Connect with us

Politics

Immigrant rights advocates prepare to fight Trump's immigration orders

Published

on

Immigrant rights advocates prepare to fight Trump's immigration orders

A day after President Trump issued 11 executive orders cracking down on illegal immigration, advocates and a coalition of states led by California are preparing for court battles against an administration that appears to have learned from previous legal missteps made during his first term.

Among the many sweeping changes in Trump’s orders were the declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, the revocation of birthright citizenship and the designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

Immigrants and those who hoped to immigrate to the U.S. are reeling from the news. Thousands of migrants are indefinitely stranded in Mexico after Trump ended use of a phone app and canceled long-standing appointments by asylum seekers for legal entry. Afghan refugees who had been cleared for travel to the United States are now in limbo after Trump paused refugee resettlement. Undocumented immigrants in Chicago and other cities across the country stayed home out of fear of planned immigration raids.

Legal experts said subtle modifications to some of the orders reflected attempts by the Trump administration to beat back legal challenges preemptively.

“Some of this stuff they have done is to try and preempt a lot of the issues that they bumped into last time,” said Amy Fischer, director of the refugee and migrant rights program at Amnesty International USA.

Advertisement

Opponents of Trump’s orders wasted no time in challenging them. A coalition comprising California, 17 other states, the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco sued the federal government Tuesday over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, calling it unconstitutional and asking the court to block it from taking effect.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Monday night over the birthright citizenship order and submitted a legal filing in an ongoing case over the cancellation of appointments for asylum seekers at the border. Nayna Gupta, policy director at the left-leaning American Immigration Council, said the organization is also planning a lawsuit this week against Trump’s use of executive authority to “suspend the entry” of certain immigrants when doing so is deemed to be detrimental to national interests.

The ability to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is suspended, according to Trump’s order, “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”

“Trump’s barrage of executive orders is calculated to create fear, create chaos, induce anxiety and drive our elected officials to capitulate and collaborate in a mass deportation agenda,” said Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the ACLU. “If we let Trump exert this kind of death grip over our communities now for immigration enforcement, we fear it will embolden Trump to come again and again for our civil rights.”

Longtime critics of illegal immigration hailed the president’s actions. “Thanks to Donald Trump, America’s borders are about to get a lot more secure,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) said in a post on X. Issa’s district runs along the border east of San Diego.

Advertisement

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement that “nothing exemplifies a new day in America more than President Trump’s unwavering commitment to border security and restoring enforcement of our nation’s laws.”

Some of Trump’s orders are predicated on what opponents contend to be legally dubious claims. Birthright citizenship, for example, is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“He cannot unilaterally change that,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Monday night on CNN. “But that’s the conversation — the chaos — he wants to create.”

And in designating drug cartels as terrorist groups, Trump is preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against them. But utilizing the law would require courts to agree that criminal groups can be considered a nation at war with the United States. The Alien Enemies Act allows the president to arrest, imprison or deport immigrants from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime.

“Whether this is a war or there’s an invasion is going to be subject to litigation, and there is good law on the side against the president on this,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Advertisement

But challenging some of Trump’s policies will be a challenge in itself. Fischer, of Amnesty International, said it’s harder to cleanly pick apart policies that are laid out in executive orders that overlap and rely on one another.

Other aspects of the orders have less conclusive legal precedent. Fischer pointed to the pause on refugee admissions, something Trump did during his first presidency. This time, the executive order calls for a report to be sent within 90 days to the president by immigration officials detailing whether resumption of refugee processing “would be in the interests of the United States.”

Tom Jawetz, a former senior attorney at the Homeland Security Department under the Biden administration, said Trump’s new administration is being both more cautious and more aggressive than last time. The policies he implemented before, such as Remain in Mexico, could be carried out more quickly and possibly more effectively. Under that policy, asylum seekers must stay across the border as their cases are being adjudicated.

But the more “exotic” provisions of some executive orders are largely legally untested, Jawetz said. Trump said during his inaugural address that he would deploy the military to the border region to combat illegal immigration.

“Aligning the mission of the U.S. military to border security, combined with a national emergency declaration and all of this invasion rhetoric, taken to the extreme, could be completely unprecedented and transformative,” Jawetz said.

Advertisement

Trump’s opponents are waiting to see the written policies that emerge from the executive orders. Litigation strategy will come down to how the orders are implemented, Jawetz said.

Some of those policies started trickling out Tuesday. In a news release, the Homeland Security Department announced that acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman had issued a directive ending the broad use of temporary humanitarian programs, which under then-President Biden were expanded to give legal protection to 1.5 million immigrants. Another directive rescinds long-standing guidelines that prevent immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as hospitals and churches.

“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” the release states.

Times staff writer Rachel Uranga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending