ICE prosecutor runs white supremacist social media account, report says
A Texas prosecutor with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is behind a white supremacist social media account, according to a report.
An account on Elon Musk's X platform with the handle @GlomarResponder, which has since locked its posts from public view, has been linked to the ICE employee spouting 'blatantly racist and anti-immigrant views,' the Texas Observer reports.
The newspaper extensively reviewed posts by the account since 2012 and, through federal court records, courtroom visits and background interviews, claims that it belongs to 44-year-old James 'Jim' Joseph Rodden, an assistant chief counsel for ICE in Dallas.
Rodden's role is representing ICE in court hearings where judges rule on deportations, according to the Observer.
One post allegedly posted by Rodden includes one from January 2025. 'America is a White nation, founded by Whites. We are the historical and majority population, and it was founded for our benefit. Our country should favor us,' it read.
Another post by the account in January said: 'My WWII vet grandfather didn't get a chance to kill asians, so he volunteered for Korea. He'd be asking for a short term job with ICE kicking doors and swinging a baton.'
In September 2024, the account posted that 'all blacks are foreign to my people.'
The Independent has contacted ICE for further comment.
In March 2024, another suspected read: 'Nobody is proposing feeding migrants into tree shredders. Yet. Give it a few more weeks at this level of invasion, and that will be the moderate position.'
The account also posted that 'migrants all are all criminals' in August 2024. The posts are no longer public but the newspaper has archived them.
Rodden did not respond to the Observer's attempts to contact him and when a request for comment was made in person in a public courthouse hallway, the prosecutor referred them to his press office.
'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not comment on the substance of this article pending further investigation, to include whether the owner of the referenced 'X' account is a current employee,' an ICE spokesperson said in a statement to the newspaper. 'Notwithstanding, ICE holds its employees to the highest standards of professionalism and takes seriously all allegations of inappropriate conduct.'
Rodden is a former U.S. Border Patrol agent and U.S. Marine Corps armorer, according to his LinkedIn profile. The Marine Corps confirmed his service and final rank of corporal to the Observer.
The newspaper matched Rodden to the GlomarResponder account by linking biographical details it mentioned. The information posted by the anonymous account aligned with Rodden's social media profiles, public records, court hearings and other investigative methods, the outlet claims.
During a court hearing where Rodden was working, the journalist who wrote the Observer report noted him 'repeatedly' using his phone 'at moments that corresponded to times GlomarResponder made posts.'
A New York-based immigration attorney raised questions over Rodden's capacity to act fairly and impartially in legal proceedings given his alleged views.
'A government lawyer who vilifies people that he opposes in court, and puts that out under the radar, would clearly be engaging in conduct that's prejudicial to the administration of justice,' Cyrus Mehta told the outlet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.
Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here.
Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice. The latest chapter — in which violent protesters could be helping President Donald Trump create a military confrontation he's almost begging for as a distraction from his other problems — may prove the most dangerous yet. When I see activists carrying Mexican flags as they challenge ICE raids in Los Angeles this week, I think of two possibilities: These 'protesters' are deliberately working to create visuals that will help Trump, or they are well-meaning but unwise dissenters who are inadvertently accomplishing the same goal. Democrats' mistake, over more than a decade, has been to behave as though border enforcement doesn't matter. Pressured by immigrant rights activists, party leaders too often acted as if maintaining a well-controlled border was somehow morally wrong. Again and again, the short-term political interests of Democratic leaders in responding to a strong faction within the party won out over having a policy that could appeal to the country as a whole. When red-state voters and elected officials complained that their states were being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration over the past decade, Democrats found those protests easy to ignore. They were happening somewhere else. But when red states' governors pushed migrants toward blue-state cities over the past several years, protests from mayors and governors finally began to register. But still not enough to create coherent Democratic policies, alas. It's open season on former president Joe Biden these days, and he doesn't deserve all the retrospective criticism he's getting. But on immigration, he was anything but a profile in courage. Security advisers including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas wanted tougher border policies starting in 2021. But political advisers such as chief of staff Ron Klain, who sought amity with immigration rights progressives in Congress and the party's base, resisted strong measures. Though Biden was elected as a centrist, he leaned left — and waited until the last months of his presidency to take the strong enforcement measures recommended earlier. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump played shamelessly on public anxieties about the border. Some of his arguments, like claims that hungry migrants were eating pets, were grotesque. They were simply provocations. But Biden and Kamala Harris didn't have good answers, other than indignation. They had straddled the issue through Biden's term, talking about border security but failing to enact it, and the public knew it. Democrats finally came up with a bipartisan border bill in 2024 that would have given the president more authority to expel migrants and deny asylum claims, and more money to secure the border. Republicans, led by Trump, were shameless opportunists in opposing the bill. They didn't want Biden to have a win. In the end, Democrats didn't have the votes — or, frankly, the credibility on the issue. Biden took executive action in June 2024, limiting entry into the United States. But it was too late. He could have taken that action in 2021. Since Trump took office in January, he has been building toward this week's confrontation in the streets. ICE raids have steadily increased in cities with large migrant populations, as have nationwide quotas for arrests and deportations. Trump declared a national emergency on Inauguration Day that gave him authority to send troops to the border to 'assist' in controlling immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem seized every photo opportunity to convey a militarized approach to the coming clash. Over these months, the immigration issue has been a car crash skidding toward us in slow motion. Since his first term, Trump has clearly wanted a military confrontation with the left over immigration or racial issues. Gen. Mark A. Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped talk Trump out of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 to contain the unrest that followed the death of George Floyd. But this time, Trump faces no opposition. He is surrounded by yes-men and -women. The saddest part is that Democrats still have no clear policy. Some blue-state mayors and governors have pledged to provide 'sanctuary' for migrants, but they don't have good arguments to rebut Trump's claim they're interfering with the enforcement of federal law. In some cases, sanctuary has meant refusing to hand over undocumented migrants convicted of violent crimes, former DHS officials tell me. That's wrong. The courts have limited Trump's most arbitrary policies and his defiance of due process, but not his authority to enforce immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) this week chose sensible ground to fight, by filing a lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to override gubernatorial power by federalizing National Guard troops when there isn't a 'rebellion' or 'invasion.' There is no evidence of such extreme danger — or that local law enforcement in Los Angeles can't handle the problems. But Newsom's smart pushback doesn't get Democrats out of addressing an issue they've been ducking for more than a decade: Do they have the courage to enforce the border themselves? Over the long run, taking border issues seriously means more immigration courts, and more border-control people and facilities — and a fair, legal way of deciding who stays and who goes. But right now, it means Democratic mayors and governors using state and local police to contain protests, so that troops aren't necessary — and preventing extremists among the activists from fomenting the cataclysm in the streets that some of them seem to want as much as Trump. Yes, of course, we need new bipartisan legislation to resolve the gut issue of how to protect the 'dreamers' and other longtime residents who show every day that they want only to be good citizens. But on the way to that day of sweet reason, Democrats need to oppose violence, by anyone — and to help enforce immigration policies that begin with a recognition that it isn't immoral to have a border.
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
Los Angeles Protests Amplified by Influencers and Online Creators
As protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administration stretched into their fifth day on Tuesday, social media creators have at times outnumbered the traditional press corps at rallies and have played an outsize role in sharing media about what has happened on the ground. Outfitted with their own makeshift press helmets and vests, many creators — many of whom lean conservative — have livestreamed entire days of coverage and posted to social platforms like X and streaming sites like Twitch and YouTube. During some of the week's most violent moments, Trump officials like Stephen Miller and billionaires like Elon Musk chose to amplify what the creators published, causing the posts to go viral and feeding the narrative that the violence has been out of control. President Trump said that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and others were not in control of the protests, and called for National Guard troops to intervene. Mr. Newsom has said the troops were unnecessary and has filed an emergency motion to stop the Trump administration from sending the troops. At least 150 protesters have been arrested since Friday, officials said. Among the creators at the protests was Cam Higby, 25, a journalist and political commentator for the conservative digital outlet Today Is America. He flew to Los Angeles from his home in Washington state last Friday after seeing videos of the demonstrations on X. On Monday night, he livestreamed from the front lines of the protests alongside another online creator and friend, Aldo Buttazoni, 25. Mr. Higby and Mr. Buttazoni previously worked for the conservative media outlet Prager U and brand themselves as 'America First 🇺🇸.' Much of their content comes in the form of rebuttals to Democratic officials like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass or Mr. Newsom. Mr. Higby's posts, which have amassed millions of views in recent days, blur the line between reporting and advocacy. He sometimes posts video updates about police movements, and other times repeats Mr. Trump's rhetoric about how 'LA NEEDS THE NATIONAL GUARD,' in attempts to stoke outrage. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
