Ocasio-Cortez: No DOJ response on potential investigation for migrant briefing
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said this week that she has not gotten a response from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the potential investigation into her over a migrant webinar she held in February.
'I asked them; they haven't responded to me, but, you know, once again, I'm fully using the First Amendment to inform people of their constitutional rights. They say a lot of things, but I've written a formal letter, and they won't respond,' Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
She set the deadline for the DOJ to respond by March 5.
The New York Democrat said a potential arrest of a sitting lawmaker 'without any actual grounds' would represent a 'tremendous sea change and escalation in what this administration is willing to do to bend laws, norms, et cetera, and how a normal functioning democracy works.'
In mid-February, President Trump's 'border czar' Tom Homan said he asked the DOJ whether Ocasio-Cortez's Feb. 12 'Know Your Rights' seminar, which she said offered 'practical guidance on how to interact with' immigration officials, was impeding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
Homan has indicated in multiple news network appearances that Ocasio-Cortez may have violated federal law by hosting the webinar.
'Maybe AOC is going to be in trouble now,' Homan said in a Feb. 13 interview with Fox News's Laura Ingraham, referring to Ocasio-Cortez by her moniker.
Ocasio-Cortez has defended the webinar, stating her actions are protected by the First Amendment.
She wrote a late February letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, seeking clarity 'on whether the Department of Justice has yielded to political pressure and attempts to weaponize the agency against elected officials whose speech they disagree with.'
'It has been 14 days since Mr. Homan first threatened to weaponize your agency, but I have not yet heard any referral from the federal government,' Ocasio-Cortez wrote in the Feb. 27 letter. 'Homan's actions undercut core Constitutional rights and further transparency is necessary.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a 'VICTORY!' and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: 'And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.'
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Appeals court allows White House AP ban to continue
A panel of judges from a U.S. federal appeals court on Friday said parts of the White House's ban on the Associated Press could remain, dealing a devastating blow to the AP. Why it matters: Press freedom advocates are closely watching the AP's case for any precedents it could set around free speech protections for journalists. What they're saying: In a statement, the AP said, "We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling a victory in a post on X. "As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations," she wrote. Catch up quick: The AP sued three Trump administration officials in late February for blocking its reporters from events like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, citing a violation of its First Amendment rights. The White House said it barred the AP for refusing to change the term "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" in its journalism. The AP said it didn't make the change so as not to cause confusion amongst its global readership. A judge rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban shortly after he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case. In April, a federal judge sided with the Associated Press, declaring that under the First Amendment, the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints. The Trump administration appealed the federal judge's ruling shortly thereafter. How it works: The recent decision allows most of the White House's ban of the AP to go back into effect while the case is still litigated. The White House barred AP reporters from presidential spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One. The panel of three judges — two of which were Trump appointees — ruled that those spaces aren't subject to First Amendment protections, but allowed a lower court ruling that said the White House must allow access to larger spaces, like the East Room, to the AP.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ICE presence reported in Coachella Valley but immigration agency mum so far. What we know
This story has been updated into include new information. Reports of a large presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at locations in Cathedral City and Palm Springs circulated online Friday along with videos and images that appear to show the agency's officers and their vehicles. ICE had not responded to a request from The Desert Sun for information about the nature of the observed activity as of late Friday afternoon. Luz Gallegos, executive director of TODEC, an organization that advocates for the rights of immigrants, said volunteers had observed activity in the area. They said the operation appeared to have been targeted toward someone in particular and not a mass immigration sweep. But the organization is still waiting on additional information to confirm, she added. Rep. Raul Ruiz, a Democrat who represents parts of the Coachella Valley, said in a statement Friday afternoon that he has "formally requested more information from ICE regarding the raid by masked agents in unmarked vehicles in Cathedral City.' Ruiz added that he was 'actively monitoring the situation and following reports.' Local anxiety and concern was stoked as immigration sweeps were reported across Los Angeles Friday. President Donald Trump has proclaimed that his administration would focus on deporting those in the country illegally. Gallegos said TODEC's 24/7 hotline started receiving calls about the situation at 7:45 a.m. TODEC's trained volunteers went out once they received a location and documented that there was an ICE operation behind Cardenas Markets on Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City, she said. That shopping center was one of several locations where people reported seeing ICE agents. The other locations included two other shopping centers and strip malls along Ramon Road, including the centers located around the Ramon Road's intersection with Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs and its intersection with Landau Boulevard in Cathedral City. There were also reports on Facebook of ICE agents at a shopping area at Date Palm Drive and Highway 111. California's U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and two U.S. congressmembers from the state released a statement on Friday calling for an internal ICE investigation into a recent raid in San Diego that reportedly saw 20 ICE agents detain four employees of two restaurants in the city. The senators said the agents wore "military-style gear" and raided the restaurants during peak dining hours, detonating flash-bang grenades and instilling widespread fear and panic across the restaurants and the broader San Diego community. The lawmakers called the raid "disturbing" raid and said it reflects a pattern of 'theatrical' immigration enforcement stunts under the Trump Administration They urged ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the agents' use of force, tactical decisions, compliance with legal protocols, and coordination with local officials, as well as the operation's impact on local communities and businesses. They also requested information on how the raid aligns with ICE's current immigration enforcement priorities and what guidance agents had received regarding enforcement in civilian or public-facing settings. Padilla released another statement Friday condemning what he called "a series of sudden immigration raids" that occurred Friday across Los Angeles. 'The ICE raids across Los Angeles today are a continuation of a disturbing pattern of extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations across the country," the statement read. "These indiscriminate raids prove once again that the Trump administration cares about nothing but instilling harm and fear in our communities to drive immigrants into the shadows. It will not work. This fearmongering is not going to change the fact that immigrants are valued members of our communities who contribute to our society and economy, and my office will demand accountability for today's actions.' This is a developing story. This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: ICE presence reported in Palm Springs area Friday
