Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell stands behind doxing ICE agents even after officials said his actions put them in danger
The Democratic mayor of Tennessee's largest city, who has been accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts, defended his office's decision to publicly dox the names of immigration officers.
Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell's defense came even after the names of federal immigration officials were removed from a public immigration report detailing a month's worth of immigration-related interactions between local police and federal immigration authorities.
Initially, the public report detailed immigration officers' names, but following backlash over the move the names were taken down.
'I wouldn't say it was an endangerment process, I would say they may have some concerns – I'm far more concerned about the overall dynamic we have about unmarked, unidentifiable masked people whisking people into vehicles – i think that's a bigger concern,' O'Connell, who is currently under investigation by GOP House lawmakers for potentially interfering with federal immigration efforts, said during a press conference with reporters.
O'Connell did add the move was not 'intentional,' but then quickly followed up that he wouldn't have described what happened as 'doxing' in the first place.
'It's not a process that I would characterize as doxing. It was an unintentional release of names that were already part of a public record,' he told reporters. 'They were already part of a public record by being in Department of Emergency Communication's calls, so I don't think it puts them at additional risk. But it's also not an intention of the executive order under which those names are released.'
Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell was accused of obstructing federal immigration efforts.
WireImage
Fox News Digital reached out to O'Connell's office for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
Larry Adams, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Field Office Director, told local Fox affiliate in Nashville WZTV that ICE agents disagree that making their names public is not a risk, noting their faces can easily be matched to photos on social media.
'It has gotten more and more difficult,' Adams said of his job under the new administration's aggressive deportation tactics, during a ride along with WZTV that occurred last week. 'What affects me the most, is we understand the job we are doing, we understand what we sign up for, it's mostly the attacks or threats against our families.'
After Tennessee Republican Congressman Rep. Andy Ogles requested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigate the Nashville mayor over allegedly obstructing federal officials, the agency followed through and opened an investigation.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers gathered at the DHS field office in Nashville on May 4, 2025.
REUTERS
Meanwhile, two congressional committees are also investigating him, including requesting documents related to O'Connell's Executive Order 30, which has required city departments to report federal immigration communications to the city of Nashville's Office of New Americans.
In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin remarked at the danger associated with doxing federal immigration officers, noting that the act effectively handed cartels intelligence 'on a silver platter.'
'These are the tip of the spear, these are the people on the front lines trying to make our communities safer,' McLaughlin said. 'So, when Democrats and the media show us who they are, we'll believe them, and it's the fact that they're fighting for people like MS-13 and child rapists to be on American streets.'
According to local news outlet, the Tennessee Lookout, McLaughlin has also clapped back at O'Connell's claims that the release of immigration officials' names was a mistake.
'They claimed it was a mistake. There's zero chance it was a mistake, and there will be repercussions,' she said, according to the outlet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
The Tribune's Quotes of the Week quiz for June 21
Summer temperatures are officially here, Chicago. A heat wave is moving across the region this weekend, with potentially record-breaking temperatures and dangerously high humidity. Luckily, the city's pools reopened just in time. For the first time since the pandemic, Chicago's outdoor public pools will be open seven days a week this summer. What else happened this week? Let's jump in. President Donald Trump left the the Group of Seven summit in Canada early as the war between Israel and Iran intensified. The president said he will decide the level of U.S. involvement in the conflict within two weeks. The Federal Reserve also kept its key rate unchanged this week, waiting to see how new tariffs will impact the economy. On Sunday, the man suspected of shooting two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses was taken into custody following a two-day manhunt. Several prominent Illinois politicians were among the names listed in the alleged shooter's notebooks. Tensions over immigration continued to flare this week. Following news that President Trump was directing federal immigration officials to ramp up deportations in Democratic-run cities and possibly targeting Chicago with a military response similar to Los Angeles, Mayor Brandon Johnson warned that such a move would be challenged in the courts, saying the president should respect the Constitution. And several Illinois Democratic congressmen were denied entry at an ICE facility in suburban Broadview, despite demands to check on the conditions of the detainees held there. In state financing news, Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Illinois budget Monday, while Cook County projected a $211 million shortfall for 2026. Funding for Chicago-area transit also remains unresolved in Springfield — as does the question of who will lead the Chicago Transit Authority. The Tribune discovered this week that the mayor didn't conduct a national search for a replacement for Dorval Carter, who left the CTA earlier this year, despite claiming otherwise. As the school year comes to a close, Pedro Martinez's tenure as Chicago Public Schools CEO is over. In his final week as schools chief, Martinez delivered remarks at the City Club about his time leading the district. Summer break often means more large gatherings of young people downtown. In an effort to curb these sometimes violent and chaotic 'teen takeovers,' Chicago City Council narrowly passed an ordinance that would give the police superintendent the power to declare a 'snap curfew' anytime, anywhere. On Wednesday, Mayor Johnson said he would veto the measure and on Friday, followed through on that promise, issuing the first mayoral veto in nearly two decades. Preparations for this year's NASCAR street race have begun, but will the race be held in Chicago again next year? The Tribune reported this week that a tourism commission in Southern California is currently in negotiations to move the race to San Diego. In other news from the world of sports and entertainment, the Chicago Fire offered a detailed look this week at their stadium plans, Cubs legend Sammy Sosa returned to Wrigley Field and the James Beard Awards were announced. Plus, a popular gay bar in Chicago's Northalsted neighborhood could soon have another location at O'Hare International Airport. If the proposal is approved, Sidetrack would be the first LGBTQ+ bar in a U.S. airport. That's all for this week! Here's the Tribune's Quotes of the Week quiz from June 15 to 21. Missed last week? You can find it here or check out our past editions of Quotes of the Week. Until next time, stay cool, stay hydrated and be safe out there, Chicago!
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
In US court, due process rulings have been word for word
In orders asserting their Advertisement They pointed to language in a landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of undocumented children to a free public education, which reads: 'even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.' US District Judge Indira Talwani, in an order issued April 28, was the first to stress the constitutional rights of immigrants, when she prevented the government from transferring an immigrant to another jurisdiction. The next day, Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote a nearly identical order, then a dozen other judges adopted that language in orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants who filed habeas petitions. The rulings have provided critical relief for immigrants in Massachusetts at a time when many are immediately being shipped to detention facilities hundreds of miles away or deported without a hearing, according to advocates. Advertisement 'It's been heartening to see,' said attorney Benjamin Tymann, who represents several immigrants who filed habeas petitions. 'These are completely reasonable orders for judges to put in place because all they are saying is, 'OK, let's hit pause' ... and make the government make some showing on the merits of their arrest.'' Immigration lawyers have accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement of moving immigrants across the country to disrupt or delay efforts to challenge their arrests and removal from the United States, and to place them under the jurisdiction of more conservative federal courts. In one case, US District Judge Denise Casper temporarily barred the government from transferring 25-year-old Luis Fernando Olmos Ramirez while she considered his claim that ICE violated his rights when its agents arrested him in Lynn on May 24. Tymann argued there was 'no lawful basis' to arrest Ramirez, who was granted special immigrant juvenile status after coming to the United States from his native El Salvador as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and has since lived with his father in Lynn. He has no criminal record and has an application pending for a Green card, according to Tymann. In her order, Casper wrote that relocating Ramirez to a facility outside Massachusetts 'will exponentially increase the risks that he will be further deprived of due process and unlawfully removed from the United States to dangerous conditions in El Salvador or elsewhere.' On June 10, Ramirez voluntarily dismissed his petition after an immigration judge released him on bond. But Tymann credits Casper's intervention with paving the way for his release. Advertisement 'Without the no-transfer order, he may have been sent to Texas or somewhere else,' Tymann said. US Attorney Leah Foley, whose office represents the government in habeas petition cases, acknowledged in a statement that the Supreme Court 'has established that all persons in the United States have Constitutional protections, regardless of their immigration status.' She said her office has no authority to tell ICE where to house immigrants in its custody, but immediately forwards the agency the judges' orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants. A spokesperson for ICE did not respond to requests for comment about the habeas petitions and allegations that agents have made unlawful arrests. But the agency has made clear that it has worked to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said during a press conference last month that agents were targeting dangerous and violent criminals, but will arrest anyone they encounter who is in the country illegally. And he argued that their rights are not being violated. 'ICE doesn't just scoop people off the street and remove them,' Lyons said. 'Everyone gets due process and that is what the US attorney's office is for. It's what the immigration courts are for.' Some of the petitions before US District Court judges were filed by people who entered the country without permission, then surrendered themselves to immigration officials and had been allowed to remain free as they pursued lawful status. They allege they were arrested without probable cause or due process while driving to work or dropping their children off at school. Advertisement In some cases, petitioners allege they were leaving the Chelmsford immigration court after judges set hearings for a future date, only to be arrested in the hallways by immigration agents and told they were facing expedited removal from the country. 'What we are seeing in this country is just an assault on the rule of law,' said attorney Todd Pomerleau, whose Boston firm, Rubin Pomerleau, filed habeas petitions on behalf of five immigrants in recent weeks. One of Pomerleau's clients, Andre Damasio Ferreira, 40, was born in Brazil, came to the United States nearly 20 years ago, and lives in Everett with his wife, who is battling cancer. Their two children, 13 and 8, are US citizens. Ferreira, who works for a flooring company, was a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by a co-worker on May 30 when they were stopped by armed ICE agents who demanded to see their passports and questioned them about their immigration status, according to Pomerleau. Ferreira was arrested and is being held at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility pending removal proceedings. US District Judge William G. Young issued an order June 5 temporarily blocking Ferreira's transfer out of state, using the same language as his colleagues while stressing Ferreira's constitutional rights. Young wrote that although federal district courts don't generally have jurisdiction to review orders of removal by an immigration court, they do have jurisdiction over violations of the Constitution. The government argued in court filings on June 12 that Ferreira's arrest was lawful and urged Young to dismiss his petition. ICE agents stopped Ferreira because he looked like someone else they were targeting, then discovered he was unlawfully present in the country and had previously been removed in 2005, according to the government. The judge has yet to rule on the case. Advertisement In at least two cases, immigrants were mistakenly transferred — one to Louisiana and the other to Mississippi — in violation of judges' orders, according to court filings. The US attorney's office apologized and the petitioners were brought back to the state. Though judges have issued orders halting transfers by the Trump administration as early as January, they specifically began adopting the language reinforcing immigrants' constitutional rights after the arrest of Tufts PhD student She was arrested by masked ICE agents outside her Somerville apartment in March. By the time her lawyers filed last month, a federal judge in Vermont ordered her released, while he considers her claim that the government violated her free speech and due process rights. 'Now we are seeing a lot more detentions that violate due process rights and that's not an issue that immigration judges are usually able to address,' said Shantanu Chatterjee, a Chelsea attorney who has filed habeas petitions on behalf of several immigrants. He said more immigration lawyers are seeking relief for their clients in federal district courts. The flurry of rulings 'sends a message to everyone that Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
