Connect with us

Politics

2 U.S. Citizen Children Were Deported to Honduras With Their Mother, Lawyer Says

Published

on

2 U.S. Citizen Children Were Deported to Honduras With Their Mother, Lawyer Says

A 4-year-old and a 7-year-old with U.S. citizenship were deported alongside their mother to Honduras last week, the family’s lawyer said, adding to the recent string of American citizens caught in the cross hairs of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The children and their mother were put on a flight to Honduras on Friday, the same day another child with U.S. citizenship, a 2-year-old girl, was sent to that country with her undocumented mother.

Lawyers for both families said the mothers were not given an option to leave their children in the United States before they were deported. In the case of the 2-year-old, whose 11-year-old sibling was also sent to Honduras, a federal judge in Louisiana expressed concern that the administration had deported the American child against the wishes of her father, who remained in the country.

But President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, denied that any American child was deported. Speaking about the 2-year-old’s case on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Mr. Homan said that federal immigration agents gave her mother a choice of whether to be deported with or without her child, and that she had left the country with her daughter at her discretion.

The children are from two different families who were living in Louisiana. The mother of the 2-year-old is pregnant, and the 4-year-old, a boy, has a rare form of late-stage cancer, the families’ lawyers said. They said the boy had no access to his medications or his doctors while he was in custody with his 7-year-old sister and mother.

Advertisement

The moves come as the Trump administration has ramped up its immigration enforcement and mass deportation efforts. In Florida last week, nearly 800 immigrants were arrested in an operation involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and state law enforcement officials.

Immigration advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union have condemned the administration’s actions, raising concerns of due process.

Gracie Willis, a lawyer with the National Immigration Project who is involved in the 2-year-old’s case, said, “What we saw from ICE over the last several days is horrifying and baffling,” referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But the administration has stood firm. “Having a U.S. citizen child after you enter this country illegally is not a get-out-of-jail free card,” Mr. Homan said.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said on Sunday that it was common for parents who face deportation to want to be removed with their children, noting that the mother of the 2-year-old had made that choice.

Advertisement

“We take our responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to ensure that children are safe and protected,” Ms. McLaughlin said.

Both families were detained earlier last week during routine check-ins with ICE. They were in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, a probationary program that allows people undergoing immigration proceedings to stay in the country.

The 2-year-old and her mother, along with an 11-year-old sibling who is not an American citizen, were detained April 22. The family with the 4-year-old and 7-year-old was detained Thursday morning, said Erin Hebert, their lawyer.

When they were detained, the families were taken hours away from New Orleans, the site of their appointments, their lawyers said, adding that they were prohibited from communicating with other family members or their lawyers. Lawyers for both families said that they were not able to reach the mothers until after they had arrived in Honduras.

Ms. Hebert said she had attended the appointment with the family she is representing, but the family was quickly taken into custody before she could speak with them. She said that she and her team plan to challenge the family’s deportation but are still evaluating their next steps.

Advertisement

In a brief order issued on Friday from Federal District Court in the Western District of Louisiana, Judge Terry A. Doughty asked why the administration had sent the 2-year-old — identified in court records only as V.M.L. — to Honduras with her mother even though her father had sought, through an emergency petition on Thursday, to stop her from being sent abroad.

Judge Doughty, a Trump appointee, said that he had a “strong suspicion that the government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process,” and set a hearing for May 16 to explore the issue.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Ms. Hebert said. “There is just no good-faith interpretation for what happened to these children.”

Alan Feuer, Minho Kim, Hamed Aleaziz and Brandon K. Thorp contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Politics

Maryland to study slavery reparations after lawmakers override Dem governor’s veto

Published

on

Maryland to study slavery reparations after lawmakers override Dem governor’s veto

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Maryland General Assembly on Tuesday voted to override Gov. Wes Moore’s veto of a bill creating a reparations commission, clearing the way for the state to begin formally studying how to address the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination.

The Senate voted 31-14 to override the veto, while the House approved the override 93–35, exceeding the three-fifths majorities required in both chambers.

Moore initially vetoed Senate Bill (SB) 587 in May, arguing that Maryland had already conducted extensive studies on the legacy of slavery and should focus instead on policies that directly narrow racial disparities.

In his veto letter to Senate President Bill Ferguson, Moore noted that Maryland has already launched numerous commissions and study groups over the past 25 years, including one examining lynching and the state’s history of slavery.

Advertisement

DEMOCRATS SILENT ON ILLEGAL ALIEN REGISTERED TO VOTE IN BLUE STATE

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore testifies in support of legislation aimed at making housing more affordable and protecting renters during a bill hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024, in Annapolis, Md. (AP Photo/Brian Witte)

Del. Matthew Morgan, R–St. Mary’s County, spoke on the House floor Tuesday ahead of the vote, calling out his Democratic colleagues for talking about affordability while preparing to set up a commission for “race-bait handouts.” 

“This bill betrays the original intention, the unifying event of the civil rights movement. It’s immoral and it’s fiscally ruinous to this state and it sends a message to the generations out there now in Maryland that if you’re concerned about fairness, dignity, opportunity in this state — to flee Maryland,” said Morgan.

HOUSE DEMOCRAT TO INTRODUCE REPARATIONS PUSH, DECLARES ‘MORAL OBLIGATION’ TO SEND TRILLIONS TO BLACK AMERICANS

Advertisement

Del. Terri Hill, D–Howard County, urged colleagues to override the veto, calling the creation of the commission a decision “we still feel is the right one.”

Senate members wave to Girl Scouts in the balcony on the last day of the legislative session known as sine die on April 9, 2018. (Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

With the veto override, SB 587 will now establish a commission to weigh possible forms of reparations, including official statements of apology, monetary compensation, property tax rebates, child-care support, debt forgiveness and higher education tuition waivers and reimbursements.

A preliminary report is due Jan. 1, 2027, with a final report required Nov. 1, 2027. The commission is set to expire in the summer of 2028.

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS FIRST IN US TO PAY REPARATIONS TO BLACK RESIDENTS

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland hailed the override in a statement posted to social media. 

“This landmark action establishes a rigorous and comprehensive plan for reparations and marks Maryland’s first-ever step toward reparations,” the statement read in part. “At a time of growing attacks on diversity and equity, today’s action reaffirms our shared commitment to truth-telling, accountability, and meaningful progress for Black Marylanders.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Warner Bros. rejects Paramount’s hostile bid, accuses Ellison family of failing to put money into the deal

Published

on

Warner Bros. rejects Paramount’s hostile bid, accuses Ellison family of failing to put money into the deal

Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s hostile offer, alleging the $108-billion deal carries substantial risks because the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind its bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.

Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote Wednesday in a letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.

Warner’s board voted unanimously that Paramount’s hostile bid “was not in the best interests” of its shareholders.

For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. Paramount last week told Warner stockholders that it would pay them $30 a share — or $78 billion for the entire company. Paramount also has said it would absorb Warner’s debt, making the overall deal worth $108-billion.

Advertisement

A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

The Warner auction has taken several nasty turns. Last week, Paramount launched its hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members on Dec. 4 had unanimously approved Netflix’s $82.7-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.

In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s $27.75 a share proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.

Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing appeared shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Instead Paramount’s proposal contained “gaps, loopholes and limitations,” Warner said, including troubling caveats, such as saying in documents that Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”

The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.

Advertisement

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.

(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.

Ellison sent a letter last week to Warner shareholders, asking for their support. The tech scion wrote his family and RedBird Capital Partners would be strong stewards of Warner’s iconic properties, which include Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, “The Lord of the Rings,” and HBO’s “Game of Thrones.”

Advertisement

Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.

In regulatory filings, Paramount has disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount).

This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.

Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.

Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.

Advertisement

“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said, noting that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” the board’s letter said.

Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.

“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.

David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid.

Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.

Advertisement

Warner plans to spin off its linear cable channels, including CNN, HGTV, Cartoon Network and TBS, early next year.

Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.

Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.

However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.

“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”

Advertisement

The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.

Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.

Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.

Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.

Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.

Advertisement

“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Published

on

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

new video loaded: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

transcript

transcript

Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

“It Is the 22nd bipartisan briefing we’ve had on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, drugs to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing, able to lay it out very directly to these senators and soon to the House. But it’s all classified. We can’t talk about it now. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public. H.A.S.C. and S.A.S.C. and appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public.” “I’ll be introducing a live unanimous consent request to release the video both to the full Congress, but also to the American people. The public should see this, and I hope that we’ll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”

Advertisement
Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

By Meg Felling

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending