US officials defend immigration raid tactics
Trump's border czar Tom Homan and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the administration's case on the Sunday talk shows, just a day after a farm worker died in California after being injured in a raid on a legal cannabis farm.
On Friday, District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong ordered a halt to 'roving patrols' targeting suspected undocumented migrants in Los Angeles, saying a person's race, language or workplace was not sufficient justification.
'Physical description cannot be the sole reason to detain and question somebody,' Homan said on CNN's 'State of the Union,' adding: 'It's a myriad of factors.'
But he acknowledged that appearance was one of those factors, and said there were sometimes 'collateral arrests' of innocent people in targeted raids.
He said the administration would comply with the judge's decision but fight it on appeal.
Noem called the judge's ruling 'ridiculous' and slammed what she called the 'political' nature of the decision.
'We always built our operations, our investigations on case work, on knowing individuals that we needed to target because they were criminals,' Noem said on 'Fox News Sunday.'
Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, has taken a number of actions aimed at speeding up deportations and reducing border crossings.
As a so-called 'sanctuary city' with hundreds of thousands of undocumented people, Los Angeles has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration since the Republican returned to power in January.
After ICE raids spurred unrest and protests last month, Trump dispatched the National Guard and US Marines to quell the disruption.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
32 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Exorbitant privilege, Trump style
Last week it was Putin. This week it's all of Europe. Ever since Donald Trump's sit-down with the Russian president in Alaska, that icy stage for the grandmaster spectacle, leaders across the Atlantic have been lining up at his door. Suddenly the same capitals that questioned his authority to negotiate on their behalf are outdoing each other to pucker up and secure favour before the next big move. And poor Zelenskyy, always a pawn in these games, must be wondering what happened. After all, it wasn't too long ago that Washington played him as the gambit on the European chessboard. He was hailed as a symbol of resistance, showered with weapons, promised unyielding support. Now it's the same White House that's implicitly endorsing a Russian carve-up of Ukrainian territory. That's the trouble with proxy wars. When the players switch seats, the proxies lose their place on the board. But while that game plays out in Europe, another one is unfolding closer to home. This time it is India in the hot seat. And here too, Trump is using the same tools of coercion and spectacle. Only the stick is different. Enter America's infamous exorbitant privilege. Just when talk of dedollarisation was gathering pace and headlines questioned the future of dollar dominance, that same privilege has come roaring back — not as incentive but as punishment. The unique status of the dollar as the global reserve currency is once again being wielded to bend policy, shape alignments, and punish disobedience. According to Peter Navarro, the former trade adviser now back in Trump's inner circle, India's $43 billion trade surplus with the United States comes with strings attached. It's not enough for India to earn dollars. Washington now wants to decide how those dollars are spent. Buying cheap Russian crude and reselling refined petroleum to other regions, Navarro says, is deeply corrosive to the effort to isolate Putin's war economy. If India wants to be treated as a strategic partner, it must first act like one. This is classic Trump. Strategic ambiguity masking tactical muscle. Publicly he frames it as partnership. Privately the pressure is applied. And if loyalty isn't guaranteed, outcome the tariffs. As things stand, $87bn worth of Indian exports are now under threat of a 50 percent duty from Aug 27. That's not a warning shot. That's a loaded gun on the trade table. The real pressure point is India's dependence on dollar liquidity. How else will it pay for the $109bn it spends annually on imports from China? How else will it fund the next round of supply chain relocations, semiconductor capacity, or defence modernisation. That's the leverage Navarro is now spelling out in public. That's the same leverage Trump is wielding without hesitation. To make matters worse for Modi, none of this is happening in isolation. If he thought the Russia relationship would give him oil independence, or that India's new manufacturing push would shield it from trade retaliation, this past week has been a rude awakening. Not only has Trump made it clear that India must follow Washington's rules, he's also forcing New Delhi into the awkward position of having to re-engage China on economic terms just to soften the blow. It's not that Modi wants to pivot east. He can't. After Beijing's very public military and material support to Pakistan in the last India-Pakistan conflict, any meaningful strategic alignment is politically impossible. But economics does not care for loyalties. If India wants cheaper batteries, EV tech, or lithium-ion supply chains, it will have to look to the same Chinese companies it once barred. And when you're being squeezed from one side by dollar hegemony and from the other by voter expectations at home, the middle ground starts to shrink. So while Europe repositions itself around a re-empowered Trump, and India scrambles to salvage dignity without sacrificing market access, the real lesson is this. Donald Trump isn't playing chess with individual nations. He's playing a global game of leverage. And the currency isn't just the dollar. It is control. And he loves it, because he knows he'll win by default. Which brings us, almost inevitably, to Pakistan. So far, it has escaped the wrath of Trump's transactional diplomacy. In fact, it has somehow ridden a wave of goodwill with the US president. He's had lunch with the army chief. He's publicly praised Pakistan's role in regional stability. He's even spoken positively about its cooperation on Afghanistan and anti-terror efforts. And while no one's quite sure what has charmed him — was it the quiet capture of an ISIS commander in Afghanistan, the lobbying for a Nobel nomination during his last term? — the approval is real, at least for now. But this is Trump. The same Trump who once turned on Islamabad with a single tweet. He declared 'no more' in 2018 and froze aid while accusing Pakistan of lies and deceit. The same Trump who can pivot from handshake to sanctions faster than his advisers can draft the next memo. Pakistan may have his attention, even his praise. But in this particular game, attention isn't a guarantee. It is a spotlight. And nobody stays in that spotlight for long without eventually being told where to stand, what to say, sometimes even how to spend. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
32 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Oil prices rise on drop in US crude inventories
NEW YORK: Oil prices climbed about 1% on Wednesday on a bigger-than-expected weekly drop in US crude inventories as investors awaited the next steps in talks to end the Ukraine war, with sanctions on Russian crude remaining in place for now. Brent crude futures were up 56 cents, or 0.9%, to $66.35 a barrel by 10:48 a.m. EDT (1448 GMT), while US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures rose 66 cents, or 1.1%, to $63.01. The US Energy Information Administration said energy firms pulled 6.0 million barrels of crude from inventories during the week ended August 15. That was bigger than the draw of 1.8 million barrels forecast by analysts in a Reuters poll and the decline of 2.4 million barrels that market sources said the American Petroleum Institute trade group cited in its figures on Tuesday. 'We had a decent-sized crude drawdown. We saw a rebound in exports ... That and the strong refinery demand really makes this a bullish report,' said John Kilduff, partner with Again Capital. On Tuesday, crude prices fell more than 1% - with WTI closing at its lowest level since May 30 - on optimism that an agreement to end the Russia-Ukraine war seemed closer. US President Donald Trump, however, conceded that Russian President Vladimir Putin might not want to make a deal. 'Not so sure about the peace deal - will have to see if something moves forward over the coming days ... It seems oil prices are thrown down one day, followed by a rebound the next,' said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS. Trump said on Tuesday the US might provide air support as part of a deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine. A day earlier, Trump said he was arranging a meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to be followed by a trilateral summit among the three presidents. Russia has not confirmed it will take part in talks with Zelenskiy. 'The likelihood of a quick resolution to the conflict with Russia now seems unlikely,' Daniel Hynes, senior commodity strategist at ANZ, said in a note on Wednesday.
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US and India — strategic autonomy or alliance partnership
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam This piece attempts to deconstruct the imperatives of Sino-India bilateralism in the backdrop of US-China competition. In my piece, "War of Humiliation" in the South Asia magazine (November 2020), discussing the Sino-Indian escalation in Ladakh, I had concluded that expecting India to stand up to China as a bulwark, that the US continues to prop it, is too far-fetched. That China and India would never — willingly or unwillingly — walk into a full-blown war, that is in nobody's interest. If anyone expects India to stand upto to China — doing the US bidding — in a resurrected Great Game 2.0; then it is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC). The wizard, also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, said: "Do not reveal what you have thought of doing... keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution." Fast forward to 2025, there is a lot of debate nudging India to be in a 'partnership alliance' with the US to counter China; as most analysts in the US/European camp, think India cannot do it alone. Some emphasise that 'strengthening Quad' (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and America) would be a good starting point for New Delhi. Realising that India is a 'hedging' middle power, eager to play both if not all sides, the US think-tanks deduce that transfer of more sophisticated and advanced technology to India would depend upon India's overt anti-Beijing credentials. The basic premise of such thinking is that a shooting Sino-Indian war is inevitable, and that militarily embroiling China through India is cost effective and makes strategic sense. This is a faulty presumption, just like encouraging Ukraine, a militarily weaker side, to go on the offensive against a militarily stronger Russia that was on the defensive, in the much-touted Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, that failed. The recent chasm in the US-India relations emanate from India profiting from the Russian oil imports, debunking sanctions; Indian protectionism in trade against US agricultural products; Modi's refusal to acknowledge President Trump's role in the May 2025 Pakistan-India ceasefire; and the less than expected tenacity by India in the cited conflict. However, these are transient factors originating from the 'Trump Factor', who is in his last presidential term. There are compelling reasons for Washington to keep India in its orbit and repair the damaged relations, even if New Delhi is not very forthcoming. First, in the US strategic construct China, Iran, North Korea and Russia make a substantial 'authoritative scale (mass of alliance power)' presenting a unified challenge, needing a unified response. Moreover, China under President Xi has moved away from its confrontational 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, with emerging profile in the Global South, Africa in particular. Its BRI networks 126 countries through highways, railways, pipelines, power plants, grids, IT, social welfare and poverty-alleviation projects. BRI's staggering investment of over $1.3 trillion will ultimately cover 60% of the world population and 40% of its GDP, providing a viable economic alternative, catapulting the present US-led predatory economic system. Second, America's inability to compete with both China and Russia, requires 'strategic diplomacy', some US analysts emphasise. Its core purpose being 'cultivating favourable balances of power in critical regions' to project power far beyond material means. Strategic diplomacy aims to limit rival's options, without seeking to remove the sources of conflict. The US is moving past the age of 'globalized utopia', of being the single-most powerful hegemon, enjoying comprehensive security enabled by techno-military capabilities. It gravitates towards alliance partnerships and strategic diplomacy. And under its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, building the largest anti-China coalition, India stands out to bridge the gap between Washington's rhetoric and capabilities. US analysts feel Biden Administration was unable to properly cultivate New Delhi against Beijing. They feel Trump should nudge India closer 'as an ally on the level of Japan or NATO partners'. Will India do the US bidding willingly, under coercion or under inducements? The straight answer is no, under any conditions. Way back in a meeting with the US officials, when asked to analyse the US-India potential relationship, my answer was to 'go ahead and find out'. However, much that India will drag its feet on becoming involved in bloc politics, alliance partnership with the US, and ignore its 'strategic autonomy', Washington will persistently deploy the pressure-inducement combo to rope in New Delhi against China. Even if that means making India, as some suggest, a regional policeman and hegemon in South Asia, deferring to its advice and actions concerning other countries like Pakistan. The other touted US 'deputy sheriffs' to include Australia in Pacific Islands, Vietnam in continental Southeast Asia and Nigeria in Africa. Expecting India to go against one of its largest trading partners (despite an otherwise obscure border conflict), is not understanding geo-economics and history. First, Sino-India annual trade is over $100 for the third consecutive year. It was $124 billion for FY2024. Second, India has historically conceded against formidable adversaries, from Afghans to Moghuls to Portuguese to the British. That historic constant has not changed, Modi or no Modi. Third, militarily, Indian discussions concede China's conventional and nuclear advantage. India responds to this "conventional asymmetry" through infrastructural build-up, force modernisation and new raisings, compared to Beijing's better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics. The Indian security establishment remains concerned about greater survivability of Indian forces on the battlefield, in an environment of uncontrolled escalation, instead of investing in new weapon platforms especially the nuclear ones. However, paradoxically, the cited asymmetry also serves as a strong catalyst for peaceful co-existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that India gravitates towards better relations with Beijing under its 'Look East Policy', burnished by the recent chasm with Washington. When China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on August 18, 2025, during his two-day visit to New Delhi emphasised both nations to view each other as 'partners' and not 'adversaries or threats'; his Indian counterpart Jaishankar acknowledged the Chinese overtures, saying both countries were seeking to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our relations'. Wang met Premier Modi on Tuesday, reaffirming 'positive trend' in the bilateral ties. In sum, India it too smart to fall for the US trap.
