Federal agents briefly detain aide at New York Rep. Jerry Nadler's office during nearby protests against migrant detentions
Federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security handcuffed and briefly detained a staff member in New York Rep. Jerry Nadler's Manhattan district office on Wednesday, according to a statement released by the congressman.
Video taken by a person inside Nadler's office, obtained and reported by Gothamist, shows one of his aides being handcuffed by an agent with the Federal Protective Service while another agent tries to access an area inside the office.
In the footage, a second staffer stands in front of the agent and asks if he has a warrant. 'You're harboring rioters in the office,' the federal agent is heard telling her, before walking in. In the background, the handcuffed aide is heard crying while someone tries to comfort her.
The agents allegedly entered Nadler's office because they were told protesters were present and the agents 'were concerned about the safety' of employees in the office, the Department of Homeland Security told CNN in a statement on Saturday.
Activists on Wednesday were protesting outside of Varick Immigration Court — located on a different floor of the same building as Nadler's office — in opposition to the detention of migrants at the courthouse by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Upon the officers' arrival, they identified themselves and said they were conducting a security check when 'one individual became verbally confrontational and physically blocked access to the office,' the statement said.
'The officers then detained the individual in the hallway for the purpose of completing the security check. All were released without further incident,' DHS said.
The incident occurred as the Trump administration has taken extraordinary measures to crack down on immigration, aggressively pressuring Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pick up the pace of migrant arrests and touting mass deportation plans.
Nadler called the incident 'deeply troubling' in a Saturday statement and confirmed Department of Homeland Security officers 'forcefully' entered his office and handcuffed the staff member.
'President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are sowing chaos in our communities, using intimidation tactics against both citizens and non-citizens in a reckless and dangerous manner,' he said, adding the incident showed a 'deeply troubling disregard for proper legal boundaries.'
'If this can happen in a Member of Congress's office, it can happen to anyone – and it is happening,' Nadler said.
'I call on President Trump and DHS to halt the use of these dangerous tactics and to abandon use of the expedited removal process which denies due process to immigrants and citizens alike,' the New York representative said.
Robert Gottheim, Nadler's chief of staff, told the New York Times they reject the Department of Homeland Security's version of events, suggesting the agents appeared angry because members of Nadler's staff witnessed the officers detaining migrants inside the building, and because staffers had invited advocates who saw the detentions to the congressman's office.
'The Trump administration is trying to intimidate members of Congress,' Nadler told the New York Times on Saturday. 'They're behaving like fascists.'
Twenty-three people were taken into custody during Wednesday's protest, according to police, CNN affiliate CBS New York reported. CNN has reached out to the New York Police Department for comment and additional information regarding the arrests.
Protesters told CBS New York they began demonstrating after witnesses reported that several people were taken into custody inside the ICE field office in SoHo.
'I've never seen anything like this. I've been working here for a couple years and I've never seen this many agents, let alone agents dressed in plain clothes, wearing masks, pulling people out of line. It's totally out of the ordinary,' a man named Ben told CBS New York.
Videos taken at the protests showed how tensions escalated when officers and demonstrators clashed over the barricades.
'People say, 'Oh, let them come in legally,' and when they try to come in legally and follow court proceedings they're being kidnapped,' a woman named Mariposa told CBS New York.
The White House is putting intense pressure on law enforcement agencies across the government to meet a goal of one million deportations per year, leading to a surge of agents and officers across the federal government focusing their attention on arrests and deportation efforts.
In New York City, activists have intensified their efforts to protest the rising number of migrant deportations, staging multiple demonstrations in opposition of the administration's controversial moves against immigrants.
One of the latest incidents was the arrest of a 20-year-old New York City public school student named Dylan, a Venezuelan national who was detained by ICE on May 21 after a hearing in federal immigration court regarding his asylum request, CNN affiliate WABC reported.
'Dylan is a 20-year-old student who followed our legal process and is trying to get an education and provide for his family,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said on X. 'ICE took advantage of his court date to arrest him. It's despicable.'
Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson released a statement on Wednesday demanding 'accountability' for Dylan and slammed the Trump administration, who she said is unfairly targeting and exploiting immigrant families.
'Dylan did everything right. He enrolled in school in our Borough and got his license to obtain a delivery job to take care of his younger siblings,' Gibson wrote. 'It is outrageous and horrible to learn he was detained by federal authorities last week during a court appearance. This is unacceptable and nothing short of an injustice.'
Advocates report that under the Trump administration, it's becoming more frequent for ICE to detain migrants at their immigration court appearances.
'It's a catch-22. You don't show up for your court hearing then you could also be ordered removed from the country and deported,' Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, told CBS New York.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges dismisses California's tariff case so it can be tried in CIT
June 3 (UPI) -- A federal judge has dismissed California's lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs, paving the way for the case to be transferred to the Court of International Trade. The ruling on Monday is a partial win for both sides, as the Trump administration had requested that the lawsuit be transferred to the New York-based court, while California had asked for the case to be dismissed so it could be appealed to the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if necessary. "We strongly believe this case belongs in federal district court and are pleased the court considered our wishes in dismissing this case so we have the opportunity to seek review," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. California filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration in mid-April asking the court to declare Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs illegal and unenforceable by federal agents on the grounds that the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose them is unconstitutional. Trump imposed tariffs under the IEEPA of 1977, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, grants the president sweeping authority to regulate economic transactions after declaring a national emergency -- which he did, citing a "large and persistent trade deficit" as well as drugs coming into the country. California filed its lawsuit arguing that tariffs are not among the tools the IEEPA authorizes the president to use. It also said the tariffs would harm California, the nation's largest importer and second-largest exporter. In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said she dismissed the case because the Court of International Trade is the proper venue for it. "Because California requests dismissal rather than transfer to the CIT, transfer is not in the interest of justice," she said.


News24
18 minutes ago
- News24
‘Epitome of luxury living': PPA boss' house for rent, says he plans to come back to CT
Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Start your FREE trial now


Chicago Tribune
21 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Shadi Bartsch: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer simple us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? Eli J. Finkel: Can universities take the fear out of debate in our hostile climate?The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place.