stephen miller

On Saturday, a home belonging to a South Carolina Circuit judge burned to the ground. Three people, including the judge’s husband and son, were hospitalized with serious injuries.

The cause of the fire was not immediately clear. An investigation is underway.

Obviously, the harm and destruction were terrible things. But what turned that particular tragedy into something more frightful and ominous is the fact the judge had been targeted with death threats, after ruling against the Trump administration in a lawsuit involving the state’s voter files.

Last month, the judge, Diane Goodstein, temporarily blocked South Carolina from releasing data to the U.S. Department of Retribution, er, Justice, which is turning over tables in search of “facts” to bolster President Trump’s lies about a stolen 2020 election.

Among those who criticized the decision, which was reversed by South Carolina’s Supreme Court, was Harmeet Dhillon, the San Francisco attorney who now heads the Justice Department’s beleaguered Civil Rights Division.

Here’s a short quiz. Using professional norms and human decency as your guide, can you guess what Dhillon did in the aftermath of the fire?

A) Publicly consoled Goodstein and said the Justice Department would throw its full weight behind an urgent investigation into the fire.

B) Drew herself up in righteous anger and issued a ringing statement that denounced political violence, whatever its form, whether perpetrated by those on the left, right or center.

C) Took to social media to troll a political adversary who raised concerns about the targeting of judges and incendiary rhetoric emanating from the Trump administration.

If you selected anything other than “C,” you obviously aren’t familiar with Dhillon. Or perhaps you’ve spent the last many months in a coma, or cut off from the world in the frozen tundra of Antarctica.

The cause of the fire could very well turn out to be something unfortunate and distinctly nonpolitical. Faulty wiring, say, or an unattended pot left on the stove. South Carolina’s top law enforcement official said a preliminary inquiry had so far turned up no evidence that the fire was deliberately set.

What matters, however, is Dhillon’s response.

Not as someone with a shred of sympathy, or as a dogged and scrupulous seeker of truth and justice. But as a fists-up political combatant.

The timing of the blaze, the threats Goodstein received and the country’s hair-trigger political atmosphere all offered more than a little reason for pause and reflection. At the least, Goodstein’s loss and the suffering of her husband and child called for compassion.

Dhillon, however, is a someone who reacted to the 2022 hammer attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband not with concern but rather cruel and baseless conspiracy claims.

By then, Dhillon — a critic of Trump before he won the 2016 Republican nomination — had shape-shifted into one of his most vocal backers, a regular mouthpiece on Fox News and other right-wing media. Her pandering paid off with her appointment to the Justice Department, where Dhillon is supposed to be protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans — not just those in Trump’s good graces.

There’s plenty of tit-for-tat going around in today’s sulfurous climate. Indeed, the jabbing of fingers and laying of blame have become something of a national pastime.

The administration asserts left-wing radicals are responsible for the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a sniper attack on the ICE field office in Dallas. Those on the left blame Trump and his venomous vassal, Stephen Miller, for the incineration of Goodstein’s home.

When Neera Tanden, a liberal think-tank leader and prolific presence on social media, suggested there might be a connection between the blaze and Miller’s hate-filled rhetoric, Dhillon responded like a juvenile in a flame war. “Clown … grow up, girl,” Dhillon wrote on X.

When a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed a finger at Dhillon and her criticism of the South Carolina judge, Dhillon seized on some over-the-top responses and called in the U.S. Marshals Service. “We will tolerate no such threats by woke idiots, including those who work for @GavinNewsom,” Dhillon said.

All around, a sad display of more haste than good judgment.

That said, there is a huge difference between a press staffer getting his jollies on social media and the assistant attorney general of the United States playing politics with personal calamity.

And, really, doesn’t Dhillon have better things to do — and better ways of earning her pay — than constantly curating her social media feed, like a mean girl obsessing over likes and followers?

Worse, though, than such puerile behavior is what Dhillon embodies: an us-vs.-them attitude that permeates the administration and treats those who didn’t vote for Trump — which is more than half the country — as a target.

It’s evident in the talk of shuttering “Democrat” agencies, as if federal programs serve only members of one party. It’s manifest in the federal militarization of Democratic-run cities and the cutting off of funding to blue states, but not red ones, during the current government shutdown.

It’s revealed in the briefings — on military plans, on operations during the shutdown — given to Republican lawmakers but denied to Democrats serving on Capitol Hill.

Dhillon is just one cog in Trump’s malevolent, weaponization of Washington. But her reflexively partisan response to the razing of Judge Goodstein’s home is telling.

When the person in charge of the nation’s civil rights enforcement can’t muster even a modicum of civility, we’re living in some very dark times indeed.

It was late Sunday evening when President Trump got thumped with a court loss — again — by California.

No, a federal judge ruled, Trump cannot command the California National Guard to invade Portland, Ore. At the request of California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and others, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut broadened a temporary restraining order that had blocked Oregon’s National Guard from being used by the federal government. It now includes not just California’s troops but troops from any state. At least for the next two weeks.

It’s the kind of legal loss Trump should be used to it by now, especially when it comes to the Golden State. Since Trump 2.0 hit the White House this year with Project 2025 folded up in his back pocket, the state of California has sued the administration 42 times, literally about once a week.

While many of those cases are still pending, California is racking up a series of wins that restored more than $160 billion in funding and at least slowed down (and in some cases stopped) the steamrolling of civil rights on issues including birthright citizenship and immigration policy.

“We have won in 80% of the cases,” Bonta told me. “Whether it be a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, and more and more now permanent final injunctions after the whole trial court case is done.”

I’ll take it. We all need some positive news. I don’t often write just about the good, but in these strange days, it’s helpful to have a reminder that the fight is always worth having when it comes to protecting our rights. And, despite the partisan Supreme Court, the reason that we are still holding on to democracy is because the system still works, albeit like a ’78 Chevy with the doors rusting off.

While Gov. Gavin Newsom has made himself the face of California’s fights against Trump, taking on a pugnacious and audacious attitude especially on social media, the day-in, day-out slugging in those battles is often done by Bonta and his team in courtrooms across the country.

It’s hard to recall, but months ago, Newsom called a special session of the Legislature to give Bonta a $25-million allowance to defend not just California but democracy. And in a moment when many of us fear that checks and balances promised in the Constitution have turned out to be little more than happy delusions, Bonta has a message: The courts are (mostly) holding and California’s lawyers aren’t just fighting, they’re winning.

“We can do things that governors can’t do,” Bonta said. “No role and no moment has been more important than this one.”

Bonta told me that he often hears that Trump is disregarding the courts, so “what’s the point of litigation at all? What’s the point of a court order at all? He’s just going to ignore them.”

But, he said, the administration has been following judges’ rulings — so far. While there have been instances, especially around deportations, that knock on the door of lawlessness, at least for California, Trump is “following all of our court orders,” Bonta said.

“We’re making a difference,” he said.

A few days ago, the U.S. Department of Education was forced to send out a final chunk of funds it had attempted to withhold from schools. Bonta, in a multistate lawsuit, successfully protected that money, which schools need this year to help migrant children and English learners, train teachers, buy new technology and pay for before- and after-school programs, among other uses.

That’s a permanent, final ruling — no appeals.

Another recent win saw California land a permanent injunction against the feds when it comes to stopping their payments for costs associated with state energy projects. That a win both for the climate and consumers, who benefit when we make energy more efficiently.

Last week, Bonta won another permanent injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s effort to tie grants related to homeland security to compliance with his immigration policies. Safety shouldn’t be tied to deportations, especially in California, where our immigrants are overwhelmingly law-abiding community members.

Those are just a few of Bonta’s victories. Of course, Trump and his minions aren’t happy about them. Stephen Miller, the shame of Santa Monica, seems to have especially lost his marbles over the National Guard ruling. On social media, Miller seems to be attacking the justice system, and attorneys general such as Bonta.

“There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country,” Miller wrote. “It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”

Never mind that the Oregon judge who issued the National Guard ruling is a Trump appointee.

“Their goal, I think, is to chill and pause and worry judges; to chill and pause and worry the press; to chill and pause and worry attorneys general who stand up for the rule of law and for democracy, who go to court and fight for what’s right and fight for the law,” Bonta said.

Bonta expects the administration, far from learning any lessons or harboring self-reflection during this mad dash toward autocracy, to continue full speed ahead.

“We’re going to see more, and we’re going to see it fast, and we’re going to see it escalate,” he said. “None of that is good, including putting military in American cities or, you know, Trump treating them like his royal guard instead of the National Guard.”

Even when the Trump administration loses, “they always have this like second move and maybe a third, where they are always trying to advance their agenda, even when they’ve been blocked by a court, even when they’ve been told that they’re acting unlawfully or unconstitutionally,” he said.

On Monday, Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act to circumvent the court’s ruling on the National Guard, a massive escalation of his effort to militarize American cities.

But California remains on a winning streak, much to Trump’s dismay.

It’s my bet that as long as our judges continue to honor the rule of law, that streak will hold.

Oct. 6 (UPI) — President Donald Trump told reporters Monday he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act to send National Guard troops into Portland, one day after a federal judge blocked the administration’s mobilization for a second time.

Trump planned to send 200 National Guard troops from California to Oregon to prevent protesters from confronting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the Oregon city, where he claimed there was a “criminal insurrection.”

“You look at what’s happening with Portland over the years, it’s a burning hell hole,” Trump told reporters, who had gathered in the Oval Office at the White House. “And then you have a judge that lost her way that tries to pretend that there’s no problem.”

“I’d do it if it was necessary. So far, it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump said. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that. I mean, I want to make sure people aren’t killed.”

The Insurrection Act is a federal law, enacted in 1807, that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military to stop what the president considers to be a “criminal insurrection” against the United States.

On Sunday night, U.S. Judge Karin Immergut issued an order to block the administration from sending any National Guard troops to Portland, accusing the feds of circumventing her previous order.

Immergut wrote that the protests outside of Portland’s ICE facility did not pose a risk of rebellion, which made the deployment of federal troops illegal.

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote. The U.S. Justice Department has appealed the judge’s earlier ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the Trump administration has been dealing with a “legal insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”

“We need to have district courts in this country that see themselves as being under the laws and Constitution and not being able to take for themselves powers that are reserved solely for the president,” Miller added.

Trump has used the National Guard to address what he deems to be uncontrolled crime in other cities, including in Washington, D.C., where a deployment in August reduced violent crime by 49% and carjackings by 83%, according to data from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

The White House is also targeting Chicago for troop deployment. The city and the state of Illinois sued the administration Monday, claiming deployment of the National Guard would “infringe on Illinois’ sovereignty and right to self-governance.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump rocked American politics at the outset of his first campaign when he first labeled his rivals as enemies of the American people. But the rhetoric of his top confidantes has grown more extreme in recent days.

Stephen Miller, the president’s deputy chief of staff, declared over the weekend that “a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country” is fueling a historic national schism, “shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general.”

“The only remedy,” Miller said, “is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”

It was a maxim from an unelected presidential advisor who is already unleashing the federal government in unprecedented ways, overseeing the federalization of police forces and a sweeping deportation campaign challenging basic tenets of civil liberty.

Miller’s rhetoric comes amid a federal crackdown on Portland, Ore., where he says the president has unchecked authority to protect federal lives and property — and as another controversial Trump advisor harnesses an ongoing government shutdown as pretext for the mass firing of federal workers.

Russ Vought, the president’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, plays the grim reaper in an AI video shared by the president, featuring him roving Washington for bureaucrats to cut from the deep state during the shutdown.

His goal, Trump has said, is to specifically target Democrats.

As of Monday afternoon, it was unclear exactly how many federal workers or what federal agencies would be targeted.

“We don’t want to see people laid off, but unfortunately, if this shutdown continues layoffs are going to be an unfortunate consequence of that,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Levitt said during a news briefing.

‘A nation of Constitutional law’

Karin Immergut, a federal judge appointed by Trump, said this weekend that the administration’s justification for deploying California National Guard troops in Portland was “simply untethered to the facts.”

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote, chiding the Trump administration for attempting to circumvent a prior order from her against a federal deployment to the city.

“This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition,” she added: “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

The administration is expected to appeal the judge’s decision, Leavitt said, while calling the judge’s ruling “untethered in reality and in the law.”

“We’re very confident in the president’s legal authority to do this, and we are very confident we will win on the merits of the law,” Leavitt said.

If the courts were to side with the administration, Leavitt said local leaders — most of whom are Democrats — should not be concerned about the possibility of long-term plans to have their cities occupied by the military.

“Why should they be concerned about the federal government offering help to make their cities a safer place?” Leavitt said. “They should be concerned about the fact that people in their cities right now are being gunned down every single night and the president, all he is trying to do, is fix it.”

Moments later, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that though he does not believe it is necessary yet, he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act “if courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up.”

“Sure, I’d do that,” Trump said. “We have to make sure that our cities are safe.”

The Insurrection Act gives the president sweeping emergency power to deploy military forces within the United States if the president deems it is needed to quell civil unrest. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to send federal troops to help stop the Los Angeles riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King.

Subsequent posts from Miller on social media over the weekend escalated the stakes to existential heights, accusing Democrats of allying themselves with “domestic terrorists” seeking to overturn the will of the people reflected in Trump’s election win last year.

On Monday, in an interview with CNN, Miller suggested that the administration would continue working to sidestep Immergut’s orders.

“The administration will abide by the ruling insofar as it affects the covered parties,” he said, “but there are also many options the president has to deploy federal resources under the U.S. military to Portland.”

Other Republicans have used similar rhetoric since the slaying of Charlie Kirk, a conservative youth activist, in Utah last month.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) wrote that posts from California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office have reached “the threshold of domestic terrorism,” after the Democratic governor referred to Miller on social media as a fascist. And Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Monday that Democrats demanding an extension of healthcare benefits as a condition for reopening the government were equivalent to terrorists.

“I don’t negotiate with terrorists,” Fine told Newsmax, “and what we’ve learned in whether it’s dealing with Muslim terrorists or Democrats, you’ve gotta stand and you’ve gotta do the right thing.”

Investigating donor networks

Republicans’ keenness to label Democrats as terrorists comes two weeks after Trump signed an executive order declaring a left-wing antifascist movement, known as antifa, as a “domestic terrorist organization” — a designation that does not exist under U.S. law.

The order, which opened a new front in Trump’s battle against his political foes, also threatened to investigate and prosecute individuals who funded “any and all illegal operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of antifa.”

Leavitt told reporters Monday that the administration is “aggressively” looking into who is financially backing these operations.

Trump has floated the possibility of going after people such as George Soros, a billionaire who has supported many left-leaning causes around the world.

“If you look at Soros, he is at the top of everything,” Trump said during an Oval Office appearance last month.

The White House has not yet made public any details about a formal investigation into donors, but Leavitt said the administration’s efforts are underway.

“We will continue to get to the bottom of who is funding these organizations and this organized anarchy against our country and our government,” Leavitt said. “We are committed to uncovering it.”

Oct. 1 (UPI) — The U.S. government shut down at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday after the Trump administration and Democrats failed to agree on a funding resolution, trigging a blame game and creating uncertainty over the future of federal programs and employees.

Over Tuesday, both sides failed to pass legislation to keep the government open — a stalemate the product of Republicans trying to pass a funding resolution that holds spending flat for the rest of the year, while Democrats are adamant that the resolution protect and expand medical coverage for millions of Americans who could lose their insurance by the end 2025.

After the deadline passed, each side was quick to blame the other.

“It’s midnight. The Republican shutdown has just begun because Republicans wouldn’t protect America’s healthcare,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate minority leader, said in a recorded statement posted to X.

“We are going to keep fighting for the American people.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in turn, blamed the Democrats.

“Democrats have officially voted to CLOSE the government,” he said on X.

“The only question now: How long will Chuck Schumer let this pain go on — for his own selfish reasons?”

It’s the fourth government shutdown under a President Donald Trump administration, and the first since late 2018, when the government closed for 35 days. The fight was over billions in border-wall funding Trump wanted that the Democrats resisted.

According to a Congressional Budget Office report, some 75,000 federal workers are at risk of furloughed, though the Trump administration has threatened to fire them and slash government programs.

Last week, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum threatening mass firings of federal employees if “congressional Democrats” do not agree to the Trump administration’s proposal.

During a press conference in the White House earlier Tuesday as the shutdown loomed, Trump said if the government closes, they could cut programs, the federal budget and benefits.

“The last person who wants it shut down is us. Now, with that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like,” Trump said.

“So, they’re taking a big risk by having a shutdown.”

The threat of mass firings was swiftly met Tuesday by a lawsuit from federal worker unions, challenging it as an unlawful abuse of power designed to punish workers and pressure Democrats.

“Announcing plans to fire potentially tens of thousands of federal employees simply because Congress and the administration are at odds on funding the government past the end of the fiscal year is not only illegal — it’s immoral and unconscionable, American Federation of Government Employees President Lee Saunders told UPI in an emailed statement.

“If these mass firings take place, the people who keep our skies safe for travel, our food supply secure and our communities protected will lose their jobs.”

Republicans have attempted to frame the Democrats’ healthcare demands as support for undocumented migrants, while Democrats lambasted their GOP counterparts for lying.

“This is a lie,” Schumer said on X in response to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller accusing the Democrats of not supporting the GOP’s spending resolution “because it doesn’t give free healthcare to illegals.”

“Not a single federal dollar goes to providing health insurance for undocumented immigrants. NOT. ONE. PENNY,” Schumer responded to the pair on X.

“Republicans would rather lie and shut down the government down than protect your healthcare.”

So Jimmy Kimmel is coming back, fast enough that there are still folks out there who didn’t know he was gone.

Hallelujah? Praise be to ABC? Free speech triumphs?

It all depends on Tuesday night, when we see if Kimmel returns undaunted, or if he has been subdued. Of all the consequential, crazy, frightening events that have taken place in recent days, Kimmel’s return should be a moment we all watch — a real-time, late-night look at how successful our president is at forcing us to censor ourselves through fear.

Please, Jimmy, don’t back down.

If Kimmel tempers his comedy now, pulls his punches on making fun of power, he sends the message that we should all be afraid, that we should all bend. Maybe he didn’t sign up for this, but here he is — a person in a position of influence being forced to make a risky choice between safety and country.

That sounds terribly dramatic, I know, but self-censorship is the heart of authoritarianism. When people of power are too scared to even crack a joke, what does that mean for the average person?

If Kimmel, with his celebrity, clout and wealth, cannot stand up to this president, what chance do the rest of us have?

Patriotism used to be a simple thing. A bit of apple pie, a flag on the Fourth of July, maybe even a twinge of pride when the national anthem plays and all the words pop into your mind even though you can’t find your car keys or remember what day it is.

It’s just something there, running in the background — an unspoken acknowledgment that being American is a pretty terrific thing to be.

Now, of course, patriotism is the most loaded of words. It’s been masticated and barfed out by the MAGA movement into a specific gruel — a white, Western-centric dogma that demands a narrow and angry Christianity dominate civic life.

There have been a deluge of examples of this subversion in recent days. The Pentagon is threatening to punish journalists who report information it doesn’t explicitly provide. The president used social media to demand U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi go after his perceived enemies.

The one that put a knot in my stomach was the speech by Stephen Miller, Trump’s immigration czar, speaking, without humor, at the memorial for Charlie Kirk.

“We are the storm,” Miller said, hinting back at a QAnon conspiracy theory about a violent reordering of society.

That’s disturbing, but actually mild compared with what he said next, a now-familiar Christian nationalist rant.

“Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello,” Miller said. “Our ancestors built the cities they produced, the art and architecture they built. The industry.”

Who’s going to tell him about Sally Hemings? But he continued with an attack on the “yous” who don’t agree with this worldview, the “yous,” like Kimmel, one presumes (though Kimmel’s name did not come up) who oppose this cruel version of America.

“You are wickedness, you are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred, you are nothing,” Miller said. “You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing.”

Humor, of course, ain’t nothing, which is why this administration can’t stand it.

Humor builds camaraderie. It produces dopamine and serotonin, the glue of human bonding. It drains away fear, and creates hope.

Which is why autocrats always go after comedians pretty early on. It’s not thin skin, though Trump seems to have that. It’s effective management of dissent.

Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels knew it. In 1939, after his party had set up a Chamber of Culture that required all performers to adhere to certain rules, he banned five German comedians — Werner Finck, Peter Sachse, Helmuth Buth, Wilhelm Meissner and Manfred Dlugi — for making political jokes that didn’t support the regime. He basically ended their careers for daring satire against Nazi leaders, claiming people didn’t find it funny.

“(I)n their public appearances they displayed a lack of any positive attitude toward National Socialism and therewith caused grave annoyance in public and especially to party comrades,” the New York Times reported the German government claiming at the time.

Sounds familiar.

Kimmel, of course, is not the only comedian speaking out. Jon Stewart has hit back on “The Daily Show,” pretending to be scared into submission, perhaps a hat tip to Finck, who famously joked, “I am not saying anything. And even that I am not saying.”

Stephen Colbert roasted Disney with a very funny parody video. Political cartoonists are having a field day.

And there are plenty of others pushing back. Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken to all-caps rebuttals. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, whom Trump called “nothing,” is also vocal in his opposition, especially of National Guard troops in Chicago.

The collective power of the powerful is no joke. It means something.

But all the sober talk in the world can’t rival one spot-on dig when it comes to kicking the clay feet of would-be dictators. Mark Twain said it best: Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand. Which is what makes Kimmel so relevant in this moment.

Can he come back with a laugh — proving we have nothing to fear but fear itself — or are we seriously in trouble?

Sept. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he ordered a “kinetic strike” on a boat carrying drugs from Venezuela to the United States that he said killed nearly a dozen members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Trump made the announcement in a social media post referring to members of the infamous Venezuelan gang as “narcoterrorists.” The strike marks the Trump administration’s embrace of military force against drug trafficking, which was previously left to law enforcement. It is also the latest ratcheting up of hostility with Venezuela after Trump said the gang is controlled by the country’s leader Nicolas Maduro.

The early morning strike killed 11 members of the gang while they were transporting illegal narcotics in international waters, according to Trump. U.S. military personnel were not harmed, he wrote.

“Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America,” Trump wrote in his post.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the strike by U.S. military forces in a post on X, writing that it occurred in the southern Caribbean.

Shortly into his second term, Trump designated the Tren de Aragua and La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gangs as “foreign terrorist organizations,” concluding that their drug trafficking and violent activities are a destabilizing presence.

The Trump administration in August doubled its bounty to $50 million for the arrest of Maduro, for the authoritarian ruler’s alleged role in drug trafficking.

Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, on Friday acknowledged in a press briefing that the United States was building up naval forces in the Caribbean, saying it was to “combat and dismantle drug trafficking organizations, criminal cartels and these foreign terrorist organizations in our hemisphere.”

Maduro responded by placing troops on the border and calling on Venezuelans to resist an invasion by the United States, saying during a press conference Monday that the county is “facing the greatest threat our continent has seen in 100 years,” reported El Pais.

“If Venezuela was attacked, we would declare an armed struggle and a Republic in arms,” Maduro said, according to the newspaper.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia ’s request for asylum in the United States is a prudent legal strategy, experts say, because it gives his lawyers better options for fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

But it’s also a gamble. Depending on how the courts rule, Abrego Garcia could end up back inside the notorious El Salvador prison where he says he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

“It’s a strategic move,” Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin said of the asylum request. “And it can certainly backfire. But it’s something I would do as well if I were representing him.”

Abrego Garcia, 30, became a focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native country in March. The administration is trying to deport him again.

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

The administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador because U.S. officials said he was an MS-13 gang member. It’s an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

His removal to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge’s ruling from 2019 that barred his deportation there. The judge found that Abrego Garcia faced credible threats from a local gang that had extorted from and terrorized his family.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court order, the administration returned him to the United States in June. But it was only to face human smuggling charges, which his lawyers have called preposterous and vindictive.

The administration has said it now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump’s immigration policies, told reporters Friday that Garcia has “said he doesn’t want to go back to El Salvador.”

Miller said the administration is “honoring that request by providing him with an alternate place to live.”

In an effort to fight back, Abrego Garcia has notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent to Uganda, which has documented human rights abuses. He said he believes he could be persecuted, tortured or sent from there to El Salvador.

But even if he thwarts deportation to Uganda in immigration court, he probably will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another until the administration succeeds, Rankin said.

“By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” the lawyer said. “The government has sunk its teeth far into what they’re doing with Kilmar and immigration in general, that it wouldn’t make any sense for them to just give up the fight.”

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

The request would place the focus solely back on his native El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown that he has a credible fear of gang persecution.

But he’s taking a risk by reopening his 2019 immigration case, Rankin said. If he loses the bid for asylum, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to his native country.

That could place him back in the infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECO, in El Salvador. It’s where, Abrego Garcia alleges in a lawsuit, he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Abrego Garcia had applied for asylum in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request because it came more than a year after Abrego Garcia had arrived in the U.S. He had fled to Maryland without documentation around 2011.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers will probably argue that he has the right to request asylum now because he has been in the U.S. for less than a year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Rankin said.

If approved, asylum could provide him with a green card and a path to citizenship.

‘Not going to let this go’

Abrego Garcia’s asylum petition would go through the U.S. immigration court system, which is not part of the judiciary but an arm of the Department of Justice and under the Trump administration’s authority.

That’s where the risk comes in.

Abrego Garcia has a team of lawyers fighting for him, unlike many people who are facing deportation. And a federal judge is monitoring his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to ensure he can exercise his constitutional rights to fight against deportation in immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis cannot rule on whether he gets asylum or is deported, but she said she will ensure his right to due process. His team says he is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, including to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Even if he does manage to win asylum, the government is going to appeal,” Rankin said. “They’re not going to let this go. Why would they after they’ve invested months and months into this one guy?”

Rankin noted that if Abrego Garcia remains within the jurisdiction of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court’s laws would govern his asylum claim. He said that court has been generally positive toward asylum claims and likely would give Abrego Garcia a “fair shake.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Luena Rodriguez-Feo Vileira in Washington contributed to this report.

Aug. 20 (UPI) — As protesters chanted nearby, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller visited National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday amid what the Trump administration says is a crime crackdown.

The three Trump administration officials greeted National Guard troops at the capital’s Union Station while positioned near a table containing hamburgers for the troops, PBS News reported.

“In just the past nine days, we’ve seen a 35% reduction in violent crime,” Vance told those in attendance.

“We’ve seen over a 50% reduction in robberies,” he added. “We’re seeing really substantial effects because these guys are busting their a*****.”

Vance said he wanted to thank the National Guard troops in person and hand out some hamburgers to show his appreciation for their efforts.

Hegseth said the National Guard deployments in Washington are needed to ensure residents, visitors and those who work in the capital are safe.

“The American people, the residents of D.C., deserve a safe and beautiful city,” Hegseth said. “That’s our mission.”

He called the National Guard troops “patriots who serve the country” and want to make Washington a “beautiful, safe capital.”

The National Guard troops are “proud of this mission” and making sure “law and order is established here in the capital,” Hegseth added.

He said the Defense Department is providing the resources that the troops need and working with law enforcement partners to ensure safety in Washington.

Pro-Palestinian protesters gathered and chanted near Union Station, which drew a rebuke from Vance.

He said the protesters “hate the idea that Americans can enjoy their communities,” according to PBS News.

Vance said he went to Union Station with Hegseth and Miller because criminal activity was very high there, which local officials deny.

Miller added to Vance’s criticism of the protesters by calling them “stupid white hippies” and said they do not represent Washington, D.C.’s residents, The Hill reported.

“We are not going to let the communists destroy a great American city, let alone the nation’s capital,” Miller said.

“All these demonstrators you’ve seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they’re not part of the city and never have been,” Miller said.

“We’re going to ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they’re all over 90 years old,” he added.

Trump last week put the federal government in control of Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department, which has been accused of falsifying crime data. Though Trump administration officials have characterized crime in the city as out of control, in actuality, crime in the district has fallen in recent years or remained flat.

An agreement on Friday put the police department under local control, but Trump sought and received National Guard deployments from West Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and Louisiana.

About 1,200 National Guard troops are slated for deployment in the capital, in addition to 800 Washington National Guard troops who already are there, according to The Washington Post.

On a palm tree-lined bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, thousands of people rallied against the Trump administration in one of many “No Kings Day” protests around the country last month.

Here in Santa Monica, the well-heeled and beachy protesters also had a localized message: America, we’re sorry.

“Santa Monica apologies for Stephen Miller,” a bearded man in a straw hat proclaimed via hand-scrawled poster board.

“Stephen Miller, who raised you?” another protester inquired in purple puff paint. Others paired the White House deputy chief of staff’s name with expletives.

Amid the false accusations and acrid clashes of President Trump’s inner circle, few acolytes have survived longer than Miller.

The 39-year-old has remained essential through Trump’s second term, piloting an immigration platform that has sowed fear across wide swaths of the country — nowhere more so than greater Los Angeles, where federal agents have mounted a relentless assault on immigrants, sweeping up thousands in deportation raids.

In the long shadow of his policies, local and national observers alike are paying renewed attention to Miller’s upbringing in the famously liberal enclave once dubbed “the People’s Republic of Santa Monica.”

“I think people are sad that the words ‘Santa Monica’ and ‘Stephen Miller’ are synonymous, because no one wants that connection,” said Santa Monica Mayor Lana Negrete.

Though often seen as a liberal enclave, Santa Monica is also where conservative strategist Stephen Miller grew up.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

How did the same 8.3-square-mile city that helped pioneer curbside recycling and strict rent control laws produce a man responsible for Trump’s most draconian policies?

Some are also questioning whether the administration’s focus on Los Angeles is a form of revenge on Miller’s spurned hometown.

When rumors of ICE agents seizing nannies at a Santa Monica park frantically flashed across social networks, Justin Gordon, who went to Hebrew school and high school with Miller, immediately thought his classmate must have personally directed the raid on their local park.

The reports proved spurious, but Gordon still saw an emotional truth.

“In the back of my mind, I’ve always thought, ‘This is Stephen Miller getting back at the city of Los Angeles,’ ” Gordon said.

In the eight years since Miller rose to fame and became an outsized antagonist on the American left, his Santa Monica villain origin story has been exhaustively documented, picked over and reanalyzed.

At the far edge of the American west, a brash adolescent came of age in a coastal community where the establishment prided itself on being antiestablishment. What choice would a young reactionary iconoclast have but to veer right?

Santa Monica was a town in flux when Miller was in high school at the turn of the millennium: a Berkeley meets Beverly Hills where haughty affluence was rapidly eclipsing the Birkenstocks and counterculture bumper stickers. It was also a tale of two cities, with moguls and the upper middle class north of Montana, and pockets of poverty and gang violence in the southern end of town.

Nowhere was this more evident than at Santa Monica High School, where the academics were nationally renowned, the student body resembled a United Colors of Benetton ad and a ’90s strain of “Free to Be … You and Me” liberalism reigned supreme.

The parade of cultural affinity clubs, diversity events and policies that sought to make the school more equitable nauseated Miller.

And the teenage provocateur made no secret of that revulsion, loudly belittling his fellow students. His bitter shtick offered a prescient preview of the grievance politics that would fuel his future boss into power.

Miller has said his years in high school were the hardest of his life, filled with pushback for his “vitriolic viewpoints,” according to Jean Guerrero, a former Times columnist and author of the 2020 Miller biography “Hatemonger.”

“And for whatever reason, he’s had this grievance about that ever since, and he’s been trying through various means, to have what I see as a form of revenge on the communities that rejected him in Los Angeles,” Guerrero said.

Stephen Miller when he was a student at Santa Monica High.

(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

Through the White House, Miller did not respond to a request for comment. But anecdotes of Miller’s trollish high school antics have been exhaustively chronicled in the media.

There was the fight to restore the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance on his bleeding heart campus. His frequent railing against “rampant political correctness,” multiculturalism and the perceived failings of his Latino classmates. Allegedly dumping his middle school best friend for being Latino.

Perhaps most infamous is a campaign speech, seared into the brains of thousands of Samohi classmates, in which he seemingly absolved students of their responsibility to clean up after themselves.

“I will say and I will do things that no one else in their right mind would say or do,” Miller told the crowd, according to a video obtained by Univision. “Am I the only one who is sick and tired of being told to pick up our trash when we have plenty of janitors who are paid to do it for us?”

Students jeered and booed as Miller was escorted off the stage, according to several attendees. He lost that student government election.

“The only compliment I think I’ve ever come up with for Stephen is that there are plenty of conservatives and far-right wing conspiracy theorists and hate mongers that spout what he spouted from behind a computer screen. I have not in my life before or after seen someone do it in an amphitheater full of their high school colleagues,” said Miller’s classmate Kesha Ram Hinsdale, now majority leader of the Vermont state Senate.

Santa Monica High was a hothouse of political engagement, where students — the children of entertainment executives, bankers and lawyers, as well as nannies, day laborers and wait staff — were finding their footing as activists.

Students arrive for a summer school session at Santa Monica High School in 2011.

(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

They had watched Proposition 187 pass in their early childhoods, stoking divisions and energizing a wave of Latino activists. (The 1994 ballot measure, which aimed to block undocumented immigrants from accessing public education and other state services, was ultimately blocked by the courts.)

They marched with labor leader Dolores Huerta in support of workers at a neighborhood hotel and protested against the growing threat of war in Iraq.

Despite the kumbaya vibes, Santa Monica High was hardly a post-racial utopia. Students often self-segregated, and the school’s academic sheen was riven by racial division.

Puckish, clad in a suit and preternaturally confident, a teenage Miller was a regular presence at school board meetings. He argued for an English-only school district, decried the board’s focus on equity and generally sought to puncture progressive ideals and push buttons.

“We all knew who he was, and knew him by name,” said Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village), a Santa Monica-Malibu school board member from 1994 to 2006.

Miller was raised by Jewish Democrats several generations removed from their own asylum-seeking immigrant story. He enjoyed a comfortable childhood north of Montana, until the family real estate company faltered in the early ’90s and the Millers eventually relocated to a smaller rental on Santa Monica’s shabbier southern end.

Reactionary conservatism didn’t become a defining aspect of Miller’s persona until he started high school, according to Jason Islas, one of his best friends in middle school.

The friendship dissolved the summer before they started at Samohi when, in Islas’ telling, Miller called and announced that they would no longer be hanging out.

Miller delivered the news brusquely, citing Islas’ lack of confidence, his teenage acne and his Latino heritage in a “businesslike tone.”

“It was pretty cruel, even for a teenager,” Islas recalled.

Through a spokesperson, Miller denied this account in 2017. But his derision toward Latino classmates is well-documented — in his own words.

“There are usually very few, if any, Hispanic students in my honors classes, despite the large number of Hispanic students that attend our school,” a 16-year-old Miller wrote in a 2002 letter to a local paper.

The letter denounced the fact that school announcements were made in English and Spanish, “preventing Spanish speakers from standing on their own” and making “a mockery of the American ideal of personal accomplishment.”

Captivated by right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Larry Elder, Miller was a frequent guest on Elder’s show as a teenager, complaining about other perceived liberal excesses of his high school.

After graduating in 2003, Miller went to Duke University before landing on Capitol Hill, where he threaded his way up the far-right thicket with then-Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Many of his grievance-fueled Samohi talking points found their way into the first Trump campaign, where Miller had a mind-meld of sorts with the future leader of the free world.

In Trump’s second term, Miller has moved faster and gone further than during the first term, when he advocated unsuccessfully for using the military to push immigration enforcement. This time around, the administration has deployed troops to an American city in a staggering show of force, with masked agents raiding businesses and public spaces.

Ari Rosmarin, a civil rights lawyer who also attended Santa Monica High, said Miller has always had a keen eye for picking fights that would generate maximum hate, outrage and attention. It’s the through line connecting his youthful theatrics with the current assault on Los Angeles, Rosmarin said.

“He knows L.A. — knows that it’s home to both a super, super diverse and beautiful immigrant community, but also home to tons of media, cultural capital, financial capital,” Rosmarin said. “I think in those ways, it’s a particularly attractive site for a battle if your goal is not just a policy outcome, but a political and cultural attack.”

July 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to stop implementing a proclamation to expel asylum seekers at the border that he had signed shortly after beginning his second term.

Trump had signed the proclamation, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” on January 20, his first day in office. It invoked emergency presidential powers to expel migrants before allowing them to apply for asylum. A coalition of immigrants and immigrant rights groups then sued the administration in February.

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss has now granted the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment, finding that Trump’s proclamation and implementation guidance from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

In his proclamation, Trump had said that the screenings of asylum seekers under the INA — enacted by Congress — can be “wholly ineffective” but that the law grants the president “certain emergency tools” if he were to find that the entry of any class of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

“The court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote.

But he added that the Immigration and Nationality Act “provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”

But Moss found that the INA “provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country” and that the government lacked the statutory or constitutional authority to adopt an “alternative immigration system” to the one outlined by Congress.

He stayed his ruling for 14 days in anticipation of a likely appeal from the Trump administration, and deferred judgment on whether the government should grant relief to plaintiffs who are no longer in the United States and other aspects of the lawsuit.The judge’s ruling also did not include an injunction at this stage and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report proposing a briefing schedule on unresolved issues.

It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in the case of Trump v. CASA Inc., a landmark ruling that determined that lower courts generally lack authority to issue “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions unless they are essential to fully remedy the specific plaintiffs’ harms.

While an injunction has not yet been granted in this case, officials in the Trump administration have criticized Moss as a “rogue” judge seeking to “circumvent” the Supreme Court.

“To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a Marxist judge has declared that all potential future illegal aliens on foreign soil (e.g. a large portion of planet Earth) are part of a protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States,” Stephen Miller posted on social media.

Gene Hamilton, the former deputy White House counsel, called the judge’s decision “judicial insurrection,” while Attorney General Pamela Bondi said that the Justice Department would fight the “unconstitutional power grab.

A legal group co-founded by Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff and architect of the Trump Administration’s harsh immigration policies, filed a federal civil rights complaint against the Dodgers earlier this week, accusing the team of “engaging in unlawful discrimination under the guise of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion.’”

The lawsuit, filed Monday with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by America First Legal, was first reported Wednesday by The Athletic. The Dodgers declined comment about the complaint, which also named their ownership group, Guggenheim Partners and the Dodgers’ professional groups for employees, such as the Black Action Network and Women’s Opportunity Network.

In a press release, America First claimed the Dodgers’ actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

The charges come less than two weeks after the team said they declined to allow federal immigration authorities to use Dodger Stadium parking lots as a staging area for immigration raids around Southern California. A day later the Dodgers committed $1 million to assist families impact by the immigration raids.

American First claims the reigning World Series champions, who visited with President Trump at the White House earlier this season, have violated the law by sponsoring programs geared to women and people of color and by “[e]mbedding diversity, equity and inclusion strategies” into every aspect of the organization.

The group also points to the biography of Mark Walter, the majority owner of the Dodgers and CEO of Guggenheim Partners, in which it calls Walter a “social-justice advocate.”

The Dodgers and Guggenheim Partners are just the latest organizations to find themselves in the crosshairs of American Legal over their diversity efforts. The group has pursued cases against IBM, the world’s largest industrial research organization, and Johnson & Johnson, a multinational pharmaceutical company, among others.

America First’s complaint focused heavily on a page on the Dodgers website that defines the team’s mission “to create a culture where diverse voices and experiences are valued.” The site outlines efforts to recruit women and people of color, partner with community groups to support racial and social justice and promote heritage events for staff and fans.

“The DEI mission statement indicates that the Dodgers are incorporating DEI into its workplace in quantifiable ways with identifiable goals to achieve ‘success,’ which appears to entail engaging in unlawful discriminatory hiring, training, and recruitment,” America First stated in its complaint.

Jared Rivera of Pico California, one of the groups that have called on the Dodgers to do more for immigrants, told the The Athletic the complaint amounts to retaliation.

“Stephen Miller’s group is dressing up vengeance as legal action,” he said. “Retaliating against the Dodgers for their compassion shows Miller is threatened when the team and its fans stand up for what is moral and right.”

Veteran ABC News correspondent Terry Moran is leaving the network, following his suspension over social media posts that were harshly critical of the Trump White House.

Moran, 65, was suspended Sunday after statements on X that described President Trump and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller as “world class” haters. He also called Miller “vile.”

Moran, a senior national correspondent for the news division who interviewed Trump in the Oval Office in April, is not a commentator. An ABC News representative said his actions violated editorial standards and his contract was not renewed. He had been with the network since 1997.

“We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post — which was a clear violation of ABC News policies — we have made the decision to not renew,” the representative said in a statement. “At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism.”

Moran’s expulsion from the network is a sign that news organizations are concerned about journalists incurring the wrath of Trump, who has shown a willingness to fight back against his critics in the press. Moran is the first high profile journalist to lose his job over publicly lambasting the president and his aides.

Moran wrote on a now deleted X post that “Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He’s a world-class hater…You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.”

Other outlets are getting pummeled by the White House as well, such as PBS and NPR. Trump wants their federal funding ended, calling their programming “left wing propaganda.”

Trump is suing CBS News over a “60 Minutes” interview in October that he claims was deceptively edited to help his 2024 election opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The suit — an obstacle to CBS parent Paramount Global’s deal to merge with Skydance Media — has gone to a mediator.

ABC News paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit Trump filed over statements by “Good Morning America” co-host George Stephanopoulos, who incorrectly said on air that the president had been liable of rape, when it was sexual abuse. Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger has asked that ABC’s “The View” spend less time talking about Trump, who typically leads the daytime talk show’s hot topics segment.

Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta — who battled Trump in the White House briefing room during the president’s first term — left the network rather than take a midnight time slot that would have lowered his profile considerably. Acosta has since launched his own program on Substack.

May 14 (UPI) — A Russian Harvard University Medical School researcher held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody since February has been arrested and charged with smuggling biological material into the United States.

The one count of smuggling goods into the United States was announced by the Justice Department on Wednesday, marking a dramatic escalation in the case that has garnered attention from academics.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint — which was dated Monday but made public Wednesday — Kseniia Petrova had frog embryos and embryonic samples in her possession when entering the country that she did not declare to immigration authorities.

The document states she arrived at Boston’s Logan International Airport from Paris on Feb. 16. A Customs and Border Protection canine alerted its handler to Petrova’s bag, which was removed and brought to an agricultural secondary inspection area for further screening where biological items were found.

When questioned about it, she allegedly denied carrying any biological material, but a search of a plastic bag she was carrying revealed additional biological material.

Under oath, she admitted that the items were biological material and said she was not sure if she was supposed to declare them on her arrival, the document states, adding that a search of her found text messages to the contrary.

“[I]f you bring samples or antibody back, make sure you get the permission,” one text message she received from an unidentified person said.

“What is your plan to pass the American … Customs with samples? This is the most delicate place of the trajectory,” another text message read.

A third message to Petrova’s phone had asked: “what is your plan for getting through customs with samples?”

“No plan yet,” Petrova allegedly replied, according to excerpts of the messages included in the court document. “I won’t be able to swallow them.”

If convicted, Petrova could face up to 20 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.

“The rule of law does not have a carve out for educated individuals with pedigree,” U.S. Attorney Leah Foley said in a recorded statement.

The affidavit states her visa was canceled at the airport.

“The U.S. visa that Ms. Petrova was given — which was revoked by customs officials as a result of her conduct — is a privilege, not a right.”

Her lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, told The New York Times that Petrova’s J-1 visa was canceled and that deportation proceedings were initiated.

He said normally, a case like this would be treated as a minor infraction, and that filing the criminal charge three months after the alleged violation, “is clearly intended to make Kseniia look like a criminal to justify their efforts to deport her.”

Romanovsky also added that a Vermont hearing held earlier Wednesday had essentially established that his client was detained unlawfully and that the complaint had “blindsided” them, and Petrova’s transfer from immigration to criminal custody was “suspect” as it occurred right after a judge set a bail hearing, signaling she could be released.

During the Vermont hearing, U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss had questioned the government over the legality of its actions.

“Where does a Customs and Border Patrol officer have the authority on his or her own to revoke a visa?” Reiss asked, NBC News reported.

“You cannot be found inadmissible because of the customs violation.”

According to the affidavit, Petrova told customs that she is fearful of going back to Russia.

“She claimed she had protested the Russian Federation,” the affidavit states. “She provided no other details.”

In an opinion piece she wrote for The New York Times — and which was published Tuesday — Petrova states she had left Russia after being arrested for protesting its war in Ukraine.

The charge was filed as the Trump administration has been conducting a crackdown on immigration, including targeting foreign-born academics, particularly over their support for Palestine amid Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

Some of those detained students have been released by judges who have ruled against the Trump administration’s use of immigration enforcement to seek to deport them.

Last week, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller said they are “actively looking at” suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which is the right to challenge the legality of a person’s detention by the government.