Winemaker In U.S. For Decades Detained By ICE: 'Disappointed and Disgusted'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Moises Sotelo-Casas, a popular Oregon vineyard owner, was detained by ICE outside his church on June 12. His daughter, Alondra Sotelo-Garcia told KGW8, "He was in chains at his feet... everything was taken from him."
Newsweek has reached out to ICE via email, and to the Sotelo family via an online contact form, for comment outside of regular working hours.
Why It Matters
President Donald Trump campaigned on a hard-line immigration stance and pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history. In the initial months of his presidency, the Trump administration said that it deported around 100,000 illegal immigrants.
Under the current administration, ICE has gained expanded powers in enforcement. This includes the right to conduct raids in places of worship, schools, and hospitals. ICE have been conducting raids around the country, something which has sparked widespread protests and backlash. Some of the subsequent arrests have been viewed as heavy handed, while others have wrongly targeted people suspected of having no legal status in the U.S.
What To Know
According to a GoFundMe set up for Sotelo-Casas by his family, Sotelo-Casas is a husband, father of three and a grandfather.
Moises Sotelo-Casas, in a picture shared on the GoFundMe.
Moises Sotelo-Casas, in a picture shared on the GoFundMe.
Sotelo Family/GoFundMe
In 2020, Sotelo-Casas was awarded the annual Vineyard Excellence Award by the Oregon Wine Board and has since established his own small business where he maintains vineyards.
Anthony Van Nice, the owner of a local vineyard who started working with Sotelo-Casas in the 1990s told The Guardian that he was "disappointed and disgusted," by the arrest and how the government is treating immigrants.
In a statement sent to the local outlet KGW, ICE alleged that Sotelo-Casas had entered the United States illegally in 2006 and had a criminal conviction for a DUI.
Alondra Sotelo-Garcia told KGW that her father had come to the U.S. in the 1990s.
The Yamhill country district attorney's office told KGW they had found no evidence of DUI charges.
Sotelo-Casas started the immigration process when President Joe Biden was in office. Alondra Sotelo-Garcia told KGW8 "I know there's a lot of talk of, 'Well, he's been here that long, why hasn't he stepped up to do things the right way?' But sometimes laws don't play in your favor. You know, when you're trying to do it, sometimes money is a big factor. Sometimes, money and laws at the same time are just not cooperating at that time."
Sotelo-Casas was first taken to a detention facility in Portland, then to an ICE processing center in Tacoma, Washington and then moved again to the Akima-run Florence service processing center in the Arizona desert, according to The Guardian which reported that neither the family or the lawyers were informed about the relocation.
A poll from Reuters/Ipsos conducted between June 11—12 which surveyed 1,136 Americans nationwide found that 52 percent of respondents (including one in five Democrats and nine in 10 Republicans) supported deportations of people in the country illegally.
49 percent of people in the poll said that Trump had gone too far with his arrests of immigrants. 40 percent said he had not.
What People Are Saying
The GoFundMe set up for Sotelo-Casas reads in part: "Moises has always given back to his family, his employees, his customers, and his community. Now, he needs our collective help. By standing together, we can help ensure he receives fair legal defense and protect his family's unity and well-being.
What's Next
The GoFundMe organized for Sotelo-Casas has already raised over $100,000 and states that "regardless of what happens in the coming days and weeks," the family needs support to secure attorneys, cover expenses and provide stability to Sotelo-Casas' small business.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mahmoud Khalil Blasts Trump After Release: 'They Chose The Wrong Person'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has said the Trump administration "chose the wrong person for this" after he was freed from a Louisiana ICE detention center on Friday on a judge's orders. Khalil, a Syrian born former Columbia University student, was detained by federal immigration authorities on March 8 after the Department of Homeland Security alleged he was a national security threat, something he has strongly denied. Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and Columbia University for comment on Saturday via email outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters Since coming to power in January, the Trump administration has targeted foreign born university students who it claims have been involved with disruptive pro-Palestinian activism on campus, with a number having their visas revoked and being detained by ICE. Trump has sought to crack down on pro-Palestinian activism in universities more broadly following a series of Gaza solidarity camps on campuses around the country from April to July 2024. The administration moved to ban Harvard from enrolling foreign students after it rejected demands related to campus activism, though this was later blocked by a judge. What To Know Khalil was released on bail shortly before 8 p.m. ET on Friday after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz concluded he is not a flight risk as he's married to a U.S. citizen, has no criminal record and a baby at home. He spent more than three months in custody after being detained in March outside his apartment on the Columbia University campus. Khalil was involved with pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia and was involved in mediating with university leaders. On June 11, Farbiarz ruled Khalil could not be detained or deported based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination. However, two days later, Farbiarz said he would not order Khalil's release after the Trump administration said he committed fraud on his green card, which the former student's legal team then appealed. Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil speaking after his release from federal immigration detention on Friday, June 20, 2025. Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil speaking after his release from federal immigration detention on Friday, June 20, 2025. Matthew Hinton/AP Speaking to reporters after his release, Khalil said: "Hundreds of men who I left behind me shouldn't have been there in the first place. The Trump administration are doing their best to dehumanize everyone here whether you are a U.S. citizen, an immigrant, or just a person on this land doesn't mean you are less of a human." Asked by a reporter from The Guardian whether he had any message for the Trump administration, Khalil replied: "Trump and his administration they chose the wrong person for this. That doesn't mean that there is a right person for this. "There's no right person who should be detained for protesting a genocide, for protesting their university, Columbia University, that is investing in the genocide of the Palestinian people so this is my message." Khalil added that after returning home he would "hug my wife and son," stating he'd only been allowed to spend one hour with his son under supervised conditions whilst in detention. What People Are Saying DHS told Newsweek via email in a statement: "This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security. Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts." Dr. Noor Abdalla, Mahmoud Khalil's wife, in a statement: "After more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and known that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father." Alina Das, one of Khalil's attorneys and co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law, in a statement: "No one should fear being jailed for speaking out in this country. We are overjoyed that Mr. Khalil will finally be reunited with his family while we continue to fight his case in court." What Happens Next Despite his release, the legal case against Khalil remains open and he could still face deportation from the U.S. if the Trump administration wins its case. For now Khalil has regained his green card and will be allowed to travel to visit family in New York and Michigan, for court hearings in Louisiana and New Jersey and for lobbying in Washington, D.C.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Letters to Sports: What a week, from ICE at Dodger Stadium to Lakers sale
Federal agents stage outside Gate E of Dodger Stadium on Thursday. The Dodgers would not let them into the parking area. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times) The current incarnation of Dodger ownership is not your grandfather's Dodgers. In lieu of private, family ownership, you have one behemoth corporation, the Guggenheim Group, predicated on maximizing profit potential, and not giving a twit regarding social or moral imperatives. Doing the "right thing" might threaten their bottom line. After all, in their way of thinking, the business of America is business." ICE thugs terrorizing part of their fan base's families is not on their radar. It's all about money. Bob Teigan Santa Susana Why would Dylan Hernández be surprised by the Dodgers' silence over the Trump Administration's efforts to terrorize the Hispanic residents of greater Los Angeles? Never forget that Dodger Stadium stands on land acquired through similar tactics directed toward the Hispanic residents of Chavez Ravine. Advertisement BW Radley Mission Viejo So let me get this right. Seven months ago the Los Angeles Times editorial section declined to endorse either one of the candidates running for president of the United States, but today, Dylan Hernández, a columnist (which means he gives his opinion about topics) slammed the Dodgers for not taking a political stance on the current events in Los Angeles. Mr. Hernández, the Dodgers are a pro sports franchise, not a political party. Maybe if you want to continue to write about politics you should transfer to the Op-Ed department and leave the sports section to sports Russell Morgan Carson Mr. Hernández's diatribe in The Times is yet another example of his inability to comprehend legal from illegal status. He would have the Dodgers condemn the removal of those illegally in our country. The Dodgers ownership made the correct decision to remain silent. Do not reward the law breaker who was aware of the possible consequences from the beginning. Advertisement Bill Tewksbury Marion, Mont. . Thank you, Kiké Hernández, for standing up for Angelenos while they are being targeted because of the color of their skin. There is no larger supporter of the Dodgers than the Mexican-American community. The Dodger ownership should show that support works both ways. Mike Gamboa Buena Park Win-win situation Watching the NBA Finals it was clear that the Lakers would have no chance against the new, younger, more athletic players. Seeing what they've done with the Dodgers, it would be entirely reasonable to believe that the new ownership will be bringing the entire Lakers organization into the 21st century. Advertisement The best part of the sale: Lakers valued at $10 billion. Celtics valued at $6 billion. Victory! Paul D. Ventura Mission Viejo The Lakers move now from a Mom and Pop operated organization to corporate, with TWG Global group. Bill Plaschke writes about how great this will be for the Lakers since they will now be managed and have the same resources as the Dodgers, who went this same route back in 2012. That's great to look forward to but the immediate need is, who will play the center position for the Lakers? Is there a player for sale in Japan, maybe? Wayne Muramatsu Cerritos Management decision? I will no longer question manager Dave Roberts' pitching decisions. There are more important issues to raise. When asked about the deportation and rounding up of profiled people in L.A., he said, 'Honestly, I don't know enough' and 'I haven't dug enough and can't speak intelligently on it.' Do you read your own newspaper? Have you looked into the crowd that pays your $10-million salary and seen who is most loyal? Don't you honor Jackie Robinson every year and talk to your players about his legacy and standing up for one's rights? Well apparently he's either the team's PR manager, tone deaf or has been ordered to act dumb by management. The world is more than balls and strikes. Advertisement David Bialis San Diego Clayton clarification So on June 8, we get two letters suggesting that Clayton Kershaw stop pitching because he is "hurting the team." Over his next two starts, he pitches 12 innings, giving up one run, while striking out 12, walking one, and earning two wins. Did Bill Plaschke ghost-write these letters with his usual accurate predictions/suggestions? If so, keep up the great work, Bill! Richard Brisacher Mar Vista Spaun-ing controversy What am I missing here? A relatively unknown golf pro, J.J. Spaun, who graduated from San Dimas High wins one of the most prestigious and exciting golf majors in years; and he gets five paragraphs (and not even a quote) plus a photo on page 2. You gave LPGA winner Carlota Ciganda more coverage (in the same combined story) after recording her first win in 15 years for winning something called the Meijer (NOT Major) LPGA Classic. May I suggest a special profile column on the local major winner when you are "Dodger'd" out and have a slow news day. Advertisement Richard Whorton Studio City It was bad enough that you barely mentioned Scottie Scheffler's dominating victory in the PGA Championship last month. But you lowered the bar even further in the U.S. Open. The first three days of the event rated only a short notebook, but J.J. Spaun's thrilling final round, topped by one of the greatest putts in golf history, should have been an above-the-fold front-page story. You blew it. And to top it off, your story referred to Spaun's having a resemblance to Franco Harris? Please. If Adam Scott had won, would he have resembled, say, Ryan Gosling? I don't think so. Steve Horn Glendale Right on target What a terrific story by Gary Klein on Rams receiver Puka Nacua, with a good history of Polynesian players in the NFL! Although I have been following the NFL for many years, the growth in the number of Polynesian players is something I sort of overlooked even though I remember many of these players going back to Charlie Ane, who I also recall played at USC in the 1950s. Advertisement Bill Francis Pasadena Not his day After watching Shohei Ohtani strike out four times Tuesday night, I found myself thinking, "It's a good thing this guy can pitch." John Amato Sherman Oaks The Los Angeles Times welcomes expressions of all views. Letters should be brief and become the property of The Times. They may be edited and republished in any format. Each must include a valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms will not be used. Email: sports@ Get the best, most interesting and strangest stories of the day from the L.A. sports scene and beyond from our newsletter The Sports Report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
New York Times
33 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Is Vulnerable. Democrats Still Need a Strategy.
transcript Trump Is Vulnerable. Democrats Still Need a Strategy. I can't tell you the number of people I've talked to who are like yeah, he goes a little far, but at least he's getting stuff done. But critically, even Trump is subject to it, right. Like he's not really getting stuff done. I mean, that's a very good point. As seen by the fact that the courts are kind of tearing his agenda apart. One of Trump's top campaign promises was to crack down on illegal immigration, which was a big selling point for many of his voters. But in the past week, both of you have written about how this — one of Trump's strongest issues — is shaping up to be one of his biggest liabilities. Does that seem like a fair portrayal of where you guys are with this? I think that's right. Yeah, he's squandered his goodwill in many ways on immigration. Imagine that. Jamelle, why don't you start us off with what you wrote about his response to the protests against the ICE raids Sure. I think the important thing to remember here when thinking about Trump and immigration and his standing with the public. You can't conflate public support for deportations, public support for stricter border controls with a draconian crackdown on immigrants. Those are two separate things. I think that sometimes those of us in this business don't give the public enough credit for its ability to treat different things differently and have some measure of sophistication. And immigration is one of those places where the public broadly says: We like the idea of deportations, of removing people from the country who are not supposed to be here. But when they say this, there is, I think, a lot of evidence to suggest that what they're thinking of is actual criminals. They believe that there's a large population of undocumented immigrants who are like gang bangers in an L.A. set movie in the 90s. Lowriders and tank tops and all. I wasn't about to say tank tops. I was about to use the un-PC version for that item of clothing. Do not do that, Jamelle. No! I know where you're going with that. Tank top seems fine. Tank tops. Yeah doesn't have the right anyway. Tank tops. Yeah, I know it's not as edgy. That's what they imagine. But that population doesn't really exist. And so when they see what this looks like in practice, which are a bunch of draconian crackdowns on grandmothers and soccer coaches and business owners and people who are just regular members of their communities. They don't like that. They think it's excessive. And what you're seeing, I think in public opinion, and what I argued in my piece this week, is that that delta between what the public kind of likes in the abstract And what they're seeing in practice is the source of Trump's growing weakness on immigration. They actually want Trump to be — this sounds like a crazy thing to expect out of this president — but they want Trump to be compassionate about immigration enforcement. I think the public kind of intuitively says to themselves: Well, if you have family here, if you're working if you're hardworking, if you have a business, then you're basically already assimilated. So you should be able to have some kind of path to being a citizen. And if you're not doing those things right, the public's like you should get out. And so when they see the president deporting the kinds of people in, again, really harsh and draconian ways that they think should be here, should be allowed to stay here, they're like, well, I don't like how this is actually playing out in practice. And so what the polling showed like last month maybe was this support deportations don't like the execution. And now that's simply becoming a general negative view of Trump on immigration, period. I totally am with you on the theory versus practice. I mean, this is always a big thing in politics. Everybody talks about how great it would be to cut the deficit, lower the debt, do all of these wonderful things. But then when it comes time to do it, they realize that it's hard and the devil's in the details. And you can't do it without pain and fallout. And I think that anybody who is surprised by what Trump is doing with these immigration raids hasn't really been paying attention. But I guess at this point, that shouldn't surprise me either. I think if Trump had done border security and then a concentrated effort on deporting criminal illegal aliens, which would not be that different from previous presidents, I mean, Obama deported millions of people, criminal and not criminal. He would be flying very high right now on the immigration issue. I'm not going to, lets put to the side a bunch of other elements of chaos for the moment. But he would be flying high because that's the bottom line as Jamelle said. That's what people wanted. And I'd also add that I think people also have a perception that undocumented aliens tend to be all on welfare or receiving public assistance, which is not the case. Millions and millions are very hardworking folks. What people are looking for is a secure border, low levels of disorder, and readily available goods and services. So if you put all of those things together, what you're then dealing with is a set of trade offs and then the trade offs when people start to feel pain, such as we saw this flip-flop, flip-flop about the hospitality industry and the agricultural industry, which is a direct result of people being worried that they're going to feel some economic pain as a result of deportations, or actually feeling economic pain as a result of deportations. You see Trump, even Trump, start to waver a little bit, and you see that internal battle in the administration with this flip-flop flip. And so I think Jamelle is exactly right. There was a path for Trump, a very clear and I would say not that difficult of a path for him to take to be smelling like a rose on this issue. Instead, it's just chaotic. And that's one of the core elements that people voted, people were voting in November. A lot of people were voting for order, not chaos. And this is an element of chaos that is souring people on Trump on this issue and many, many others. So I have a question for both of you. So I take that the polls don't look good for him right now in terms of how he's handling L.A. That said, Republicans in the Senate are using these protests to argue that this is why you have to push through his Big, Beautiful Bill. And Republicans running for office in the midterms are using this to hammer their Democratic opponents, because while some people are looking at this as an overreach, one of the reasons that Trump was put back in office is people don't like chaos at the border. They don't like these images of people scrawling graffiti on street walls and whether or not there is a lot of violence or just a little bit of disorder, it comes down to who can spin that the best. And I think what we have seen from the Trump administration, and specifically the president, is nobody knows how to milk fear and chaos better than this man. That is just that's his bread and butter. So I guess I'm just I'm skeptical of Republican spin here and the administration's spin here. I think of course, of course, the White House is going to say that they're in command of the situation. Of course, Republicans are going to say: Yeah, this is great for us. We might be down eight on the generic ballot, and the Big Beautiful Bill might be ruinously unpopular with both voters, but this totally is going to work for us. What I see in the polling, at least, is that the public is basically divided on the protests and very unhappy with the deployment of the National Guard, with the deployment of Marines, with the militarization of the response to protests, with the draconian ICE tactics. On everything relating to this, it's a double digit net disapproval for the administration and for Republicans. And so I just don't think I'm just not convinced by the spin. Right? A thing to keep in mind here is that in 2020, when there were larger protests with more chaos and disorder, those protests contributed to Trump losing. They did not benefit him in the general election. He lost, in part, because of his inability to handle the perceived chaos of the protest. And here we are again, with protests for which there may be perceived chaos. And it's clear Trump isn't handling them. And there's no reason - I see no reason to think that the outcome is going to be any different for him or for Republicans this go around than the previous go around. The other thing I think David mentioned something about the trade offs in immigration reform. And I think that what the mainstream political conversation is missing about real trade offs when it comes to border security and internal immigration control, is that there's actually no way to do this without the kind of painful impacts on regular citizens that you cannot actually control the external borders of the United States without making internal, creating internal pressures on existing citizens. The two things are connected, and that I think that the conversation is missing the perspective that's basically like, if you like the idea of a free society where there aren't immigration agents roaming around neighborhoods, you have to actually be comfortable with a little less immigration control. Because if what you want is tight immigration control, then that necessitates, that necessitates, the kind of heightened scrutiny by state forces about who you hire, about who you have in your home, about who you have in your church. Like you can't separate the two. I would say there's a couple of factors here in play as a general matter, Americans - now this is going to come across a little bit weird after Trump has been elected twice - but in any given moment, as a general matter, Americans don't like bullies. They don't like the people who are seen to be as heavy handed and as seen to be disproportionate. They also don't like chaos. They like order. And so to Jamelle's point, from 2020, there was an awful lot of chaos on Trump's watch that at times he responded to with an awful lot of bullying. It hurt him on both fronts, that he wasn't seen as somebody who could bring order. He was seen as somebody who was fomenting additional chaos. Chaos was his enemy in the 2020 election. And so I think a lot of this depends on what actually happens in the streets. And I think MAGA has a very dangerous assessment of this situation, because I think if you're going to be around MAGA people, their theory of the case is that the far left wants to burn America's cities, and that any sensible immigration policy is going to result in the far left wanting to burn America's cities. And so then the only person who can stand in the gap there is Donald Trump. And so the first brick that is thrown, the first Waymo car that gets set on fire, that starts to lock in that part of the MAGA mindset that says: OK, the fires are about to start, the cities are about to burn. And the one big regret that they have - and Trump has expressed this - the big regret that they have is not bringing in the troops under federal control sooner in 2020. And so that's why right after this initial army deployment, I wrote that Trump administration is spoiling for a fight. I think elements of the MAGA coalition are spoiling literally for a fight in the streets. They think that fight in the streets, that assertion of dominance and control will be A) politically beneficial to them. And B), also, again, in their worldview, the only way to really stop the far left from torching American cities. And so I think that this is the problem that we face is that there are an awful lot of people who are eager, they are eager to see some confrontation. And I agree with Jamelle on the political effect of a confrontation isn't necessarily going to redound to Trump's benefit. It creates this, contributes to this, sense that America is in a state of chaos, that it's out of control. But in the short term, I think it is very dangerous for America that we have people we have an administration that in many ways seems to be spoiling for that fight. And I'm incredibly grateful and thankful that these millions of people who came out for the No Kings protest did so incredibly peacefully. And I think that kind of protest really drains the power from the MAGA argument, and it drains the power from the MAGA case that essentially they're the last bulwarks against our cities aflame. What's happening instead is you have these peaceful protests, and then you have the administration ramping up to create more chaos, this is not I really don't think this is working in their political favor. I mean, I would like to be more optimistic. And what I've seen from the Trump administration is that the reality on the ground. Doesn't matter that much because they spin it the way they want to. So it is AP orbital after a certain point. So you can have 99.9 percent of peaceful protesters. And what they're going to do is, it's like what they do with immigration. They find the one hideous murder committed by an undocumented immigrant. And so that proves that undocumented immigrants are the real danger here. Maybe it's an indictment of the Democratic Party that I'm thinking that they just don't have it in them to fight that PR battle. And you can I mean, you guys are right. You can see the Trump administration getting more and more aggressive. I mean, we're looking at on Tuesday, New York City controller and the mayoral candidate, Brad Lander, was arrested by federal agents in an immigration courthouse when he was trying to escort a migrant out to prevent his arrest. And as we saw in California when Senator Padilla got manhandled, this was kind of aggressive and thuggish. And they were not trying to be delicate at all. And my sense is that they know this plays well with a lot of their voters, and that the rest of the country will be upset by it. Maybe but when it comes time to say, pull the lever in the midterms, they're not going to be voting on it. So they just kind of ramp this up. And one of the things that makes me even more nervous is they're focusing on Big Blue cities. Because they want these confrontations in La, in Chicago, in New York, where they can push out their urban hellscape narrative, which the guy running one of the guys running for Senate in Georgia has been saying, we better pay attention to this because it could come to our state next. So it makes me really twitchy. I understand that nervousness and worry. But I think my view is that I think the administration I think the White House, in addition to missing some of the dynamics that David describes about the American public not liking bullies, the American public not liking chaos, and the Americas public attributing Trump himself with chaos. I think they just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what their coalition is and why they won in November. They did not win in November because they convinced swing voters that the right thing to do was to have all these confrontations and crackdowns they won in November because of inflation. You ask people consistently what was your top issue. Majorities, inflation, what they want from the administration is lowering prices. And so if you're just on a pure electoral calculus, if Trump wants to hold his coalition together and wants to have that coalition show up to preserve Republican majorities in Congress, then the first thing he has to do, first thing he should be focusing on is lowering prices. Notably, Trump has not done that. Notably, the public expects prices to go up because of tariffs. And so he's not doing the things that he was elected to do. And he's approaching the other issue on which the public had a favorable view in a way that is turning the public against him. And so I think the administration is actually making a fatal and hubristic calculation about its coalition and its political standing that yeah, they might be able to cut some videos that are going to do great on X, but the kinds of voters who delivered in the White House aren't on X, they aren't watching Fox, they're not watching Fox News. They barely tune in to politics. And I don't know what he's doing for them. In fact, I think he's doing a lot of stuff to antagonize them. I would say about the only people who have as much of a political problem right now as Donald Trump are Democrats because the Yes, there is a backlash against Trump, but there isn't much indication. There's growing regard for the Democratic Party. And I do expect that there will be some backlash to Trump in the midterms. I'm absolutely expecting that. But we're in this really in the Trump era. We have this cycle of that shows why Trump is vulnerable and why he's resilient. At the same time, he's vulnerable because once people experience the actual Trump, he starts to alienate some people who voted for him. But then the problem is, if the people who voted, if Trump is still the main person articulating the concerns that the people have who voted for him, then it's very hard to squelch MAGA completely and entirely. And so on the immigration issue, it's really not enough to say, well, Trump is just way overboard. There are people who have real concerns if the border is too wide open, and who are they going to trust to deal with that. And so I think that's one of the issues here is that, Yeah, Trump is really incredibly effective at squandering his own goodwill, not with his core base, of course. And the Democrats are really ineffective at taking advantage of that, except under terms that are very short term in duration. So yeah, they can win a midterm when Trump squanders the goodwill. But can they hold people. The answer. So far has been Absolutely not. So the point you made that gives me a little bit more optimism than I've been projecting here, David, is the difference between Trump in theory and in memory and in actual in-your-face every day. I think that the four years he was out of office with Joe Biden in office, people then reverted back to the more hazy oh, he's a television figure. Sure, he's got a lot of bluster, but he's a man of action. And was it really that bad. I mean, at least he I was getting stuff done. And so they were willing to give Trump another shot. But then the second he gets back into your living room every single day doing all this nonsense and breaking all those eggs they like to talk about can't make an omelet without breaking those eggs. Then people are like oh, this is a lot. Yeah, and it's funny, you could see this actually, in the 2024 campaign, Trump, in theory, were the big broadcast ads that he did talking about low inflation, secure borders. But then the rally, Trump was Trump in practice it was Trump in all of his weird weirdness. And the people he's losing right now are not the rally Trumpists. They're the TV ad Trumpists who are thinking, I wanted less inflation, I wanted less chaos. That's what I wanted. And now we have, I'm worried about inflation because of tariffs. I'm worried about chaos because of what I'm seeing in Angeles. And by the way, we haven't even touched on this of sense that I thought Trump was going to come in and things were going to be more peaceful in the world that the world was going to be less, was going to be more calm. David, you're not feeling more calm globally. exactly. And so a lot of what people thought they were voting for, they're not getting right now. So one of the things that I think is also happening with the focusing on the blue cities is I think he's trying to divide the nation even more. Like, there's just been no sign I've talked to a few Republican apologists, they're like oh, well, he's so different this time around. That's why I don't have a problem with him, which just strikes me as utter horseshit. I'm sorry, but we just got an E rating, right. They just think you can beep me out later. But especially on the immigration issue, we see him going as hard as he can to divide the nation into of blue urban centers and red rural America. We can talk about politically what this will mean down the road. But I think even between now and the midterms next year, there's so much damage he's trying to do in dividing people as a way to exert power and find a justification for that. It's so mind boggling. No, this is an extremely dangerous game he's playing. And I don't think that Republican apologists for him appreciate the kind of real damage it does to basically the civic bonds of the nation to utilize the power of the federal government to punish Democratic controlled states, not because they've done anything wrong, not because they're violating the Constitution. None of that, simply because they don't agree with your partisan agenda, simply because they are exercising the sovereignty they have as states. You do that enough. And people start to ask themselves, well, what's the point in being part of a union if this is how we're going to be treated. What's like what do I have in common with my fellow American in a red state. If this is how their leader is going to treat me and I don't, I'm always wary of making these sorts of comparisons and analogies. But, I mean, this is the kind of stuff that makes civil conflict like this is how you get that ball rolling by convincing a part of the population of the country that there's nothing they can do to receive equal regard or equal status, and that by virtue of their political allegiance or by their ethnicity or by their sexual orientation, by virtue of whatever that's been devalued by the regime in power, they can expect to receive scrutiny and disregard from the state. Look, if your goal, if your goal is I want to go to communities where there are the most undocumented immigrants and wanting to remove the people from the places where they're the most undocumented immigrants. You're not singling out like four or five blue cities for that. There are giant red cities, not the cities are blue, but in red states, giant red state cities that have an awful lot of undocumented immigrants in them. And yet, no, we're going after Chicago. Why Because he is trying to stoke conflict. And here's the thing that's particularly disturbing that I have experienced, that I think a lot of people have experienced is that, amongst Republicans, Donald Trump is either the most trusted voice or among the most trusted voices. In other words, when Donald Trump speaks, Republicans tend to believe him. And when Trump uses rhetoric like people hate America. They're trying to destroy America. Members of his coalition believe those words. And some of the rhetoric you hear, especially in the darkest corners of the religious is beyond imagination. There's a word that people use to describe Democrats. They call them demoncrats. If you're in that bubble if you're in that cocoon, well Yeah. You want to see the Marines. Yeah you want to see the army because you're taking on people under the influence of demons. I mean, that's the level of rhetoric we're dealing with here, and that's why this country is a tinderbox. And Trump just keeps pouring gasoline on it intentionally. So before I let you guys go, I'm going to bring it back to politics and opportunities. So what opportunity with all of this churn and protest and backlash do Democrats have on this issue. I mean, we're talking about even immigrant voters. Polls show now trust Republicans more than they do the Democrats. So this is an opening for them. Where do they go. I mean, my thought is that this is a real opportunity to actually be aggressive and try to define the terms of the debate, you have the president underwater on every single issue of note, including his two previously stronger ones, immigration and the cost of living. So now is like the opportunity to just like, aggressively try to seize the terrain for yourself, to try to define redefine the party as the party that can handle these problems, that it can handle. The actual issues facing most Americans. But part of that is going to require from Democrats a willingness to get in the fight, which I still don't necessarily see. There seems to be this hesitancy, especially among congressional Democrats, about trying to make a splash. Make it make noise. Some of this is beginning with the Padilla or detention last week. And with Brad Lander, you're beginning to see Democrats realize that, if they make a scene, that's a lot of press. That captures attention, that allows them to seize the stage for a bit. And that can be beneficial. But that's the kind of energy that they need. They're not going to be able to choose the battles they want to fight necessarily. By virtue of having state power, the administration kind of has the ability to choose the terrain. But that doesn't mean they're not. They're unable to shape the contours of that fight, especially when the administration makes so many mistakes all the time. And so I would see this as just like a big opportunity to begin to erase some of the perception of the Democratic Party as passive and responsive to events and create the impression that it is aggressive and willing to seek conflict. Because one thing about its low approval ratings, a lot of that's with actual Democratic voters, right. People who are going to vote for the Democrat, but kind of don't. They're like don't associate me with these people. Recovering with just like Democrats would be an important political gain at this point. I think the Democrats opportunity is also their risk, because here's the way I'd put it. Trump's mistakes give an opposing party and Trump's overreach. And Trump's the way he's chewing through his goodwill at a remarkable rate. You can be just anybody on the other side, and you're going to be the alternative to that. And you could have some electoral success. I mean, however, there are still underlying policy issues and underlying economic and geostrategic issues that people care about. And so the question then is, do you have the answers there too. And here's another issue. And this is something that we need to I think Democrats have not fully absorbed better than Trump does not equal. Good O.K. And so for example, when you had all of the lying, and all of the corruption around Trump, which is unlike anything I've ever seen. And then when you would point out the lying around Joe Biden and the lying around Joe Biden's condition, and then to have partisans jump at you and say, well, it's not as bad as Trump, that's not a good answer. Don't answer bad with less bad. Answer bad with something that's affirmatively good. And I think that is one of the problems we have and why we've been stuck in about a 2025 year cycle of these parties just trading off, because nobody has really solved for the problems, the actual policy problems that people care about. And so Yeah, Trump is going to give Democrats a lot of short term opportunity if they just sees it as a short term opportunity without providing long term policy solutions, then their opportunity is also a risk of their next loss. See, this is what keeps me up at night a little bit. I've said this before. Last time around, the Democrats on immigration were like, just happy to say we're not Trump. But they didn't figure out what they believed or what they wanted to do. And so when the Biden team got in there, they completely blew it, totally blew it for the bulk of the administration. And that came back to bite them. And that played a role in Trump's return. So now is the time. Now is the time for Democrats to be figuring out what they believe and what they stand for. Aside from just that, well, we're not draconian and cruel. Well, I mean, this does get the structural issues in American governance. Not just what the parties are doing, but what the actual system of government allows. And so part of I mean, I agree with David that if you win power, you actually have to do things. You have to respond to people's problems. But that may require. What are considered to be perhaps radical approaches to the structures of American government that make that possible. Maybe you get rid of the filibuster. You end it outright to make majoritarian policymaking possible again. So you can do stuff like. My view is that Trump is, in part, an epiphenomenon of the fact that for 10 years, Congress was gridlocked and deadlocked and couldn't do anything because of abuse of the filibuster. And so the one thing I would throw out there is that part of this challenge isn't simply an absence of will from the respective parties, but they are conforming to a set of structural aspects of the American system. And maybe it's worth thinking about changing those structural aspects to make government more responsive to people's concerns, to create more direct translation between what people vote for and what they get. Well, that's why Trump's blowing everything up. People, I can't tell you the number of people I've talked to who are like, yeah, he goes a little far, but at least he's getting stuff done. But critically, even Trump is subject to it, right. Like he's not really getting stuff done. I mean, that's a very good point. I mean, by the fact that the courts are getting everything done, but he's breaking a lot of crap. He's breaking a lot of crap, but he's not really affirmatively doing things for people. And that gets to the issue. The American system designed around legislative action. And we have a broken legislature. And so got to fix that. And that's like a structural problem. There's our next sit down, guys. That's right. That could be an entire summer series. So start prepping now. But thank you for joining me. Thank you for having us. Thanks so much, Michelle. Given the recent protests against ICE raids, is President Trump alienating some of his supporters? In this episode, the Opinion national politics writer Michelle Cottle and the columnists David French and Jamelle Bouie convene to discuss. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Michelle Cottle: I'm Michelle Cottle. I write about national politics for Times Opinion, and I am back with the fabulous columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French. Guys, welcome. David French: It's good to be with y'all. Jamelle Bouie: Yes, pleasure to be here as always. Cottle: Well, I'm not sure the topic is going to bring you much pleasure because we're going to talk immigration. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
