Politics
Trump pick to lead CBP accused of 'cover-up' over death of man at California border
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s nominee to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection is facing scrutiny for his role in an investigation into the death of a migrant who was brutally beaten by Border Patrol agents in 2010.
Critics allege Rodney Scott participated in a cover-up and is unqualified to lead the agency. His defenders say he acted appropriately and called him a fine choice to head one of the largest federal agencies with more than 60,000 employees, including the Border Patrol and agents at ports of entry.
Rodney Scott, who led the U.S. Border Patrol until 2021, faced questions about the death from senators Wednesday during a Senate Finance Committee hearing to consider his nomination.
“Today’s hearing is to determine whether Rodney Scott possesses that experience, along with the strength of character to be trusted with one of the most essential jobs in government,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “The evidence shows that he falls short.”
Scott was acting deputy chief patrol agent of the San Diego Border Patrol Sector when agents preparing to deport Anastasio Hernández Rojas beat and tased him in a walkway at the San Ysidro Port of Entry until he stopped breathing, court records show. He died in a hospital two days later, leaving behind a wife and five children.
Federal officials said Hernández Rojas, 42, fought with the agents attempting to remove him from the country.
Last week Wyden sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security seeking documents related to the death and investigation. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s response Tuesday did not include documents. She called Wyden’s “uninformed” account of Scott’s alleged role in the investigation “infuriating and offensive.”
Noem said Scott was not at the scene when the incident occurred, had limited involvement with an internal investigative team that reviewed the case, and didn’t impede external investigations or conceal facts.
“No less than seven local and federal investigatory bodies reviewed the circumstances of Mr. Hernández Rojas’ death, and none found evidence of actions that were inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy,” Noem wrote.
Roxanna Altholz, director of the Human Rights Clinic at UC Berkeley Law, which represents the family of Hernández Rojas, said in a statement that the family has never received a full accounting of how the investigation was handled.
“His family has spent years asking the same question: How can 17 agents of the nation’s largest law enforcement agency, Customs and Border Protection, beat to death a man in public in front of dozens of eyewitnesses on videotape without consequence?” she wrote.
In 2017, the government settled a federal lawsuit with Hernández Rojas’ family for $1 million.
In a landmark decision Wednesday, an international human rights commission found that the U.S. is responsible for Hernández Rojas’ killing and that a cover-up followed. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — an autonomous judicial body within the Organization of American States — called on the U.S. to reopen the criminal investigation of the agents involved.
During the hearing, Wyden called out Noem for not producing the documents he requested.
“The secretary responded with a letter that said Mr. Scott was basically a perfect angel and all the allegations against him are false, but produced zero documents that I requested to back it up,” Wyden said. “In the first 100 days of this administration it seems like this agency is practically allergic to the truth.”
Before Wednesday’s hearing, James Wong, a former deputy assistant commissioner of CBP’s office of internal affairs, wrote to Wyden with concern about Scott’s handling of Hernandez Rojas’ death.
Units known as critical incident teams (CIT), which were disbanded in 2022, investigated use-of-force incidents in the Border Patrol. They were “designed to mitigate liability for Border Patrol senior management and to present Border Patrol in the best possible light,” Wong wrote.
The team used an administrative subpoena, which Scott signed, to obtain Hernández Rojas’ medical records. Wong said that “was blatantly unlawful” because “such subpoenas should only be used for the very limited purpose of examining imports and exports, not for the collection of medical evidence or to search a premises.”
“By virtue of his position, Mr. Scott would have overseen all CIT operations on the case and all CIT information would have filtered through him to CBP headquarters,” Wong wrote. “This was not an investigation, it was a cover-up — one Mr. Scott supervised.”
Noem, in her letter to Wyden, wrote that “Mr. Scott’s signature, and the execution of the administrative subpoena he signed, were consistent with law and agency policy.”
According to court records, officials at the scene erased photos and videos from witnesses’ phones. The critical incident team declined to give San Diego police Hernández Rojas’ medical records. Footage of the scene was written over with new recordings.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) asked Scott whether he did “anything in that case to interfere with the investigation.”
“Absolutely not,” Scott replied.
Wyden also took issue with other incidents in Scott’s past, saying he has not learned from his mistakes.
One of those was Scott’s membership in a private Facebook group for Border Patrol agents with more than 9,000 members that contained racist and sexually violent posts.
Wyden also cited Scott’s response to a former Border Patrol agent and survivor of sexual assault who posted criticism of Scott on X.
Scott responded with a post of his own:
“I investigated all your allegations. Not a crumb of evidence could be found to support any of them. But I did find out a lot about you. Lean back, close your eyes and just enjoy the show.”
A judge called Scott’s post “a classic rape threat” but found it fell short of being an imminent threat of violence.
Scott defended his record, saying he has been transparent throughout his career. He said he apologized to the former agent for his post, calling it “a weak moment” that wasn’t meant to be threatening.
“Everybody makes mistakes,” he said. “I believe the ones I’ve made were very minor. We learn from them and move forward.”
The Biden administration forced Scott out of his role at Border Patrol in 2021 after he objected to directives to stop using terms such as “illegal alien.”
On Wednesday, both Democrats and Republicans congratulated Scott on his nomination. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) suggested that the attempt to prevent his nomination from moving forward wouldn’t succeed.
“I apologize for the smear campaign,” he told Scott.
Scott’s nomination hearing comes as Republicans advance budget legislation in the House and Senate that would provide billions of dollars to CBP. Illegal border crossings have plummeted over the last few months, federal data show.
The Trump administration eliminated many internal oversight bodies in Homeland Security, including the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which investigated allegations of wrongdoing.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Texas5 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah8 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
-
Vermont13 minutes agoVermont barn-building ‘legend’ still visits every job site at 83
-
Virginia20 minutes agoWest Virginia Vs. Cal Poly Predictions & Preview: 2026 NCAA Baseball Tournament Super Regional
-
Washington23 minutes agoIvey announces Alabama National Guard support for America250 events in Washington
-
Wisconsin28 minutes agoWisconsin Senate leader leaves door open for another budget surplus vote
-
West Virginia35 minutes agoCTC Council approves presidential appointments at BridgeValley, Pierpont, and West Virginia Northern – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming38 minutes agoWyoming lawmakers reject upfront bonding for industrial projects, advance state fund alternative
