Trump's big dream to reopen notorious Alcatraz prison gets closer to reality driving Democrats mad
President Donald Trump said in May that he wanted to make the federal penitentiary operational once more.
Currently, the National Park Service (NPS) controls the site, which is environmentally protected and serves as a popular California tourist destination.
Bondi and Burgum's surprise visit to the island on Thursday is already drawing ire from Democrats – including top voices in the Golden State.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the idea to reopen Alcatraz is Trump's 'stupidest initiative yet.'
'It should concern us all that clearly the only intellectual resources the Administration has drawn upon for this foolish notion are decades-old fictional Hollywood movies,' the former speaker added.
Bondi's trip out west comes as she is embroiled in controversy of the Justice Department's memo on the Jeffrey Epstein files.
'Pam Bondi will reopen Alcatraz the same day Trump lets her release the Epstein files. So... never,' California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.
Reopening Alcatraz is in line with Trump's hard-on-crime policies.
In a post shared to Truth Social announcing the plan, Trump said 'the reopening of ALCATRAZ will serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE.'
Trump has directed the Bureau of Prisons to work alongside the Department of Justice, FBI and Homeland Security to 'reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt' Alcatraz.
He said the notorious facility, which once held famed gangster Al Capone, will 'house America's most ruthless and violent Offenders.'
The order comes as Trump has repeatedly clashed with the courts as he tries to send accused gang members and illegal migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
The maximum security prison, which was shut down in 1963, will provide Trump a workaround to those court orders barring him from carrying out the mass deportation scheme.
'We will no longer be held hostage to criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally,' he wrote, appearing to suggest illegal migrants will be the first sent to the prison.
Trump has also directed the opening of a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to hold up to 30,000 of what he has labeled the 'worst criminal aliens.'
The trip by his top deputies comes after the president visited the new so-called 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida meant to house illegal immigrants as they are prepared for deportation.
Congress is expected to introduce a bill that will end the environmental protections for Alcatraz and strip control of the site from the National Park Service.
Alcatraz generates approximately $60 million in annual revenue, according to NPS.
The prison operated from 1934 to 1963 - closing after just 29 years due to high operational costs. It was initially a military fort that was repurposed as a maximum-security prison dedicated for the most dangerous federal inmates.
According to estimates, refurbishing the island and building a new prison would cost upwards of $250 million.
The prison currently serves as a museum and historical site that tourists can visit and tour.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn't only political
The quest for peace in major conflicts has rarely been so desperate and so seemingly futile. In Gaza, talk of ceasefires, truces and pauses typically ends in tears. In Ukraine, the war is now well into its fourth year with no end in sight, despite Donald Trump's new 50-day deadline. Syria burns anew. Sudan's horrors never cease. Last year, state-based conflicts reached a peak – 61 across 36 countries. It was the highest recorded total since 1946. This year could be worse. The sheer scale and depravity of war crimes and other conflict-zone atrocities is extraordinary. The deliberate, illegal targeting and terrorising of civilians, the killing, maiming and abduction of children, and the use of starvation, sexual violence, torture and forced displacement as weapons of war have grown almost routine. Israel's killing last week of children queueing for water in Gaza was shocking, made doubly so by the fact that scenes like this have become so commonplace. 'Blessed are the peacemakers,' said Saint Matthew, but today, impartial mediators are in wickedly short supply. Surely everyone agrees: murdering and massacring innocents is morally indefensible. So why on earth is it allowed to continue? This same question is shouted out loud by grief-stricken parents in Rafah, Kyiv and Darfur, by UN relief workers, in pulpits, pubs and parliaments, in street protests and at Glastonbury. Why? WHY? The curse of moral relativism provides a clue. The fact is, not everyone does agree. What is absolutely morally indefensible to one group of people is relatively permissible or justifiable to another. This has held true throughout human history. Yet today's geopolitically and economically divided world is also ethically and morally fractured to a possibly unparalleled degree. Agreed, observed standards – what the American writer David Brooks terms a 'permanent moral order' – are lacking. The collapse of the international rules-based order is mirrored by this crisis of the moral order. Without accepted universal principles, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, foreign or domestic, becomes highly problematic. 'We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarisation,' Brooks argues. What's left is coercion and manipulation. No individual better personifies the moral-relativist confusion permeating contemporary life than Trump, the master coercer and manipulator. He believes, for example, that he deserves the 2025 Nobel peace prize. Yet Trump, in collusion with Israel, did bomb Iran recently, and killed numerous civilians. In his morally muddled view, that illegal act of aggression was justified because it restored the peace he had just broken. In a world wedded to war, Alfred Nobel's venerable peace prize looks increasingly anachronistic – and politicised. Barack Obama won it in 2009 for doing nothing. If only Trump would do nothing for the next four years. Worse, he has been nominated by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, arch foe to peace and morality. It might be preferable to replace the prize with a Warlord of the Year award – and put a bounty on the winner's head. Making a moral case for peace can be confusing, even controversial; ask any church or mosque leader. For many people, it seems, morality is a dirty word these days. It's fungible, negotiable and emotive – a matter primarily of individual choice and cultural belonging, not of duty, obligation or fidelity to a higher law. How else to explain why so many Americans turn a blind eye to Trump's astounding moral turpitude, illustrated again by the Jeffrey Epstein affair? Social identity trumps social conscience. Much of the Russian public suffers from a similarly chronic moral deficiency when contemplating Vladimir Putin's devastation of Ukraine. Intimidated dissenters avoid the subject. Others believe the disinformation fairytales spun by regime-controlled media. The majority inhabits a state of profound ignorance about the crimes committed in their name. When it's over, Russians may claim, like Germans in 1945, that they didn't know. Amorality is mitigated by mendacity. Israel's denial of peace in Palestine also comes at a high moral cost. Its reputation is in shreds, its prime minister has an arrest warrant issued against him for war crimes. Antisemitism is surging internationally as a direct result. How can so many Israelis live with their army's Gaza rampage, with the spectre of 58,000 corpses? Some say it would all stop if only the last hostages were freed; others that all Palestinians are Hamas. Some on the far right, forgetting their country's history, suggest the idea of a Palestinian nation is fiction. They want all 2 million of Gaza's residents caged in one huge concentration camp. Many Israelis passionately disagree. They desire peace. Their failure to force a change in government policy is moral as well as political. Also at fault are Americans, Russians and all in Britain and Europe, politicians and the public, who fail to speak out, who look the other way, who excuse the inexcusable for reasons of state or personal comfort – or who claim that murder and mayhem, wherever they occur, are relatively morally tolerable if committed, as argued by Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the prosecution of a 'just war'. This very modern failure, this retreat into subjective, made-to-measure morality, this renunciation of shared responsibility, is reversible. Universal ethical standards still apply. They are defined by the Geneva conventions, by other secular instruments of international law, through religious faith and through the social contract. They should be respected and strengthened. They are necessary, sometimes inconvenient truths. Ordinary people in ordinary times may pick and choose their moral battles. But ending major conflicts, and easing the suffering of millions, is a moral imperative that demands a determined collective response from all concerned. That way lies peace. That way lies salvation. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Insane oversight in the Democratic Party's autopsy of the disastrous 2024 election
The Democratic party plans to dissect what exactly went wrong in the 2024 presidential election - with two glaring exceptions in the analysis. The 'after-action review' commissioned by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) won't question the timing of President Biden's decision to stand down shortly before the election, people with knowledge of the findings told The New York Times. The review will also steer clear of finding out whether Kamala Harris was the best pick to replace Biden following his disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump, those briefed on its progress also told the outlet. It won't look into her campaign or the decision by staffers to frame it as a choice between democracy and fascism. Officials told the outlet that it will examine the election as a whole and not on the campaign, instead looking at actions taken by groups associated with the party, with a focus on super PACs that funded the campaigns of Biden and Harris. The Times reported that blame would be thrown at Future Forward, the party's main super PAC. Those briefed on its contents said that the group, w ho spent $560 million to support the two presidential hopefuls spent too much propping up Harris and not on attacking Trump. The group's advertising approach is to be criticized as being too focused on television programs and not effective. DNC spokesperson Rosemary Boeglin told the outlet: 'The DNC's post-election review is not a finger-pointing exercise, it's about bringing together Democrats across the ecosystem to adopt an actionable playbook to win, not just for 2026 and 2028, but to dominate for cycles to come. 'Democrats are clear-eyed about the challenges facing the party—many of which are rooted well before the 2024 cycle—and it requires all of us to make structural changes in how we run campaigns.' The review was started in March and has not yet been finalized, it is expected to be released this fall. After Trump won the election and made his return to the White House, Biden has continued to face questions over his mental decline while in office. The 82-year-old is facing a Republican led investigation probing the extent of the Democratic president's decline was understood by his top staffers. The investigation has focused on former staffers who would be privy to the most sensitive presidential discussions and his use of an autopen to sign documents. Biden has denied the claims being pushed by Trump that he did not have the focus to make decision as president. He told The Times: 'I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn't focus much. Anyway, so - yes, I made every decision.' While being questioned by lawmakers, Biden's personal physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, and Jill Biden's longtime aide Anthony Bernal, have all pleaded the fifth amendment protections in recent weeks. Oversight Chairman James Comer noted that there's a pattern beginning to emerge after Biden's former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser Annie Tomasini also pleaded the fifth this week. 'There is now a pattern of key Biden confidants seeking to shield themselves from criminal liability for this potential conspiracy,' Comer wrote. 'Annie Tomasini, former Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Oval Office Operations, pleaded the Fifth when asked if Joe Biden, a member of his family, or anyone at the White House instructed her to lie regarding his health at any time.' She also pleaded the fifth when asked about classified documents being found in Biden's garage, if the former president instructed anyone to destroy or conceal classified documents at the Democrat's home or if she's conspired with anyone to hide information on the Biden family's business affairs, Comer shared. The Kentucky Republican said this is a 'historical scandal.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US justice department asks to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein case
The US Department of Justice asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein's case at the direction of Donald Trump amid a firestorm over the administration's handling of records related to the wealthy financier. The move – coming a day after a Wall Street Journal story put a spotlight on Trump's relationship with Epstein – seeks to contain a growing controversy that has engulfed the administration since it announced that it would not be releasing more government files from Epstein's sex trafficking case. Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney general, filed motions urging the court to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial. The justice department's announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump's base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier. Trump's demand to release the grand jury transcripts came after the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter bearing Trump's name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,' according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory' and promised to sue. Trump said he spoke to both to the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, and told them the letter was 'fake'. 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures,' the president wrote on social media. The justice department said in the court filings that it will work with with prosecutors in New York to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personally identifying information before transcripts are released. 'Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,' Blanche wrote. But despite the new push to release the grand jury transcripts, the administration has not announced plans to reverse course and release other evidence in its possession. Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, had hyped the release of more materials after the first Epstein files disclosure in February sparked outrage because it contained no new revelations. A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it's likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information. The records would show testimony of witnesses and other evidence that was presented by prosecutions during the secret grand jury proceedings, when a panel decides whether there is enough evidence to bring an indictment, or a formal criminal charge.
