Comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander arrested by ICE at Federal Plaza in NYC
City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by ICE agents Tuesday in a chaotic scene outside a federal immigration court, his mayoral campaign confirmed.
Video showed Lander repeatedly demanding to see a judicial warrant for a man being hauled away by immigration agents – all while he kept his hand clutched on the detainee's shoulder.
After Lander refused to let go, a voice could be heard saying, 'Take him in,' prompting agents to cuff him.
'You don't have the authority to arrest US citizens,' Lander repeated in protest, according to video shared by an amNY reporter.
Sources told The Post that Lander was arrested on an obstruction of governmental administration charge.
Lander, who is running for the Democratic mayoral nomination, had been at the federal court to observe immigration proceedings after President Trump's recent call for ICE to target New York City.
Advertisement
'While escorting a defendant out of immigration court at 26 Federal Plaza, Brad Lander was taken by masked agents and detained by ICE,' said Lander spokesperson Dora Pekec. 'This is still developing and we are monitoring the situation closely.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
28 minutes ago
Lawmakers aim to stop U.S. from joining Israel's military campaign against Iran
As Israel and Iran continue to trade strikes in the Middle East, lawmakers are set to introduce bills and resolution aimed at preventing the United States from getting involved in Israel's military campaign against Iran. While the efforts are in their early stages, the legislation is unlikely to garner sufficient support to override the will of President Donald Trump and his supportive Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Monday introduced a resolution he says will "prevent war with Iran" as he expresses concern at the idea that the U.S may get involved in Israel's campaign against Iran. 'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,' Kaine, D-Va., said. 'The American people have no interest in sending service members to fight another forever war in the Middle East. This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress.' Separately, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act on Monday to "prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran absent specific Congressional authorization." Sanders has several co-sponsors including Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Tina Smith of Minnesota. '[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war. Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu's war of choice,' Sanders wrote in a statement. 'Our Founding Fathers entrusted the power of war and peace exclusively to the people's elected representatives in Congress, and it is imperative that we make clear that the President has no authority to embark on another costly war without explicit authorization by Congress.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune avoided saying whether he would put Kaine's resolution on the Senate floor when asked on Tuesday. He said that any action on the matter would be 'getting the cart ahead of the horse,' but that there could be a more 'fulsome discussion' later on what the role of Congress should be amid the conflict. 'This is something that's happened the last few days. I think the President is perfectly within his authority in the steps that he has taken. You know clearly, if this thing were to extend for some period of time, there could be a more fulsome discussion about what the role of Congress should be, and and and whether or not we need to take action,' Thune said. A resolution is a statement or expression of a sentiment that, if passed, has no legal authority. An act has legal authority, but even if passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, it would have to be signed into law by Trump. In the House, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie joined California Democrat Ro Khanna to introduce a bipartisan War Powers resolution on Tuesday meant to ensure that Congress asserts its constitutional authority to declare war under 50 U.S. Code Ch. 33. "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie said. "I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution." Khanna, one of the bill's initial cosponsors, quote tweeted Massie's post, calling for "No war in Iran," and equating the current situation in Iran to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "No war in Iran. It's time for every member to go on record. Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?" Khanna posted. "I am proud to co-lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie that is privileged and must receive a vote," Shortly after Massie's and Khanna's posts, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Squad member Rashida Tlaib of Michigan expressed their support for the effort. Ocasio-Cortez, in a reply to Massie, said that she would be "signing on," to the resolution. In her post, Tlaib, said that the American people wouldn't fall for "it" again, contrasting today's debate on Iran's nuclear capabilities to October of 2002, when Congress approved a bipartisan Authorization for the Use of Military Force ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "I look forward to supporting this War Powers Resolution. The American people aren't falling for it again," Tlaib said. "We were lied to about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq that killed millions (plus) forever changed lives. It's (unconstitutional) for Trump to go to war without a vote in Congress."
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Bombs the US Could Deploy If Trump Strikes Iran
(Bloomberg) -- US President Donald Trump has a wide range of military assets in the Middle East and across the globe to bring to bear in a potential fight against Iran as he weighs one of the most momentous foreign policy decisions of his administration. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' As Part of a $45 Billion Push, ICE Prepares for a Vast Expansion of Detention Space How E-Scooters Conquered (Most of) Europe As American Architects Gather in Boston, Retrofits Are All the Rage Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown That arsenal includes powerfully destructive bombs, long-range stealth bombers, an aircraft carrier strike group, Navy destroyers and US troops — offering Trump multiple options if he decides to intervene more directly in support of Israel. Some resources like the B-2 bomber are in the US while other assets are either in the region or on the way. It's unclear whether Trump will deepen US involvement beyond helping Israel defend against Iranian air attacks as he has done in recent days. On Tuesday afternoon, the president gathered his national security staff for a White House Situation Room meeting. The administration, though, has been surging military resources to US Central Command, which oversees the Pentagon's operations in the region. And forces already in the area include naval and air power that could play a crucial role in any US action against Iran. The Islamic Republic has already suffered its worst assault in decades, with Israel's strikes on the country's nuclear and military infrastructure damaging key facilities and killing senior personnel. One weapon, though, is seen as particularly effective if the situation were to escalate and draw the direct involvement of the US. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator or 'MOP' — better known as the bunker-buster bomb — weighs 30,000 pounds and is the world's largest precision-guided weapon. The GPS-directed bomb, assembled by Boeing Co., has been touted repeatedly as the only weapon capable of delivering a knockout blow to Tehran's atomic ambitions, which would require a successful strike on the heavily protected enrichment site at Fordow. Hidden beneath a mountain and believed to be buried around 60 to 90 meters deep, many experts believe that damaging Fordow can be achieved only by the MOP — a weapon the US alone possesses. Each bunker buster can be independently targeted and released, 'making it possible to deliver a MOP right on top of another MOP,' said Rebecca Grant, a Lexington Institute analyst. Grant said drone surveillance in the area could also help the military 'refine the strike' at the last minute and noted that Iranian nuclear facilities such as Fordow have been studied by the US for years. The decision on whether to use that weapon is poised to be one of the most critical Trump makes. The bomb could alter Iran's decision-making over its nuclear program and because its deployment would involve American planes and pilots it would place the US at the center of an offensive military action. 'If Israel can achieve that result through its operations, that is the best case,' said Daniel Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel and onetime deputy assistant defense secretary. 'But if it requires US participation to target the Fordow facility, that has to be on the table for President Trump to consider.' Stealth Bombers Deploying the MOP would involve another crucial military asset, the B-2 stealth bomber, which can carry two of them. The B-2 would fly thousands of miles from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to deliver the bombs deep within Iran. The US demonstrated the power of its B-2 fleet in October, when bombers flew from Whiteman to hammer Iran-backed Houthi weapons facilities buried underground. Earlier this year, as many as six B-2s were spotted on a runway on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in a deployment that was interpreted by many as a message to both Iran and the Houthis. The Air Force said those aircraft returned to their base in May. US Central Command, which oversees the longstanding US military presence in the Middle East, would play a key role in any operations on Iran, with responsibility for a force spread across multiple countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and drawing on troops from different military services and special operations forces. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has 'directed the deployment of additional capabilities' to the command. The administration is also sending as many as 20 KC-135 and newer KC-46 aerial refueling tankers to undisclosed locations, according to a defense official, helping extend the range of US air power. Those resources would offer Trump additional flexibility in determining his course of action. US personnel in the region, including Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy servicemembers, number 40,000-45,000, according to the most recent Central Command figures. The Navy is also poised to be a critical component, with resources that can both aid any action on Iran and have already been employed to help protect Israel from retaliatory strikes. The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group has been in the region of the Arabian Sea for seven months. The ship carries about 3,000 sailors, according to the Navy, with another 2,000 in its air wing. The air wing boasts an extensive array of military hardware, including F-35 and F-18 fighter jets, EA-18 aircraft that can disrupt enemy radar and communication systems, E-2Ds with advanced radar to help identity threats more quickly, as well as Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and Sea Hawk helicopters. In addition to the centerpiece carrier, the group also includes a guided-missile cruiser, the USS Princeton, and guided-missile destroyers. Another strike group headed by the USS Nimitz is scheduled to relieve the Vinson and is currently in the Indo-Pacific, offering additional forces. The Navy has three Aegis missile defense destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean — the USS Arleigh Burke, USS The Sullivans and the USS Thomas Hudner, with two more vessels arriving shortly, according to a defense official. Two additional destroyers are in the Red Sea. A US official said the Arleigh Burke and The Sullivans fired numerous SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors over the weekend to help defend Israel. An Army unit in the region also fired THAAD interceptors at Iranian ballistic missiles, according to another official. --With assistance from Natalia Drozdiak. Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software US Allies and Adversaries Are Dodging Trump's Tariff Threats ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court hears arguments in National Guard deployment in Los Angeles
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco heard arguments Tuesday afternoon on whether the Trump administration should return control of National Guard troops to California after they were deployed following protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids. The hearing comes after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by the administration last week to temporarily pause a lower court order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of the soldiers to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who filed a lawsuit over the deployment. Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by Trump, started the hearing held via video by asking the federal government's attorney, Brett Shumate, whether the Department of Justice's position is that the courts have no role in reviewing the president's decision to call the National Guard. 'No, there's no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision,' Shumate answered. 'The statute says the president may call on federal service members and units of the Guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary,' Shumate said, adding that 'couldn't be any more clear.' Shumate pointed out the ongoing protests in Los Angeles and said the Guard is necessary to protect federal officers and buildings. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco ruled last week that the Guard deployment was illegal and exceeded Trump's authority. He granted Newsom a temporary restraining order to take control of the Guard while his lawsuit proceeds. It applied only to the National Guard troops and not the Marines, who were also deployed to LA but had not been sent to the streets at the time of the ruling. The Trump administration argued the deployment was necessary to restore order and protect federal buildings and officers. In his lawsuit, Newsom accused the president of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources. The governor calls the federal government's decision to take command of the state's National Guard 'illegal and immoral.' Newsom filed the suit following days of unrest as demonstrators protested against federal immigration raids across the city. Newsom said ahead of the hearing that he was confident in the rule of law and encouraged by a federal judge's order last week that Trump return control of the National Guard to California, before that ruling was halted. 'I'm confident that common sense will prevail here: The U.S. military belongs on the battlefield, not on American streets,' Newsom said in a statement. Breyer ruled the Trump violated the use of Title 10, which allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, said in his ruling that what has been happening in Los Angeles does not meet the definition of a rebellion. 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' he wrote. 'Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.' The National Guard hasn't been activated without a governor's permission since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. ___ This story has been updated to correct the spelling of the judge's last name to Bennett, not Benett. ___ Associated Press writer Sophie Austin contributed from Sacramento, California. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
