Connect with us

Politics

The Senate is considering the Laken Riley Act. Here's what it would do

Published

on

The Senate is considering the Laken Riley Act. Here's what it would do

The Senate could vote Tuesday on the Laken Riley Act, a Republican-led bill that mandates federal detention for immigrants who are charged with minor crimes and grants broad enforcement powers to states.

It passed the House earlier this month as the first bill taken up by the new, Republican-controlled Congress and moved forward in the Senate with significant support from Democrats.

The bill’s advancement illustrates the new willingness by more Democrats to consider conservative immigration policies after losing favor with voters on border security, a front-line issue in the November presidential election.

Immigrant rights groups and other opponents have warned that the bill would violate due process rights and be extremely costly to the federal government.

What happened to Laken Riley?

The bill is named for Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered last year in Athens, Ga., by a Venezuelan immigrant who had entered the U.S. illegally in 2022. Border Patrol agents released him, like many migrants, with temporary permission to stay in the country.

Advertisement

Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, had previously been cited in Georgia with misdemeanor shoplifting from Walmart and was arrested in New York for driving a scooter without a license and with a child who wasn’t wearing a helmet. Supporters of the bill say federal authorities should have detained Ibarra after he was charged with those crimes.

In November, Ibarra was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Allyson and John Phillips, Riley’s mother and stepfather, wrote in a statement that the bill has their full support.

“Laken would have been 23 on January 10th,” they wrote. “There is no greater gift that could be given to her and our country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through this bill.”

What would the Laken Riley Act do?

The Laken Riley Act has three significant provisions: to require detention of immigrants convicted of certain crimes; to authorize state governments to sue the federal government over its handling of individual immigrants; and to give states the power to demand that the State Department stop issuing visas for countries that refuse to accept the return of deported nationals.

Advertisement

“If you came into the U.S. illegally and then you chose to commit a crime against Americans — whether that’s against persons or property — on U.S. soil, you should go to the front of line when it comes to detention and removal,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) wrote on X.

The bill would require immigration agents to take into custody people who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting. It would override the current discretion afforded to federal officials to prioritize the detention of people with violent criminal records.

The legislation requires detention if a person is even charged with theft-related crimes. That means someone could be deported before getting the chance to defend themselves in court.

The bill also gives state attorneys general the power to sue the federal government over alleged mishandling of people in its custody, overriding the longstanding broad authority of the federal government over immigration matters. State officials could get a court to instruct immigration agents to track down people it had released from detention.

States would also be empowered to insert themselves into U.S. foreign policy matters. Some countries refuse to accept back their citizens whom the U.S. attempts to deport. The bill would allow state attorneys general to sue the State Department to stop visas from being issued for any country refusing to accept deportations.

Advertisement

Opponents say the law would lead to chaos in federal courts and the separation of longtime residents from their U.S. citizen family members as they are detained indefinitely.

“I don’t think that people understood what was in the bill when they were cosponsoring it,” said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the advocacy group Immigration Hub, who works with Congress to develop policy.

Jason Houser, who was chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2021 to 2023, said the legislation would force federal agencies to divert manpower from the most dangerous offenders.

“If this bill is enacted, you will see less individuals in detention that are violent convicted criminals than you do today,” he said, noting that the federal government has a finite amount of resources, detention beds and staff.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it would need more than $3 billion to detain the 60,000 people it had identified to meet bill’s parameters.

Advertisement

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the left-leaning American Immigration Council said the visa provision raises serious constitutional and international relations concerns with potentially sweeping ramifications for the U.S. economy.

“You could see [Texas Atty. Gen.] Ken Paxton suing to block all H-1B visas from China. You could see somebody trying to prevent all business tourism from India,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “The prospect of 677 different federal district court judges around the country having the power to order the secretary of State to impose sweeping visa bans on other countries threatens to upend our system of government, giving states and the judiciary more power over diplomacy and immigration than the federal government itself.”

What is its history in Congress?

The Laken Riley Act passed the House last week, 264-159, with 48 Democrats in support. Among them were seven Democrats from California, including Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce), Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Derek Tran (D-Garden Grove), who flipped seats previously held by Republicans.

Senators voted 82-10 on Monday to take up consideration of the measure. California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam B. Schiff, both Democrats, did not vote.

In an interview Sunday on NBC, Padilla said he would vote against the bill in its current form.

Advertisement

“It opens the doors for people simply being charged — without a conviction — to be detained and deported,” he said. “That includes minors, that includes Dreamers, that’s [for] shoplifting a pack of bubble gum. There has to be more of a focus on a piece of legislation like this.”

When the bill was first introduced in the House last year, it passed 251-170, with 10 fewer Democrats in support. The Senate, which then held a slim majority, declined to take it up for consideration.

On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said he was hoping for a robust debate and the ability to offer improvements on the bill.

“Americans deserve for us to debate the issue seriously, including by considering amendments from the Democratic side,” he said. “We’re going to ask our Republican colleagues to allow for debate and votes on amendments.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

Published

on

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.

A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.

The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”

The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.

Advertisement

A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House.  (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)

“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.

What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.

“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.

BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING

Advertisement

The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)

The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024. 

“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.

Advertisement

DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED

President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.

Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Advertisement

The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Related Article

Top Biden officials questioned and criticized how his team issued pardons, used autopen: report
Continue Reading

Politics

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Published

on

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

Advertisement

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

Advertisement

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

Advertisement

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

Advertisement

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

Advertisement

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

Advertisement

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

Continue Reading

Trending