News
ICE officers set to deploy to airports as delays mount, border czar Homan confirms
People wait in a TSA line at the John F. Kennedy International Airport on Sunday in New York City.
Yuki Iwamura/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Yuki Iwamura/AP
President Trump said he is sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to U.S. airports as some air travelers face longer security lines due to the partial government shutdown.
“On Monday, ICE will be going to airports to help our wonderful TSA Agents who have stayed on the job,” Trump posted on social media Sunday.
The Trump administration has blamed Democrats for the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which has entered its sixth week and paused paychecks for Transportation Security Administration workers.
“This pointless, reckless shutdown of our homeland security workforce has caused more than 400 TSA officers to quit and thousands to call out from work because they are not able to afford gas, childcare, food, or rent,” Acting Assistant DHS Secretary Lauren Bis told NPR in an email.
She said this has caused hours-long delays for travelers across the country, and said the agency will deploy “hundreds” of ICE officers “to airports being adversely impacted.”
DHS did not respond to NPR’s question of where ICE agents will be deployed.
But Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said Sunday evening that agents would be at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to help with “line management and crowd control.” In a statement, he said federal agents “indicated that this deployment is not intended to conduct immigration enforcement activities.”

The head of the union that represents TSA officers denounced the plan to send ICE to airports.
“ICE agents are not trained or certified in aviation security,” Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement on Sunday.
He said TSA officers spend months learning to detect explosives, weapons, and threats designed to evade detection at checkpoints.
“They deserve to be paid, not replaced by untrained, armed agents who have shown how dangerous they can be,” he added.
The ACLU also issued a statement condemning the move, saying immigration agents at airports could “inspire fear among families.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., echoed that concern.
“The last thing that the American people need are for untrained ICE agents to be deployed at airports all across the country, potentially to brutalize or in some instances kill them,” Jeffries said on CNN.
Tom Homan, the White House border czar, “is in charge” of the ICE deployment, Trump said. TSA and ICE are both part of DHS.
But it remains unclear exactly how the operation will work at airports.
“It’s a work in progress,” Homan said on CNN Sunday. “But we will be at airports tomorrow helping TSA move those lines along.”

Unclear duties for ICE agents
Homan said he is talking with the heads of ICE and TSA to finalize a plan, but said he expects ICE agents to relieve TSA agents of guard duty at some terminal entries and exits.
“I don’t see an ICE agent looking at an X-ray machine because they’re not trained in that,” Homan said. “There are certain parts of security that TSA is doing that we can move them off those jobs and put them in the specialized jobs, help move those lines.”
But Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy seemed to have a different idea of what ICE agents could do at airports.

“They know how to run the X-ray machines because they are again under Homeland Security with TSA,” Duffy told ABC Sunday.
Duffy then warned that wait times at airports would get much worse if Congress doesn’t fund DHS by the end of next week, when TSA workers are set to miss another paycheck.
“I think you’re going to see more TSA agents — as we come to Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week — they’re going to quit or they’re not going to show up,” Duffy said.
Scant negotiations progress
Last week, Congress failed to advance a DHS funding bill for the fifth time, leaving TSA, FEMA and other agencies in the lurch. ICE, on the other hand, still has plenty of funding after Congress allocated the the agency billions of dollars last summer as part of Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The DHS shutdown started following the deaths of two U.S. citizens at the hands of federal immigration agents in Minnesota. The killings sparked demands from Democrats to change ICE policy: a judicial warrant requirement, and a ban on ICE agents wearing masks, among other proposed changes.
It was not immediately clear whether ICE agents deployed to airports would wear masks, as many of them do during immigration enforcement.

Homan said he met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill last week to discuss DHS funding, but he gave no indication that a deal was nearing.
“More conversations need to be had because we certainly can’t surrender ICE’s authorities and their congressionally mandated job,” Homan said Sunday.
As for the ICE operation at airports, Homan said agents will continue to enforce immigration laws as they deploy to terminals and security lines.
NPR’s Jennifer Ludden contributed to this story.
News
Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
News
Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
News
Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 minutes agoCalifornia primary election results: governor and L.A. mayor races
-
Detroit, MI22 minutes agoAnother bribery scandal hits Detroit. It involves the People Mover
-
San Francisco, CA32 minutes agoWhat’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
-
Dallas, TX37 minutes agoDallas weighs $500 million‑plus repair plans as City Hall’s future comes up for debate
-
Miami, FL44 minutes agoMiami biotech executive was followed into his condo by man who allegedly threw him from 25th floor
-
Boston, MA47 minutes ago
What a World Cup ‘fan zone’ is and what Boston fans can expect in 2026
-
Denver, CO52 minutes agoDefensive lineman Jordan Miller has a tough battle to make the Broncos’ final 53-man roster
-
Seattle, WA59 minutes agoVIDEO: Mayor Wilson proposes renewing, expanding Seattle Transit Measure by doubling the sales-tax percentage that funds it.