ICE Releases Marine Veteran's Wife from Custody After Trump Ally Request
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A Marine Corps veteran's wife has been released from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody following intervention by Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican and a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump's immigration policies.
Paola Clouatre, a Mexican national, had been detained by ICE since late May and was among tens of thousands of people held in detention as the Trump administration continued pushing for 3,000 immigration-related arrests each day. Her release this week came after a federal immigration judge halted her deportation order and Kennedy's office contacted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to advocate on her behalf.
By Monday, Paola was back home in Baton Rouge with her husband, Adrian Clouatre, and their two young children.
Adrian Clouatre takes a selfie of himself and his wife Paola, on May 26, 2024, in Baton Rouge, La.
Adrian Clouatre takes a selfie of himself and his wife Paola, on May 26, 2024, in Baton Rouge, La.
Associated Press
Emails reviewed by The Associated Press show Kennedy's office submitted a formal request to DHS on Friday, asking for Paola's release based on the judge's decision earlier in the week. On July 23, an immigration judge ruled to halt her deportation, and the following day, Kennedy's staff forwarded the ruling to DHS and ICE.
Christy Tate, a constituent services representative for Kennedy, communicated with ICE throughout the process and kept the Clouatre family informed. In an email to Adrian Clouatre after Paola's release, Tate wrote, "I am so happy for you and your family. God is truly great!"
Carey Holliday, the family's attorney, credited Kennedy's office as being "instrumental" in securing Paola's release by directly engaging with DHS. Though the senator's office declined to comment further, Tate's email correspondence detailed how she followed up persistently with ICE and shared court documentation to support the request.
This case marks one of several recent examples where Louisiana lawmakers have stepped in to assist families facing deportation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, another Republican from Louisiana, recently intervened to help secure the release of an Iranian woman from ICE custody in New Orleans.
Sen. Kennedy has largely backed President Trump's strict immigration agenda. On July 17, he posted on Facebook, "Illegal immigration is illegal — duh," as part of his continued support for ICE enforcement. Yet, he has occasionally criticized the administration's actions when errors have occurred, such as when a U.S. citizen was mistakenly deported earlier this year. In Paola Clouatre's case, the senator's office appeared to balance its hardline stance with a more compassionate, case-by-case approach to advocacy.
Paola Clouatre had been detained since May 27, when she was taken into custody during an immigration appointment related to her green card application. She had entered the U.S. as a child alongside her mother more than a decade ago and had initially been processed legally while seeking asylum. However, her mother later failed to appear for a court hearing, and in 2018, a judge issued a deportation order against Paola—who by then had become estranged from her mother and was experiencing homelessness. Her legal status remained unresolved despite her marriage to a U.S. veteran and her efforts to comply with immigration procedures.
The Department of Homeland Security previously told The AP it considered Clouatre to be "illegally" in the country but did not comment following her release.
Adrian Clouatre said he was frustrated by the agency's actions.
"It shouldn't just be like a blanket 'Oh, they're illegal, throw them in ICE detention,'" he said, urging officials to consider individual circumstances more carefully.
The family's attorney noted that while Paola's immigration case is far from over, the halted deportation order gives them a strong chance of securing permanent residency in the future.
Now home, Paola is wearing an ankle monitor but able to care for her children again. Reunited with her infant daughter and toddler son, she told the AP she finally feels like a mother again.
"I was feeling bad," she said of her time in detention. "I was feeling like I failed my kids."
Adrian says they're looking forward to resuming normal life—and picking up where they left off the day she was detained.
"We're going to make that day up," he said, recalling their interrupted plan to enjoy beignets in New Orleans.
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
More than 700 National Guard troops from 3 GOP-led states will be deployed to DC to bolster Trump crackdown
Three Republican-led states will be deploying hundreds of National Guard members to Washington, DC, to bolster President Trump's crackdown on crime and homelessness in the nation's capital. West Virginia will be sending up to 400 troops, South Carolina has pledged 200 and Ohio will dispatch 150 in the coming days, the three states announced on Saturday. 'We stand ready to support our partners in the National Capital Region and contribute to the collective effort of making our nation's capital a clean and safe environment,' Maj. Gen. Jim Seward of the West Virginia National Guard said. The Mountain State's governor, Patrick Morrisey, added: 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' adding that the mission 'reflects our shared commitment to a strong and secure America.' Three Republican-run states are sending an additional 750 National Guard personnel to Washington DC. AP South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster announced the deployment of 200 National Guard personnel from the Palmetto State to DC, but said the troops could be recalled in the event of a major national disaster such as a hurricane. He said the deployment was part of Trump's efforts to restore law and order in Washington, and in response to a request from the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, meanwhile, said he was sending 150 military police officers to support the DC National Guard. It follows protests in the capital on Saturday. Getty Images 'These Ohio National Guard members will carry out presence patrols and serve as added security,' he said in a statement. None of the members — who are expected to arrive in DC within the coming days — are currently serving as law enforcement officers within the Buckeye State, DeWine said. The deployments of 750 troops from the three states would bring the total number of National Guard personnel within the capital to over 1,450. So far, National Guard members have played a limited role in the federal intervention. Troops have been spotted patrolling landmarks such as the National Mall and Union Station, as well as assisting law enforcement with tasks such as crowd control. With Post wires
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
14 minutes ago
Draft of new 'MAHA' report suggests RFK Jr. won't target pesticides
The draft of an upcoming government report suggesting ways to improve the health of American children does not recommend severe restrictions on pesticides and ultra-processed foods, according to a copy of the document obtained by ABC News. The draft's language, if left unchanged, would constitute a win for the agriculture industry and a potential setback for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) allies, who have railed against the use of chemical additives in America's food supply, arguing that they harm children. A person familiar with the draft cautioned that the language could still change before it's released to the public. "Unless officially released by the administration, any document purporting to be the MAHA report should be dismissed as speculative literature," White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai said in response to ABC News' request for comment. An HHS spokesperson declined to verify the document's authenticity. The New York Times first reported details of the new draft report. The report will be the second "MAHA" report released by the Trump administration following one published in May. Both were composed by officials in the White House and across different federal agencies, including Kennedy's HHS. The May report detailed the factors officials said were worsening the health of American children and called for a second report, within 100 days, to recommend policies to address those factors. The earlier report -- which was dogged by the revelation that some studies it cited were nonexistent -- cited damning statistics about the effect of chemical food additives, tying them to cancer and developmental disorders. The draft of the new report does not signal any intention to eliminate pesticides from America's food. Instead, the draft calls for "more targeted and precise pesticide applications" and research programs that would "help to decrease pesticide volumes." The report also stated the Environmental Protection Agency "will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA's robust pesticide review procedures and how that relates to the limiting of risk for users and the general public." Regarding ultra-processed foods, the new report states only that HHS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration would work to develop a "government-wide definition for 'ultra-processed food.'" In his January confirmation hearing, Kennedy declared that "something is poisoning the American people, and we know that the primary culprits are changing food supply, a switch to highly chemical intensive processed foods." Meanwhile, some "MAHA" influencers have loudly demanded changes to the country's food supply, putting their faith in Kennedy to leverage his position of power to uproot the agriculture industry. But this summer, agriculture groups lobbied intensely against the inclusion of anti-pesticide recommendations in the new report. They appeared to find an ally in Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who indicated to reporters this month that the upcoming report would spare pesticides. "There is no chance that our current system of agriculture can survive without those crop protection tools," she said at a press conference in a Washington. "I feel very confident that his, and our, commitment to make sure that farmers are at the table remains paramount, and that the report will reflect that."
