GOP senator on Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Sure seemed like she's violating the law'
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said Monday that it 'sure seemed' as though Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) violated the law when she hosted a webinar to inform immigrants of their rights in potential confrontations with deportation agents.
'We're supposed to uphold the Constitution, not tell people how, you know, to evade the Constitution,' Scott said about the congresswoman, in an interview on 'The Benny Show' podcast.
The senator added that he didn't think it was 'part of my job description to tell people that 'Here's how you don't comply with the law.''
'So, I think, it sure seemed like she's violating the law,' Scott said.
Scott said President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, should prosecute Ocasio-Cortez 'if she's done something wrong.'
'Look, we need to have equal protection and equal enforcement of the law,' Scott said. 'And if she's done something wrong, I hope Tom Homan does his job and, you know, prosecutes her to the full extent of the law.'
In a series of news interviews last month, Homan suggested Ocasio-Cortez had violated federal laws by hosting the Feb. 12 'Know Your Rights' seminar, which she's characterized as offering 'practical guidance on how to interact with' deportation officials.
A day after the event, he said Ocasio-Cortez might be 'impeding' the government's efforts to enforce immigration laws and said, 'Maybe AOC is going to be in trouble now,' using the congresswoman's initials. Homan also said he'd sent an email to the deputy attorney general asking him to examine the episode.
Ocasio-Cortez has fiercely defended her actions, saying they were well within her First Amendment rights to free speech — a point she emphasized in a highly unusual letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi last week asking if she was in legal hot water.
In the letter, the congresswoman defended her actions but said she was seeking 'clarity on whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) has yielded to political pressure and attempts to weaponize the agency against elected officials whose speech they disagree with.'
'It has been 14 days since Mr. Homan first threatened to weaponize your agency, but I have not yet heard any referral from the federal government,' she wrote. 'Homan's actions undercut core Constitutional rights and further transparency is necessary.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
44 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
ICE field director defends agents after ramped-up enforcement, recent arrests of U.S. citizens during protest outside Chicago immigration court
The head of Chicago's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office Tuesday defended the conduct and decorum of federal agents who have ramped up arrests of undocumented immigrants, which has incited clashes with elected officials, immigration advocates and protesters. On Monday, three U.S. citizens were detained by ICE after allegedly assaulting an officer in Chicago, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson. In an interview Tuesday with the Tribune, Samuel Olson, ICE's Chicago field office director, explained that 'the last thing (the agents) want to do is to have to arrest somebody who's assaulting them or impeding them from doing their jobs.' ICE released all three protesters Monday afternoon. Asked whether the protesters were charged, Olson said the arrests of the protesters are under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois. 'It's a hard enough job that they have to worry about who the target is that they're arresting, whether that person might be assaultive or combative,' Olson said. The arrests of U.S. citizens caught immigration advocates by surprise, as pushback against increased immigration enforcement has only grown across the country. On Tuesday, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, a mayoral candidate, was arrested for allegedly 'assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer' at immigration court, according to DHS. The arrest was captured on video that quickly went viral on social media. On Sunday, President Donald Trump sent out a directive to ramp up deportations further in Democrat-run cities. Immigration enforcement has increased at courts and offices in Chicago in recent weeks, with two immigrants from Colombia detained on Father's Day for showing up to their check-in appointments. At a City Hall news conference Tuesday, Mayor Brandon Johnson delivered an implicit warning against Trump's latest threat to crack down on Chicago demonstrators next. 'I think it's important that the president respects the Constitution. If you're asking me if this president is going to work with city leaders, it's clear that he's not interested in doing that,' Johnson told reporters when asked if he's heard from the federal government. Olson said the ICE agents were acting in their rights to arrest the protesters Monday because they are law enforcement officers who are sworn to uphold administrative immigration law, and who can also enforce federal criminal law. He emphasized that agents undergo quarterly training on defensive tactics and firearms operations. Many agents hail from Chicago or the surrounding area, and Olson noted they 'have deep ties to the community.' 'They're trying to ensure public safety of the same communities that they're living in,' he said. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois decried ICE's arrest of U.S. citizens. 'The presence of unidentified, federal officers conducting arrests and detentions — while heavily armed — undermines the public's ability to ensure that law enforcement is acting in a legal and constitutional fashion and runs the risk of further violence,' Ed Yonhka, ACLU's director of communications and public policy, said in a statement. On Monday around 9 a.m., about a dozen protesters stood outside immigration court at 55 E. Monroe St., according to Bianca Paiz, who was on her way to work. ICE agents entering the building, then started to take the three individuals into custody, Paiz recounted. The immigration agents wore masks and didn't identify themselves, she said. Paiz said the protesters did not resist arrest, and that the agents handcuffed them before forcing them into an unmarked vehicle. As someone who has participated in civil disobedience, she called the arrests 'alarming.' ICE transported the protesters to a different federal building on West Ida B. Wells Drive in the Loop. Two of the individuals were released about three hours later, according to protesters. The third protester was released from the building around 5 p.m. after worried family members alerted local officials about the a statement, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said ICE officers 'are facing a 413% increase in assaults against them.''ICE and our federal law enforcement partners will continue to enforce the law,' she said. 'And if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.'While the last protester was detained, family members waited outside the federal court building in the Loop for hours. Their calls weren't going through, and they weren't sure if ICE had provided legal assistance. They declined to share their names until they had spoken to an attorney. Later that afternoon, two members of Mayor Johnson's staff arrived to offer support. At one point, the protester's family attempted to speak with the security guards inside the building, but they were told to leave. As the day wore on, they stood on the sidewalk outside, waiting for news. After the protester came out of the building, they cried and hugged. The protester declined to comment further about the arrest. ICE's Chicago field office director, Olson, said Tuesday that agents do not intend to arrest U.S. citizens. He declined to speculate on future enforcement actions, such as sending the National Guard to Chicago to assist with immigration enforcement. Over the course of the 20-minute interview, he defended agents who wore masks during immigration enforcement actions, saying some fear for their safety and the safety of their families, and went over the enforcement removal operations he oversees in the Chicago region. The ICE field office covers Wisconsin, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri and Kansas. 'There's a lot of hate being spewed at my officers,' Olson said. 'It's a little frustrating.' A 20-year ICE veteran, Olson said he's never seen so much public doubt about the agency's legitimacy. He emphasized that officers receive extensive training — including basic Spanish courses — and said certified interpreters are available to explain individuals' of misconduct are handled by ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility and may be escalated to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, he said his office oversees a 'multitude of targets' across several states, with a focus on detaining individuals who pose safety risks or have final deportation orders. He emphasized that immigration detention is not punitive but meant to ensure court appearances, noting that detention space is limited and costly. ICE also coordinates with the Department of Justice and Citizenship and Immigration Services.'When we're out there, some of the stuff that we're doing is oversimplified, and there's a lot more nuance to it,' he said. 'And there's just a lot bigger things going on in the background.'Chicago Tribune's Alice Yin and Caroline Kubzansky contributed.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
AI moratorium sparks GOP battle over states' rights
A push to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) for 10 years is setting off a debate among Republicans, further complicating its path toward passage in President Trump's tax and spending bill. The AI provision has divided Republicans into two camps: one touting the party's traditional support of states' rights and another concerned with overbearing regulation. As the Senate works out its changes to the larger tax and spending package, an increasing number of Republicans from both chambers are coming out against the AI provision, which calls for a 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models and systems. Republicans opposed to the measure differ in their opinions of AI and how beneficial it could be, but they share concerns with the federal government stifling the ability of states to set their rules for it. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of the most vocal GOP critics of Trump's broader bill, said Tuesday he is 'not a real fan of the federal government' and is against the provision. 'I personally don't think we should be setting a federal standard right now and prohibiting the states from doing what we should be doing in a federated republic. Let the states experiment,' Johnson told The Hill. While Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has expressed concerns about the economic impact of AI, he said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate's marathon vote-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier. 'I'm only for AI if it's good for the people,' he told reporters, citing AI's potential disruptive impact on the job market. 'I think we've got to come up with a way to put people first.' Even some House Republicans who already voted to pass the bill in the lower chamber are speaking out against the provision. A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter last week to Senate Republicans that Congress is still 'actively investigating' AI and 'does not fully understand the implications' of the technology. This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a 'no' on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included. 'I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,' the Georgia Republican told reporters. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) declined to say whether he would support the moratorium but noted he 'likes states' rights.' Several state leaders and lawmakers are also pushing back. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, rejected concerns the moratorium could encroach on states' rights, pointing to the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. The clause grants the federal government broad power to set rules for commercial activities that inherently involve business among states. 'The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states, and AI is quintessentially commerce between the states,' Cruz said, adding that 'having a patchwork of 50 different standards' would be devastating to the development of AI. The battle comes just more than a month after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other tech leaders appeared before Cruz's committee and voiced their opposition to state-by-state regulation of AI. Altman, whose company makes the popular ChatGPT AI chatbot, told Cruz a state-by-state approach to AI regulation would be 'burdensome' and pushed for a 'light touch' framework. While the House version proposed a blanket ban on all states from regulating AI and enforcing existing and future laws around it, the Senate is going for a watered-down approach. Cruz and the Senate Commerce Committee released a version of bill text earlier this month, altering the language of the AI provision. Under their proposal, states would be prohibited from regulating AI if they want access to federal funding from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), the former co-chair of the Senate AI Caucus, suggested tying the provision to BEAD funding might make it more likely to adhere to Byrd rule, a procedural rule in the Senate prohibiting 'extraneous matters' from being included in reconciliation packages. Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to advance Trump's legislative agenda while averting the Senate filibuster. But the Byrd rule prevents them from including provisions that do not 'change outlays or revenues.' 'It may be a more Byrd-bathable approach,' Rounds told The Hill, referring to the process in which the Senate parliamentarian checks the bill for adherence to the Byrd Rule. 'I support getting the moratorium in place so that Congress has the opportunity.' 'Then, we've got the hard work of actually doing appropriate legislation to lay out the path forward,' he added. Cruz was expected to consult with the Senate parliamentarian about the provision but did not say Tuesday whether he had done so already. 'That process is still ongoing,' he said. Some Republicans are still not convinced it will pass the Byrd rule. 'Doubtful it [the provision] survives,' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote on the social platform X on Monday when asked for his stance on the moratorium. And even if it does, it will still be a steep sell for some lawmakers. 'I can also tell every single Republican in the House and the Senate; I don't care what you change it to. If you are destroying state rights, I'm out,' Greene said. When reached for comment on the AI bill this week, the office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) pointed The Hill to her comments during a hearing last month, when she voiced her opposition to the moratorium without a federal framework. 'Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act, which is like our first generation of the No Fakes Act, and we certainly know that in Tennessee we need those protections,' Blackburn said last month. 'And until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can't call for a moratorium on those things.' Blackburn is one of the Senate's fiercest critics of 'Big Tech' platforms, and her No Fakes Act would create federal protections for artists' voice, likeness and image from nonconsensual AI-generated deepfakes. Republican leaders can afford to lose only three GOP votes for the package, which is not expected to have any support from Democrats. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.) has emerged as one of the chamber's most vocal critics of the moratorium. He is threatening to force a vote on an amendment against the provision if it is still part of the reconciliation package when it hits the Senate floor. 'I'm glad that some Republicans are raising their voice,' he told The Hill of the GOP critics. 'But do they have enough political strength to have that provision be removed?'
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Texas Passed a Law Protecting Campus Speech. It's on the Verge of Rolling It Back.
In 2019, Texas guaranteed expansive First Amendment protections on college campuses with a new law intended to be a corrective to ideological conformity in higher education. Then came the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel. Tents, loudspeakers and student protesters, some masked, some in kaffiyehs, soon followed at Texas universities. So did the second thoughts. Republicans in the Texas Legislature — including some who helped write the 2019 law — did an about-face earlier this month and approved a bill that would restrict how students can protest. The bill is awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. If he signs it, as expected, free speech advocates said Texas will enter new legal territory, just as Republicans across the country test the limits of their authority to tighten control over the culture on college campuses. While states set many policies that affect how public universities are run, they have not typically tried to regulate student conduct with an act of law. But the Texas bill would greatly expand the state's influence over 'expressive activities' on campus — which are defined to include what students wear, how much noise they make and the hours of the day when expression is allowed. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
