Fresno Marine among 2 Californians killed in crash during deployment to southern US border
Lance Cpl. Albert A. Aguilera, 22, of Riverside and Lance Cpl. Marcelino M. Gamino, 28, of Fresno were both killed in the April 15 crash near Santa Teresa, New Mexico. A third Marine, who was not identified, is in critical condition.
'The loss of Lance Cpl. Aguilera and Lance Cpl. Gamino is deeply felt by all of us," said U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Tyrone A. Barrion. "I extend my heartfelt condolences and prayers to the families of our fallen brothers. Our top priority right now is to ensure that their families, and the Marines affected by their passing, are fully supported during this difficult time.'
The Marines were part of the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, and were deployed as part of the Joint Task Force-Southern Border operation. Thousands of military personnel have been deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border since President Donald Trump declared an emergency at the border.
The three Marines were airlifted to University Medical Hospital in El Paso on April 15. The crash occurred during a convoy movement along the border, according to a news statement from the Joint Taskforce Southern Border operation. The cause of the crash is still under investigation.
'I am saddened by the loss of two U.S. service members who were killed in yesterday's accident in Santa Teresa,' U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat representing El Paso, said. 'I'm praying that the third service member who remains in serious condition recovers, and I'm thinking of the families of all involved.'
President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border in mid-January in response to what he called "an invasion" of cartels and immigrants crossing the border, deploying thousands of active-duty troops.
The first 1,500 troops were deployed to Fort Bliss in El Paso on Jan. 25. There are currently about 6,600 troops along the southern border with Mexico.
The Trump administration is seeking to utilize Fort Bliss as a hub for deportation. Construction of the facility is set to start soon.
DEPLOYMENT: Donald Trump authorizes U.S. military to take control of land on southern border
Migrants crossing the southern border are currently at the lowest levels in decades.
Jeff Abbott covers the border for The El Paso Times and can be reached at: jdabbott@gannett.com; @palabrasdeabajo on Twitter or @palabrasdeabajo.bsky.social on Bluesky.
This article originally appeared on El Paso Times: US Marines identify Fresno, Riverside men killed in crash on US border
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
17 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
New Bitcoin Purchases by the U.S. Government Still on the Table, Bessent Says
Bitcoin recently hit an all-time high of $124,400 and is up 93% from over a year ago. But fans of the cryptocurrency think it can go even higher, and those folks experienced a rollercoaster of emotions on Thursday after Scott Bessent gave conflicting signals about what the U.S. government had planned for the world's most popular cryptocurrency. Initially, Bessent disappointed Bitcoin fans Thursday morning when he said the U.S. government's so-called strategic Bitcoin reserve, first announced by President Donald Trump in March, would not be stocked with newly purchased Bitcoin anytime soon. But the Treasury Secretary seemed to reverse course later in the day, sending mixed signals to crypto folks who know that it'll really help juice the price if the Trump regime buys a boat-load of digital money for no good reason. Bessent was asked about gold during an interview on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo, and pivoted into talking about Bitcoin, which the White House has argued is important for the future. 'We've also started, to get into the 21st century, a Bitcoin strategic reserve. We're not going to be buying that, but we are going to use confiscated assets and continue to build that up. We're going to stop selling that,' Bessent said. The Treasury Secretary said that he believed the government's bitcoin holdings were somewhere between $15 billion and $20 billion, lower than previous estimates of $23 billion, as the crypto news outlet Protos notes. Why would any of this matter to crypto watchers? Because many were disappointed back in March when it turned out that rumors about a 'strategic reserve' of crypto meant that the U.S. government wouldn't be actually buying new Bitcoin. The U.S. Department of Justice often seizes crypto during criminal prosecutions, and rather than sell that crypto as it typically does, the Trump regime proposed holding onto it as a 'reserve.' Bessent's comments on Thursday morning seemed to confirm there were no plans to actually buy new Bitcoin, something he probably heard complaints about. Because by the afternoon, Bessent sent a tweet that seemed to contradict what he'd said on Fox Business. 'Bitcoin that has been finally forfeited to the federal government will be the foundation of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve that President Trump established in his March Executive Order,' Bessent tweeted. 'In addition, Treasury is committed to exploring budget-neutral pathways to acquire more Bitcoin to expand the reserve, and to execute on the President's promise to make the United States the 'Bitcoin superpower of the world.'' What does 'budget-neutral pathways' mean? That's unclear. But it doesn't close the door on acquiring more Bitcoin in a way that would make the price rise, which is the only thing Bitcoin holders care about. Holding Bitcoin in a 'reserve' serves no purpose beyond making it more scarce, thus helping drive up the price. But the dream for crypto folks is for the U.S. government to inject real U.S. dollars into Bitcoin, artificially inflating the price even more and pushing a kind of free money into the crypto liquidity pool. Because none of this works without real dollars. When those dry up, you're left with little more than digital hopes and dreams. The U.S. dollar is literally backed by the U.S. military. Bitcoin? It's backed by your faith in its price to keep going up forever.
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Investors don't know what's coming for the Treasury market
Editor's note: Morning Money is a free version of POLITICO Pro Financial Services morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 5:15 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the day's biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro. Quick Fix A persistent theme has crept into financial policy discussions lately: the need to reduce the costs paid by the U.S. government on its massive debt load. That goal was one of the administration's justifications for scaling back a key bank regulation. It was part of the sales pitch for Washington's endorsement of crypto tokens known as stablecoins. And it's one of President Donald Trump's main cudgels against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as he presses for lower interest rates. Policymakers weren't spotlighting the cost of financing the debt until quite recently, and it's a shift worth paying attention to, with interest payments now edging out spending on defense and Medicare. Those ballooning costs could eventually prompt a change in how the U.S. approaches debt management, with implications for the Treasury yields that help determine asset prices across the global economy. The debate is not only over how much the government is borrowing, but how it borrows the money itself. If the Treasury Department were to issue less longer-term debt — one of the ideas being discussed on Wall Street — it could lead yields to fall as the remaining securities become more valuable, something that could theoretically help lower rates on mortgages or other loans. Another proposal is for the Fed and the Treasury to coordinate much more closely on debt issuance. Trump himself has openly mused about borrowing in a way that saves more money — that is, by issuing more short-term debt. 'What I'm going to do is, I'm going to go very short-term, like six months, seven months, eight months,' Trump told reporters in June, 'wait until this guy [Powell] gets out, get the rates way down, and then go long term.' For now, Treasury hasn't changed its plans for what type of debt it's issuing, despite criticism from Secretary Scott Bessent before his time in government of how his predecessor, Janet Yellen, handled the matter. Josh Frost, who oversaw debt management at Treasury under the Biden administration, said the department should always be watching out for larger, structural shifts in demand but warned against 'fine-tuning.' Changing the government's issuance plans too often could counterproductively push up yields, as investors start demanding a premium to guard against policy uncertainty, he told MM. But as fiscal worries come increasingly into focus for investors, the administration might be tempted to alter the issuance schedule. 'How bad would things have to get for them to turn to this as an option?' Frost said. 'My guess is you'd need to see a move in rates that was larger than we saw in April [when Trump unveiled his new tariff regime] and hard to explain by changes to the economic outlook.' It's not a simple prospect, though. When Treasury unexpectedly discontinued the 30-year bond at the end of October 2001 (back when the country's fiscal picture was much rosier after years of surpluses), yields initially plunged, but the effect was short-lived. Still, even marginal decreases in rates might be alluring. There are two sides of the coin in how government institutions shape which Treasury securities are available to the public: one, Treasury decides what kind of debt to issue — bills, which pay out in a year or less; bonds, which mature in longer than 10 years; or notes, which fall in the middle. And two, the Fed decides which of those assets to buy, a tool that it has used in recent economic downturns to help lower interest rates beyond just the short-term rates that it more directly influences. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed has been the more important determinant of the Treasury yield curve, as it has taken a lead role in steering the economy. But now, the supply of Treasuries to the market is becoming a significant driver. The Fed part of the equation holds some intrigue as well. In an interview on CNBC last month, former Fed board member Kevin Warsh, one of the frontrunners in Trump's Fed chair race, floated the idea of coordination between the central bank head and the Treasury secretary, where the Fed would lay out a target size for its asset holdings and the Treasury would lay out an issuing calendar. That way, 'markets will know what is coming,' and it would help bring down borrowing costs, he said. It's an idea that, while not entirely clear, might interest the community of investors who finance the U.S. government debt and could conceivably help lower yields (though it's worth noting: baked into Warsh's thinking is that he wants the Fed's asset holdings to be much smaller, so he might also be seeking coordination to make that process less disruptive to yields). But some on Wall Street might also be alarmed by the potential for diminished independence for the Fed. At his press conference last month, Powell flatly rejected the notion of the Fed taking into account how much the debt costs for the U.S. government, underscoring that the central bank's mandate is price stability and maximum employment. 'We don't consider the fiscal needs of the federal government. No advanced-economy central bank does that,' Powell said. 'If we did do that, it would be good neither for our credibility nor for the credibility of U.S. fiscal policy.' Expect this conversation to linger. Warsh's idea 'signals that we've entered a new phase in the debt-management discussion, and when the Treasury works through all the other things on their docket, the question of how to minimize costs over time is going to be a very legitimate debate' over the next few quarters, said Lou Crandall, who tracks these matters closely as chief economist at research firm Wrightson ICAP. Happy Friday — Hope you're enjoying Morning Money: Capital Risk, our new Friday edition of MM where we're aiming to look around the corner on political and policy developments that have market implications. What should we be watching? Send tips and feedback to Victoria at vguida@ and Sam at ssutton@ Driving the day Labor will release import and export price data for July at 8:30 a.m … Retail sales data for July will be released at 8:30 a.m. … Industrial production data for July is out at 9:15 p.m. … University of Michigan's consumer sentiment survey will be released at 10 a.m. … K-shaped spending Key measures of inflation are heating up. The labor market looks like it could stall. And consumer spending — which represents around two-thirds of the U.S.'s annual gross domestic product — is slowing down. The risk to earnings for retailers and other consumer-facing businesses is if a weaker jobs market and escalating inflation pushes Americans to pull back on spending even more. And that's especially true for firms whose customers skew toward lower income. New research from the Bank of America Institute found that the gaps between the haves and have-nots have widened in recent months amid the uncertain economic backdrop. Annual wage growth among those with lower incomes dropped to 1.3 percent year-over-year in July, while bigger earners posted 3.2 percent growth. That corresponded with similar changes in spending; low-income household spending was basically flat last month, while it expanded for the middle and upper class. BofA's findings are intuitive, of course. The more you have, the more you spend. But the changes to the social safety net coming from the 'Big Beautiful Bill' suggest that certain low-income households will face even more strain in the months and years ahead. The Congressional Budget Office on Monday predicted that 2.4 million Americans will lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits under the legislation's new work requirements (hiring rates are now well below pre-pandemic levels). The cuts to Medicaid and elimination of premium tax credits for Affordable Care Act enrollees are also expected to push millions of people out of health coverage. As those policies take effect, the question will be if the lifestyles of the rich and famous — which have propped up overall consumer spending since 2022, according to new Boston Fed research — will be enough to support the economy's continued expansion. The CBO has also projected that the megabill will boost annual incomes for the richest by $13,600. Depending on how they spend it, it might just be enough. Macro Talking Points Inflation is ticking up from tariffs, and growth has slowed. But Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, argued to MM that tariffs are hurting the economy even more than it seems. 'AI-led investment and spending is pushing up the economy,' he said. 'Trump-led deregulation and redistribution is pumping up the stock market and profits. So, the stagflation is net of that offset.' He also said profits are down in industries, like autos, where they import inputs, and industries that depend on migrant labor 'have been flat-lining in terms of growth.' 'The economy hasn't cratered, but it has been meaningfully worse,' he said. But he has been surprised that there hasn't been more damage as a result of Trump's immigration crackdown. 'There are some signs consistent with damage, but not yet that big,' Posen said. The data might not be telling the whole picture, he added. But 'it may just be that my/our analysis is wrong on migration impact,' he said. Odds and Ends — The Trump administration is considering buying a stake in Intel Corp., Bloomberg News reports, citing people familiar with the plan. — San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly tells the WSJ that she doesn't see a need for a half percentage point rate cut in September. — Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have launched a probe into Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. over what they say are potential conflicts of interest and insider trading, our Ari Hawkins reports. — U.S. producer prices saw their biggest jump in three years in July, Reuters reports. — Bessent says the Trump administration could buy Bitcoin at some point, maybe, via Bloomberg News.
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
In his push for fairness in college admissions, Trump has been silent on legacy preferences
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump attempts to reshape college admissions, he's promising a new era of fairness, with an emphasis on merit and test scores and a blind eye toward diversity. Yet the Republican president's critics — and some allies — are questioning his silence on admissions policies that give applicants a boost because of their wealth or family ties. While he has pressed colleges to eliminate any possible consideration of a student's race, he has made no mention of legacy admissions, an edge given to the children of alumni, or similar preferences for the relatives of donors. Trump often rails against systems he describes as 'rigged,' but he has overlooked a glaring instance in higher education, said Richard Kahlenberg, a researcher at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank who has written about admissions. 'It's hard to think of a more flagrant way in which the system is rigged than legacy preferences,' Kahlenberg said. 'Rarely is a system of hereditary privilege so openly practiced without any sense of shame.' In recent weeks, Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. His administration negotiated settlements with Brown and Columbia universities that included provisions to share admissions data. Last week, Trump issued a call for colleges nationwide to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. Some are urging Trump to go further. Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., applauded the settlement with Brown requiring the university to turn a blind eye toward race — even in application essays. But 'restoring meritocracy warrants more,' said Young, who cosponsored legislation in 2023 aiming to end legacy admissions. 'Federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in arbitrary circumstances of ancestry that students have no control over, such as legacy status,' Young said on social media. Many selective colleges consider family ties Sometimes called 'affirmative action for the rich,' the practice of legacy admissions remains widespread among elite colleges even as it faces mounting bipartisan opposition. Virginia's Republican governor signed a bill last year barring legacy admissions at public institutions, following similar measures in Colorado, California and elsewhere. Some Republicans in Congress have worked with Democrats on proposals to end it nationwide. Roughly 500 universities consider legacy status when evaluating applicants, including more than half of the nation's 100 most selective U.S. schools, according to 2023 disclosures to the federal government. A few have abandoned the policy, but it remains in place at all eight Ivy League schools. Stanford University said in July it will continue considering legacy status, even after a California law barred it at institutions that receive state financial aid. Stanford opted to withdraw from the state's student financial aid program rather than end the practice. The university said it will replace the funding with internal money — even as it begins layoffs to close a $140 million budget deficit. Stanford officials declined to comment. Last year, as part of a state transparency law, the school reported that about 14% of its new students were relatives of alumni or donors. A push for merit, but no mention of legacy admissions The executive action signed by Trump last week requires universities to turn over more information about students who apply to and are accepted to their campuses. Taxpayers 'deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity' of decisions, his memorandum said, adding that more information is needed to ensure colleges are heeding the Supreme Court's decision. A week earlier, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying what it considers illegal discrimination in admissions. It takes issue not only with overt racial considerations but also 'proxies' for race, including 'geographic targeting' or personal essays asking about obstacles applicants have overcome. Similar language requiring 'merit-based' admissions policies was included in the government's resolutions with Brown and Columbia universities. None of the actions made any mention of legacy admissions. Trump's silence caught the attention of the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights, which has an open complaint with the Education Department alleging that Harvard University's use of donor and alumni preferences amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The group's 2023 complaint says the practice overwhelmingly benefits white students. If the Trump administration wants to make admissions a meritocracy, it should start by ending legacy preferences, said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for the group. 'These deeply unmeritocratic preferences simply reward students based on who their parents are. It's hard to imagine anything more unfair or contrary to basic merit principles,' he said. Few Americans support legacy or donor preferences Colleges defend the practice by saying it builds community and encourages families to become donors. Some backers say it increasingly helps nonwhite students as campuses become more diverse. Then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, urged colleges to rethink legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, saying it expanded 'privilege instead of opportunity.' Some feared it would drive up white enrollment as affirmative action ended. Georgetown University reviewed the policy but kept it in place this year after concluding the pool of legacy applicants had a similar makeup to the wider admissions pool. An AP-NORC poll in 2023 found that most Americans have a dim view of legacy and donor preferences, with few saying either should play a strong role in decisions. Universities are required to tell the federal government whether they consider legacy status, but they don't have to divulge how far it tips the scale or how many legacy students they admit. Among the 20 most selective universities that say they employ the practice, none would tell The Associated Press what percentage of their incoming class has a family connection to alumni or donors. Trump's blitz to root out racial preferences has hinged on the argument that it undermines merit. New scrutiny is needed to ensure colleges are following the Supreme Court's order and 'recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists' and other workers, he said in his executive action. That argument sends the message that minority students are 'intellectually suspect until proven otherwise,' said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor with a forthcoming book on affirmative action. He worries Trump's latest actions will intimidate colleges into limiting minority enrollment to avoid raising the suspicion of the government. 'I believe that the United States confronts a lot of problems today,' Driver said. 'Too many Black students on first-rate college campuses is not among them.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
