Latest news with #AdamMartinez
Sydney Morning Herald
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
I was turned back at the US border after a 12-hour interrogation
Last Thursday, I departed Melbourne on QF93 for a two-week holiday in New York. I never made it. After landing at LAX, I disembarked with everyone else and made my way towards the famously long passport queue. I was eager to get through, collect my bags, and board the second leg of my journey. But as soon as I stepped into the snaking line, a voice came over the loudspeaker, calling me out by name. They had been waiting for me. 'Alistair Kitchen, please report to the officer at the back of the arrival hall.' I turned back and was met by a Customers and Border Protection Officer I found disquietingly polite. He asked me to follow him, and we walked together past that long line, down a special queue where my passport was quickly scanned, and then into a room some passengers will know as 'secondary processing'. The officer, who I later learned was Officer Adam Martinez, asked for my phone. He asked if I wanted to use the water fountain, as Americans call it, and if I wanted to use the bathroom. Over the course of the two interrogations that were to come, and in my 12 hours of detention, I was asked many times if I wanted to use the bathroom, as if the customs officers had been taught that availability of a toilet would make up what they were about to do. Then he asked for my phone, and told me I would be immediately deported if I did not give him my passcode. I made the mistake of complying. I may have been visiting only for a short holiday on this occasion, but I know the US well – I lived there for six years, studying and working. Last year I moved back home, to Castlemaine, in regional Victoria, but for the years 2022 to 2024 I was studying a master of fine arts in nonfiction writing at Columbia University. In April 2024, months into the Israeli war on Gaza, students at Columbia began to protest the university's investment in Israel. Columbia is famously the 'activist Ivy', and proudly advertises its history of student protest, such as the 1968 occupation of university buildings to protest the war in Vietnam, and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. One day, I stepped onto campus to discover that students had erected tents on the lawn. At that moment, they began a protest movement that rapidly swept around the world, including to the lawns of universities here in Australia. I began to write down what I saw. Over the days and weeks that followed I posted reports to my Substack, Kitchen Counter. I wrote plainly about what I observed: from Jewish and Muslim students holding hands, singing together for peace, to faculty mounting their own protests opposing university administration. In the end, it was how militarised police used siege vehicles to storm the campus. All of this I watched with my own eyes, and reported as a witness, and a journalist. I wrote, too, about my best guesses for why the university, and the NYPD, were making choices disproportionate in their fierce violence to the peaceful behaviour of the students. I wrote against the swirl of misinformation that rose rapidly, driven from powers a long way from campus. Because the university went into lockdown, professional media were not on the ground. I realised then that my first-person accounts were as important for describing what I saw as they were for describing what I did not see. And what I did not see, in my time observing the protests, were instances of antisemitism from Columbia student protesters. That was why I was detained at LAX. I didn't need to guess the reason – Officer Martinez had told me. As he sat down for the first interrogation, he said, 'We both know why you're here.' I was there because of what I 'wrote online about the protests at Columbia'.
The Age
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Age
I was turned back at the US border after a 12-hour interrogation
Last Thursday, I departed Melbourne on QF93 for a two-week holiday in New York. I never made it. After landing at LAX, I disembarked with everyone else and made my way towards the famously long passport queue. I was eager to get through, collect my bags, and board the second leg of my journey. But as soon as I stepped into the snaking line, a voice came over the loudspeaker, calling me out by name. They had been waiting for me. 'Alistair Kitchen, please report to the officer at the back of the arrival hall.' I turned back and was met by a Customers and Border Protection Officer I found disquietingly polite. He asked me to follow him, and we walked together past that long line, down a special queue where my passport was quickly scanned, and then into a room some passengers will know as 'secondary processing'. The officer, who I later learned was Officer Adam Martinez, asked for my phone. He asked if I wanted to use the water fountain, as Americans call it, and if I wanted to use the bathroom. Over the course of the two interrogations that were to come, and in my 12 hours of detention, I was asked many times if I wanted to use the bathroom, as if the customs officers had been taught that availability of a toilet would make up what they were about to do. Then he asked for my phone, and told me I would be immediately deported if I did not give him my passcode. I made the mistake of complying. I may have been visiting only for a short holiday on this occasion, but I know the US well – I lived there for six years, studying and working. Last year I moved back home, to Castlemaine, in regional Victoria, but for the years 2022 to 2024 I was studying a master of fine arts in nonfiction writing at Columbia University. In April 2024, months into the Israeli war on Gaza, students at Columbia began to protest the university's investment in Israel. Columbia is famously the 'activist Ivy', and proudly advertises its history of student protest, such as the 1968 occupation of university buildings to protest the war in Vietnam, and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. One day, I stepped onto campus to discover that students had erected tents on the lawn. At that moment, they began a protest movement that rapidly swept around the world, including to the lawns of universities here in Australia. I began to write down what I saw. Over the days and weeks that followed I posted reports to my Substack, Kitchen Counter. I wrote plainly about what I observed: from Jewish and Muslim students holding hands, singing together for peace, to faculty mounting their own protests opposing university administration. In the end, it was how militarised police used siege vehicles to storm the campus. All of this I watched with my own eyes, and reported as a witness, and a journalist. I wrote, too, about my best guesses for why the university, and the NYPD, were making choices disproportionate in their fierce violence to the peaceful behaviour of the students. I wrote against the swirl of misinformation that rose rapidly, driven from powers a long way from campus. Because the university went into lockdown, professional media were not on the ground. I realised then that my first-person accounts were as important for describing what I saw as they were for describing what I did not see. And what I did not see, in my time observing the protests, were instances of antisemitism from Columbia student protesters. That was why I was detained at LAX. I didn't need to guess the reason – Officer Martinez had told me. As he sat down for the first interrogation, he said, 'We both know why you're here.' I was there because of what I 'wrote online about the protests at Columbia'.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump CFPB cuts raise concern about financial crises, conflict of interest
March 19 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is well on its way to abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while state officials and other organizations are preparing for what comes next. Last week the administration ordered some 1,700 workers at the CFPB to stay home for the week as it continues to defang the agency. Adam Martinez, the bureau's chief operating officer, testified in federal court that the administration seeks to terminate most of its employees and directed the rest to stop enforcement. The bureau is a congressionally created agency, requiring a vote from the U.S. Congress to legally abolish it. The Trump administration has made similar efforts to circumvent congressional approval in eliminating or greatly diminishing the capabilities of government agencies, such as the Department of Education. The National Treasury Employees Union is joined in a lawsuit against the Trump administration to keep the bureau funded and in operation. Deepak Gupta, founder of the law firm Gupta Wessler and former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Bureau, is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the administration and the bureau's acting director Scott Bessent. "The Administration lacks the authority to suspend the agency's work, defund its operations, or halt enforcement of consumer protection laws," Gupta said in a statement to UPI. "Its attempt to do so is a tragedy for American consumers, and it is lawless. We remain committed to defending the CFPB and its mission to protect consumers." Two of the agency's top officials, assistant director Eric Halperin and Assistant Director for Supervision Policy Lorelei Salas resigned last week, citing the order to cease all work as the reason. "As you know, we have been ordered to cease all work. I don't believe in these conditions I can effectively serve in my role, which is protecting American consumers," Halperin wrote in his resignation. "Today I made the difficult decision to resign." Salas wrote that she does not believe the order to stand down is "appropriate, nor lawful." Functions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau The CFPB primarily functions as the federal enforcer and regulator of financial institutions. The CFPB was congressionally approved with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010. The law was a response to the 2008 mortgage crisis. Some lenders engaged in risky and deceptive lending practices, including offering subprime mortgages to borrowers who were unable to keep up with payments. The resulting mortgage collapse led to the mass foreclosure, nosediving home values and the period of the Great Recession. Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, told UPI that before the mortgage crisis, federal regulators made little effort to protect consumers, noting it is important to consider the context under which the bureau was created. "That led to the great mortgage meltdown," he said. "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to remedy that." The CFPB establishes and enforces regulations for the ever-changing financial industry. It supervises financial institutions and investigates their books to ensure they are complying with federal laws. Since 2021, the CFPB has led the charge on reducing junk fees and ordered medical debts to be removed from credit reports. The agency has issued warnings against workplaces for surveilling workers and it engages in lawsuits on behalf of workers in cases of employers abusing workers' rights. In the final month under the Biden administration, it filed a lawsuit against Walmart and financial tech company Branch Messenger for forcing its drivers to use its deposit accounts. The CFPB also issued rules to make it easier for consumers to change banks and have greater control over their data. One of the largest consumer-facing functions of the CFPB is in taking and investigating complaints. It receives millions of complaints against financial institutions from consumers, filed directly through its website. A majority of those complaints are related to credit reporting or other consumer reports. Some of the other main categories of complaints are about debt collection, banking accounts, credit cards and credit repair services. "Consumers had a wonderful consumer response unit and a public database so consumers could complain about a financial services company," Rheingold. "It has a team that would contact a financial services institution and say, 'You have a complaint. Can you resolve it?" Conflict of interest Elon Musk, special adviser to the president and owner of X, is leading the charge on downsizing the government through the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency. As the Trump administration has its sights on the CFPB, Musk is also developing a payment system to be integrated with X called X Money. X Money is a partnership with Visa that would allow users to connect with their bank account to send and receive money. Christopher Peterson is a professor of law at the University of Utah. He also worked in the CFPB in its enforcement office under the Obama administration and as a special adviser to the bureau's first director Richard Cordray. Peterson told UPI that while there is nothing inherently illegal about Musk's plans for X Money, his close relationship with the president and dismantling of the CFPB creates a conflict of interest. "It's going to have to have a lot of regulatory checks built in that system," Peterson said. "The CFPB would be responsible for the oversight of that new business that is emerging. Instead of going through that process of regulating it, DOGE has come in and attempted to fire all of the people responsible for overseeing his financial business. If he is successful, it could become an extremely lucrative business." X Money represents just one symbol of how the financial landscape has changed since the CFPB was created. Non-bank financial institutions have become far more prevalent. Alternatives to brick-and-mortar banks, digital payday lenders and e-commerce platforms have brought about new conveniences as well as a number of risks. Absent the CFPB, traditional banks still fall under the oversight of other federal regulators like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. There is no other federal regulator responsible for non-bank fintech companies. State attorneys general have the jurisdiction to enforce regulations and combat fraud and abuse that happens within their borders. They also have many other responsibilities, such as upholding the general laws of the land, that limit their resources. Peterson adds that many of them lack the expertise to go toe-to-toe with the largest financial institutions in the world. "One of the problems the CFPB was meant to address is when one bad apple company decides to take shortcuts or engage in deceptive practices, they can at times get a competitive advantage," he said. "It creates a race to the bottom. We saw that in the run up to the Great Recession and the mortgage crisis. Companies competing by pushing riskier and riskier loans that were so highly leveraged it exposed a risk to the entire U.S. economy." "Companies that have been holding back or scammers that are becoming more bold are all now less likely to be deterred or corrected by CFPB actions," Peterson added. "The agency is one of the most important watchdogs in our economy to make sure our bank accounts and our transactions are safe."
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CFPB official details DOGE ‘chaos' in overtaking agency
A top official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) gave an inside account of the 'chaos' and 'confusion' that overtook the agency when the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) arrived at the consumer watchdog in early February. Adam Martinez, chief operating officer of the CFPB, took the stand Monday in a lawsuit challenging his agency's apparent dismantling as a Justice Department witness, testifying to the changes at the agency amid competing accounts from staff and leadership. The account, which painted a less dire picture of the current state of affairs within the agency, marks the most detailed explanation of DOGE's efforts to cut back costs within the agency yet after several declarations cast into question the scope of changes. 'DOGE came in with a very hard fist, so to speak,' Martinez said, adding, 'When the [Office of Management and Budget] director's team came in, I felt the adults were around the table at that point.' Martinez, who has worked in government across five administrations, said DOGE-affiliated employees first arrived at the CFPB on Feb. 6, with agency staff receiving less than an hour heads up. He testified that DOGE's work at the agency felt like a formal audit of its operations, leaving him with the impression that they knew 'exactly what they wanted to do' and 'how they wanted to do it.' DOGE's arrival at the consumer watchdog was 'very contentious,' Martinez said. A CFPB employee confronted DOGE staffers who were meeting with agency officials, demanding to see their IDs. Four security guards were called down, and the employee ultimately left. Days later, acting CFPB Director Russell Vought took control of the agency and ordered staff to 'stand down' from all work. Dozens of CFPB employees were fired, and the agency's headquarters were closed. The building's lease was later terminated. Vought said the newly arrived DOGE employees were acting on his behalf; Martinez testified they were designated as senior leaders within the agency. The CFPB's chief legal officer, Mark Paoletta, has effectively been acting as the agency's chief of staff, a role that has remained open in recent weeks, according to Martinez. The National Treasury Employees Union and other groups quickly sued over the agency's apparent dismantling, arguing the effort violates the separation of powers between the branches of government. In the face of concerns that the administration was preparing to conduct mass layoffs, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson barred officials from firing CFPB employees without cause or issuing a reduction-in-force notice. Amid an administration-wide push for large-scale layoffs, Martinez testified Monday that the CFPB was initially preparing to cut 1,175 employees out of the agency's workforce of more than 1,700 employees. This number was later revised down to between 700 and 900 employees, after the agency fired about 200 employees who were still in their one- to two-year probationary period, as well as some who were hired for a limited period known as term employees. The CFPB was planning to cut even more employees in a second phase of reductions. On cross-examination, Martinez confirmed the CFPB planned to terminate the 'vast majority' of its employees — himself included. Jennifer Bennett, a lawyer for the challengers, suggested DOGE sped up its plan to fire hundreds of employees after her clients sought a court order blocking the apparent dismantling of the CFPB as litigation continues. But Martinez said DOGE's 'desire to unload staff from the agency' was already pressing and, in his view, unaffected by the court's involvement. 'I think that DOGE would have been equally as happy if we terminated people on Wednesday versus Friday,' he said. Martinez said that, even under Rohit Chopra, former President Biden's director of the CFPB, staff were directed to 'pinch pennies' as the agency came close to hitting the top of its budget. When DOGE took over, it sought to cut scores of contracts. But when the acting director and staff 'got more engaged' in the organization, they 'started to pull back,' Martinez said, noting that some of the contracts targeted were fulfilling statutory requirements. 'It's like shoot first and ask questions later?' Jackson asked. 'Yes,' Martinez replied, nodding his head. The Trump administration has maintained that it does not plan to eliminate the CFPB. However, several employees said in court declarations that they were told the administration intended to 'wind down' the agency, eliminating all but five employees and transferring its statutorily required duties to other agencies. Martinez testified that, with DOGE in charge, there was an attempt to wind down the agency. He agreed with plaintiffs' counsel that such a wind down would not be consistent with legal requirements. However, since then, some CFPB offices have been authorized to resume their work, after the agency's chief legal officer emailed employees earlier this month clarifying that they should still be performing statutorily required work, according to a trove of emails filed in court. 'I think there's less confusion today,' Martinez said. 'I have hope for the future. I think that people are, I think people want to go back to work and want to do the work they were hired to do.' 'I don't want to say normal, but we're operating,' he later added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
CFPB official details DOGE ‘chaos' in overtaking agency
A top official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) gave an inside account of the 'chaos' and 'confusion' that overtook the agency when the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) arrived at the consumer watchdog in early February. Adam Martinez, chief operating officer of the CFPB, took the stand Monday in a lawsuit challenging his agency's apparent dismantling as a Justice Department witness, testifying to the changes at the agency amid competing accounts from staff and leadership. The account, which painted a less dire picture of the current state of affairs within the agency, marks the most detailed explanation of DOGE's efforts to cut back costs within the agency yet after several declarations cast into question the scope of changes. 'DOGE came in with a very hard fist, so to speak,' Martinez said, adding, 'When the [Office of Management and Budget] director's team came in, I felt the adults were around the table at that point.' Martinez, who has worked in government across five administrations, said DOGE-affiliated employees first arrived at the CFPB on Feb. 6, with agency staff receiving less than an hour heads up. He testified that DOGE's work at the agency felt like a formal audit of its operations, leaving him with the impression that they knew 'exactly what they wanted to do' and 'how they wanted to do it.' DOGE's arrival at the consumer watchdog was 'very contentious,' Martinez said. A CFPB employee confronted DOGE staffers who were meeting with agency officials, demanding to see their IDs. Four security guards were called down, and the employee ultimately left. Days later, acting CFPB director Russell Vought took control of the agency and ordered staff to 'stand down' from all work. Dozens of CFPB employees were fired, and the agency's headquarters were closed. The building's lease was later terminated. Vought said the newly arrived DOGE employees were acting on his behalf; Martinez testified they were designated as senior leaders within the agency. CFPB's chief legal officer Mark Paoletta has effectively been acting as the agency's chief of staff, a role that has remained open in recent weeks, according to Martinez. The National Treasury Employees Union and other groups quickly sued over the agency's apparent dismantling, arguing the effort violates the separation of powers between the branches of government. In the face of concerns that the administration was preparing to conduct mass layoffs, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson barred officials from firing CFPB employees without cause or issuing a reduction-in-force notice. Amid an administration-wide push for large-scale layoffs, Martinez testified Monday that the CFPB was initially preparing to cut 1,175 employees out of the agency's workforce of more than 1,700 employees. This number was later revised down to between 700 and 900 employees, after the agency fired about 200 employees who were still in their one- to two-year probationary period, as well as some who were hired for a limited period known as term employees. The CFPB was planning to cut even more employees in a second phase of reductions. On cross-examination, Martinez confirmed that CFPB did plan to terminate the 'vast majority' of its employees – himself included. Jennifer Bennett, a lawyer for the challengers, suggested DOGE sped up its plan to fire hundreds of employees after her clients sought a court order blocking the apparent dismantling of CFPB as litigation continues. But Martinez said that DOGE's 'desire to unload staff from the agency' was already pressing and, in his view, unaffected by the court's involvement. 'I think that DOGE would have been equally as happy if we terminated people on Wednesday versus Friday,' he said. Martinez said that, even under Rohit Chopra, former President Biden's director of the CFPB, staff were directed to 'pinch pennies' as the agency came close to hitting the top of its budget. When DOGE took over, it sought to cut scores of contracts. But when the acting director and staff 'got more engaged' in the organization, they 'started to pull back,' Martinez said, noting that some of the contracts targeted were fulfilling statutory requirements. 'It's like shoot first and ask questions later?' Jackson asked. 'Yes,' Martinez replied, nodding his head. The Trump administration has maintained that it does not plan to eliminate the CFPB. However, several employees said in court declarations that they were told the administration intended to 'wind down' the agency, eliminating all but five employees and transferring its statutorily required duties to other agencies. Martinez testified that, with DOGE in charge, there was an attempt to wind down the agency. He agreed with plaintiffs' counsel that such a wind down would not be consistent with legal requirements. However, since then, some CFPB offices have been authorized to resume their work, after the agency's chief legal officer sent an email to employees earlier this month clarifying that they should still be performing statutorily required work, according to a trove of emails filed in court. 'I think there's less confusion today,' Martinez said. 'I have hope for the future. I think that people are, I think people want to go back to work and want to do the work they were hired to do.' 'I don't want to say normal, but we're operating,' he later added.
