Connect with us

News

‘No peace’: Nearly a year after her son’s death, she learned that ICE was responsible

Published

on

‘No peace’: Nearly a year after her son’s death, she learned that ICE was responsible

Rachel Reyes, holds a photo of her son, Ruben Ray Martinez, a U.S. citizen who was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent during a traffic encounter in Texas.

Brenda Bazán for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brenda Bazán for NPR

When Rachel Reyes thinks back to her son’s final days, she remembers how excited he was for the year ahead.

Ruben Ray Martinez had just turned 23. Reyes said her son planned to enroll in trade school to become a mechanic. He felt ready to move out of his family’s home in San Antonio and had found an apartment he liked, she added.

But on March 15, 2025, Martinez, a U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent during a traffic encounter in Texas. He’s considered the first of at least six people to have been killed by immigration agents since the start of President Trump’s second term, according to The Trace, an outlet focused on covering gun violence.

Advertisement

“He would speak with enthusiasm, like he was looking forward to doing things. He thought he’d have more time,” she said. “We all thought he would have more time.”

Martinez’s death came nearly a year before immigration agents fatally shot Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti in separate incidents in Minneapolis. And during that time, Martinez’s mother and the public didn’t know that the officer who killed Martinez worked for ICE.

That only came to light following a public records request by American Oversight, a watchdog group, that sought documents related to ICE’s use of force. Among the records was an ICE incident report that said Martinez accelerated his car and struck a federal agent, prompting another officer to fire defensive shots.

But videos released separately last month suggest a different version of events: Footage from police body cameras appear to show federal agents standing in front of Martinez’s car as it slowly moves. It’s unclear from the videos reviewed by NPR whether the vehicle hit an agent.

Reyes told NPR that she felt betrayed by law enforcement, whom she says she always had a deep respect for. She added that losing her son was already devastating and the recent revelations about ICE’s involvement have made grieving more painful.

Advertisement

“It’s like a constant state of unrest,” she said. “There was no peace and I still don’t have peace.”

Reyes holds a photo of Martinez. From the way that he cared for his siblings and nephew, she believed that Martinez would have made a great father someday.

Reyes holds a photo of Martinez. From the way that he cared for his siblings and nephew, she believed that Martinez would have made a great father someday.

Brenda Bazán for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brenda Bazán for NPR

‘I heard Ruben say, ‘I’m sorry,’ and then he slumped backward’

Martinez was only supposed to be away from home for one night.

He told his mom that he planned to meet up with a friend and promised to be home the next day, according to Reyes.

“ He was all happy with his backpack getting ready to go,” she said. “And then, the next time I see him brought home, he’s in his urn.”

Advertisement

Martinez and his friend Joshua Orta drove down to South Padre Island, a popular spring break destination in south Texas. Just after midnight, the two approached a busy intersection where a car wreck had occurred earlier that evening. Officers from multiple agencies were on the scene to help manage traffic, including South Padre Island Police, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Homeland Security Investigations, which operates under ICE.

The next moments were caught on videos from officers’ body cameras that were released by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) last month.

Footage from one body camera shows an officer signaling to Martinez to pull over. That officer, Texas Game Warden Juan Rosendo, later said in a police report released by DPS that he spotted an open bottle of alcohol in the car.

In a second body camera, an officer can later be heard saying “keep going.” Martinez starts to drive straight. As he gets closer to the crash site, an officer can be heard yelling, “Stop” and “Hold him.”

Moments later, Martinez’s car appears to have come to a full stop, according to footage from a third body camera. Two officers then approach the front of the vehicle — one of whom attempts to open the car door, the video shows. As this happens, Martinez’s car appears to slowly move forward and to the left. Then, three shots ring out in quick succession. The entire sequence of events lasts less than 30 seconds.

Advertisement

The second body camera shows the shooter pulling Martinez’s body out of the car and onto the ground. Martinez is handcuffed and over a minute later, receives medical attention.

Rachel Reyes holds a jacket that was retrieved from her son’s car after his death.

Rachel Reyes holds a jacket that was retrieved from her son’s car after his death.

Brenda Bazán for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brenda Bazán for NPR

According to police reports, the agent who opened fire was Homeland Security Investigations Supervisory Special Agent Jack Stevens. In a written statement to investigators, Stevens said he did so as an act of self-defense, claiming that he saw his fellow agent, Hector Sosa, “fall onto the hood of the vehicle.”

How Sosa came into contact with Martinez’s vehicle is unclear from the videos reviewed by NPR. Sosa, in his written statement to investigators, said he was treated for an unspecified knee injury. 

Later that night, Orta, who witnessed the shooting from the passenger seat, was taken into questioning. In a video released by DPS, Orta said Martinez was confused because multiple officers were yelling instructions. Martinez was also worried about getting in trouble for driving while intoxicated, according to Orta.

Advertisement

“He was literally just like … panicky,” he told investigators. “He didn’t know what to do, like he definitely didn’t want to go to jail. But as far as running over an officer and endangering, he [wouldn’t] do that.”

Orta went on to say that the car was “barely moving” when he saw an “officer kind of like get on the hood.” He added that Martinez “didn’t necessarily hit him, but like, it kind of like, you know what I mean, caught his feet.”

Orta died in February in an unrelated car crash. In a written statement provided to Reyes’ lawyer before his death and then shared with NPR, Orta wrote “Ruben did not hit anyone,” adding that an agent approached the front of the car and slapped the hood.

He wrote, “Without giving any warning, commands, or opportunity to comply, the agent fired multiple shots at Ruben from an extremely close distance — no more than two feet. I heard Ruben say, ‘I’m sorry,’ and then he slumped backward.”

‘An unwillingness to admit mistakes”

The day after the shooting, a Texas Ranger came to Reyes’ home to tell her that Martinez had been fatally shot by an officer. He did not mention that the officer worked for ICE, she said.

Advertisement

Reyes recalled being in shock and confused at the news because her son was not an aggressive person, she said. Far from it, Martinez was shy and laidback, she added.

“It never made sense to me,” she said. “Ruben wouldn’t use his car to hurt anyone, ever.”

In late February, a grand jury in Texas declined to bring charges against Stevens. In a statement to NPR, ICE’s acting director Todd Lyons said, “We stand by the grand jury’s unanimous decision that found no criminality. This incident was investigated from every possible angle by an independent body, and it cleared our officer.”

Since then, Democratic U.S. Reps. Robert Garcia of California and Greg Casar of Texas have called for an independent investigation into the shooting and why ICE did not disclose its involvement sooner.

Reyes’ attorney, Charles Stam, told NPR that his team is also exploring legal options, adding that he believes federal agents escalated the situation by standing in front of Martinez’s car. “ I think what we’ve seen is an unwillingness to admit mistakes,” he said.

Advertisement

According to the Department of Homeland Security, immigration agents have the right to use deadly force when there’s “reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat.” But its policy advises agents to “avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.”

“Sometimes there needs to be the deadly use of force. That’s something that should be undertaken with solemnity,” Stam said. “And if it’s done, there should be an investigation and people should be held accountable for their actions. We’ve seen none of that here.”

A photo of Martinez lies on a jacket that was retrieved from his car after his death.

A photo of Martinez lies on a jacket that was retrieved from his car after his death.

Brenda Bazán for NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brenda Bazán for NPR

Shy, goofy and loved feeding stray cats

Martinez was quiet when he first met someone — but really, he was goofy and thoughtful, Reyes said. Her son loved feeding stray cats and had a knack for fixing things, especially cars.

From the way that he cared for his siblings and nephew, Reyes believed that Martinez would have made a great father someday. “ He would always make sure to tell them that he loved them every time they left, and he was always playing around with them and joking around,” she said. “He was really good to them.”

Advertisement

For Reyes, it’s been strange to go through the day without hearing his laughter from across the hall or smelling French toast and eggs, which Martinez was learning to perfect.

“ I could always tell when he got started because I could smell the burnt eggs,” she said. “He would FaceTime me in the kitchen like, ‘How do you make your eggs so fluffy?’”

It was especially tough last month — which marked Martinez’s 24th birthday and the anniversary of his death. Reyes used to take her son to a nice restaurant to celebrate his birthday. Although she planned to stay home this year, her family encouraged her to keep the tradition going.

Reyes said it was nice to be at dinner with loved ones, but it wasn’t the same. “It’s just an obvious difference without him here,” Reyes said.

Still, like always, she saved a seat for her son.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

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.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

(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.

Advertisement

(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.

Advertisement

(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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

(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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending