Connect with us

Politics

DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in

Published

on

DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport until a California judge stepped in

Last September, the Department of Homeland Security started advising unaccompanied immigrant children that they could either self-deport or expect to face long-term detention.

But a federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday ordered the government to stop using such “blatantly coercive” language, ruling that the new advisals, as they are known, violated a 40-year-old court order that bans immigration agents from pressuring unaccompanied children to give up asylum claims and leave the U.S.

According to court documents, the legal advisal was given to recently detained immigrant children. Unaccompanied children are those in the country without a parent or legal guardian.

The minors were told they had the option to return to their country, that doing so would result in no administrative consequences and that they still could apply for a visa in the future.

But the children also were told that if they chose to seek a hearing with an immigration judge or indicated that they were afraid to leave the U.S., they could expect to be held at a detention facility “for a prolonged period of time.”

Advertisement

Those who turned 18 while in custody would be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation, they were told. The advisal, though generally passed on verbally, was written out in court documents by lawyers representing the immigrant children, which the government did not dispute.

“If your sponsor in the United States does not have legal immigration status, they will be subject to arrest and removal,” the advisals continued. “The sponsor may be subject to criminal prosecution for aiding your illegal entry.”

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said that “such a threat disturbingly mirrors” the testimony of Jose Antonio Perez-Funez, a plaintiff in a 1980s class-action lawsuit challenging the tactics of immigration officers.

Perez-Funez, who was 16 when he was arrested near the Mexican border, testified in 1985 in Los Angeles federal court that he agreed to self-deport because federal officers said he would face lengthy detention if he didn’t return to El Salvador.

Perez-Funez’s case originally led the court to establish due process safeguards for immigrant children, giving them the right to speak with a relative or attorney before signing forms that waive their pursuit of legal protection.

Advertisement

“The Government was thus already on notice that such a statement delivered in this environment is precisely the kind of inappropriate persuasion the Injunction sought to prevent,” Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald, a judge in the Central District of California, also denied a request by the federal government to end the permanent court-mandated safeguards for immigrant children altogether.

In response to a request for comment, U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided a statement, attributed to a spokesperson who wasn’t named, that the agency is following the law and protecting children. The agency said the advisal document explains to unaccompanied children their options available under federal law.

“Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential,” the statement said. “It ensures they understand their rights and options — and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.”

Unaccompanied children are first held by Homeland Security before being turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is within the Department of Health and Human Services, for long-term housing. Federal law requires ORR to provide them with a legal consultation within 10 days.

Advertisement

“It is difficult to imagine a scenario more coercive than the one faced by [unaccompanied immigrant children] in the 72 hours before they are transferred into ORR custody, particularly for noncitizen children who likely do not know whether they possess any rights at all,” Fitzgerald wrote in his order.

In declarations to the court, children wrote that they felt threatened by the government’s advisals. One minor, identified as D.A.T.M., said the threats to prosecute their parents and of long-term detention caused them to sign voluntary departure papers.

Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney at the pro bono law firm Public Counsel, helped secure the 1986 court order. He said his legal team discovered Homeland Security had changed the advisals only after a government attorney notified him in November that the agency was going to seek to end the court-mandated safeguards.

“I consider this a war on children — the most vulnerable population,” he said.

The government has until Thursday to decide whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling. Regardless, Rosenbaum said, his goal is to establish more aggressive monitoring of unaccompanied children’s cases to ensure their rights aren’t violated again.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: How Rubio Is Driving the U.S. Pressure Campaign on Cuba

Published

on

Video: How Rubio Is Driving the U.S. Pressure Campaign on Cuba

new video loaded: How Rubio Is Driving the U.S. Pressure Campaign on Cuba

Our diplomatic correspondent Michael Crowley explains how Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has long lobbied for an end to the regime in Cuba, is ramping up pressure on the island.

By Michael Crowley, Nikolay Nikolov, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Jon Miller and Whitney Shefte

May 20, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Hunter Biden’ X account debuts with eyebrow-raising claim as GOP lawmakers pile on

Published

on

‘Hunter Biden’ X account debuts with eyebrow-raising claim as GOP lawmakers pile on

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A newly active X account bearing former first son Hunter Biden’s name drew mockery from GOP lawmakers and prominent social media personalities after posting its first message Tuesday.

“Your laptop’s reputation precedes you,” Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrote in response to the “@HunterBiden” account. 

Fox News Digital reached out to X and Hunter Biden’s art gallery to verify if the account belongs to the former president’s son, but did not receive confirmation. The account has garnered thousands of followers and interactions since Tuesday, when it launched its first message. 

“I’m Hunter Biden. You’ve never actually heard from me,” the account blaring the former first son’s name posted. 

Advertisement

The account’s profile reads: “Artist. Author. Recovery Advocate.”

HUNTER BIDEN HELPED MAKE CAMPAIGN DECISIONS, WAS MAJOR FIXTURE IN FATHER’S ORBIT, AUTHOR SAYS

Hunter Biden posts his first message on X and Substack. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)

Hunter, 56, has re-emerged in the public spotlight as he attempts to rebuild his image following years of controversy involving drug addiction, legal troubles and scrutiny surrounding his personal life. 

The X account, @HunterBiden, was first launched in 2013, according to a Fox News Digital review, but posted its first public message on Tuesday. Hunter Biden’s art gallery website is linked to the X account, while the art gallery’s website links to the X account, a YouTube page and a Substack account. 

Advertisement

The tweet sparked a wave of mockery aimed at the younger Biden, as well as a handful of accounts quipping that the former first son would allegedly launch a 2028 run. 

“We’ve heard plenty,” said Republican Indiana Sen. Jim Banks responded to the account. 

“Trust me, we’ve heard and seen ENOUGH from you,” Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith chimed in.

Other social media users quickly piled onto the alleged Hunter Biden post, resurfacing past controversies and even floating him as a potential political candidate.

“Oh this oughta be good,” said conservative commentator Nick Sortor in an X response.

Advertisement

“Very real chance he doesn’t remember that we have, in fact, heard from him in hours of podcasting before now,” said Fox News contributor Mary Katharine Ham.

“The 2028 Dark Horse Candidate,” wrote one X user, while another added “He’s running.”

MAMDANI’S WIFE’S ‘STUDENT SKETCHBOOK’ ART IS HUNTER BIDEN EFFECT ALL OVER AGAIN, SAYS US ARTIST

Hunter’s art gallery website links his X account, Youtube, as well as a newly formed Substack which posts the same message. (TheImageDirect.com)

Additionally, Candace Owens tagged the X account in a trailer for her upcoming interview with Hunter Biden, who is continuing a media tour following years of controversy while under the public spotlight. 

Advertisement

The @HunterBiden account reposted the video, writing, “She’s got questions. I’ve got answers. Thursday.”

JOE BIDEN POSES WITH HUNTER’S CHINESE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES IN NEWLY SURFACED PHOTOS: ‘INCREDIBLY DAMNING’

Hunter reportedly moved out of the United States amid mounting legal issues, just a year after his father left the presidential office in 2025.  (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

HUNTER BIDEN’S FINANCIAL WOES REVEALED IN NEW MOTION TO DROP LAWSUIT: ‘SIGNIFICANT DEBT’

Hunter Biden has been involved in a string of controversies spanning his foreign business dealings, tax and gun charges, and scrutiny tied to his family’s political connections.

Advertisement

Hunter received a pardon from President Joe Biden for any offense he “has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024, before his father left office.

In September 2024, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in California for a scheme evading over $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. He was also convicted in Delaware in June 2024 for lying on a federal form about his drug use to purchase a firearm in 2018.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Hunter published a memoir titled “Beautiful Things: A Memoir” in 2021 which details his battle with severe substance abuse and family tragedies from his own perspective.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Trump has left himself only bad options on Iran

Published

on

Contributor: Trump has left himself only bad options on Iran

Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched their large-scale bombing campaign against Iran and about six weeks since the April 8 ceasefire took effect, President Trump faces an inflection point. Does he return to war? Maintain the ceasefire and U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in the hope of cutting a deal on American terms? Or drop his maximalist negotiating stance?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an informal foreign policy advisor for the White House, continues to press for more aggressive U.S. military action. Trump’s political advisors would prefer that the war end as soon as possible to minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party in a midterm election year.

Trump seems conflicted. Despite weeks of U.S. bombardment and an ongoing naval blockade, Tehran is as protective of its nuclear program today as it was before the war began. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. A day later, Trump took to the social media platform again to announce he suspended planned U.S. attacks on Iran to give talks more time.

Unfortunately for Trump, he’s proved to be his own worst enemy on this subject. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and Tehran’s effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the regime’s two biggest cards, are a byproduct of Trump’s own policy decisions.

The first is a clear indictment of Trump’s first-term order to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a highly technical accord that put Iran’s nuclear work in a box by restricting the number and quality of centrifuges it could use, capped the amount of enriched uranium it could produce and compelled Tehran to ship 97% of its stockpile out of the country. When the Trump administration scrapped that hard-won deal, Iran responded by enriching more nuclear material at a faster pace and accumulating the very stockpile the Trump administration is now seeking to neutralize.

Advertisement

The Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s second card, would not even be an issue today if the Trump administration had refrained from going to war in the first place. On Feb. 27, the day before the conflict began, more than 150 tankers and vessels traveled through the strait. The international waterway was open for business.

Not so today. On Thursday, a grand total of three crossings were registered in the waterway. This collapse of commerce is a consequence of Iran’s ability to harass civilian tankers so much that shipping companies no longer view the journey as worth the cost. As Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: “The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically depleted through the strait, but their voice is very loud. And those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and insurance industry.”

By virtue of his own actions, Trump is now left with a series of policy options that range from least bad to terrible. None of them are ideal, and all of them carry some risk.

For starters, Trump could resume the war. Any renewed U.S. bombing campaign would probably expand the U.S. military’s original set of targets to include a portion of Iran’s energy infrastructure, which Trump has threatened repeatedly to hit. A U.S. invasion of Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s oil processing takes place, might also be up for discussion. The aim would be to destroy Iran’s remaining military capabilities and further squeeze its oil revenue until Tehran’s strategic calculus on the war shifts to Washington’s liking.

Yet there are no guarantees that doubling down on military force will work. Trump’s entire strategy has relied on a baseline assumption: The more punitive the United States is, the more likely Tehran will be to cave. Yet that simply hasn’t occurred. If anything, Iran is more dug in now than it was in the opening days of the conflict. For the regime, capitulating to Trump is as dangerous as losing the war. Why would more bombing succeed where previous bombing failed?

Advertisement

The risks of additional U.S. military action are considerable as well. Before the ceasefire, Iran was launching ballistic missiles and attack drones across multiple gulf Arab states, hitting Qatar’s largest natural gas processing facility, Saudi Arabia’s east-west oil pipeline and Dubai’s luxurious high-rises. As the Iranians have stated, such attacks will not only resume if Trump orders a resumption of the war but will expand to new targets, including desalination facilities and nuclear power plants. Such strikes would raise global oil and gas prices to even more absurd levels, adding to the extra $40 billion the American people are already paying for fuel since the war began.

What about continuing the status quo? While this contingency would be less costly than another round of bombing or a U.S. ground invasion, it’s unclear whether it would help or hurt negotiations toward a settlement. There’s a possibility that extending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could merely reaffirm the regime’s earlier decision to preserve its own shutdown of the strait. Iran is now urging Washington to end its blockade before talks on the nuclear file can be held. And it’s a mystery whether Trump’s blockade is working anyway; the U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran could withstand this pressure point for three to four more months, which may be too long for Trump to sustain given the oil disruptions that are bound to get worse.

Striking an agreement to end the war, return the strait to open traffic and restrict Iran’s nuclear program would be the most beneficial policy for the United States with the least amount of cost attached — not quite undoing the harm from Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the nuclear deal and his second-term decision to start a war. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are passing proposals back and forth as we speak. But as of now, Trump can’t stomach agreeing to a deal that covers some of Iran’s terms, including but not limited to a shorter suspension of enriched uranium and some kind of Iranian role in the management of the strait. Even if Trump did reassess his position, he would be forced to confront the hawks in his political coalition who would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.

In short, Trump is in an unenviable position. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending