Connect with us

News

Videos From Minnesota Show How Aggressive ICE Has Gotten During Arrests and Encounters With Protesters

Published

on

Videos From Minnesota Show How Aggressive ICE Has Gotten During Arrests and Encounters With Protesters

Clockwise from top left: Monica Bicking, via Storyful; Status Coup News, via Storyful; Brendan Gutenschwager, via Storyful; and Level Up with Gene and Jay, via Facebook.

Advertisement

Federal immigration agents have broken windows and dragged occupants out of their vehicles. They have forcefully tackled people to the ground. They have pushed and shoved protesters, and deployed pepper spray directly in their faces.

For weeks, residents have documented the scenes unfolding as federal agents pursue President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. The videos have circulated widely and intensified outrage and fear among many Minnesotans.

Marty Kurcias, 76, who was protesting at the airport on Friday, said the aggressive treatment he has seen of Minnesotans was jarring. “It can’t go on like this,” he said, adding, “We don’t abide by cruelty or violence.”

Advertisement

Trump administration officials have defended the tactics as necessary in the face of widespread protests. But the heavy-handed use of force has drawn mounting scrutiny.

The New York Times reviewed dozens of videos taken in recent weeks and identified multiple aggressive tactics that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents used during immigration arrests and in encounters with protesters.

Advertisement

Officers forcibly entered homes without a judge’s warrant.

On Sunday, federal agents were seen dragging a man from his home in St. Paul. The man was later identified as ChongLy Scott Thao, a Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen with no criminal record, according to his family. Mr. Thao and his family said that the armed agents did not present a warrant or allow him to show identification at the time of arrest.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Mr. Thao refused to be fingerprinted or facially identified and that he had matched the description of two sex offenders they were seeking.

Advertisement

An internal memo, leaked by a whistle-blower group, showed that ICE officials had drafted guidance saying that their officers could enter homes without a judicial warrant and that they could rely instead on administrative warrants that are issued by a government agency and do not go through the federal court system.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the department, acknowledged that officers had relied on administrative warrants to enter homes to conduct arrests.

Advertisement

John Sandweg, who served as an acting director of ICE under President Barack Obama, said the practice of entering homes without a judicial warrant would be a significant departure from decades-old ICE policies and procedures.

They interrogated people because of their ethnicity or accents.

Administration officials have repeatedly said that the operations in Minnesota have targeted violent criminals and people who pose a serious threat to the community. But immigration agents have confronted and interrogated people because of what they assumed their race or ethnicity to be.

Advertisement

A video posted on social media and additional footage provided to The New York Times show one man, Ramon Menera, questioned by immigration agents who told him they were asking for documentation because of his accent.

Mr. Menera told The Times that he is a U.S. citizen and that the agents released him after he provided them with his passport card.

Advertisement

In July, a federal judge prohibited immigration agents in the Los Angeles area from targeting people based on assumptions about their race or ethnicity, but the Supreme Court lifted the order in September.

They broke windows and dragged occupants from their cars.

Immigration agents are taking sharp measures to detain and arrest people. That includes people who do not appear to be a danger to the community and in some cases people who are not the targets of immigration enforcement operations at all.

Advertisement

A widely shared video taken in Minneapolis shows immigration agents dragging a woman, later identified as Aliya Rahman, from her car, after one agent shattered the window on the passenger side.

Advertisement

Brendan Gutenschwager, via Storyful

The Homeland Security department later said that the woman was an “agitator” who ignored multiple commands to move her vehicle away from the scene. Ms. Rahman told CNN that she was not there to protest, and that she had received conflicting commands.

Advertisement

Another video shows one agent breaking the window of a car after a man inside refuses to open the door. Multiple agents then tackle the man, later identified as Orbin Mauricio Henriquez Serrano, to the ground.

Advertisement

Status Coup News/Jon Farina, via Storyful

Shattering a window and pulling someone out of their car can escalate an encounter significantly, said Geoffrey P. Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. It would be suitable only in a situation in which the federal agents had probable cause to suspect that the target had committed a violent crime like murder, rape or robbery, he said.

It was not immediately clear whether the man fit that description. The Homeland Security Department said only that he was an undocumented immigrant from Honduras who failed to obey officers’ orders.

Advertisement

They used force on people who were already restrained.

The Times found multiple instances of several agents tackling someone to the ground and proceeding to handle that person aggressively, in one instance placing a knee on the person’s neck.

Advertisement

In another case, video shows five immigration agents holding a man to the ground as one agent repeatedly strikes the man in the face with his knee.

Advertisement

Monica Bicking, via Storyful

A strike to the head is generally considered deadly force, justified only to defend against imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, said Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law. “There was nothing in that video that indicated that was the situation,” she said.

The available video does not show what led up to the encounter. Ms. McLaughlin said in a statement to The Times that the man had violently resisted arrest. She added that officers are trained to use the minimum necessary amount of force.

Advertisement

They met protesters with force.

Immigration agents have increasingly clashed with protesters in recent weeks after a federal officer shot and killed a woman, Renee Good, on Jan. 7. Protesters have gathered in small groups and in large crowds, honking car horns, blowing whistles and yelling at and filming ICE agents. Immigration agents have been filmed exchanging insults and jeers with the protesters.

Advertisement

Videos showed multiple cases when agents were quick to use physical force with protesters, shoving or tackling them. In one instance, an agent gets out of a car, walks up to a protester who is standing in front of the agent’s car and shoves him into the middle of the street.

Advertisement

Level Up with Gene and Jay, via Facebook

Ms. Lopez said that the First Amendment gives people the broad right to protest, record and yell things, even profanity, at officers.

In a statement to The Times, Ms. McLaughlin characterized the protesters as “rioters and terrorists,” and said that they had assaulted law enforcement and vandalized federal vehicles.

Advertisement

They deployed chemical irritants at close range.

Videos also documented multiple occasions when, in confrontations with protesters, immigration agents deployed chemical irritants with little to no warning — firing directly in people’s faces.

Advertisement

A federal judge in Minneapolis cited several episodes of “gratuitous deployment of pepper spray” in a ruling last week that ordered agents not to retaliate against peaceful protesters. A federal appeals court temporarily lifted those restrictions on Wednesday.

In a video of a protest taken on Jan. 7 near where Ms. Good was killed, federal agents can be seen on multiple occasions hitting protesters in the face with pepper spray and other irritants at close range. Earlier in the video, one of the protesters throws a snow ball at one of the agents, and some protesters are blocking an agent’s vehicle.

Advertisement

Status Coup News, via Storyful

They continued to operate with anonymity.

Advertisement

In many of the videos The Times reviewed, immigration agents drove in unmarked cars, and wore ski masks, neck gaiters or other face coverings. Many also wore a cap and shades, further obscuring their identities, a practice that has been common in immigration operations across the country.

Federal officials have said that face coverings protect the agents and their families from retaliation, such as having their home address or contact information shared online.

Advertisement

But the practice runs counter to protocols for most other law enforcement personnel, like police officers whose uniforms include badge numbers. And critics have suggested that the agents have been emboldened to act with impunity, knowing that their identities are hidden and that it would be difficult to hold them accountable.

News

The Deadly Rise of Giant Trucks and S.U.V.s

Published

on

The Deadly Rise of Giant Trucks and S.U.V.s

26-inch hood

2002 Toyota Corolla

36 inches

2014 Ford Escape

Advertisement

47 inches

2022 Chevrolet Silverado

Advertisement

In the early 2000s, more than half of the passenger vehicles on American roads were traditional cars like sedans. Their hoods were low to the ground.

Advertisement

By the 2010s, larger vehicles like compact S.U.V.s had eclipsed cars.

Advertisement

Today, S.U.V.s and pickup trucks dominate the roads. Many are bigger than ever.

Advertisement

And far deadlier, a New York Times investigation found.

Advertisement

They are killing thousands of pedestrians who otherwise might have survived.

Advertisement

Illustrations by Todd M. Detwiler

For decades, American roads were steadily getting safer for pedestrians. But around 2009, the trend reversed. Since then, the number of pedestrians killed each year has risen by about 75 percent.

Advertisement

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety The New York Times

Advertisement

The surge in pedestrian deaths has baffled researchers. Most other wealthy countries haven’t seen similar increases, suggesting that possible culprits like smartphones don’t tell the whole story.

Other likely causes of deadly crashes, such as drunken and distracted driving, have attracted immense attention from the public and policymakers. But the trend toward ever-larger vehicles has received much less scrutiny, even after federal researchers in 2022 cautioned regulators that it was endangering pedestrians.

After analyzing federal and industry records, including never-before-examined data on vehicle dimensions, we found that the rise of large pickups and S.U.V.s is an important factor.

Advertisement

Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century. That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.

There are two reasons bigger vehicles are deadlier: They have taller hoods. And they tend to have larger blind zones.

Advertisement

“We see a lot of devastating collisions even at lower speeds because the pedestrian gets punted forward,” said Shawn Harrington, whose company, Forensic Rock, conducted crash tests for us. “Before the driver knows what’s happened, the pedestrian’s head is under the wheel.”

More vehicles than ever have hoods that exceed the average American’s center of gravity, which is generally around the belly button.

Advertisement

The hood of an average passenger vehicle today is about three feet high. Anyone shorter than 5-foot-6 — about half of American adults — would frequently be rammed to the pavement. So would most children.

Advertisement

, who is , is likely to be knocked down by about XX percent of vehicles today.
In 2002, that number would have been XX percent.

Not only are the high hoods on larger vehicles more lethal, but their bulkier frames can also block drivers’ views of pedestrians.

Advertisement

To analyze how these blind zones have changed, we used a three-dimensional scanner to compare sightlines in four of the most common pickups today — the Chevrolet Silverado, Ford F-150, GMC Sierra and Toyota Tacoma — with their counterparts from the 1990s or early 2000s.

The Silverado’s blind zones have nearly doubled.

Advertisement

The Sierra’s and the Tacoma’s grew by about 60 percent.

The smallest increase was the F-150’s. Its blind zones grew by about 25 percent.

Our overall findings match what we found in court records and heard from dozens of experts who reconstruct crashes for police and lawyers.

Advertisement

One morning last year, Charlene McAlister, 76, set out for work at a child care center in Colorado Springs. “See you tonight,” she called to her daughter as she left their home.

As Ms. McAlister was crossing the street, a Ram 1500 TRX — a pickup marketed for its off-road capabilities and fierce-looking design — was turning left.

Advertisement

Ms. McAlister was not quite five feet tall. The pickup’s hood was at least four feet high. It hit her, throwing her to the pavement.

The driver later said he hadn’t seen Ms. McAlister, according to court records. They show that the truck’s large hood and side mirrors may have impeded his view.

When Ms. McAlister’s daughter, Serena, arrived at the scene, she saw her mother’s hedgehog-themed backpack and red purse in the road, spattered with blood. Emergency workers had draped a white sheet over her body.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Serena McAlister at the intersection where her 76-year-old mother was struck by a pickup truck. Rachel Woolf for The New York Times

Advertisement

Charlene McAlister was hit as the truck turned left. Rachel Woolf for The New York Times

Advertisement

The size of vehicles is far from the only reason that more pedestrians are dying, according to independent experts and industry officials.

“While vehicle safety is critical, blaming larger vehicles for pedestrian deaths overlooks systemic issues” including the design of roads, said Mike Levine, a spokesman for Ford.

Automakers say that new technology designed to detect and avoid pedestrians — including systems that automatically apply the brakes — would dramatically improve safety. For example, Bill Grotz, a spokesman for General Motors, pointed to a recent study that found that G.M. vehicles with so-called front pedestrian braking reduced the frequency of injuries by 35 percent.

Advertisement

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pinning its hopes on automated collision-avoidance systems. Such technologies “are actively reducing the occurrence of these crashes and fundamentally shifting the risk landscape,” said Sean Rushton, an agency spokesman. “We view these technologies as the cornerstone of future mitigation strategies.”

But many experts say that technology is not a perfect substitute for drivers being able to view their surroundings directly. And tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which studies ways to make driving less dangerous, have shown that many large vehicles’ automatic braking systems do not consistently prevent collisions.

Advertisement

The owner’s manuals for some of the most popular vehicles caution that safety technology can fail in a variety of common situations: in bad weather; at high speeds; if there are shadows on the road or its surface is uneven; or if a pedestrian is running, pushing a stroller, not standing upright or the size of a small child.

‘King of the Road’

Today’s S.U.V.s and pickups promise more: more seats, more space, more safety, more power, more domination, more prestige.

Advertisement

And, for automakers, more money.

They are the source of virtually all of the U.S. auto industry’s profits, said Mark Wakefield, an industry expert at the consulting firm AlixPartners. For nearly a decade, Ford and G.M. have said in their annual reports that their earnings depend on larger S.U.V.s and pickups.

Advertisement

The cost of making bigger vehicles is usually not much higher than it is for cars, because they are often built in automakers’ most efficient factories and the extra raw materials are relatively cheap.

Yet customers are willing to pay much more for them. The average sticker price for a full-size pickup is $70,000, double that of a sedan, according to Cox Automotive. (Some people pay more to soup up their trucks with “lift kits” that raise their suspensions.)

It is no coincidence that automakers have dramatically scaled back their production of sedans and other passenger cars in the United States. Ford, for example, went from selling more than a million in 2017 to fewer than 100,000 five years later.

Advertisement

What used to be utilitarian vehicles for construction workers are now marketed to the American masses, with messages tailored to specific audiences.

One common pitch centers on machismo. Automakers trumpet how some of their trucks have an “aggressive appearance” or a “piercing glare.”

Advertisement

Chevrolet Silverados from 1998 and 2021.

Other approaches emphasize the perceived safety of being the biggest vehicle around. “You’re the king of the road,” said Frank Hanley, a director at the automotive research firm JD Power.

Advertisement

At Ford, Nicole Gayney’s job was to identify specific social and psychological groups to target.

One was men who hoped to be seen as the neighborhood’s hero, keeping everyone safe, said Dr. Gayney, who left Ford in 2022. Another group was women who viewed a roomy S.U.V. as a way to be the community’s caregiver, taking the soccer team out for ice cream.

Advertisement

“We’re kind of in this American mind-set that bigger is better,” she said.

An Unintended Consequence

In 2009, after a spate of fatal incidents in which drivers were crushed in rollovers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration required roofs to be strong enough to support three times the weight of a vehicle. Many automakers responded by installing thicker A-pillars.

Advertisement

James Forbes, who was a longtime engineering manager at Ford, said that after the company began installing the fatter A-pillars, he and his colleagues noticed that they were reducing drivers’ visibility.

The drivers were safer, but pedestrians were in greater peril. “We were very much biasing safety toward the owner of the vehicle,” Mr. Forbes said.

Advertisement

Those potential dangers began attracting attention, with articles in the Detroit Free Press and Consumer Reports.

By 2022, the lack of visibility in large vehicles had become a concern for researchers at the Transportation Department’s Volpe Center, whose mission is to identify and address problems in the transportation system.

That November, the researchers met with leaders at the department and N.H.T.S.A. They delivered a stark message: Large vehicles, with their big blind zones, were increasingly deadly. They were killing hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists every year and injuring thousands more, the researchers estimated, according to attendees and meeting materials we reviewed.

Advertisement

The researchers hoped that their warning would spur regulators to consider how to address the problem.

But a senior N.H.T.S.A. official disputed the data and argued that new pedestrian-sensing technologies were already improving safety.

Advertisement

“There was just zero acknowledgement of the problem,” said Angie Byrne, a former Volpe Center employee who was involved with the research and attended the meeting.

The meeting ended with no plan for action.

The Closed Casket

Advertisement

The U.S. government has paid scant attention to how the size of vehicles affects the safety of pedestrians.

Federal regulators don’t collect much data about the heights of vehicles’ hoods. But we found one service that does: Expert AutoStats.

Advertisement

Our analysis shows a radical change in the makeup of American vehicles over the past two decades.

Not only have many drivers abandoned traditional cars in favor of S.U.V.s and pickups. But millions have flocked to vehicles with hoods that are more than 50 inches tall — like the Ford F-250 and Chevrolet Silverado 2500 — whose ranks have increased more than five-fold since 2002.

Advertisement

Percent of vehicles on the road by hood height

Advertisement

Source: A New York Times analysis of registration data from S&P Global and vehicle dimension data from Expert AutoStats.

To understand how a vehicle’s size affects a crash’s lethality, we built a statistical model. Our goal was to estimate how many fewer pedestrians, if any, would have died in a world in which vehicles had remained roughly the same size since 2002.

We started with a federal database that contains a nationally representative sample of crashes reported to the police from 2016 to 2024. We narrowed that down to those involving a single vehicle and a single pedestrian. And we added the data on hood heights, which wasn’t included in the federal database.

Advertisement

Our model then analyzed the degree to which different factors — such as hood height, weather conditions, time of day and whether alcohol was involved — affected whether pedestrians died.

Crashes are complex events, and the data we fed into our model doesn’t capture everything about each incident. And, of course, there is no way to definitively say what would have happened in an alternate reality where vehicles had not continued to grow larger.

Advertisement

But based on the best available data, the model reached a sobering estimate: The shift toward vehicles with higher hoods caused about 3,000 deaths from 2016 to 2024.

The estimate is conservative in many ways.

For example, it doesn’t include collisions that occur in places like parking lots, driveways or private roads, which are not part of the federal database. Hundreds of pedestrians a year are estimated to die in such crashes, a number that has been increasing.

Advertisement

Only in the past several years have researchers started exploring whether and how larger vehicles threaten pedestrians.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, for example, found last year that vehicles with larger blind zones were substantially more likely to hit pedestrians when turning left.

Advertisement

One evening in October 2016, Margaret Lacey, a 57-year-old nurse, was taking her dog for a walk in Jefferson County, Colo.

She was in a crosswalk as Ernest Martinez, a 50-year-old construction manager, was turning left in his Ford Excursion. He later said he hadn’t seen Ms. Lacey until his S.U.V. was nearly upon her. His view had been blocked by the A-pillar, a crash reconstructionist found.

Advertisement

He slammed the brakes, but he still hit her.

The hood of his 2002 Excursion — large for its time but common by today’s standards — was nearly four feet tall. It came up to Ms. Lacey’s chest. The impact sent her flying. Her head smashed into the pavement.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Margaret Lacey was hit by an S.U.V. in a crosswalk in 2016. Lucy Garrett for The New York Times

Advertisement

When Ms. Lacey’s sister, Betty, learned of her death, she flew to the United States from Ireland. Lucy Garrett for The New York Times

Mr. Martinez leapt out of his vehicle and knelt by her side. “I prayed with her,” he said in an interview. “I just held her hand and watched her go.” Her dog also died.

Advertisement

When Ms. Lacey’s sister, Betty, learned of her death, she flew to the United States from Ireland. She wanted an open casket, following her family tradition. But her sister’s head was grievously misshapen. “The only part that looked like Margaret was her hands,” Betty said.

The coffin was closed. Her funeral was held at a Catholic chapel in Denver, and Mr. Martinez was among the mourners. “May God bless you all, and I pray that you all will find peace,” he wrote in the condolence book.

“I’m sorry.”

Advertisement

Rachel Woolf for The New York Times

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

We used four main datasets to conduct our analysis: crash data from N.H.T.S.A.’s Crash Report Sampling System (C.R.S.S.) from 2016 to 2024, the most recent year available; N.H.T.S.A.’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (F.A.R.S.); vehicle measurements from Expert AutoStats; and registration information from S&P Global from 2002 to 2024. The datasets characterized vehicle models differently, so we standardized the descriptions. Part of that involved using an A.I. model. We reviewed thousands of matches and found no errors among them.

To estimate the effect of hood height on a vehicle’s lethality, we narrowed the C.R.S.S. data to single-pedestrian, single-vehicle crashes. We excluded motorcycles and commercial trucks, as well as collisions in which the vehicle was moving backward. That left us with about 6,000 incidents.

Advertisement

Then we ran what’s known as a logistic regression. We took the following crash conditions into account: speed limit, bad weather, lighting, alcohol involvement, crash year, and vehicle year and whether the crash occurred in an urban area. We also accounted for the sex and age of the pedestrian and the driver. We included only crashes in which all these variables were available and accounted for C.R.S.S.’s sampling method.

We found hood height to be a statistically significant (p-value = 0.003) predictor of pedestrian death in a crash. The estimated magnitude of this effect is a 2.8 percent increase in the odds of a pedestrian fatality for every one-inch increase in hood height.

Advertisement

We also considered alternative models that included reported crash speed, hood angle and hood length. In all variants, hood height remained a statistically significant predictor of deadliness. Hood height had a lower effect in our model than in most variants, indicating that our estimates may be conservative.

We used our model to estimate the number of pedestrian deaths that would have occurred under two counterfactual scenarios.

In the first scenario, we decreased the hood height of each vehicle in our dataset by three inches, equal to the increase of the average hood height since 2002. We computed how much this change would reduce the predicted probability of a pedestrian death for each crash. We multiplied the yearly average reduction, which was about 7 percent for all years, by the total number of pedestrian fatalities in the F.A.R.S. dataset, which provides a national census of fatal crashes. As with the C.R.S.S. dataset, we also filtered to single-vehicle, single-pedestrian crashes with non-commercial vehicles in the F.A.R.S. dataset. This resulted in a range of 306 to 377 lives saved, or 3,077 in total from 2016 to 2024.

Advertisement

In the second scenario, we took a random sample of hood heights from 2002 and applied them to more recent crashes in our database. Across 10,000 simulations, this reduced the probability of pedestrian death by about 5 percent to 7 percent, depending on the year. That amounted to 222 to 361 lives saved each year, or a total of 2,624.

To measure the differences in visibility among pickup trucks, we used an Artec Leo structured light scanner to create three-dimensional models of the trucks.

Advertisement

We scanned four of the most popular pickup models: Silverado, F-150, Sierra and Tacoma. We scanned one of each model from the 1990s or early 2000s and one from the modern-day fleet. Before scanning, we adjusted the driver’s seat to the middlemost position.

Next, we used a technique called aperture projection to calculate how much space was visible through each window. We used these figures to determine the size and shape of the blind zones in front and to the sides of the driver, up to 50 feet.

We ran these calculations twice for each vehicle: from the perspective of a 5-foot-11 driver and from that of a 5-foot-6 driver. The differences were the same or smaller for the taller driver, so we used those results to be conservative.

Advertisement

We estimated the percentage of Americans under 5-foot-6 based on an analysis by Matthew Parkinson of Pennsylvania State University. The 3D Silverado that appears in the article was created with the help of Kevin Shain from Laser Design.

We consulted with a number of industry experts to develop and check our methodology, including Justin Tyndall from the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization and Steve Summerskill at Loughborough University in England.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump claims vandals damaged D.C. Reflecting Pool, and says it will be drained again

Published

on

Trump claims vandals damaged D.C. Reflecting Pool, and says it will be drained again

Visitors watch as National Park Service employees use vacuums to clean the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, Saturday, June 20, 2026, in Washington.

Mark Schiefelbein/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Mark Schiefelbein/AP

President Trump has claimed that United States Park Police have made several arrests in connection with what he described as deliberate sabotage of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington D.C., which underwent a multimillion-dollar renovation earlier this year.

“The United States Park Police have arrested multiple individuals for vandalizing our Nations magnificent Reflecting Pool,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late Saturday evening. “These are very serious crimes having to do with the destruction of National Monuments. Years in jail! Work will begin immediately on its repair.”

In a second post on Saturday, Trump described the alleged damage in greater detail, saying more arrests had followed. He provided no evidence for any of his claims about the nature of the damage, and neither the Park Police nor any other law enforcement agency had publicly confirmed any arrests as of the time of publication.

Advertisement

On Friday, Maryland resident and former Olympian David Hearn was arrested and charged with destroying government property. Hearn says he merely reached into the pool to touch one of the already dislodged blue pieces, and denies the charge.

Trump said that the pool would be drained and repaired quickly, and framed the alleged vandalism as an affront to American history. “We met with contractors today, will probably be forced to release and drain much of the water in order to do the necessary repairs,” he wrote. “What these terrible Vandals have done is a true affront to both Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and should be dealt with accordingly”.

A peeling section of blue coating is seen in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, Saturday, June 20, 2026, in Washington.

A peeling section of blue coating is seen in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, Saturday, June 20, 2026, in Washington.

Mark Schiefelbein/AP


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Mark Schiefelbein/AP

‘A 250-foot long gash’

Trump described what he said was physical destruction to the pool’s newly renovated lining. “They took some form of knife or blade, and put a 250 foot long gash into the beautiful facade of what took so much work, competence, and money to build and complete,” he wrote Saturday. “They also poured corrosive and destructive chemicals into the Pool.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Newsom declares State of Emergency for Boyle Heights warehouse fire

Published

on

Newsom declares State of Emergency for Boyle Heights warehouse fire

Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency Saturday night as plumes of black smoke continue to rise from the Lineage Logistics warehouse fire, still burning on the 1400 block of South Los Palos Street in Boyle Heights.

The fire started inside a freezer area at the cold storage facility Wednesday afternoon and was initially extinguished before reigniting on Thursday, according to officials.

Newsom’s declaration allows the state to use additional funding for firefighting efforts, public health services and disaster recovery as Los Angeles continues to deal with the emergency.

“California is mobilizing to support Los Angeles as firefighters and emergency personnel continue their work to contain this fire and protect surrounding communities,” Newsom said in a statement Saturday. “While local officials continue to lead this response, the State of California is prepared to help safeguard public health, support emergency operations, and assist impacted residents. We are coordinating closely with our local partners, deploying specialized expertise, and pre-positioning critical supplies so communities have the support they need both now and throughout recovery.”

Although local officials have not asked for additional state resources at this time, Newsom preemptively made the declaration to provide the region with resources as soon as they are needed, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs said.

Advertisement

“Cal OES is working side-by-side with the City and County of Los Angeles and our regional partners to ensure they have the resources, information, and support necessary to respond to this incident,” Jacobs said. “The State of Emergency allows us to further streamline coordination efforts and leverage additional state capabilities as needed. Our focus remains on protecting communities and supporting locally led response operations.”

  • Smoke from Boyle Heights warehouse fire continues to blow over downtown Los Angeles 
  • Boyle Heights warehouse fire smoke
  • Crews work a warehouse fire in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Resources available to Los Angeles following the declaration include:

  • 5.5 million N95 respirator masks available for distribution to impacted communities.
  • Commercial-grade air purifiers available for deployment to evacuation centers, community facilities, and other public spaces.
  • Bottled water and other emergency supplies available through the state’s logistics network.
  • Enhanced air quality monitoring and technical support resources.

Cal OES Fire and Rescue Branch leaders with specialized technical expertise are also available to consult L.A. fire officials on how to deal with the warehouse fire, if necessary. The state provided similar expertise to officials during the chemical tank failure in Garden Grove.

Air quality remains unhealthy in parts of Los Angeles due to the large amount of smoke produced by the fire.

“The warehouse fire has produced significant smoke and particulate matter that may affect air quality in surrounding neighborhoods,” the governor’s office stated. “To support public health monitoring efforts, the California Air Resources Board is coordinating with local and regional partners to ensure access to air quality information and technical expertise. State agencies continue to monitor conditions and stand ready to deploy additional monitoring resources if requested.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending