Videos: Assaults against ICE agents increase 830% amid ‘anti-ICE rhetoric'
In a Tuesday press release, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that assaults against ICE officials have increased by 830% from January 21 to July 14 compared to the same dates in 2024.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said, 'Just in: our brave @ICEGov law enforcement are now facing a 830% INCREASE in assault against them.'
Noem explained that the new statistic released by the Department of Homeland Security 'reflects the violence' that law enforcement officials across the United States have faced over the past several weeks. The secretary urged politicians 'regardless of political stripe' to 'condemn' the increased assaults against law enforcement officials.
'Brave ICE law enforcement are risking their lives every day to keep our communities safe from the worst of the worst criminals,' Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in Tuesday's press release. 'ICE law enforcement are succeeding to remove terrorists, murderers, pedophiles and the most depraved among us from America's communities, even as crazed rhetoric from gutter politicians are inspiring a massive increase in assaults against them.'
'It is reprehensible that our officers are facing this threat while simply doing their jobs and enforcing the law,' McLaughlin added.
READ MORE: Tactical ICE units to deploy to major cities amid anti-ICE riots: Report
Tuesday's press release noted that the increase in assaults against ICE officials comes as Democrat leaders and media outlets have 'escalated their anti-ICE rhetoric' over the past several weeks.
'Democratic members of Congress have been caught red-handed doxing and even physically assaulting ICE officials,' the department stated. 'Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to publish alarmist, patently false stories about federal immigration enforcement efforts.'
The Rapid Response 47 account shared videos on Monday of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) encouraging Americans to 'fight' the Trump Administration 'in the streets' and warning that ICE agents 'will be unsuccessful' in hiding their identities.
.@RepJeffries, who implores people to 'fight' the Trump Administration 'in the streets' and declares that ICE agents 'will be unsuccessful' in protecting their identities 'no matter what it takes.' pic.twitter.com/ZEEkhtIGbZpic.twitter.com/wy5fMOEsO7 — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 15, 2025
A second video shared by Rapid Response 47 shows Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who was recently charged with 'forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers,' encouraging anti-ICE protesters in Newark, New Jersey, to 'shut down the city' and claiming, 'We are at war.'
.@RepLaMonica — who was charged with 'forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers' — who incites her supporters to 'shut down the city' because 'we are at war.' pic.twitter.com/1hpa1joDT8 — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 15, 2025
Rapid Response 47 also shared a video of Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) calling ICE operations 'deranged and cruel and outrageous' and accusing ICE agents of 'coming and kidnapping and disappearing people.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
5 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Americans are hungry for a third party — but not one created by Elon Musk
Several new polls suggest that Elon Musk is repelling potential third-party voters. While many Americans are open to a third party, far fewer are interested in one created by Musk. The polling also found that Musk's party would draw more support from the GOP than the Democrats. People have complained about America's two-party system for decades, and many voters say they would consider supporting a third party — as long as Elon Musk wasn't involved. New polling suggests that potential third-party voters aren't interested in what Musk's"America Party" may be offering, and the Tesla CEO might be the problem. Three polls released this week found the same general pattern. According to YouGov, 45% of Americans believe a third party is necessary, but just 11% would consider joining a Musk-founded party. Per Quinnipiac University, 49% of Americans say they would consider joining a third party, while just 17% say they're interested in one created by Musk. A CNN poll found that 63% of Americans would favor a third party, a figure that drops to just 25% when Musk is involved. All three polls included more than 1,000 respondents and were conducted in early to mid-July. The aversion to Musk-led party may be driven in part by independent voters, according to Quinnipiac. 75% of independents say they would consider joining a third party, a figure that drops to just 22% when the question is about a Musk-formed party. It's also driven by Democratic-leaning voters' distaste for Musk, whose past political alliance with President Donald Trump and creation of DOGE sharply polarized the left against him. According to Quinnipac, 39% of registered Democrats say they would consider joining a third party, while just 6% are interested in Musk's hypothetical party. That also indicates that a Musk-created party would draw more from the right than the left. YouGov found a similar pattern to Quinnipiac, with 15% of Republicans saying they'd consider supporting a Musk-founded third party while just 6% of Democrats said the same. The world's richest man first floated the idea of forming a third party as Republicans in Congress worked to pass the "Big Beautiful Bill," a sprawling piece of legislation at the center of Trump's domestic agenda. Musk objected to the bill's impact on the deficit, as well as the scaling back of renewable energy subsidies and tax credits. Weeks after his relationship with Trump exploded in an epic feud and after the bill made it to Trump's desk, Musk declared that he would move forward with forming the party. It's been about two weeks since then, and Musk has yet to take more formal steps to actually establish a new political party. It also remains unclear exactly what the party's platform would be, though deficit reduction would likely be a key focus.
Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Triple Legal Setback Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump and his administration suffered a trio of legal defeats within hours on Friday in cases regarding sanctions against International Criminal Court (ICC) employees, a new 15 percent indirect cost rate for federal research at the Pentagon and journalist Bob Woodward's publication of his 2022 book, The Trump Tapes. Newsweek contacted the White House and the Department of Justice for comment on Saturday via email and online inquiry form, respectively, outside regular office hours. Why It Matters With the Republican Party enjoying a slim majority in both the Senate and House, the courts have emerged as arguably the greatest impediment to the Trump administration's policies. Courts have intervened to block or suspend the administration's policies over a swath of issues, including attempts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development and to ban transgender personnel from the military, though the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the latter policy to go ahead in May. What To Know On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen blocked an executive order issued by Trump on February 6 that imposed a range of sanctions on ICC employees involved in cases against the U.S. or close U.S. allies, such as Israel. Torresen concluded that the move, which saw sanctions imposed on the British ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, appeared to "restrict substantially more speech than necessary." In February, Khan, who has been involved with ICC investigations into Israel, was added to the American list of "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons," barring him from doing business with Americans and restricting his access to the U.S. Separately, in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy concluded that the Trump administration didn't have the authority to impose a 15 percent ceiling on indirect costs related to federally funded research at the Pentagon. President Donald Trump answering questions outside the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 11. President Donald Trump answering questions outside the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 11. Win McNamee/GETTY This is the latest of a series of legal defeats the Trump administration has suffered in response to its imposition of 15 percent indirect cost limits for research across multiple government departments. The judge wrote: "The Government has, for the fourth time, purported to announce a policy that has consistently been deemed unlawful, without acknowledgment of its apparent illegality and without any attempt to structure the policy in a manner that fulfills the established requirements of law." In New York, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe ruled against Trump's claim that the publication of certain interviews he conducted with Woodward constituted a breach of copyright. Woodward published The Trump Tapes in 2022, consisting of 20 interviews he conducted with the president between 2016 and 2020 in advance of his 2020 book on the first Trump administration, Rage. What People Are Saying U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen wrote in her ruling: "The executive order appears to restrict substantially more speech than necessary to further that end. The executive order broadly prohibits any speech-based services that benefit the prosecutor, regardless of whether those beneficial services relate to an ICC investigation of the United States, Israel, or another U.S. ally." U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe wrote his ruling: "While it appears unlikely that Plaintiff can adequately plead a plausible copyright interest in The Trump Tapes or any non-preempted state law claim, this Court cannot find at this stage that any amendment would be futile." What Happens Next It remains to be seen how disruptive the legal system will be for Trump's policy agenda going forward. The Supreme Court has six conservative-leaning justices and three liberal-leaning ones, meaning the administration may try to get as many cases as possible referred to the nation's highest court.
Indianapolis Star
6 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump's tax bill is a wakeup call for Gen Z to engage in politics
Like many teenagers, I first heard about President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill the way I hear about most things: on TikTok. I was scrolling when a Washington Post video caught my eye. Familiar with our current president's flair for drama, the name alone – 'One Big Beautiful Bill' – stopped me. What could a bill with such a bold, bodacious title possibly have in store for us? I watched a few more. Then I started reading the policy breakdowns and the articles that weren't going viral. And what I found raised way more questions than answers. We're about to inherit a mess we had absolutely no say in. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is being celebrated as a tax overhaul meant to bring relief to hardworking Americans. On the surface, that sounds great. Who wouldn't want relief for hard working Americans? But when you look closer, you start to wonder: Which Americans are we talking about? Because this bill seems to mostly help the CEOs and hedge fund guys, not the people clocking in for double shifts or surviving on food stamps. Let's start with health care. This bill slashes $1 trillion in funding for Medicaid – which covers 1 in 5 Americans. It introduces a new rule: certain 'able-bodied' adults aged 19 to 64 must work 80 hours a month to keep their coverage. Sounds reasonable, right? If you're receiving support, it makes sense to contribute. But here's the truth: most Medicaid recipients already do. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly 65% of adults on Medicaid are working – often in unpredictable, low-wage jobs that don't come with steady hours or pay stubs. Think delivery apps, house-cleaning, self-employment. These aren't people cheating the system. They're holding it up. But the new rule doesn't just ask people to work, it asks them to prove it – online, on time, every month. For people juggling multiple jobs, unstable internet or no formal HR department, one missed upload could mean losing coverage. And this isn't hypothetical. We've seen this before. In 2018, Arkansas tested a policy like this and over 18,000 people lost their Medicaid coverage in under a year. Not because they weren't working, but because they got caught in the paperwork. Missed a deadline. Many didn't even know they'd lost their coverage until they were denied prescriptions. Hicks: Trump's tax bill will crush the rural voters who chose him The bill uses the term 'able-bodied' as the qualifying standard. But what does that even mean – and who gets to decide when there's no clear federal definition? Does this rhetoric account for people with chronic mental illnesses that don't show up on paper? For people struggling with non-physical disabilities? No one can say, and that's exactly the danger. When the language is vague, it becomes a tool to shut people out quietly, and without explanation. And Medicaid isn't the only thing on the chopping block. Other targets include food assistance programs like SNAP which helps over 40 million Americans buy groceries each month. The bill raises the age for work requirements from 49 to 65 for adults without dependents. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over 3 million people could lose SNAP benefits entirely. As someone whose family has previously relied on EBT benefits, I know what SNAP means to a household. For millions of kids, it's the reason there's breakfast on the table before school or a packed lunch at noon. But this bill would slash billions in food assistance and limit access for students – especially in high school and college. Opinion: Trump's tax bill will gut Medicaid in Indiana That doesn't just hurt the stereotypical 'welfare recipient.' It hurts your friend in AP Bio who gets free lunch and the teammate who can't seem to focus during practice because they skipped dinner. A cut to SNAP isn't just a budget line. It's something we'll feel in our hallways, on our teams, in our generation. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' isn't beautiful for the people it leaves behind. If we don't start paying attention now to what's passed, who it hurts, and who profits – then more decisions will be made without us, about us. We may not have had a say in this one. But that doesn't mean we stay silent for the next. So keep reading. Keep asking questions. Keep showing up in your schools, your homes, your communities. And when it's our turn to speak, to vote, to write the laws and not just live under them – We'll be ready.
