Trump Said ‘Alligator Alcatraz' Would Hold ‘Menacing Migrants.' Most Don't Have Criminal Convictions
'It's known as Alligator Alcatraz, which is very appropriate because I looked outside and that's not a place I want to go hiking,' Trump said during a livestreamed event on July 1. 'But very soon, this facility will house some of the most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet.'
Only one-third of the approximately 900 immigrants detained at the Florida facility have been convicted of a crime, the Herald reported. Those charges range from little as a traffic violation or illegal re-entry all the way to murder. Another 250 detainees only have immigration violations on their records but no criminal convictions or pending charges.
A Syracuse University analysis of government data found that almost half of the people in ICE custody as of late last month did not have a criminal conviction or charge. Many are in the U.S. to seek asylum.
Conditions at the detention center are inhumane, said Democratic lawmakers who visited the site on Saturday. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the facility, where immigrants are locked in cells made of chain link fencing with more than 30 other detainees, an 'internment camp.' Those cells are underneath tents, not permanent structures.
'They are essentially packed into cages, wall-to-wall humans, 32 detainees per cage,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said.
She also criticized the quality and amount of food given to immigrants there, noting that while guards received roast chicken and sausage, detainees were given a 'gray turkey and cheese sandwich, an apple and chips.'
'I don't see how that could possibly sustain them nutritionally or not make them hungry,' Wasserman Schultz said.
Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem defended the conditions in the Everglades detention center in an interview on Sunday.
'Our detention centers at the federal level are held to a higher standard than most local or state centers and even federal prisons. The standards are extremely high,' she said on NBC's Meet the Press.
Noem even balked at calling the fenced-in areas where detainees are held 'cells.'
'I've been there and I've seen these rooms that they are in. I wouldn't call them 'jail cells,'' Noem said. 'I would call them a facility where they are held and that are secure facilities.'
A Guatemalan woman whose husband is detained at the facility said that there are not enough facilities to maintain sanitary conditions. He reported there were not enough facilities to wash hands, and he was unable to take a shower for six days. He was eventually woken at 3 a.m. to take a shower because the lines were so long.
'The detainees are being held in tents, and it is very hot there. They're in bad conditions. … There's not enough food. Sick people are not getting medication. Every time I ask about his situation, he tells me it's bad,' she told CNN last week.
In addition to poor conditions, the the detention center's location is highly vulnerable to flooding and hurricanes. The facility may not meet modern hurricane codes. It has already flooded once, the day after its grand opening.
'They are in a facility that is very inaccessible to lawyers, to family members, to oversight,' Renata Bozzetto, deputy director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, told The Washington Post. 'So the location being so remote and isolated is a problem. Being in an environmentally fragile ecosystem is a problem. Being constructed with temporary materials will be catastrophic in case of a hurricane.'
Rep. Maxwell Frost, another Democrat who toured the facility, said he wanted to investigate reports of backed up toilets and 'feces being spread everywhere,' but officials refused to allow them to see units where migrants were being detained. Instead, they were shown empty barracks.
'It is something everyone, whether you're Democrat, Republican or anything, should be deeply ashamed of,' Frost said. 'Immigrants don't poison the blood of this nation. They are the blood of this nation.'
More from Rolling Stone
Jordan Klepper Charts Trump's Long History With Jeffrey Epstein on 'The Daily Show'
Why the Trump Administration Is About to Set Fire to 500 Tons of Emergency Food
Speaker Mike Johnson Splits From Trump, Calls for Release of Epstein Files
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

14 minutes ago
Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez becomes the first Democrat to enter the 2026 governor race
MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin Democratic Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, a former emergency room nurse, announced Friday that she is running for governor, the day after the incumbent decided against seeking a third term. Rodriguez is the first Democrat to officially enter the 2026 race. Several others are considering running after Gov. Tony Evers said Thursday he was bowing out. Wisconsin's 2026 governor's race is open with no incumbent running for the first time since 2010. Rodriguez, who almost certainly will face numerous Democratic primary opponents, has vowed to push back against Republican President Donald Trump's administration. 'We've got a maniac in the White House,' Rodriguez said in a campaign launch video. 'His tariffs are killing our farmers and his policies are hurting our kids.' Rodriguez has been lieutenant governor since 2023, after previously serving one two-year term in the state Assembly representing suburban Milwaukee, where she lives. She won a seat that had been under Republican control for years. Rodriguez emphasized her background working previously as a nurse in a Baltimore emergency room, saying she wanted to continue Evers' emphasis on fighting to protect reproductive freedom, invest in public schools and rebuild the economy. She noted that the state Legislature is within reach of Democratic control, meaning that with a Democratic governor, they could finally enact policies Republicans have blocked for years like expanding Medicaid. A registered nurse, Rodriguez previously worked as a health care executive and an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She has a master's degree in public health. Rodriguez emphasized the importance of health care, including protecting abortion rights, in a brief speech she delivered on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last year. Rodriguez, who is married with two children, launched her candidacy on her 50th birthday. In her first run for office in 2020, when she was elected to the Legislature, Rodriguez said she was motivated to get into politics because of how Republicans handled the COVID-19 pandemic. Rodriguez won the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor in 2022 after then-Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who held the office in Evers' first term, decided to run for the Senate. Barnes, who lost that race to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, is among several Democrats considering a run for governor next year. Others include Attorney General Josh Kaul, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. On the Republican side, Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and suburban Milwaukee businessman Bill Berrien are the only announced candidates. Others, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and state Senate President Mary Felzkowski, are considering it.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Agenda Stuck in Legal Wrangling Despite Supreme Court Wins
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump has cast successes at the US Supreme Court as broad endorsements of his authority to fire agency heads, shrink the government workforce and halt billions of dollars in federal spending. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Some lower court judges see it differently. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to be the final word on disagreements over the law. But the growing number of decisions being issued with little explanation on an emergency basis — often referred to as the 'shadow docket' — is creating even more legal wrangling. Now, tensions are building not only between the executive branch and the courts, but also within the judiciary. 'This is not helpful at all for lower court judges,' said Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal district judge in Pennsylvania confirmed during the George W. Bush administration. 'You're reading an abbreviated opinion from the Supreme Court like it's a Rosetta Stone.' The Justice Department has been arguing that the emergency track wins should translate into victories in other lawsuits against Trump's agenda. Federal judges are pushing back, saying the high court isn't giving them enough to work with. This week, the Supreme Court stepped in to settle one such dispute that one of its earlier orders created. A Maryland federal judge had blocked Trump's removal of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, saying it was different in key ways from a firing fight the justices resolved in the president's favor on May 22. In a two-paragraph order on Wednesday, the conservative majority said the district judge got it wrong, and the officials couldn't keep their jobs while they pressed the merits of their lawsuit. The problem, some judges say, is that more cases are reaching the justices on an emergency basis — often in the early stages, without oral arguments and with minimal or no explanation. These orders are frequently just a few paragraphs issued in weeks or even days, in stark contrast with argued cases that unfold over months and result in lengthy opinions offering more robust guidance. 'Tea Leaves' In yet another in the growing stack of firing cases, a Washington federal judge last week refused to let Trump oust Democrats from the Federal Trade Commission. US District Judge Loren AliKhan said she wouldn't read the 'tea leaves' in the justices' May 22 decision, a four-paragraph order that let Trump fire top officials at two other agencies. That ruling 'weighs against' the dismissed officials, she said, but doesn't settle questions over a 90-year-old precedent limiting a president's firing power at federal agencies. 'It would be an act of judicial hubris' to base a decision on what the justices might do later, AliKhan wrote in her order reinstating one of the commissioners. She was 'unsure of what to make of' the justices' order, absent more details about what they intended or how they reached their outcome. An appeals court has temporarily paused her ruling. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. A senior White House official who requested anonymity to discuss pending litigation said lower court judges aren't respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court's orders as well as the rulings themselves, and seemed to be taking extraordinary steps to avoid applying them to other cases. The official accused judges of defying the Supreme Court because of policy disagreements. The conflicts are growing as the Trump administration has taken lower court losses to the justices on an emergency basis 21 times so far this year. Unlike cases the court hears on the merits, emergency cases usually don't involve in-person arguments, robust written briefs or lengthy opinions that explain how the majority reached a decision. They don't offer a rubric for lower courts to apply new precedents going forward. For the Supreme Court's 2023-24 term, the average length of a majority opinion was 5,010 words, according to Empirical SCOTUS, a blog that tracks data on the high court. The majority's July 14 emergency order that allowed the administration to go ahead with Education Department layoffs — praised by Trump on social media as 'a Major Victory' — was only 104 words. There are rare exceptions, such as the fight over Trump's birthright citizenship plan, in which the justices heard arguments and wrote a lengthy opinion. Still, the majority's June decision — which Trump called a 'GIANT WIN' on social media — left key issues unresolved for lower courts to sort through. The justices curbed judges' authority to expansively halt government actions but didn't completely rule out nationwide blocks. They didn't touch the core question of whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. In an emergency order, the Supreme Court considers which side is ultimately likely to succeed on the underlying legal questions, but the justices also focus on the harm each side might suffer in the interim. Shadow Docket Tension on the Supreme Court over the escalating shadow docket activity predates Trump's latest term in office. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in 2021 that the conservative majority's use of the process resulted in decisions that were becoming 'more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.' Justice Samuel Alito accused critics of portraying the process as something 'sinister' in order to 'intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.' In remarks to a federal judges' conference on Thursday, Kagan underscored her concerns about the challenges that emergency orders create for lower courts. The justices 'don't usually meet about shadow docket matters and discuss them in the way we do with merits cases,' she said. There is 'a real responsibility that I think we didn't recognize when we first started down this road to explain things better.' The Trump administration's 21 emergency requests in six months exceeds the total number brought by the Biden administration and during the combined presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, according to research by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent critic of the court's use of the shadow docket. The government has won 16 of the cases at least in part, even if only temporarily. The administration withdrew one application and largely lost four cases, including one filed by Venezuelans who were at risk of being sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison. Trump's wave of policies testing the bounds of presidential power has been met with a deluge of lawsuits, many of which have included requests by challengers for swift intervention by judges. The Justice Department, in turn, has quickly moved to at least temporarily halt the effects of lower court losses while it appeals. But that strategy hasn't always worked. It took just over two weeks for a federal appeals court in Boston to deny the government's emergency request to resume cuts to scientific research grants that a district judge blocked. In a July 18 order, a three-judge panel said it had 'no difficulty distinguishing' the facts of the case from the justices' emergency order in April letting the administration cut teacher-training grants. The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the grant fight. In its latest emergency application the administration claimed that 'district-court defiance' of the justices' April order 'has grown to epidemic proportions' in other funding cases. A Boston federal judge this month rejected the Justice Department's attempt to 'misguidedly argue' that two other Supreme Court orders required her to let Trump fire Department of Health and Human Services workers. In the first order, the justices said Trump could broadly proceed with a push to shrink the federal workforce but didn't rule on the lawfulness of any agency plan. In the other, the majority didn't offer an explanation when it let layoffs continue at the Education Department. The HHS case was likely to 'wind its way up and down the appellate courts,' US District Judge Melissa DuBose wrote, but 'this court declines the defendants' invitation to short circuit that process.' Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the mass firing fight, the San Francisco federal judge handling that case rejected the government's argument that it was effectively over. US District Judge Susan Illston wrote that the justices' 'terse order' was 'inherently preliminary' and left issues unsettled. With agencies carrying out layoffs following the Supreme Court's order, she wrote, 'the issues in this case remain of significant public importance.' The Justice Department raced to a federal appeals court, which this week temporarily paused Illston's latest order while it decides what to do. Should the government lose the latest round, it could bring the case back to the justices. --With assistance from Suzanne Monyak and Greg Stohr. Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-backed Republican who lost 2024 Senate bid scores president's endorsement while trying again
President Donald Trump endorsed former Rep. Mike Rogers as the Republican tries again to win a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan. Rogers, who lost the Wolverine State's 2024 U.S. Senate contest to then-Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, mounted another U.S. Senate bid earlier this year. Calling the candidate an "America First Patriot," the president gave the candidate his stamp of approval in a Thursday Truth Social post, writing, "Mike Rogers has my Complete and Total Endorsement — HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN!" First On Fox: Republican Launches Second Straight Bid To Flip Democrat-held Senate Seat In Key Battleground Trump previously endorsed Rogers in 2024, before Rogers went on to win in the Republican U.S. Senate primary. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., staunchly opposed Trump's endorsement of Rogers in 2024. Read On The Fox News App Cornyn Says He's Spoken To Trump About A Potential Endorsement: 'If He Endorsed Me, The Race Would Be Over' "Donald Trump just endorsed the worst Deep State candidate this cycle," Paul declared in a 2024 post on X. "@MikeRogersForMI is a never Trumper, and a card carrying member of the spy state that seeks to destroy Trump. You have to ask yourself who gives Trump this awful advice? Who's next, John Bolton?" Minutes later, Paul added in another post, "If he's good with Mike Rogers (R-Deep State), maybe he should pick Liz Cheney for VP?" Trump Endorses Gop Senator Years After Asserting 'I Will Never Endorse This Jerk Again' Rogers served in the U.S. House of Representatives for seven terms spanning from early 2001 through early article source: Trump-backed Republican who lost 2024 Senate bid scores president's endorsement while trying again