
Trump Administration Live Updates: House G.O.P. Races to Revamp Major Policy Bill, Grasping for Votes to Pass It
A protest last week outside the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Md. The Trump administration has turned to countries to take on migrants from countries around the globe, and not necessarily their home country.
A federal court ordered the Trump administration on Tuesday to maintain custody of migrants on a deportation flight that immigrants' lawyers said was headed to South Sudan, a transfer the judge said appeared to violate an injunction he issued in April.
'I am not going to order that the plane turn around,' said the judge, Brian E. Murphy of the Federal District Court in Boston. Instead, he said, any migrants in Department of Homeland Security custody must not leave U.S. control once the plane landed, at least until a hearing Wednesday to determine whether they had received adequate due process.
The order capped a tumultuous hearing hastily called by the judge, during which Trump officials said they could not say where the flight was or where it was going.
Judge Murphy repeatedly expressed concerns that the administration had violated his order not to deport immigrants to countries where they are not from and may face danger without giving them enough time to challenge their removal. And he warned that officials involved in the deportations who were aware of his order, including potentially the pilots of the plane, could face criminal sanctions. 'Based on what I have been told,' he said, 'this seems like it may be contempt.'
The question of whether the Trump administration defied his previous order added to the remarkable series of faceoffs it has had with the judicial system as President Trump has aggressively pursued his promises of mass deportations. In case after case, judges have rebuked the administration for not allowing adequate due process, and Trump officials in turn have questioned the authority of courts to hear such disputes and even called for the impeachment of judges who rule against it.
Immigration lawyers at the hearing on Tuesday said at least two migrants had been told they were going to be deported to South Sudan, a violence-plagued country in Africa that the State Department advises Americans not to travel to.
After a break in the proceedings to gather information, a lawyer for the Justice Department, Elianis N. Perez, said that one of the migrants, who is Burmese, was returned home to Myanmar, not South Sudan. But she declined to say where the second migrant, a Vietnamese man, was deported, saying it was classified information. It was unclear how many other migrants might be on that deportation flight.
'Where is the plane?' Judge Murphy asked.
'I'm told that that information is classified, and I am told that the final destination is also classified,' Ms. Perez said. She said the government had not violated any court orders because the man had not claimed to be fearful of removal.
Judge Murphy asked what authority the government was using to classify the location of the deportation flight. 'I don't have the answer to that,' she responded.
After a second break, Joseph N. Mazzara, the Homeland Security Department's acting general counsel, said that he was not sure whether the information was classified but that he did not know the plane's current location in any event.
Earlier in the hearing, lawyers from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project had said they had been told Monday that a client of theirs, the man from Myanmar, was informed that he would be deported to South Sudan. When the lawyers checked on the man on Tuesday, they said, they were told that he had already been deported. Elsewhere, they said, a Vietnamese man 'appears to have suffered the same fate.'
They said they wanted Judge Murphy to demand that the Trump administration return the migrants. The lawyers included a pair of documents in the filing, including one Department of Homeland Security document that listed South Sudan as the removal destination for one of the immigrants.
'This morning, they learned from a detention officer via email that N.M.,' the migrant from Myanmar, 'was removed this same morning to South Sudan,' the lawyers said.
In response to that claim, Judge Murphy said he believed it was likely a violation of his previous order issued in April, when he directed the Trump administration not to deport immigrants to countries other than their own without first giving them 15 days' notice to raise concerns that they might face danger there.
Judge Murphy later said that if N.M. was in fact removed to Myanmar rather than South Sudan, his deportation may not have violated his April order. But he still told the administration to be prepared on Wednesday to address the details of his removal.
The chaotic hearing on Tuesday carried echoes of another one in March, presided over by Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington. Judge Boasberg ordered that planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador turn around. They did not. Unlike the migrants in Judge Boasberg's case, who were deported using the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime law, the plaintiffs in the case before Judge Murphy have a 'final order of removal,' meaning their status has already been considered by an immigration court.
The Trump administration has increasingly turned to countries to take on migrants from places around the globe instead of just their own citizens. In the early months of the administration, officials have already deported migrants from the Eastern Hemisphere to Costa Rica and Panama, and have sent migrants from Venezuela to El Salvador under the wartime act.
'We are actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a cabinet meeting at the end of April. He said the United States had pushed the deals and asked countries whether they would take back nationals from other countries 'as a favor to us.'
'And the further away from America, the better, so they can't come back across the border,' he said.
At Tuesday's hearing, Mr. Mazzara resisted a request from the plaintiffs' lawyers that deportees not be shackled while aboard the plane. He said that there were 'at least one rapist and one murderer' aboard the flight, and attributed that claim to what he had been told by other administration officials.
Judge Murphy's April order has already been the subject of much dispute with the Trump administration.
On Friday evening, a federal appeals court that sits over Judge Murphy had rejected the Justice Department's request to put the ruling on hold as the administration sought to challenge it. And immigration lawyers have asked Judge Murphy several times to enforce his order on the Trump administration.
Last month, the lawyers claimed that four men were sent from a U.S. naval base in Cuba to El Salvador without proper notice. And earlier this month, they raised alarms to Judge Murphy that the administration was planning to deport a group of immigrants to Libya without sufficient notice.
Judge Murphy warned the government that the flight to Libya would have violated his order, as well.
'If there is any doubt — the court sees none — the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this court's order,' he wrote.
Over the weekend, the lawyers raised another concern, saying that a Guatemalan man had been sent to Mexico without proper notice or a chance to express his fears about being sent there.
After initially claiming that the man had in fact been told that he was being flown to Mexico, the administration abruptly reversed itself, acknowledging that it could not find any officials who had in fact given the man the proper notice.
The hearing scheduled for Wednesday before Judge Murphy will consider his claims as well.
Carol Rosenberg contributed reporting.
Hashtags

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


Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Democrats itching for fight over immigration
Democrats are diving forcefully into the immigration fight, dismissing concerns about political backlash to confront President Trump directly on a polarizing issue that ranks among the president's strongest suits in the eyes of voters. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is leading the charge. Not only has he waged an animated defense of Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who is facing federal charges following a recent scuffle with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents outside a migrant detention center in New Jersey, but he's also demanding that the masked ICE officers involved in the fracas — and Trump's broader mass deportation campaign — be publicly identified. 'Every single ICE agent who is engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'This is America,' he added. 'This is not the Soviet Union. We're not behind the Iron Curtain. This is not the 1930s. And every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.' The call drew immediate howls from officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Republicans, who have long-accused Democrats of siding with people in the country illegally over the rule of law — a major theme of Trump's successful campaign last year. Many of the GOP critics are accusing Democrats of putting the safety of federal law enforcement officers in jeopardy. 'We take threats to law enforcement very seriously. As the state leading the nation in immigration enforcement, FL will not sit idly by and allow agents from DHS/ICE and/or state and local agencies to be targeted,' Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) posted on X, linking to Jeffries's comments. DeSantis said he's instructed Florida law enforcers to be on the lookout for any 'doxxing' campaigns aimed at law enforcers, and to respond quickly. 'Sabotaging the work of those in the immigration enforcement arena will not stand!' he wrote. Capitol Hill Republicans are piling on. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) this week introduced legislation designed to shield federal law enforcers from doxxing. Violators could face five years in prison. The pushback has done little to dissuade Jeffries, who on Thursday doubled down on his identification push, wondering why those involved in Trump's mass deportation campaign should enjoy privileges of anonymity that others in law enforcement don't. 'It seems to me that the officials at the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE, should be held to the same standards as every other part of law enforcement in terms of transparency,' he said. The strategy has its risks. Trump has built his political brand around an 'America First' message that helped propel him into the White House in 2016 and again in 2024. His 'big, beautiful bill' working its way through Congress includes, as a central feature, an immigration crackdown that helped usher the bill through the House last month. And while Trump's approval rating is underwater across almost every major issue, including the economy, recent polls indicate that his approach to immigration is the sole exception, winning more supporters than detractors. Still, the Democrats' aggressive pushback against Trump's policies is a clear sign that they're not shying away from the immigration issue, regardless of the potential pitfalls. And the de-masking of ICE agents is just one front of a much broader fight they're taking up this year. In recent weeks, Democrats have also rallied behind immigrants deported without due process, including a Maryland resident who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador. They've staged public protests outside migrant detention centers, like the one in Newark that led to McIver's arrest. And top Democrats are up in arms after DHS agents stormed into the district office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and handcuffed a staffer with accusations that aides were 'harboring' immigration 'rioters.' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, characterized the latter incident as 'intolerable.' 'I'm relieved this situation was resolved, but DHS's actions — first, in attempting to enter the office without a warrant or consent, and then proceeding to handcuff and detain a terrified young congressional staffer without cause — were the stuff of police in a banana republic or a gangster state,' Raskin said in an email. 'This outrageous behavior reflects an alarming disregard for the law and a shocking disrespect for the people's House and the lawmaking branch of government,' he continued. 'DHS does not have the authority to barge into congressional offices with vague demands and arrest or intimidate legislative staffers. We will not tolerate such lawlessness.' Raskin and Nadler are pressing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), to stage hearings on the unusual incident. The most recent battleline of the partisan immigration war arrived this week, when Trump announced a travel ban affecting 12 countries. The makeup of the targets — largely African or Middle Eastern countries with mostly non-white populations — were not overlooked by Democrats, some of whom accused the president of using official policy to promote bigotry. 'Make no mistake: Trump's latest travel ban will NOT make America safer,' Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote on X. 'We cannot continue to allow the Trump administration to write bigotry and hatred into U.S. immigration policy.' Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) delivered a similar warning. 'From his first Muslim Ban, Trump's travel bans have always betrayed … the ideals and values that inspired America's Founders,' Beyer posted on X. 'Trump's use of prejudice and bigotry to bar people from entering the U.S. does not make us safer, it just divides us and weakens our global leadership.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. Dec. 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen has accepted responsibility for mishandled line-item vetoes to the state's next two-year budget while reiterating that many of the suggested cuts will be reconsidered in 2026. Pillen, speaking with the Nebraska Examiner after the Legislature adjourned for the year, said the veto process includes 'human beings' in his office, the Clerk of the Legislature's Office and the Secretary of State's Office. On May 21, his office delivered Legislative Bill 261 and LB 264 with line-item vetoes to the Secretary of State's Office, which is the right place for the bills to go when the Legislature is out of session, but not to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office on the other side of the Capitol, which is where bills must be returned when senators are in session. The Governor's Office says LB 261 was line-item vetoed at 1:08 p.m. on May 21 and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's Office said the bills were delivered to that office around 5 p.m. the same day. The Legislature did receive a separate letter from Pillen the night of May 21 detailing the line-item vetoes, as well as a copy of the bills with the inscribed vetoes, but lawmakers contended the next day that a line-item veto is constitutional only with the inscribed vetoes on the actual bills. Those bills remained at the Secretary of State's Office until morning. The Nebraska Constitution requires vetoes to be returned within five days of being presented to the governor, excluding Sundays. The bills passed May 15 and went to Pillen's office at 1:12 p.m., so the deadline was by the end-of-day May 21. Pillen said the mistake on the night of May 21 was 'a miscommunication on where it was supposed to go.' Pillen was in Washington, D.C., the following day, for a 'Make America Healthy Again' event at the White House. 'Bottom line: We made a mistake. I'd have thought, because we all work together, that a flag would have been thrown and said, 'Hey, let's do X,' but there wasn't, and then the glass of milk was spilled the next morning,' Pillen told the Examiner. The intended vetoes targeted $14.5 million to the state's general fund and $18 million in repurposed cash funds for improvements at Lake McConaughy. He sought to save $14.5 million that the Legislature's budget aimed to use from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve by trimming spending — $152 million from the rainy day fund went to help balance the budget. The Nebraska Supreme Court, which faced about $12 million of Pillen's proposed general fund reductions (83%), has said the loss of those funds could close vital court services. This was Pillen's second two-year budget — he vetoed $38.5 million in general fund spending in 2023 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. Lawmakers restored about $850,000 of the trims. Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Speaker of the Legislature John Arch have pledged to clarify the line-item veto process for the budget ahead of 2026, and they've agreed that the suggested reductions should be considered when the budget is adjusted next year. Arch has said that to his knowledge, nothing like this had happened before. Pillen, whose office now insists the matter is resolved, said, 'As I told our team, we look in the mirror, we accept responsibilities. I've not met a human that doesn't make a mistake yet.' Pillen and his staff have declined to detail exactly what happened the night of May 21. Rani Taborek-Potter, a spokesperson for Evnen, said no one from the Secretary of State's Office delivered the actual LB 261 and LB 264 with the line-item vetoes to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, 'nor is it our office's responsibility to do so.' 'When bills are vetoed by the Governor, the vetoed bills are delivered directly to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office by the Governor's office, as was the case for LB 319 and LB 287 to the best of our knowledge,' Taborek-Potter told the Examiner, referring to the two other bills vetoed this session related to expanding SNAP benefit eligibility and fighting bedbugs in Omaha. Taborek-Potter confirmed the Governor's Office delivered the budget bills to the administrative assistant in the Secretary of State's Office just before 5 p.m. on May 21. The Examiner on May 23 requested all records and communications regarding the line-item vetoes from when the budget bills passed May 15 to the date of the records request. The request sought texts, emails and digital messages. It also asked for communications within the executive branch and between Pillen's office and the legislative branch, including staff and state senators. Documents provided in response indicated that Pillen's veto letter detailing his objections was ready by 6:05 p.m., when the state budget administrator, Neil Sullivan, sent it to Pillen's staff. Around 6:27 p.m., Kenny Zoeller, director of the governor's Policy Research Office, the main research and lobbying arm for Pillen, confirmed the letter among gubernatorial staff. 'We are handing this off back to the Legislature POST adjournment,' Zoeller wrote of next steps. 'I will text when it's handed off.' Laura Strimple, the governor's primary spokesperson, sent a draft news release regarding the vetoes at 8:21 p.m. to Sullivan. It was sent to reporters around 11:23 p.m. The Legislature adjourned at 9:20 p.m., and a reporter could see legislative staff discussing the veto letter. Through much of the day on May 22, legislative leadership met off the floor, including Arch. Several emerged just before adjournment at 2:37 p.m. when Arch announced the vetoes could not be accepted and that the Legislature had concluded they were constitutionally improper. Some members of the Appropriations Committee hugged, threw fists in the air and smiled after. Pillen's spokesperson, Strimple, sent a statement to reporters at 4:48 p.m. stating it was the governor's position that Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.' She said the Governor's Office would consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel. The Policy Research Office, executive branch budget staff and other members of the governor's staff met around 5 p.m. on May 22. Strimple sent her statement on the governor's position to all members of the governor's staff at 5:23 p.m., then to lawmakers at 5:53 p.m. On May 27, the next legislative day, Pillen, Arch and Evnen released their joint statement around 2:54 p.m., ending the possible constitutional dispute and returning to their respective corners, with no one taking blame for the situation until Pillen spoke with reporters this week. Pillen's office asserts that it searched texts and digital messages as part of the public records request but found no responsive records, including from Zoeller, who had pledged to text after delivering the veto letter in one of the emails. The Governor's Office provided no records reflecting communications with the legislative branch. None of the records indicate what happened to the bills after being delivered to Evnen's office. Evnen, speaking with the Examiner on Friday, reiterated that the Secretary of State's Office's role with legislation is to file it, and 'when it's brought to our office and we're asked to file it, that's what we do.' 'There's a certain amount of confusion, really between the legislative branch and the Governor's Office, about those line-item vetoes, and I think that what we will do is sit down and talk through together how that will be handled. That's a really good thing to do,' he said. Multiple lawmakers beyond Arch have quietly teased the suggestion with the Examiner, asking how much clearer the process can be. Asked if there was a reason the original bills in the Secretary of State's Office by about 5 p.m. could not be delivered by midnight on May 21, Evnen said: 'You would have to ask the Governor's Office.' Strimple, asked about the remaining timeline on May 21 and May 22, said that with the Arch-Evnen-Pillen joint statement, 'The matter is concluded.' One of the top targets of Gov. Jim Pillen's intended line-item vetoes to the state's budget bills was about $12 million in spending earmarked for the Nebraska Supreme Court. Corey Steel, state court administrator for Nebraska, told lawmakers that the line-item vetoes to the courts could eliminate various services, including three problem-solving courts in Lancaster and Sarpy Counties, a drug court in Gov. Jim Pillen's home of Platte County, transition living reimbursements for certain adults and non-statutory services for juveniles on probation. Pillen told the Examiner that while he has the 'utmost respect' for the separation of powers between Nebraska's branches of government, he believes each one must look at government differently. He said the courts have significantly increased spending and have money sitting around. Steel, as well as Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, have said that position isn't accurate and that increased spending has been in part due to legislation that came without new funds. The judicial branch leaders have said that the 'money' held in various funds is now exhausted. However, Pillen said he's not backing down and that the reductions will be considered in 2026. 'We have to be fiscally responsible,' Pillen said, 'and that's all we're asking.' — Zach Wendling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE