Trump wants to reopen Alcatraz prison. Californians say it's a crazy move.
ALCATRAZ ISLAND, Calif. — The barred cell doors are so rusted they can't close. Century-old lead paint is peeling off the walls. Concrete is crumbling, and the old rec yard is caked in seagull guano. This is no longer a fearsome prison. Not a working one, anyway.
Alcatraz the penitentiary shut down in 1963, but Alcatraz the idea has lived on, a permanent part of the American mythology, a timeless symbol of ruthless and unforgiving incarceration. It's a potent image, inspired by tales both fact and fiction, and it has captured the world's imagination — including, apparently, that of President Donald Trump.
To Trump, who in a social media post announced his intention to 'REBUILD AND OPEN ALCATRAZ,' the island is peak prison. 'The ultimate,' he said, explaining his rationale to reporters.
But on 'The Rock' — the nickname for this craggy piece of land a mile from the San Francisco waterfront — the president's proposal looked like a longshot. Visitors to the site, now a popular tourist attraction, said it seemed like an outlandish idea as they surveyed the prison's remaining buildings, all in varying states of disrepair. Locals took it as yet another attack on the legendarily liberal city, long one of Trump's favorite punching bags. And elected officials treated it as both dangerous and distracting, vowing to either impede or ignore the plan.
'The chances of Alcatraz being repurposed as a prison are about as large as landing a man on Pluto,' said Aaron Peskin, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who regularly swims in the frigid bay waters surrounding the island. 'If I had my way, there would only be one prisoner in that place, and it would be Donald Trump.'
Follow Trump's second term Follow
Trump, continuing to claim that the country is overrun by violent crime despite evidence to the contrary, first said he would direct his administration to 'reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt' Alcatraz to house America's 'most ruthless and violent' offenders. He has sent mixed signals about the plan since, appearing to walk it back as 'just an idea I've had' in one set of comments before doubling down in another.
William K. Marshall III, the director of the Bureau of Prisons, said in a statement that he had 'ordered an immediate assessment to determine our needs and the next steps' to reopen Alcatraz.
But much remains unclear about the project, which would be astronomically expensive and extraordinarily difficult to enact.
As Trump worked to finesse his plan, tourists continued flocking to the island, lining up to take the 15-minute ferry ride from San Francisco's Pier 33 to the decommissioned prison, which is now managed by the National Park Service.
Nearly all were skeptical of Trump's proposal.
'He's not going to get it approved,' said Ashley Macey, a 27-year-old Brit and true crime devotee who said a chance to visit Alcatraz was the main motivation for her transatlantic trip. Trump's statements, she said, were 'wishy-washy.'
Others, like 29-year-old Kevin Sumlin, worried about the message such a move would send.
Advertisement
'I think it would put a dirt cloud back over the prison,' said Sumlin, in town from Connecticut, as he waited to board the ferry.
Advertisement
Yesenia Valencia, an 18-year-old from California's Central Valley, was visiting the prison on a high school class field trip. She and her fellow students left home before sunrise Monday to make the journey and saw Trump's comments while en route.
'We watched it on the way to San Francisco and thought, 'What the heck?'' she said. 'It's crazy. I feel like he shouldn't be doing that.'
Another visitor, a 46-year-old from Iowa, said reopening Alcatraz would be 'a waste of money.' She spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid a dispute with her husband, a Trump voter.
And several international tourists — from Argentina, Poland and the Netherlands — declined to speak on the record out of fear that they would not be allowed to travel freely in the United States or obtain visas to live here if they were quoted disagreeing with the president.
'It's like a horror movie,' a 70-year-old Dutch traveler said of Alcatraz, adding that it would be 'insane' to reopen it.
One visitor interviewed, Marivic Hammari, a 43-year-old from nearby Sausalito, said she agreed with Trump's mission, despite the cost, because 'it would be nice to use the building.'
Several state and local Democrats issued muted reactions, dismissing Trump's plan as a lark meant to divert attention from other negative headlines, including the ongoing ripple effects of his tariff regime.
A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom said, 'Looks like it's distraction day again in Washington, D.C.' And San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said it was 'not a serious proposal.'
Advertisement
But state Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, said Trump in his second term has shown more follow-through than in his first and leaders cannot afford to write off even his far-out musings.
'It's a combination of ridiculously stupid and scary,' Wiener said. 'If he does this, he's literally setting taxpayer money on fire.'
A constellation of local small businesses relies on revenue generated by the nearly 1.5 million tourists who visit Alcatraz each year, from tour guides to ferry companies and restaurants along the water. The island, along with the Golden Gate Bridge, is one of San Francisco's biggest draws, a boon especially as the city looks to recover from a pandemic-induced malaise.
This week marks the second time this year Trump has targeted an iconic San Francisco property under federal jurisdiction. In February, the president moved to make cuts to the Presidio Trust, which oversees Presidio National Park, a beloved swath of green space at the city's northernmost tip.
'He clearly doesn't like San Francisco,' Wiener said. Of the Alcatraz plan, he added: 'If there's any way for us to gum this up, we will try to gum it up.'
But logistical, financial and bureaucratic hurdles may be gummy enough on their own.
When Alcatraz closed in 1963, it was in such bad shape that the federal government ruled it would be more cost effective to abandon it and open another prison elsewhere. It was nearly three times more expensive to run than the average federal facility, and it needed millions of dollars in renovations.
'It hasn't gotten any better,' said John A. Martini, an Alcatraz historian who worked on the island as a Park Service ranger when the agency took over its operations in the 1970s. 'If this were a TV show, like on Home and Garden, the prison would be a teardown.'
The island lacks basic utilities: No running water or sewage system and spotty electricity that relies on fuel shipped in by boat.
'It has essentially become a stabilized ruin,' Martini said.
During its stint as a prison, ancient sewers beneath the facility pumped waste directly into San Francisco Bay, pollution that would be outlawed under modern environmental law. Nowadays, the park's septic tank is transported to the mainland for disposal. And the island's electrical system would need massive revamping to support a population of prisoners and staff that could number in the hundreds.
If prison structures were demolished and rebuilt, the government would face a legion of other challenges, since construction materials would need to be ferried to the island — a problem that would be compounded if the country is still battling high building costs associated with Trump's trade war.
And then there's the problem of the ferrying itself. The only boats to Alcatraz currently leave from a city dock owned by the Port of San Francisco. The port is overseen by a group of mayoral appointees, who could spark a standoff with the federal government if they refuse to cooperate with Trump's changes. A spokesperson for the port did not respond to a request for comment.
The Trump administration could also look to build a new dock elsewhere on the mainland, but options are limited. Before its closure, the prison used a pier at Fort Mason, now home to a thriving cultural center. In 2022, the pier burned down.
Advertisement
'All these things would have to be tackled to make Alcatraz a prison,' Martini said. 'It would be dauntingly expensive.'
What's more, Martini said, reopening the site as a prison and closing it off from public access would mean fewer Americans learning about the island's rich cultural history — from its time as a Civil War fort to the key role it played in Indigenous activism — and its surprisingly abundant wildlife and lush gardens.
Trump officials have argued that the president's proposal is real, feasible and necessary. In an interview on Fox News, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said Alcatraz would be 'easily refurbished' and would hark back to 'a time when this country was strong.'
Trump, addressing reporters on Monday, acknowledged the prison was 'a big hulk that's sitting there rusting and rotting' but that it nonetheless 'represents something very strong, very powerful, in terms of law and order.'
When pressed on how he came up with the idea, Trump said he 'was supposed to be a moviemaker,' alluding to silver screen depictions of the prison, which served as the backdrop for 1979's 'Escape from Alcatraz' starring Clint Eastwood and 1962's 'Birdman of Alcatraz' with Burt Lancaster.
Gone unmentioned in the Oval Office was a more recent Alcatraz film, a 1996 blockbuster called 'The Rock,' which earned some $335 million and was mostly shot on location. David Weisberg, who co-wrote the screenplay, couldn't believe what he was reading when he saw Trump's plan.
Weisberg, who attended the premier of 'The Rock' on Alcatraz, said the prison 'was a crumbling wreck 30 years ago,' and it was only through Hollywood magic that it was for one night transformed into a movie theater.
Asked if he thought his movie may have inspired the move, Weisberg laughed.
'It beggars my imagination that somebody would think this was a good idea,' he said. 'I have no idea who put this idea into his head.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
14 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Miami commissioners cautious with answers on whether they'll vote for ICE agreement
South Florida's largest city could deputize its police officers with immigration enforcement powers later this week, adding to a growing sense of uncertainty in the region as the Trump administration carries out its full-forced crackdown on immigration. On Thursday, the Miami City Commission is scheduled to vote to enter into what's known as a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The city would join the 'task force' model, which allows police officers to conduct immigration enforcement functions during routine work and to question, arrest and detain people suspected of violating immigration law. However, despite the fact that the agreement is on Thursday's meeting agenda, two city commissioners told the Miami Herald that the item might be deferred for the second time. The commission previously deferred the item in April in order to postpone the vote until after the June 3 special election to replace the late Commissioner Manolo Reyes. Commissioner Joe Carollo declined to say whether he plans to vote in favor of the agreement but said he has been monitoring the protests against ICE in Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the National Guard. Asked where he stands on the 287(g) agreement, Carollo said he's 'certainly looking carefully' at Los Angeles, which he said has 'frankly been a factor in the way that I'm gonna be going at this.' Commissioner Damian Pardo said in a statement that 'as a life long advocate for a legal path for US citizenship and a supporter of TPS, I am not in favor of 287(g).' 'Regardless of how well this plan may be implemented by local enforcement agencies, and in addition to the human rights considerations, I am very concerned with the hostile climate these policies create for immigrants,' Pardo said. He added that the city's economy is boosted by the 'inflow of business from Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe.' 'Our city has benefited enormously from our attraction as a destination to the international community,' Pardo added. 'I would argue that attraction is the 'Magic' in the Magic city. Let's keep it that way.' Both Carollo and Pardo said the item would likely be deferred. READ MORE: What the end of CHNV parole program means for a half-million migrants, many in Florida The City Commission was scheduled to take its vote on June 12, which will be the first commission meeting for newly elected District 4 Commissioner Ralph Rosado. According to voting map data, over 90% of voting-age citizens in District 4 are Hispanic, meaning Rosado's district has the largest concentration of Hispanics in the city's five voting districts. Speaking at his election night watch party last week, the freshman commissioner said he hadn't decided yet how he will vote on the 287(g) agreement. 'I've been discussing it with a number of people,' Rosado said, adding that he has 'a series of legal questions' that he wants to ask the city attorney before making a decision. Commissioner Christine King, who is also the commission chairwoman, declined to comment on the ICE agreement. Reached Monday, Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela said he would get back to the Herald at a later time with a comment. Mayor Francis Suarez, who does not have a vote on the commission but who does have veto power, did not respond to a request asking whether he supports the city entering the 287(g) agreement. A city spokesperson said Monday that it is 'too premature' to say whether the item will be deferred. She did not directly respond to questions asking if a potential deferral was related to current events like the L.A. protests or the travel ban that went into effect Monday. Municipal and local police departments are not explicitly required to join 287(g) agreements, but Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier have argued that under the state's sanctuary law, they are mandated to do so. Uthmeier threatened to punish Fort Myers City Council members earlier this year when they declined to enroll in the program. Still, most Miami-Dade cities, including Miami Beach and Miami Gardens, have yet to join the program, according to ICE's database for participating agencies. Entering the 287(g) agreement could have a major impact in Miami, where about 58% of residents are foreign born and over 70% are Hispanic or Latino, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. With just under a half-million people, Miami is the largest city in Miami-Dade County and the second largest in Florida. Miami would join a list of other Miami-Dade cities that have entered 287(g) agreements in recent months, including Hialeah, Sweetwater, Coral Gables, West Miami, Sunny Isles Beach and Miami Springs. If it happens this week, the City Commission vote would land at a time of increased uncertainty for non-citizens, with the Trump administration implementing a series of immigration policies in recent weeks that have targeted communities with large populations in South Florida. In addition to Monday's travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late last month in favor of a Trump administration plan that ended the humanitarian parole program known as CHNV, which allowed people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States. The decision affects more than 500,000 migrants who were granted temporary legal status.


WIRED
14 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.


CNBC
15 minutes ago
- CNBC
Immigrant framed for Trump threats can be released on bond, judge says
The undocumented Mexican immigrant who was detained after being framed by a jailed inmate for threatening President Donald Trump can be released on a $7,500 bond, a Chicago Immigration Court judge ruled Tuesday morning. Judge Carla Espinoza said at a hearing that she does not believe Milwaukee resident Ramon Morales-Reyes is a danger to the community pending removal proceedings. The judge noted that although the 54-year-old Morales-Reyes has been arrested several times since 1996, he has only been convicted once, for disorderly conduct. An attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose a request by the immigrant's lawyer, Cain Oulahan, requesting bond. Oulahan and Morales-Reyes appeared remotely, with the immigrant still detained in Dodge County Jail in Wisconsin. Espinoza said that if Morales-Reyes is unable to post bond, the next hearing in the case will be on July 10, and that she would set another date if the married dad of three is released. CNBC has requested comment from Oulahan. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement, said, "While this criminal illegal alien is no longer under investigation for threats against the President, he is in the country illegally with previous arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct with domestic abuse." "The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and fulfilling the President's mandate to deport illegal aliens. DHS will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country," McLaughlin said. Morales-Reyes, who has lived in the United States since 1986, was arrested May 22 on suspicion that he had written three letters to law enforcement officers in Wisconsin that threatened Trump and others. A week later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem touted Morales-Reyes' arrest in a news release that called the dishwasher an "illegal alien," and featured his photo, as well as an image of a handwritten letter threatening to shoot "your precious president" Trump. But Milwaukee police who questioned Morales-Reyes quickly realized there was a problem with the allegations against him, court records show. First, a handwriting sample Morales-Reyes provided was "completely different" from the writing on the letters and the envelopes, which bore his home address as the return address, a criminal complaint says. Also, Morales-Reyes does not speak, read, or write English fluently, while the writing in the letters was in English. When a police detective asked Morales-Reyes, "Who would want to get [him] in trouble, [he] stated that the only person who would want to get him in [trouble] was the person who had robbed him and who law enforcement knows to be the defendant, Demetric D. Scott." Scott, who is detained in Milwaukee County Jail, was arrested in late 2023 for allegedly robbing Morales-Reyes and attacking him with a box cutter. Scott, 52, told police in late May that he had written the threatening letters about Trump, and put Morales-Reyes' address on the envelopes before they were sent on his behalf by others, to get the immigrant arrested by federal authorities so that he would be unable to testify at Scott's criminal trial in July, court records state. Scott hoped that his case would be dismissed when Morales-Reyes failed to appear in court, those records say. Scott has been charged with identity theft, felony intimidation of a witness, and bail jumping in connection with the letters plot. At the time Morales-Reyes was arrested, he had applied for a special type of visa available to victims of certain crimes. The web page announcing the Morales-Reyes' arrest remains up on DHS's site, with the now discredited allegations against him. At the bottom of that page is a "disclaimer," which notes that he is no longer under investigation for threatening Trump. —