Democrats outraged with DHS after Nadler staffer handcuffed
The simmering tensions between the Trump administration and House Democrats are threatening to boil over after agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) forced their way into the office of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).
The incident, which happened last week, led to the brief detention of one of Nadler's staffers by DHS agents, who said they had entered the congressman's Manhattan office searching for 'protesters.' One agent accused Nadler aides of 'harboring rioters.'
The episode has infuriated Nadler and other Democrats in the Capitol, who have long accused President Trump of ignoring the separation of powers and crashing through legal guardrails, particularly in his effort to deport people living in the country illegally. Recently, the administration has escalated its deportation campaign with an aggressive new strategy of arresting people at immigration courts, where claims of asylum are typically heard.
On Monday, Nadler called the administration's conduct 'outrageous,' and accused DHS of 'lying' about the details surrounding the episode. He's calling for an investigation into what he considers an abuse of executive power to target political adversaries.
'They barged in. And in barging in one of the offices, a very big, heavyset fellow pushed my aide — a very petite young woman — and they then said that she pushed back and they shackled her and took her downstairs,' Nadler told CNN on Monday.
'And she was obviously traumatized.'
It's not the first time the sides have clashed over Trump's deportation policies. Last month, the Justice Department arrested the Democratic mayor of Newark, N.J., at a migrant detention facility in the city. Days later, the agency charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), with assaulting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers during the same protest in Newark — charges she denies.
Yet if the dramatic episodes have enraged Democrats, they've also highlighted the limits of the party's powers to counter the boundary-breaking president even as the administration has arrested migrants appearing for government-ordered hearings; deported people — including U.S. citizens — without due process; and arrested sitting members of Congress.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has suggested there would be repercussions for the administration if it crosses certain red lines defining the separation of powers. But he didn't name them after the McIver incident, and he was similarly vague after the Nadler episode in New York.
'The administration is clearly trying to intimidate Democrats, in the same way that they're trying to intimidate the country,' Jeffries said Sunday in an interview with CNN's 'State of the Union.'
'This whole 'shock and awe' strategy — this, 'flood the zone with outrageous behavior' that they've tried to unleash on the American people during the first few months of the Trump administration — is all designed to create the appearance of inevitability,' he added. 'But Donald Trump has learned an important lesson: The American people are not interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king.'
Nadler's New York office is within a federal building that houses numerous government entities, including an immigration court office.
Protesters had gathered at the building to monitor actions of ICE officers amid complaints from migrant rights advocates that the agency is moving to drop cases, ending migrants' legal processes, so that they can arrest them and place them in expedited removal proceedings.
According to reporting from Gothamist, which first broke the story, two protesters who had gathered at the immigration court said ICE officers threatened to arrest them, and a Nadler aide invited them into the congressman's office.
'They were upset that my staff invited some of the observers up to my office,' Nadler said.
Video of the incident shows a Nadler staffer crying as she is handcuffed.
While DHS accused the congressional office of 'harboring rioters,' Nadler referred to those in his office as 'observers.'
DHS later clarified the agents were Federal Protective Service personnel, who provide security at federal buildings. The officials were not there to harass Nadler's staff, the agency said, but to protect it.
But the statement does not mention that nearly two dozen people were arrested in connection with the protests.
'Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers responded to information that protesters were present inside U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler's District Office in Manhattan, New York. Based on earlier incidents in a nearby facility, FPS officers were concerned about the safety of the federal employees in the office and went to the location to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those present. Upon arrival, officers were granted entry and encountered four individuals,' DHS said in a statement.
'Officers identified themselves and explained their intent to conduct a security check, however, one individual became verbally confrontational and physically blocked access to the office. The officers then detained the individual in the hallway for the purpose of completing the security check. All were released without further incident.'
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), whose district is just south of Nadler's, last week also went to observe actions taken just outside immigration court rooms, where ICE officers were arresting migrants who had fulfilled their legal obligations by appearing as required.
He said masked immigration officers rebuffed his questions, including about why they were covering their faces.
While he's condemned the short-circuiting of due process for migrants, he said the push into Nadler's office requires disciplinary action.
'The shameful and extreme conduct by DHS officers at Congressman Nadler's district office last week is just the latest example of the Trump administration using authoritarian tactics to bully, intimidate, and silence political opponents. [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem must initiate an investigation into this incident and take appropriate disciplinary action,' Goldman said in a statement.
'President Trump and his political lackeys in the administration may not care about the separation of powers, but the Constitution and the American people require it. We will not be intimidated or silenced, and the Administration must stop these authoritarian tactics immediately.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries
US President Donald Trump has resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term, announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the United States and those from seven others would face restrictions. The ban takes effect Monday at 12.01am, a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Mr Trump, who signalled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him. Some, but not all, of 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Mr Trump's first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video released on social media, Mr Trump tied the new ban to Sunday's terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Mr Trump's restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa. Mr Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired. 'We don't want them,' Mr Trump said. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Mr Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. 'To include Afghanistan – a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years – is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,' said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac. Mr Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures'. He also cited its visa overstay rates. Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Mr Trump's first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the US illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a UN-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,' Mr Trump wrote. The Iranian government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a 'state sponsor of terrorism', barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the US on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution. Other Middle East nations on the list – Libya, Sudan and Yemen – all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen's war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed. International aid groups and refugee resettlement organisations roundly condemned the new ban. 'This policy is not about national security – it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America. The travel ban results from a January 20 executive order Mr Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence to compile a report on 'hostile attitudes' toward the US and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk. During his first term, Mr Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travellers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. They included students as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the 'Muslim ban' or the 'travel ban', was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban affected various categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. Mr Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.


San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
South Korea's liberal-led legislature passes bills calling for special probes into Yoon and wife
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea's liberal-led legislature on Thursday passed bills to launch special investigations into former President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived imposition of martial law in December and criminal allegations against his wife, targeting the ousted conservative a day after his liberal successor took office. The bills previously were vetoed by Yoon and South Korea's caretaker government after his Dec. 14 impeachment over the martial law debacle. They are expected to be signed by new President Lee Jae-myung, a Democrat who won Tuesday's snap election triggered by Yoon's formal removal from office in April. Many members of the conservative People Power Party refused to participate in the votes, which took place after one of the party's lawmakers accused the liberals in a speech of being driven by vendetta. Lee, who as an opposition leader drove the legislative efforts to impeach and oust Yoon, pinned his presidential campaign on unity, promising not to target conservatives and calling for an end to political polarization. Yet Lee has vowed a full investigation into Yoon's martial law stunt and the allegations surrounding his wife, moves that could overshadow the new government and inflame tensions as Yoon faces a high-stakes rebellion trial carrying a possible death sentence. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office indicted Yoon in January over his Dec. 3 martial law decree, charging him with masterminding a rebellion and describing his power grab as an illegal bid to seize the legislature and election offices and arrest political opponents. Liberals have insisted independent investigations into Yoon are essential, saying probes by prosecutors, police and an anti-corruption agency were inadequate and hampered by Yoon's refusal to cooperate. If Lee approves the launch of independent investigations, special prosecutors could request the transfer of relevant cases for expanded probes, or direct public or military prosecutors to continue handling them under their supervision. The bills calling for independent investigations into Yoon's martial law decree and criminal allegations involving his wife both passed by a vote of 194 to 3. Dozens of retired marines, dressed in red shirts, saluted and cheered from an observation box after lawmakers passed the bill for a special prosecutor investigation into the marine's death, which also passed 194 to 3. Yoon's martial law decree lasted only a few hours after a quorum of lawmakers pushed past a blockade of hundreds of heavily armed soldiers and voted to revoke the measure. Yoon defended the move as a necessary act of governance, accusing the Democrats, whom he labeled 'anti-state forces,' of abusing their majority to obstruct his agenda and paralyze state affairs. That same majority now gives Lee a far more favorable path to advance his agenda, though conservatives claim it could grant him virtually unchecked power and allow him to pass laws that shield him from legal trouble. Yoon's wife, Kim Keon Hee, also faces multiple corruption allegations, including claims that she received luxury items from a Unification Church official seeking business favors, as well as possible involvement in a stock price manipulation scheme. She also is suspected of interfering with PPP's candidate nominations ahead of legislative elections in April last year.

26 minutes ago
Bipartisan deals on voting and election changes are rare. It just happened in one swing state
LAS VEGAS -- Facing a legislature dominated by Democrats, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo stood before Nevada lawmakers earlier this year with a message that some did not expect to go far: 'Set aside partisan politics.' It was a plea that might have seemed more aspirational than realistic, given the country's deep polarization. Yet it set the stage for one of the session's most unexpected outcomes — a bipartisan agreement to bring voter ID requirements to the perennial battleground state by next year's midterm elections. In a deal that came together in the waning days of the session, the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that combined a requirement for voter ID — a conservative priority across the country and something that has been on Lombardo's legislative wish list — with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mailed ballots in the state's most populous counties. Lombardo is expected to sign the bill. The compromise represents a form of bipartisan dealmaking that has been especially scarce in recent years as the country's political divisions have deepened, especially around any potential reform to voting and election laws. President Donald Trump's lies about his loss in the 2020 presidential election fueled a wave of restrictive voting laws in Republican-led states that Democrats countered with changes to make voting more accessible, while an executive order Trump signed earlier this year seeking to overhaul how elections are run was met with a wave of Democratic lawsuits. Election legislation has mostly hit a dead end in states where the parties share power, making Nevada's bill all the more remarkable. A requirement for voters to show photo identification at the polls has long been a nonstarter for Nevada Democrats, who have argued that it threatened to disenfranchise low-income voters and make it more difficult for people to vote, especially older voters, those with disabilities and those without driver's licenses. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo after the governor vetoed his original bill to expand drop box access, acknowledged it was a tough concession. But he said it was the best they could do with the time they had left. 'If you told me at the beginning of the session that we would be passing a voter ID bill, I probably would have told you you're crazy,' he said in an interview Wednesday. 'But I think that highlights the importance of being open and receptive.' It's a stark contrast to the 2023 legislative session, the last time lawmakers met. Lombardo outlined voter ID as one of his main priorities, but Democrats in the statehouse refused to give the proposal a hearing. The governor vowed he would take the issue directly to voters. Last November, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved the voter ID ballot initiative that Lombardo supported. Voters will have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution, and the requirement would then be in place for the 2028 presidential election. Yeager said he was nervous about presenting the bill because he wasn't sure how Democrats would receive it, but told his colleagues over the weekend that voters seemed poised to give their final approval to the measure. He argued that passing a voter ID law now would give the state a two-year head start on implementing the requirements, to get ready before the next presidential contest. Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said he respects the will of the voters and will work with the governor and local election officials 'to continue strengthening our elections.' That includes, under the proposal, a new — and free — digital form of voter ID that his office will be in charge of rolling out. Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans supported requiring all voters to provide photo ID at their voting place to cast a ballot, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. 'This may not be my favorite policy to have to implement, but I think as a Legislature we have a responsibility to do this,' Yeager told his colleagues. State Sen. Carrie Ann Buck, a Republican, praised the effort, saying, 'I think this is very thoughtful and very courageous of you to bring this in a bipartisan way ... I think our common goals are that every legitimate voter gets to vote.' But not all Democrats were on board, with five voting against it when it passed the Senate. 'I recognize what you're attempting to do, to stave off something worse,' said Democratic Sen. Dina Neal. But she said she was 'wrestling with the philosophical issue with voter ID.' 'I'm not in the space where I am openly willing to disenfranchise a population who may not even understand this law as written.' If Lombardo signs the bill, Nevada will join 36 other states that either require or request voters show ID when voting in person, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Under Nevada's bill, voters will be required to show a form of photo ID when voting in person, which will include government-issued IDs and Nevada-issued university student IDs. 'Nevada has some of the most secure and accessible elections in the country,' Yeager said when he introduced the legislation, 'and this bill is a set of compromises between the Legislature and the governor that I believe can ensure that tradition continues.'