orange County suburb to arrest a man who had allegedly posted fliers warning neighbors that ICE was in their area. The Trump administration's decision to greenlight such tactics might seem like an act of desperation — unable to stem the tide of undocumented immigration by conventional means, the White House is resorting to radical ones. But the opposite may be closer to the truth: The Trump administration is escalating its war on migration because it is winning that conflict. Unfortunately, the fruits of Donald Trump's victory appear to be weaker economic growth and more social unrest. Related The LA protests reveal what actually unites the Trump right Trump's bid to deter immigration has been wildly successful Trump campaigned on a promise to end the Biden-era surge in unauthorized immigration and restore order at the border. He has largely done so. Border crossings were already slowing during Biden's final year in office, after his administration tightened rules around asylum last summer. But inflows have plunged even further under Trump. Through belligerent rhetoric and restrictionist policies, the president has successfully deterred both legal and illegal migration into the United States. Over the past two months, America witnessed the largest decline in its foreign-born workforce since the pandemic in 2020. This contraction was driven partly by a collapse in unauthorized border crossings. Between January 2022 and June 2024, US Customs and Border Protection encountered an average of 200,000 people per month at America's Southwest border. According to an analysis of government data from Deutsche Bank, that figure has fallen to just 12,000 people per month since Trump's inauguration. How Trump's success on immigration is fueling his radicalism Yet the Trump administration has found little satisfaction in this success. And for a simple reason: The slowdown in border crossings has made it more difficult for the president to exceed Biden's deportation numbers. When border control was encountering 200,000 migrants each month, it was easy for the government to rack up high deportation totals. Such new arrivals possessed fewer legal protections than longtime US residents and were already in the government's custody. Although many qualified for the asylum process, border control could swiftly expel those who did not. Trump's success in deterring border crossings has therefore reduced the pace of deportations. Headlines earlier this year spotlighted the fact that Trump was deporting immigrants at a slower rate than Biden. Shortly after Trump took office, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy posted on X, 'In the first week, Trump removed 7,300 people. On average, Biden was removing 15,000 a week…These guys are terrible at everything.' Such unfavorable comparisons apparently displeased Trump. The Wall Street Journal suggests that it was Trump's failure to exceed 'the number of daily deportations carried out by the Biden administration in its final year' that led Stephen Miller to give ICE its new, draconian marching orders. Unable to generate flashy deportation statistics by turning away new arrivals at the border, the administration has opted to ramp up enforcement against law-abiding, long-time US residents throughout the country — and to do so in a violent and seemingly lawless manner. Trump's handling of immigration has been economically and socially destructive (but politically popular) If Trump's success at deterring immigration has brought him little contentment, it has brought his country little discernible benefit. The slowdown in new arrivals is hurting the US economy. Compared to native-born workers, immigrants are more willing to relocate to US communities that have labor shortages, or to enter industries suffering from chronic shortfalls of workers, such as construction, food processing, and childcare. The mass entrance of migrants into the US during the Biden administration therefore helped to mitigate supply chain disruptions and reduce inflationary pressures in key sectors. This immigration surge was also immensely beneficial for economic growth and the national debt. America has an aging population. As a result, we need immigrants to sustain the growth of our workforce and shore up funding for Medicare and Social Security. Partly for these reasons, the Biden-era surge in immigration increased America's projected economic growth over the coming decade by upwards of $8.9 trillion, while reducing its expected federal deficits by $900 billion, according to an analysis from the Dallas Federal Reserve. Trump's successful deterrence of immigration threatens to reverse these gains, slowing growth and exacerbating labor shortages in construction, agriculture, and other key industries. According to Deutsche Bank, the collapse of immigration under Trump 'represents a far more sustained negative supply shock for the economy than tariffs.' Although immigration restriction is bad for the economy, many have argued that it's beneficial for political stability and social peace. After all, large surges of immigration tend to induce nativist backlashes. And Biden's failure to avert a historically large jump in migration plausibly helped Trump return to the White House. For the moment, however, the collapse in border crossings appears to be increasing social tension and political unrest. The migration slowdown has translated into lower deportation figures, which has led the administration to embrace radical enforcement tactics, which have predictably sown mass protest and clashes between civilians and agents of the state. We are therefore getting all the economic harms of immigration restriction, without its theoretical benefits for social harmony.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Tracking the major Supreme Court cases of 2025
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it issues this term's final flurry of opinions — some of which concern hot-button issues like birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care — before breaking for summer recess. CNN is tracking the key Supreme Court cases of the 2024-2025 term. Justices have ruled on some major cases already, including one involving 'reverse discrimination' and another tied to gun violence at the border. More than 40% of total cases remain. Here's what we know so far and what we're still waiting on. Among the cases that have already landed is Ames v. Ohio, a lawsuit in which a woman alleged she was discriminated against by her gay boss because she is straight. The court unanimously sided with the plaintiff in early June, making it easier to win 'reverse discrimination' suits in some parts of the country. The Supreme Court also threw out a lawsuit from the Mexican government that argued American gunmakers should be held accountable for contributing to gun violence and chaos at the border. The lawsuit alleged that the American companies were marketing firearms specifically to drug cartels and gangs. In a 9-0 ruling, however, the court said the Mexican government did not 'plausibly allege' that manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful sales. The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on some of the most important cases of the term, which could have far-reaching implications for millions of Americans. One of those cases centers on birthright citizenship — which guarantees citizenship to all children born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The justices will decide whether President Donald Trump can deny birthright citizenship through an executive order, effectively reshaping long-standing legal precedent. A high-profile case concerning transgender care is also on the docket. The court is reviewing Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors and penalizes healthcare providers who violate the law. More than half of all US states have passed bans on medical care for trans youth. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, however, have enacted 'shield' laws to preserve access to trans health care. As part of a yearslong effort to expand parental rights in schools, parents of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland are suing the state's board of education for violating their religious beliefs. The justices will decide whether elementary schools need to allow parents to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ+ books in class. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has signaled that they would side with the parents.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Pentagon Review of Aukus Security Pact Worries U.K., Australia
The Pentagon is reviewing a defense pact with the U.K. and Australia, throwing into doubt a strategic partnership that aims to give Australia nuclear-powered submarines and deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. The three-way alliance—known by the acronym Aukus—was signed back in 2021 under the Biden administration. It encompassed not only the sharing of key technology with Australia to equip it with nuclear-powered submarines, but also close cooperation between the allies on a range of other matters including the development of hypersonic missiles, quantum computing and undersea weapons.
