Left-Wing Pundit Claims Border Agents Stopped Him at Airport for 2-Hour Questioning About His Views on Trump and Gaza
Piker said the agents asked him questions about his stance on President Donald Trump and the Israeli war.
The Turkish-American political commentator is a U.S. citizen who was born in New Jersey.Progressive political commentator Hasan Piker is claiming that he was recently 'detained' at the airport and questioned by federal agents because of his political views — a story that's been met with swift denials from the Department of Homeland Security.
Piker, 33, alleges in a YouTube video posted Monday, May 12, that he was pulled aside by border patrol agents at Chicago O'Hare International Airport as he returned to the United States from his family's Mother's Day trip in France. He says he was flagged down while getting scanned for Global Entry and moved into a 'detention center' at the airport.
While there, Piker says he was interrogated by agents with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, who were 'cordial' in their approach and asked him simple questions about his job — where he streams games and talks about 'current events' — before eventually turning to his stance on President Donald Trump and the Israeli war.
'I'm sitting there and they're asking me about Trump,' Piker says in the video. 'They're asking me about Hamas, and he kept saying stuff like, 'Do you like Hamas? Like, do you support Hamas? Do you think Hamas is a resistance group?' '
Related: ICE Took a Trump Supporter's Wife as They Returned from Their Honeymoon. Still, He Says, 'I Don't Regret the Vote'
Piker alleges that the agents 'kept asking over and over again' about his views on the Israel-Gaza war and he 'kept repeating' that he was 'on the side of civilians,' was a 'pacifist' and wanted the 'endless bloodshed to end.' He claimed that the agent was attempting to try to 'get me to say something like, 'Oh I support Hamas' or whatever is not allowed.'
'Like why is this denying me entry into the country of my birth?,' he questioned. 'This is my birthright. I'm an American citizen. You can't just stop me at the f------ border and be like, 'What's your opinion on Donald Trump?' '
Responding to Piker's story, a Department of Homeland Security official tells PEOPLE in a statement that the YouTube video "is nothing but lying for likes," adding that the claims 'that his political beliefs triggered the inspection are baseless.'
'Our officers are following the law, not agendas. Upon entering the country, this individual was referred for further inspection — a routine, lawful process that occurs daily, and can apply for any traveler," the statement continues. "Once his inspection was complete, he was promptly released.'
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Piker notes in the video that he was released, but suggests that the 'goal' with the interrogation was to 'put fear into people's hearts.' He also accuses the government of being 'unafraid' of using intimidation tactics because of a person's political views or 'speech.'
'Does this stop me from saying whatever the fuck I want to say? Of course not,' Piker says. 'Don't be ridiculous. But the reason why I wanted to talk about it was to give you more insight into what the government is doing, and to speak out against this sort of stuff.'
Related: Donald Trump Says He'd Be 'Honored' to Deport Americans to El Salvador Prison: 'I'm All for It'
In response to the video, Chip Gibbons — who is part of the Defending Rights & Dissent organization, which works to defend U.S. citizens' civil liberties — told The Guardian in a statement that they were "deeply disturbed" to learn of the news.
'We are deeply disturbed that CBP is stopping political commentators at the border to interrogate them about first amendment-protected activities. Such an abuse of power is an affront to press freedom," he wrote.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump wants Fed's Lisa Cook out over mortgage fraud claims
President Donald Trump on Wednesday morning demanded the resignation of Federal Reserve official Lisa Cook in his latest attack against the central bank. The call for Cook's resignation came less than a day after Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte disclosed an Aug. 15 letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi pushing the Department of Justice to probe Cook's mortgages. Pulte suggested Cook committed mortgage fraud. "Cook must resign, now!!!" he said in a short social media post linking to a Bloomberg News story about her. The White House, Department of Justice, and FHFA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Federal Reserve declined to comment. Trump has embarked on an extraordinary campaign to pressure the Federal Reserve to lower the cost of borrowing. He's expressed enormous fury at Fed Chair Jerome Powell in particular for holding steady on interest rates all year. Trump allies like Pulte have joined Trump in prodding the central bank to cut interest rates. In Pulte's case, his pro-Trump advocacy has prompted some criticism from Republican senators who say he should focus on his main task of overseeing the mammoth residential mortgage market. Trump recently had an opportunity to imprint his stamp on the central bank after the early resignation of former Fed Governor Adriana Kugler. That allowed him to name White House aide Stephen Miran to the slot, at least temporarily. Another opening in the Board of Governors would pave the way for the president to install a second pick who's friendlier to his push for lower interest rates. Cook was nominated by former President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in a May 2022 party-line vote. She is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's Board of Governors, a 12-member group that takes frequent votes on monetary policy and helps regulate the financial sector. Her current term expires in 2038. Pulte's letter described mortgage documents it had obtained about Cook, alleging she had "falsified bank documents and property records to obtain more favorable loan terms." Over the course of a month in 2021, Cook obtained primary residence mortgages on two properties in Michigan and Georgia and declared both to be her main residence. She later listed the Georgia property for rent in 2022, which led Pulte to urge Bondi to investigate if Cook didn't disclose rental income as part of her Fed financial disclosures. Cook isn't alone in attracting scrutiny from the Trump administration over allegations of mortgage fraud. Prominent Democratic figures like Sen. Adam Schiff of California are in the same crosshairs as well. Sign in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
As hurricane season collides with immigration agenda, fears increase for those without legal status
If a major hurricane approaches Central Florida this season, Maria knows it's dangerous to stay inside her wooden, trailer-like home. In past storms, she evacuated to her sister's sturdier house. If she couldn't get there, a shelter set up at the local high school served as a refuge if needed. But with accelerating detentions and deportations of immigrants across her community of Apopka, 20 miles northwest of Orlando, Maria, an agricultural worker from Mexico without permanent U.S. legal status, doesn't know if those options are safe. All risk encountering immigration enforcement agents. 'They can go where they want,' said Maria, 50, who insisted the Associated Press not use her last name for fear of detention. 'There is no limit.' Natural disasters have long posed singular risks for people in the United States without permanent legal status. But with the arrival of peak Atlantic hurricane season, immigrants and their advocates say President Donald Trump's robust immigration enforcement agenda has increased the danger. Places considered neutral spaces by immigrants such as schools, hospitals and emergency management agencies are now suspect, and advocates say agreements by local law enforcement to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement make them more vulnerable and compel a choice between being physically safe and avoiding detention. 'Am I going to risk the storm or risk endangering my family at the shelter?' said Dominique O'Connor, an organizer at the Farmworker Association of Florida. 'You're going to meet enforcement either way.' For O'Connor and for many immigrants, it's about storms. But people without permanent legal status could face these decisions anywhere that extreme heat, wildfires or other severe weather could necessitate evacuating, getting supplies or even seeking medical care. Federal and state agencies have said little on whether immigration enforcement would be suspended in a disaster. It wouldn't make much difference to Maria: 'With all we've lived, we've lost trust.' Efforts by Trump's Republican administration to exponentially expand immigration enforcement capacity mean many of the agencies active in disaster response are increasingly entangled in immigration enforcement. Since January, hundreds of law enforcement agencies have signed 287(g) agreements, allowing them to perform certain immigration enforcement actions. Most of the agreements are in hurricane-prone Florida and Texas. Florida's Division of Emergency Management oversees building the state's new detention facilities, like the one called 'Alligator Alcatraz' in the Everglades. Federal Emergency Management Agency funds are being used to build additional detention centers around the country, and the Department of Homeland Security temporarily reassigned some FEMA staff to assist ICE. The National Guard, often seen passing out food and water after disasters, has been activated to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection operations and help at detention centers. These dual roles can make for an intimidating scene during a disaster. After floods in July, more than 2,100 personnel from 20 state agencies aided the far-reaching response effort in Central Texas, along with CBP officers. Police controlled entry into hard-hit areas. Texas Department of Public Safety and private security officers staffed entrances to disaster recovery centers set up by FEMA. That unsettled even families with permanent legal status, said Rae Cardenas, executive director of Doyle Community Center in Kerrville, Texas. Cardenas helped coordinate with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio to replace documents for people who lived behind police checkpoints. 'Some families are afraid to go get their mail because their legal documents were washed away,' Cardenas said. In Florida, these policies could make people unwilling to drive evacuation roads. Traffic stops are a frequent tool of detention, and Florida passed a law in February criminalizing entry into the state by those without legal status, though a judge temporarily blocked it. There may be fewer places to evacuate now that public shelters, often guarded by police or requiring ID to enter, are no longer considered 'protected areas' by DHS. The agency in January rescinded a policy of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, to avoid enforcement in places like schools, medical facilities and emergency response sites. The fears extend even into disaster recovery. On top of meeting law enforcement at FEMA recovery centers, mixed-status households that qualify for help from the agency might hesitate to apply for fear of their information being accessed by other agencies, said Esmeralda Ledezma, communications associate with the Houston-based nonprofit Woori Juntos. 'Even if you have the right to federal aid, you're afraid to be punished for it,' Ledezma said. In past emergencies, DHS has put out messaging stating it would suspend immigration enforcement. The agency's policy now is unclear. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email that CBP had not issued any guidance 'because there have been no natural disasters affecting border enforcement.' She did not address what directions were given during CBP's activation in the Texas floods or whether ICE would be active during a disaster. Florida's Division of Emergency Management did not respond to questions related to its policies toward people without legal status. Texas' Division of Emergency Management referred The Associated Press to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's office, which did not respond. In spite of the crackdown, local officials in some hurricane-prone areas are expanding outreach to immigrant populations. 'We are trying to move forward with business as usual,' said Gracia Fernandez, language access coordinator for Alachua County in Central Florida. The county launched a program last year to translate and distribute emergency communications in Spanish, Haitian Creole and other languages. Now staffers want to spread the word that county shelters won't require IDs, but since they're public spaces, Fernandez acknowledged there's not much they can do if ICE comes. 'There is still a risk,' she said. 'But we will try our best to help people feel safe.' As immigrant communities are pushed deeper into the shadows, more responsibility falls on nonprofits, and communities themselves, to keep each other safe. Hope Community Center in Apopka has pushed local officials to commit to not requiring IDs at shelters and sandbag distribution points. During an evacuation, the facility becomes an alternative shelter and a command center, from which staffers translate and send out emergency communications in multiple languages. For those who won't leave their homes, staffers do door-to-door wellness checks, delivering food and water. 'It's a very grassroots, underground operation,' said Felipe Sousa Lazaballet, the center's executive director. Preparing the community is challenging when it's consumed by the daily crises wrought by detentions and deportations, Sousa Lazaballet said. 'All of us are in triage mode,' he said. 'Every day there is an emergency, so the community is not necessarily thinking about hurricane season yet. That's why we have to have a plan.' Angueira writes for the Associated Press.
Atlantic
17 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Why International Recognition of a Palestinian State Actually Matters
France, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Malta all say they are preparing to recognize a state of Palestine at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September. They would join another 147 UN countries that already do so. In some senses, the move is symbolic: It will not change the realities on the ground in the Middle East, at least not in the short term. But it is a major step nonetheless. No Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process' is currently under way, the countries pledging recognition noted in their statements. This is because Israel refuses to speak with the diplomatic representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization. In effect, Israel has held the PLO and its subsidiaries—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Fatah political party—responsible for the actions of all Palestinians, including the PLO's extremist archrival, Hamas. (The United States, for its part, has never had a bilateral relationship with the Palestinians.) The struggle for Palestinian statehood has been long and arduous. The PLO and PA, to be sure, have sometimes gotten in their own way. In the West Bank, the PA has overseen a corrupt system that leaves little space for civil society. And the PLO has squandered several potential opportunities to pursue statehood, especially an overture in 2008 by then–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But both groups have maintained a commitment to negotiation over violence, and have honored the 1993 recognition of Israel by Yasser Arafat, the PLO's former leader. The Western nations' formal acknowledgment of a Palestinian state under the leadership of the PLO will boost the idea that this kind of diplomacy, rather than the armed struggle of Hamas, is the path that can actually result in Palestinian independence and citizenship for the stateless millions in the occupied territories. From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine International recognition will do as much to rebuke Hamas's maximalist demands as it will those of the Israeli right, dealing a blow to expansionist aspirations in the West Bank, the only territory that has any realistic chance of becoming a Palestinian state. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been characterized by a basic asymmetry: The international recognition of Jewish national rights in Palestine has never been matched by a demand for Palestinian national rights. This was the case as far back as the British government's 1917 Balfour Declaration and the British mandate for Palestine, which took effect several years later. Palestinians may have had an opportunity in 1947 to create their state through a UN partition resolution. In retrospect, they should have accepted the proposal, but their rejection at the time is understandable. Jews made up about 33 percent of the population and owned a mere 6 percent of privately held land in Mandatory Palestine; the UN partition resolution would have allotted the proposed Jewish state more than 56 percent of the territory. Two decades later—after multiple wars—Israel declared itself a state that would come to control the entire territory, including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all of which have populations that are majority Palestinian Arab. Roughly 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in 1947 and 1948, followed by another 300,000 in 1967. Almost none have been allowed to return. In 1968, Palestinians resurrected an independence movement that wrested decision making away from Egypt and other Arab countries that had been humiliated in the Six-Day War. Their crushing defeat gave Palestinians a measure of self-determination through the establishment of a renewed autonomous PLO. In the '80s, the PLO evolved into the vehicle of a drastically reduced Palestinian aspiration: the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all territories Israel had occupied since 1967. The First Intifada, or uprising, against Israeli rule in the occupied territories, which began in 1987, gave the PLO an opportunity to greatly expand its presence there, but it also seeded a new group of rivals, the Muslim fundamentalists of Hamas. A breakthrough seemed possible in the aftermath of the Cold War. In 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin affirming that, on behalf of the Palestinian people, the PLO recognized Israel and its right to exist free from attacks and threats. Rabin responded with a letter to Arafat recognizing the PLO as a legitimate interlocutor and undertaking to negotiate with it. But he didn't recognize a state of Palestine, and the 1993 Oslo Accords with Israel did not specify the goal of Palestinian statehood or acknowledge the Palestinians' right to a state. In the summer of 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a summit at Camp David. Accounts vary on what Israel, then led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered. But the Palestinians who attended came away convinced that they were being asked to accept an archipelago of quasi-independent Bantustans within a greater Israel. Because of an internal leadership crisis, among other failings, the Palestinians presented no detailed counteroffer. And Clinton entirely backed Israel. The violent Second Intifada against Israeli rule in the occupied territories began on September 28, 2000. Nonetheless, negotiations resumed that fall. In late December, Clinton unveiled what is still the most reasonable framework yet proposed for an agreement that would end the conflict. But Israel suspended the negotiations pending elections early in 2001. The right-wing former General Ariel Sharon became prime minister, and the talks were not resumed. In subsequent years, some hopeful signs for Palestinian statehood persisted. In 2002, President George W. Bush endorsed establishing a Palestinian state, and his administration voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1397, which, for the first time, explicitly called for two states 'side by side within secure and recognized borders.' Palestinian divisions intensified, however, after the 2005–06 elections resulted in the acrimonious pairing of a Fatah/PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, with a Hamas-dominated Parliament. In 2007, Hamas violently seized control of Gaza, precipitating a split with the West Bank that continues to this day. Jeffrey Goldberg: Sinwar's march of folly The Palestinians had one more potential chance at statehood through negotiations. In 2008, Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, offered an agreement that the PLO, led by Abbas, considered broadly reasonable. However, Abbas doubted that Olmert was speaking on behalf of Israel, or even his own government, given that most members of his cabinet reportedly opposed his proposal. Moreover, the Palestinian negotiators could not get anything in writing. The deal also included Palestinian concessions on issues such as refugees, and Abbas ran the political risk of being seen to accept concessions while ultimately being left with nothing if Israel didn't follow through. Neither Olmert nor Abbas was willing to take the issue directly to the Israeli public, and the negotiations fizzled. Since that time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated the Israeli political scene and dedicated himself to preventing any movement toward Palestinian statehood. He exploited the rift between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, seeking to keep both in power and at each other's throats, and thereby unable to advance their respective visions of independence. The Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, betrayed the folly of this policy. But it also hardened the position of the Israeli right that to live next to any Palestinian state would be an intolerable security risk. In the nearly two years that war has raged in Gaza, Netanyahu has become ever more explicit in his refusal of a two-state solution. Just last month, he ruled out the prospect of Palestinian statehood, saying that it would only serve as a platform for the elimination of Israel. The Israelis claim that recognition would reward Hamas and terrorism. But the opposite is true. Pretty much the only thing Hamas and Fatah agree on is that they are all Palestinians. Other than that, the disagreements are almost total: The PLO is a secular national movement that still seeks a negotiated peace with Israel through diplomacy, and to establish a small Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Hamas is an Islamist party and militia that wants a theocratic Muslim government in not just the occupied territories but also what is now Israel. In Palestinian politics, the binary is so stark that virtually anything that strengthens one group weakens the other. Recognizing a Palestinian state under the authority of the PLO harms Hamas and rewards the patient diplomacy and commitment to peace of its rivals in Fatah. Already, the PLO has benefited from an apparently minor change in its status at the UN in 2012, from 'observer' to 'non-member observer state.' This gave it standing at the International Criminal Court and suggests what international recognition—something Israel cannot take away—can accomplish: the potential protection of key multilateral instruments and institutions, and thus the potential frustration of Israeli ambitions for further annexation. While the world's eyes have been fixed on the horrors of war in Gaza, far-right Israeli officials, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have effectively taken charge of West Bank, where they are stoking conflict by encouraging right-wing settlers to confront Palestinian villagers. When Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency last year, Smotrich celebrated, saying that the opportunity had come to annex the West Bank. The Israeli military has displaced 40,000 Palestinians in the territory, according to the United Nations, and extremist settlers have continued to harass and attack villagers. International recognition of Palestinian statehood could seriously complicate Israel's designs on the West Bank. Britain has said that it will recognize Palestine if the Gaza war continues into September, but France and Canada appear focused on discouraging Israeli annexation in the West Bank. Each is sending a clear message to Israel: End the war in Gaza, and more important, do not expand formalized control of the West Bank, the only territory that could become a true state for Palestinians. Pushing back against Israeli annexation efforts is crucial to reviving the possibility of a two-state solution. Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and Malta are not asking or expecting Israel to withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow. But they clearly understand the danger that further settlement there poses to the Palestinian independence movement. Netanyahu and his allies know this too. Smotrich has his eyes firmly on annexation, having recently announced new settlements surrounding Jerusalem that he says will 'bury' any potential for a Palestinian state. The world must act as if a two-state solution is not merely necessary, but possible. International recognition of a Palestinian state is a key start. Without such a state alongside Israel, these two beleaguered peoples, the whole region, and the entire world will be sentenced to further decades, and possibly centuries, of bloodshed and oppression. Shrugging, walking away, and accepting this outcome cannot be an option.
