4 detainees unaccounted for after unrest at immigration facility
(NewsNation) — A search is underway Friday for four migrants who went missing from a New Jersey U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The detainees escaped from Delaney Hall in Newark on Thursday amid reports of unrest. Officials are still trying to determine how they managed to escape.
The DHS is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the four individuals who escaped.
Hondurans Franklin Norberto Bautista-Reyes, Joel Enrique Sandoval-Lopez, Joan Sebastian Castaneda-Lozada, and Andres Pineda-Mogollon, from Colombia, are the men on the run, according to the DHS. They are all illegal entrants into the United States, per DHS.
Additional 'law enforcement partners' have been brought in to help locate them, according to a statement attributed to a senior DHS official that was emailed to The Associated Press. DHS did not name the agencies involved.
LA grandma self-deports to Mexico, leaving family behind
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka referenced reports of a possible uprising and escape Thursday night.
'We are concerned about reports of what has transpired at Delaney Hall this evening, ranging from withholding food and poor treatment, to uprising and escaped detainees,' Baraka said in a statement obtained by NewsNation local affiliate WPIX.
Protesters outside the facility locked arms and pushed against barricades, while vehicles moved through the gates, according to the AP.
The Delaney Hall facility, which houses up to 1,000 detainees, opened earlier this year under the Trump administration's immigration enforcement push.
DHS Secretary Noem attends ICE raid at LA County home
Photos and videos from outside the facility showed protesters clashing with security. Mustafa Cetin, who represents a detainee, told NJ.com tensions escalated after delayed meals sparked unrest inside.
'It's about the food, and some of the detainees were getting aggressive, and it turned violent,' attorney Cetin said. 'Based on what he told me, it was an outer wall, not very strong, and they were able to push it down.'
One woman told WNBC-TV she rushed to the center after her detained husband called about a lockdown and a protest over inhumane conditions. She said she's worried for his safety.
Attorneys representing detainees say they've been unable to reach their clients or enter the facility since the incident, according to a spokesperson for the American Friends Service Committee, a nonprofit that advocates for immigrants.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Dem senator's viral outburst at DHS presser triggers mixed reactions from lawmakers: 'Disgusting situation'
House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle gave strong reactions shortly after Sen. Alex Padilla's, D-Calif., viral outburst that got him thrown out of a Department of Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles on Thursday. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida and Jim Jordan of Ohio spoke to Fox News Digital after Padilla was escorted out of the hearing. "That was crazy," Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said. "It's a disgusting situation," Jeffries said. Many Democrats condemned how the Secret Service handcuffed and removed Padilla from the room during the event, with some even calling on Noem to resign. Padilla and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem ended up holding a meeting afterward, which Padilla's office described as "civil," and Noem described as "cordial" despite the strong disagreements between the two. Luna, a Florida Republican, said the viral incident speaks to a larger optics issue with men in the Democratic Party. "I think optics are pretty bad for Democrat men as a whole," Luna said. "I mean, he aggressively was approaching her. Obviously, security saw that as a threat. I know after the fact, she actually was gracious enough after he pulled that to talk with him for a little bit and then exchange numbers. But the fact is that he's a sitting senator, and he's acting like a weirdo. I don't know how else to describe it, other than you should not act like that, period, and especially not show aggression like that towards women," she continued. "I think he was trying to get clickbait, but I don't know about how you were raised, but I was raised that you don't throw temper tantrums, and you certainly don't approach women like that," she continued. Jordan, an Ohio Republican, wondered why Padilla was in Los Angeles instead of Washington, D.C., as the Senate was in session on Thursday. "Well, I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is, why isn't he here voting? I – just like, the Senate's in session. I just did a press conference with senators," he said. "I know they're in session, so why is he here doing that? And then. Second, why not just wait and do your own press conference? Like, the press is there. The cameras are microphones are there. If you wait till Secretary Noem is done, and then you tell them you want to say a few things, you cover him, everyone will cover you, journalists, everyone cover him. So, to me, those are the two takeaways. Why not just do it the common-sense way instead of going in and making a scene," the Republican added. The FBI said that he was let go after he had properly identified himself, as he was not wearing his security pin when he interrupted Noem while trying to ask a question during her remarks. Padilla did state his name and was wearing a shirt that said the U.S. Senate on it. "If this is how this administration responds to a Senator with a question, you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, and to day laborers throughout California and throughout the country. We will hold this administration accountable," he said after the incident. Meanwhile, DHS slammed it as "disrespectful political theater." The press conference was focused on anti-ICE civil unrest in Los Angeles as federal immigration authorities continue arrests of illegal immigrants in the region.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Behind the rumor FIFA canceled 2026 World Cup matches in US due to Trump's immigration policies
A rumor that circulated online in June 2025 claimed FIFA canceled or considered canceling U.S.-hosted 2026 World Cup matches and moving those scheduled events to Mexico or Canada — countries that are already hosting some matches. According to social media users' posts, FIFA, the international soccer governing body, received thousands of complaints from players, coaches and fans who refused to travel to the U.S. due to concerns over stringent immigration policies imposed by President Donald Trump's administration. For example, in early June, a TikTok user published a video (archived) announcing FIFA considered stripping the U.S. of its designation to host 2026 World Cup matches. The clip received nearly 900,000 views. The clip's narrator recounted the story as follows: Breaking news. FIFA is now considering stripping the United States of its right to host the 2026 World Cup, and all fingers are pointing directly at Donald Trump. Trump's latest policies are now threatening America's chance to host the world's biggest sporting event. His immigration crackdowns, trade sanctions, multiple nations have issued boycott threats, sponsors are panicking, and broadcasters fear massive global backlash. What was meant to be a global celebration has now turned into a political minefield under Trump's America First agenda. At the core of FIFA's concern is Trump's refusal to meet their secret demands. No tax breaks, no special visa privileges, and full financial transparency. The backroom deals FIFA has quietly enjoyed for decades are finally being exposed. Will FIFA actually pull the World Cup out of the U.S., or is this just another global power play aiming to punish Trump's refusal to surrender to international pressure? Other users also shared this rumor on Facebook (archived), Instagram (archived), Threads, TikTok (archived) and X (archived). However, searches of Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google and Yahoo, as well as The Associated Press, CNN, Fox News and The Washington Post, found no credible reporting about FIFA canceling or considering relocating U.S.-hosted World Cup matches outside the U.S., at least not as of this writing in early June 2025. Rather, this matter marked the latest chapter of users sharing false or unfounded rumors, including some posts featuring the use of artificial-intelligence (AI) tools. Snopes contacted FIFA's media relations representatives to inquire about the rumor's accuracy and will update this article with more information as it becomes available. The aforementioned lookups of search engines located some relevant news regarding Trump's policies and the 2026 World Cup, though again no reports confirmed the central claim about FIFA deciding to move U.S.-hosted games to Canada or Mexico. For example, in March, FIFA President Gianni Infantino met with Trump at the White House, with FIFA reporting Trump reaffirmed support for the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and 2026 World Cup tournaments. On April 25, The Associated Press reported U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a member of the Democratic Party in Oregon, asked the Trump administration to reconsider policies impacting travelers arriving in the U.S., including citing upcoming sporting events like the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. In early May, NBC News reported members of Trump's Cabinet warned World Cup visitors to the U.S. not to overstay their visas. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also cast the tournament as "an opportunity for the world to become a friendlier place," adding, "We will take care of their documentation and travel documents, and it will go smoothly. And we will make sure that they can come and enjoy and bring their families and friends and make memories together." On May 13, Politico (archived) reported the details of a letter (archived) the Human Rights Watch organization addressed to Infantino. The letter cited Human Rights Watch's "grave concerns" about Trump's immigration policies, and urged Infantino to be "prepared to reconsider the hosting decision" if the safety of fans and players couldn't be guaranteed. Other reports told of concerns about long visa appointment wait times, as well as European countries issuing travel advisories for the U.S. Two days later, on May 15, Reuters (archived) reported Infantino reassured that "the world is welcome in America," referencing the 2025 and 2026 tournaments. Trump's travel ban, which targets 12 countries and adds restrictions on others, includes exceptions for "any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State." For further reading, a previous fact check examined the time Budweiser deleted a social media post around the time of an announcement concerning the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Associated Press News: Breaking News | Latest News Today. Baio, Ariana. "Fears That Trump Reforms Could Keep World Cup 2026 Fans out of the US." The Independent, 31 Jan. 2025, Boykoff, Jules, and Dave Zirin. "With ICE Out of Control, How Can the US Cohost the 2026 World Cup?" The Nation, 31 Mar. 2025, "Breaking News, Latest News and Videos." CNN, Cai, Sophia, et al. "Trump Ramps up Plans for 2026 World Cup amid Friction with Neighbors: 'Tensions Are a Good Thing.'" Politico, 8 May 2025, Cooper, Jonathan J. "Trump Will Lead Task Force Preparing for 2026 World Cup." The Associated Press, 7 Mar. 2025, "DuckDuckGo - Protection. Privacy. Peace of Mind." DuckDuckGo, Dunbar, Graham. "What the Trump Travel Ban Means for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games." The Associated Press, 5 June 2025, "Find out When a TikTok Was Posted with This Free Tool." Trevor Fox, Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Video. Google. Leira, Javier. "US Will Welcome International Fans for World Cup, Says FIFA President." Reuters, 15 May 2025, "Letter to FIFA Re. Human Rights Responsibilities in 2026 World Cup." Human Rights Watch, 6 May 2025, Microsoft Bing. Peterson, Anne M. "Wyden Asks Trump Administration Officials to Reconsider Travel Policies Ahead of the World Cup." The Associated Press, 25 Apr. 2025, "Restricting The Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats." The White House, 4 June 2025, Tabet, Alex. "Trump's Cabinet Members Warn FIFA World Cup Visitors Not to Overstay Their Visas." NBC News, 6 May 2025, The Washington Post. "US President Donald Trump Reaffirms Support for FIFA Tournaments during Meeting with Gianni Infantino." Inside FIFA, 7 Mar. 2025, "View the FIFA World Cup 26TM Match Schedule." FIFA, Walker, Ali. "Top Human Rights Group Challenges FIFA over Trump and 2026 World Cup." POLITICO, 13 May 2025, Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
JOHN YOO: 'No Kings Day' protests: Trump has constitutional, legal power to keep the peace
Protesters are gathering Saturday in hundreds of cities and towns for a "day of defiance" of the Trump administration. They have a First Amendment right to voice their criticism of the nation's policies. But if the protests escalate from speech to violence, President Donald Trump has the constitutional and legal power to use troops to restore basic law and order. Anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles in the last week have put the need for decisive presidential action on full display. Television news has shown scenes of violence that seeks to obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law. Protesters have launched riots to block and forcibly enter federal buildings, attacked federal officers, and prevented DHS agents from carrying out arrests. They have shut down freeways and blocked traffic. The riots have spread to other cities, such as Austin, Chicago, New York and Denver. Video of the mayhem on TV has shown obvious efforts to stop DHS from apprehending and removing illegal aliens under federal immigration laws. In response, President Donald Trump this week called up 2,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Rather than welcome federal assistance to restore order, Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom greeted the troops with hostility. He declared the deployment "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act" and accused President Trump of undertaking "the acts of a dictator, not a President," and dared federal authorities to arrest him. Contrary to the inflammatory rhetoric of Newsom and other California officials, the initial military deployment rests well within the president's powers. Trump declared that the mission of the military units is to "temporarily protect" federal agents in Los Angeles "and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests . . . are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations." So far, Los Angeles 2025 has not yet collapsed into the chaos of Los Angeles 1992. The administration today is not replacing the states' responsibility to maintain basic public safety. Instead, Trump is enforcing federal immigration law; in fact, the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States (2012) has declared that only federal officials may carry out immigration law and policy. The Supreme Court has long recognized the presidential power to use the military to protect federal law enforcement officers carrying out federal law. In In re Neagle (1890), the Supreme Court upheld the use of force by a federal marshal who killed an attacker of a Supreme Court Justice. Even though no law authorized the use of force, the Court ordered the marshal freed: We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle that the government of the United States may, by means of physical force, exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil the powers and functions that belong to it. This necessarily involves the power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace. Because of federal supremacy over the matters entrusted to it by the Constitution, the president has the power to protect the security of the officials who carry it out. In the face of nineteenth-century labor strife, the Supreme Court expanded Neagle to include not just the protection of federal personnel, but also their functions. In 1894, union organizers and workers sought to block all trains using Pullman railcars, effectively halting all trains nationwide. President Grover Cleveland ordered U.S. troops to prevent the obstruction of trains carrying the mail. In In re Debs (1895), the Court approved these measures: "The entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights intrusted by the constitution to its care. The federal government could use even the military, if necessary. "If the emergency arises, the army of the nation, and all its militia, are at the service of the nation, to compel obedience to its laws," Justice Brewer concluded. Congress ratified this authority in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the president to call the National Guard into federal service not just in cases of invasion or rebellion, but also when he "is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." This fits within the exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally forbids the use of the military to engage in domestic law enforcement except when "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." The president's use of the military to protect federal personnel and facilities is defensive in nature. Force will only arise if rioters attack. But President Trump has the power to convert this mission from one of defense into actively carrying out immigration law detentions and overcoming obstruction of justice. Congress granted this authority to intervene, even without the agreement of governors, under the Insurrection Act of 1807. For the Act to apply, disorder must rise to the level of an "insurrection" that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." Under this law, Dwight Eisenhower sent the armed forces into Little Rock when Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus refused to desegregate the city's public schools. President George H.W. Bush invoked the law, at California Gov. Pete Wilson's request, to send troops to restore order in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots. President Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act should disorder spread beyond the attacks on ICE and DHS officers and facilities to a broader collapse of law and order. Critics will suggest that there is a racial motive afoot because Trump is allegedly targeting illegal aliens, their minority communities, and blue inner-cities. But the power to protect the federal government and enforce the law is color blind. Presidents used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Congress originally banned the use of federal troops for law enforcement because of the South's demand to end the Union's occupation after the Civil War (the end of Reconstruction is one of Washington, D.C.'s greatest failures). If critics want the federal government to have the power to enforce civil rights laws against recalcitrant states, they also must concede to President Trump the power to carry out federal immigration laws. If protesters, California officials, and Democratic leaders want to change immigration policy, the answer lies not in obstructing a federal government carrying out an agenda ratified in the last election. Instead, they should rely on the tools bequeathed by the Founders: Congress's authority over funding, legislation, and oversight, the national political system, and, ultimately, elections.
