Roughly one thousand protesters gathered outside Romulus City Hall this week to voice opposition towards plans for a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center. Among the crowd were concerned residents, public officials, faith leaders, and Michiganders from across the state. 

Melody Karr was one of the many protestors picketing the building. She said she lives just an hour away from the detention facility that opened last year in Baldwin and has been to multiple demonstrations protesting it’s opening.

“We don’t need any more concentration camps in Michigan. Anybody that’s paying attention can see that we’re not concentrating on the worst of the worst, that they’re running rampant over our constitutional rights,” said Karr.

City officials say they oppose the detention center

The demonstration preceded the weekly City Council meeting, where a resolution opposing any detention center within city limits was unanimously passed. 

Following the vote, Romulus Mayor Robert McCraight said he and the city are doing everything they can to stop the development of an ICE detention facility. Citing his letter of opposition sent the previous week to ICE Director Todd Lyons and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, McCraight said a detention center would conflict with current zoning regulations and be too close to residential homes less than a quarter mile away.

McCraight said that, despite not hearing from any officials on the federal level since news broke, he would do what he could to prevent the plans from moving forward.

“While I’m sitting in this position as mayor, we will not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy for this structure unless we’re mandated by a federal judge,” said McCraight.

As the mayor spoke, demonstrators could be heard chanting outside the building. Only 49 of the protestors outside were let into the meeting due to safety codes set by the fire marshal. Those in attendance reiterated their opposition during public comment.

Residents urge more action

Dan Doyle lives less than a mile from the proposed detention center. He urged the city to do more to stop the plans.

“I’m requesting immediate action. Cut the utilities, condemn the building, demo it, take it under eminent domain, whatever you can do. Make it impossible for them to use our neighborhood for these concentration camps,” said Doyle. “This will not be solved by a harshly worded letter or a resolution. We need action.”

Outside in the bitter cold, protestors continued their picket at city hall. Darrin Camilleri, who represents Romulus as a member of the Michigan Senate, was one of many public officials who came to support demonstrators. So far, Camilleri has been one of the only state legislators to reach out to Romulus officials after the plans for a detention center went public. He said he has been working with the city to uncover details about the building purchased by ICE.

“We know that an auto supplier, they put a bid in to buy this building, but ICE came in and outbid the auto supplier. So the Trump administration is literally taking away American jobs from our community that would love an opportunity like that,” said Camilleri. “Now we’re getting stuck with a detention center that no one wants, and it’s down the street from where people live. It’s down the street from where kids go to school.”

The building, located at 7525 Cogswell Street, was previously owned by the real estate investment firm Crestlight Capital. John Coury, managing partner at the firm, said he can’t disclose the selling price or the specific agency the building was sold to due to a signed non-disclosure agreement, according to reporting from Crain’s Detroit Business.

Pattern of quiet-buying

Secrecy surrounding these purchases aren’t unique to Romulus, either. In Social Circle, Georgia, officials were blindsided when they heard of plans to convert a warehouse in the city into a detention center. The previous owner of the warehouse, a commercial real estate firm called PNK Group, said they signed an NDA and couldn’t disclose any information to the city or residents. One month later, a deed for the warehouse was obtained that showed the federal government paid over $100 million more than the most recently assessed price.

When asked by WDET if the Romulus warehouse was purchased for an inflated price compared 2025 assessed value of $6,988,500, Crestlight Capital did not respond for comment.

At the time of writing, the city of Romulus has not received any documents indicating how much the property was purchased for.

Southfield ICE offices

Earlier this month, the city released a statement saying offices in Southfield’s One Towne Square were to be leased by the US General Services Administration (GSA) to “support administrative and legal functions associated with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 

The statement aligns with reporting from last year that showed the GSA was working with ICE to acquire offices across the country to expand it’s operations

Statements from REDICO, the landlord of the office space, said the lease was with the GSA, not ICE, and “the lease explicitly prohibits any law enforcement, detention or similar activities to take place on the premises.” REDICO’s statement prompted the city to remove their statement on the purchase from its website.

When asked about the city’s removed statement, Southfield Mayor Kenson Siver said he has only heard from REDICO, not GSA or ICE, and the city doesn’t have authority to intervene in tenant/landlord issues as long as they are compliant with zoning laws.

Still, residents and lawmakers are on edge amid the confusion. During the Southfield City Council meeting that took place the same time as the Romulus demonstration, residents packed the building to speak out against any potential presence of ICE in the city.

Southfield resident Lauren Fink said the city still needs to do more to address the offices potentially used in association with ICE.

“I’ve seen statements intended to calm our anxieties about this office opening here in our own community, telling us that this office cannot house armed and uniformed agents,” said Fink. “There seems to be this idea that the work being done by people in offices like this is acceptable, but the work being done by the people they enable is not. That kind of attitude is what allows the horrors of an authoritarian regime to continue.”

Southfield City Council unanimously passed a resolution “affirming community safety, civil rights, and local policy” during the meeting. The resolution does not mention the lease with GSA or the planned office.

A call for community action

Following the possible expansion of ICE in the metro Detroit area, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib released a statement condemning the encroachment and urging more collective action from the community.

“Across the country, people are coming together and fighting to prevent this massive expansion of ICE’s network of abuse and cruelty. We must organize and use every tool at our disposal to keep ICE out of our neighborhoods,” said Tlaib.

The Southfield office and planned detention center in Romulus come as the Trump administration massively increases the budget for ICE and plans on spending $38.3 billion to turn warehouses across the country into detention centers. Both actions have been made possible through last year’s passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has allocated billions of federal funds for the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda.

Trusted, accurate, up-to-date.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today »

The post Community members, public officials push back against ICE expansion into metro Detroit appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

By GISELA SALOMON, JACK BROOK and SARAH RAZA

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Their family spent years opposing Venezuela’s socialist system.

The government retaliated by sending men to beat the father, a state oil company worker whom it accused of being uncooperative. Other relatives were threatened.

The situation became so untenable that the family fled the country for the United States in 2021 after it obtained refugee status, according to one of the daughters, a 24-year-old clothing salesperson who was interviewed by The Associated Press.

The six siblings and their parents settled in Minnesota in 2023, living peaceful lives until the Trump administration said it was casting new scrutiny on refugees. One priority is those admitted to the U.S. under former President Joe Biden, whom the government accuses of prioritizing quantity over detailed screening and vetting, with an initial focus on 5,600 refugees who settled in Minnesota and are not yet permanent residents, making them particularly vulnerable.

Last month, three masked officers got out of a black SUV with tinted windows outside a St. Paul apartment complex, handcuffed the Venezuelan woman and her mother and told them their legal status was under review, according to the woman, who asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Overturning years of precedent, immigration authorities have arrested or questioned dozens of refugees in Minnesota, attorneys and advocates say, with more detentions likely to come nationwide.

In January, a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the arrest and detention of refugees in Minnesota while a lawsuit challenging the “revetting” continues. The judge ordered the immediate release of all refugees detained in Minnesota, and those taken to Texas.

Three refugees told The Associated Press that whatever happens, the rounds of inconclusive interviews with immigration authorities well after they thought their status was safe has them questioning their futures in the U.S. and living in constant fear.

The young woman from Venezuela hasn’t returned to her job at a clothing factory. A man who fled persecution in Myanmar won’t walk on the streets of Minneapolis without a letter from his church appealing for immigrants to “be treated humanely.” A Congolese refugee arrested in St. Paul despite her refugee status says “everything that’s happened feels like a movie.”

A change in US treatment of refugees

Welcoming refugees has been a source of bipartisan agreement in the U.S. since Congress passed the Refugee Act with overwhelming support in 1980.

The act helped make refugee applications some of the immigration system’s most heavily scrutinized. Government decisions that someone was persecuted for who they are or what they believe are rarely second-guessed, and revisiting refugee status that’s already been granted is a major blow to legal tradition, advocates say.

“They’ve been heavily vetted and were admitted by the government with approval,” said Beth Oppenheim, chief executive officer of HIAS, a major refugee aid group.

Once a refugee is admitted to the U.S. through the resettlement program, the only way to strip them of their status is to prove that they should never have been admitted, Oppenheim said. That is why the Trump administration is interviewing people again, she said.

Matthew Tragesser, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in a written statement refugees “are REQUIRED to be subject to a full inspection after a year within the United States.”

“This is not novel or discretionary; it is a clear requirement in law,” he wrote.

While it is correct that refugees must apply for green cards one year after admission — a change of status that brings a renewed layer of scrutiny — the administration is breaking with decades of tradition by revisiting initial decisions to admit people as refugees, and then detaining them while they are under review.

“Arresting, detaining, and rescreening refugees are all new changes which will inflict grave harm on vulnerable populations,” said Smita Dazzo, deputy director of U.S. programs at HIAS.

Venezuela to Minnesota to Houston and back

In January, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took the Venezuelan women to Houston on a flight where migrants were shackled at the wrists and ankles and forbidden from talking. The daughter said she was told she was there for green card interviews and isolated in a cold room with no food, water or anything warm to cover her. She said she refused to sign documents without an attorney present.

“They told us, ‘Your status is worthless. You’re illegal,’” she said. “What we went through is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone … We were supposed to arrive in this country with refugee status, and we thought we would be protected here. But right now, at this moment, it is quite the opposite.”

The women were released after successfully filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court, part of a flood of last-ditch attempts at freedom under a Trump policy denying bond hearings in immigration court. Friends of their attorney drove them back to Minnesota at their own expense. Since then, the younger woman has been too afraid to leave the house.

The pastor who received a letter and went to the interview

Saw Ba Mya James, a 46-year-old ethnic Karen father of three who fled military persecution in Myanmar, arrived in St. Paul last year after obtaining refugee status with help from a local church.

Despite a pending green card application, the Anglican pastor did not attend church for weeks after friends advised him to avoid going outside.

“I was told to stay at home, so I listened, and I prayed to God with my family,” James said.

James received a letter Feb. 2 ordering a “post-admissions refugee reverification” at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services St. Paul field office, according to a copy reviewed by The Associated Press.

During an interview that lasted several hours, an officer pressed James with questions he said he already addressed extensively before being admitted to the U.S. The officer said the review was needed because an inexperienced employee handled James’ initial vetting.

Within two weeks of the interview, James got another letter asking that he and his family provide fingerprints, which his attorney took as a positive sign.

Still, James remains wary of being detained. He faithfully carries his church sponsors’ letter appealing for him and other immigrants to “be treated humanely as fellow image-bearers of God.”

The Congolese refugee arrested arriving at work

A Congolese woman settled in the Twin Cities area in November 2024 with refugee status, working in the hospitality business as the breadwinner for her husband and four children.

She said an immigration officer approached her parked car when she arrived for work at 7 a.m. on Jan. 14 in St. Paul, saying he knew her name and that she was a refugee. After telling her to exit the vehicle to answer questions, he handcuffed her despite her efforts to show a work authorization document and identification.

The woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she fears reprisals, was flown to Houston to be questioned in detail about her experiences in the Congo, Uganda and the United States. She and other refugees refused to sign documents to be sent back to their home countries. She was released Jan. 18 without any ID documents to book a flight to Minneapolis. A manager at her company flew to Houston and drove her 17 hours back home.

“If I told you I’m feeling OK, I’d be lying to you,” she said.

Salomon reported from Miami.

What does it take to start over?

For thousands of people leaving Michigan prisons every year, it can come down to one piece of plastic: A photo ID.

This month, the Michigan Department of Corrections hit a milestone, having distributed thirty thousand government-issued IDs to incarcerated people since 2020.

That matters, because without an ID, you can’t get a job, sign a lease, open a bank account — you can’t even prove you’re you.

One in five people who leave Michigan prisons end up going back. The state says that’s the lowest it’s ever been. But what does a second chance actually look like when you walk out the door with so little?

Rick Speck knows this firsthand. He was released in 2014 after 15 years in prison. He didn’t have an ID. Now, he’s the deputy director of Nation Outside — a Michigan reentry nonprofit run by those who were formerly incarcerated.

He spoke with Robyn Vincent about his experiences and what our state and culture would look like if we believed more deeply in second chances.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Support the podcasts you love.

One-of-a-kind podcasts from WDET bring you engaging conversations, news you need to know and stories you love to hear. Keep the conversations coming. Please make a gift today.

Give now »

More stories from The Metro

The Metro: Why water rates keep increasing

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Why the price of lettuce keeps increasing at your local grocery store

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Social workers are a part of police departments. When should they be called to act?

Sam Corey

Read More »

The post The Metro: Michigan gives parolees IDs. What more can be done to offer residents a second chance? appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

When someone is in distress, who should respond to the call for help? Police officers or social workers?

After the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter Movement, police departments reformed. Throughout the country and around Michigan, police hired mental health professionals — or co-responders — to respond to 911 calls, alone or with cops. 

Now, the question of who should take the lead on distress calls has become all the more pressing. Last month, this query was thrust into the public eye once again. That’s when Ypsilanti residents became upset after a SWAT team had a 30-hour standoff with someone they say was experiencing a mental health crisis. 

Hillary Nusbaum is a co-responder supervisor for the Oakland Community Health Network. Her organization partners with Oakland County police departments by having co-responders work alongside police officers. 

Producer Sam Corey spoke with Nusbaum about what a co-responder does and when they should be called to take action on a 911 call. 

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Support the podcasts you love.

One-of-a-kind podcasts from WDET bring you engaging conversations, news you need to know and stories you love to hear. Keep the conversations coming. Please make a gift today.

Give now »

More stories from The Metro

The Metro: Social workers are a part of police departments. When should they be called to act?

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: The dopamine loop kids can’t escape, and what Michigan is doing about it

Robyn Vincent

Read More »

The Metro: Why the price of lettuce keeps increasing at your local grocery store

Sam Corey

Read More »

The post The Metro: Social workers are a part of police departments. When should they be called to act? appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

The post Whitmer set to give her last State of the State address appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

The post Live at 9 p.m.: State of the Union address from President Trump appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

A new report examining fraud risk in Minnesota government programs describes longstanding vulnerabilities dating back to the 1970s and repeated inaction by state leaders despite nearly a half-century of warnings.

Gov. Tim Walz’s director of Program Integrity, Tim O’Malley, on Monday released what he described as a “roadmap” to address those vulnerabilities, which he said were driven in large part by a culture in state agencies “more based on compassion than compliance.”

“That’s misplaced. If state workers want to provide services, want to directly help people in need, then they should go work for a provider. They should deliver the wheelchairs. They should do the bed baths. They should take people to medical appointments,” he said at a news conference announcing the report’s findings. “The state has a responsibility to make sure those things happen by protecting state (taxpayer) money.”

Every governor and Legislature had been made aware of problems in programs for the last 50 years, according to the review, but plans to strengthen protections against fraud in state welfare programs were never executed effectively.

The review can be read at https://tinyurl.com/4z3ufffv.

‘Inadequate accountability’ in agencies

O’Malley’s report comes after allegations of hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud at the Department of Human Services and Department of Education, and speculation that the fraud could reach the billions. Overall, he found that “inadequate accountability” in agencies was largely to blame.

“Recent events have revealed longstanding vulnerabilities in multiple facets of state administration and leadership and priority setting to specific elements such as enrollment, oversight, data sharing and investigative capacity,” the report said. “These weaknesses have been exploited repeatedly over decades by organized networks of providers, intermediaries and recipients, resulting in significant financial losses, erosion of public trust and inadequate delivery of essential services to vulnerable Minnesotans.”

Questions remain about who exactly has been held responsible for fraud in state agencies — if anyone. Past reports from the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor have pointed to issues with “inadequate oversight” and “pervasive noncompliance” in how the state handles payments and grants.

In December, Walz said there were state employees who should have “done more” and that they were “no longer working in the state.”

Former Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead resigned in January this year, before federal prosecutors brought charges in connection with significant fraud in children’s autism programs and housing stabilization services supported by the agency.

In late 2022, Education Commissioner Heather Mueller announced she would not seek reappointment in Walz’s second term, months after the first charges in the $250 million Feeding Our Future case.

And days before federal prosecutors announced charges tied to housing stabilization in September, it emerged that the assistant commissioner with the program was no longer working with the agency.

Neither DHS nor Walz has said whether Eric Grumdahl, assistant commissioner of Homelessness and Housing Supports, lost his job due to fraud in the program, which was expected to cost $2.6 million a year when it launched but ballooned to over $105 million in 2024.

Fraud czar

Walz, a Democrat, appointed O’Malley in December as scrutiny mounted on his administration’s handling of widespread fraud in state government programs. As program integrity director, O’Malley was tasked with creating fraud prevention measures across agencies and working with the outside financial audit firm WayPoint.

O’Malley was superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension under Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He’s a former FBI agent and interim chief judge for the state Court of Administrative hearings, and for a decade handled allegations of sexual misconduct by clergy in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

When Walz announced his appointment of O’Malley as state fraud czar on Dec. 12, federal investigators estimated Minnesota had lost hundreds of millions of dollars to fraud in recent years, with former assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson speculating total theft could top more than $1 billion.

That estimate ballooned to at least $9 billion just a week later when Thompson announced another round of criminal charges in Medicaid fraud cases. Thompson told reporters he believed more than half of the $18 billion in federal money the state distributed through “high-risk” Medicaid programs since 2018 could have been lost to fraud.

Officials with the Minnesota Department of Human Services have disputed that estimate. Walz, who suspended his campaign for a third term in office just weeks after Thompson’s remarks, described the $9 billion figure as speculative and defamatory.

The report recommends changing agency culture, boosting accountability measures, modernizing technology and oversight.

It also recommends that state lawmakers, who returned to the state Capitol last Tuesday for the 2026 legislative session, pass several bills to support a “modern fraud‑prevention infrastructure.”

They include ending direct appropriations — which present a high risk of fraud — as well as ending grants without dedicated fraud prevention funding and requiring bills that create or modify programs to have a fraud prevention component.

O’Malley told reporters Monday that he had “independence and autonomy” to go where the facts took him and that the governor had not tried to influence his work.

Senate GOP leader calls report ‘lip service’

Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, called the report an example of Walz “lip service” on fraud, saying it was little more than a compendium of existing public issues in state programs.

“They don’t have to wait for the Legislature. They have the tools to really get started if they need help,” he said. “We’re happy to figure out a bipartisan way forward. But the response has been so lackluster. We need to get going on this.”

O’Malley’s hiring was the latest in a series of moves Walz has made to address fraud allegations in state agencies.

In January 2025, the governor directed the creation of a fraud investigation unit at the BCA. The Department of Human Services moved to shut down a Medicaid-funded housing stabilization program beset by fraud after news emerged in July of a federal investigation into several providers.

Earlier this month, a Walz-ordered third-party audit assessing the 14 Minnesota Medicaid programs at high risk for fraud found the state could safeguard $1 billion in the next four years by changing its policies on payment reviews.

State officials described the report as the “first phase” of developing a payment review process for the high-risk programs.

Gandhi permanent appointment

Before O’Malley shared the findings of his report on Monday, Walz announced the permanent appointment of Shireen Gandhi as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which has been the subject of significant fraud allegations recently.

The post had been vacant for more than a year. Gandhi had served as interim commissioner since the resignation of former Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead in January 2025, before federal prosecutors brought charges in connection with significant fraud in children’s autism programs and housing stabilization services supported by the agency.

Walz praised Gandhi for her leadership during troubled times at the agency.

“Over the past year, she has demonstrated steady, decisive leadership at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, strengthening program integrity, rooting out fraud, and ensuring taxpayer dollars reach the Minnesotans who rely on these services,” he said in a news release.

Gandhi will serve in the remaining months of the Walz administration. The governor, who is no longer seeking a third term, leaves office next January.

Republicans welcomed the appointment, calling it “long overdue,” though they expressed skepticism about the governor’s choice.

“Commissioner Gandhi has worked at DHS for years, including in compliance and oversight, while billions of taxpayer dollars were lost to fraud. For the past 13 months, she has served as interim commissioner as Minnesota’s fraud epidemic has made international news,” House Republican Floor Leader Harry Niska, R-Ramsey, said in a statement. “That’s not accountability. That’s failure rewarded.”

By JOHN HANNA and JUAN LOZANO

HOUSTON (AP) — U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas faced growing calls Tuesday from fellow congressional Republicans to resign over a report of an alleged affair with a former staffer who later died after she set herself on fire.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky joined Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida and Nancy Mace of South Carolina in demanding that Gonzales step down immediately. Mace also announced that she has introduced a resolution to force the House Ethics Commission to publicly release its reports and records of allegations of sexual harassment against members of Congress.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that he would talk to Gonzales on Tuesday.

Johnson said Monday that the accusations against Gonzales “must be taken seriously,” but he added, “in every case like this, you have to allow the investigation to play out and all the facts to come out.”

“If the accusation of something is going to be the litmus for someone being able to continue to serve in the House, a lot of people would have to resign or be removed or expelled from Congress,” Johnson said.

Gonzales’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. He said in a social media post last week that he was being blackmailed and then suggested in another post Sunday that he is the target of “coordinated political attacks.”

“During my six years in Congress not a single formal complaint has been levied against my office,” Gonzales said in the Sunday post on X. “IT WONT WORK.”

Gonzales is in a tough race in Texas’ Republican primary on March 3, with early voting underway for more than a week. His main opponent is Brandon Herrera, a gun manufacturer and gun rights influencer who calls himself “the AK Guy” on YouTube, where his channel has nearly 4.2 million subscribers. Gonzales narrowly defeated Herrera by fewer than 400 votes in a runoff in 2024.

President Donald Trump had endorsed Gonzales for reelection in December.

The San Antonio Express-News reported last week that it had obtained text messages in which the former staffer, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, wrote to a colleague that she had an affair with the lawmaker.

The Associated Press has not independently obtained copies of the messages. An attorney for Adrian Aviles, Santos-Aviles’ husband, has said the husband found out about the affair before his wife’s death.

Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, 35, died in September 2025 after setting herself on fire in the backyard of her Uvalde home. The Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled her death as a suicide by self-immolation.

“Where are the other men in the GOP?” Massie asked Tuesday in a post on X in calling for Gonzales to resign, adding that Trump should revoke his endorsement.

Gonzales, whose district stretches from San Antonio to El Paso and runs along the U.S.-Mexico border, has six children with his wife.

His allegation of blackmail is based on an email from the attorney for the staffer’s husband, Robert Barrera, discussing a possible lawsuit against the lawmaker and a potential settlement with a nondisclosure agreement. The email says that the maximum recoverable amount is $300,000.

Barrera has said he was not trying to blackmail Gonzales and called the accusation an attempt by the congressman to look like a political victim.

Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas. Also contributing was Associated Press journalist Kevin Freking in Washington.

By STEVEN SLOAN and STEVE PEOPLES

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says he has a lot to talk about tonight.

He’s returning to Congress to deliver a State of the Union address at a consequential moment in his presidency, with his approval ratings near an all-time low and restive supporters waiting for him to deliver more tangibly on their struggles with the cost of living.

On top of that, the Supreme Court just declared illegal the tariffs that have been central to his second term. And the foreign policy challenges he promised to fix easily now don’t look so simple with another potential military strike against Iran looming.

The narrow Republican majority in Congress that has done little to counter Trump’s expansive vision of power is at risk of falling away after this year’s midterm elections, when their respective self interests may collide.

Here are some questions we’re thinking about heading into the speech.

How awkward will things get with the Supreme Court?

Trump did little to hide his rage last week when the Supreme Court struck down his far-reaching tariff policy. He didn’t just say that the justices who voted against one of his signature issues — including two who he appointed — were wrong in their legal reasoning. He said they were an “embarrassment to their families.”

Now many of those justices are likely to be seated at the front of the House chamber as Trump delivers his address.

Will Trump criticize the justices to their faces? Will he somehow show restraint in keeping his criticism limited to the decision itself?

Trump would not be the first president to use a State of the Union address as a chance to criticize the court. During his 2010 address, President Barack Obama said the Court’s Citizens United decision — which opened the way for millions of dollars in undisclosed political spending — would “open the floodgates for special interests,” prompting Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth “not true.”

Since then, attendance by Supreme Court justices has become more sporadic. Alito began skipping them after the 2010 speech, joining fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has long argued the speeches are too partisan. By last year, when Trump delivered a special address to Congress, just four members of the Court — Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were in the House chamber.

At the time, Trump greeted the justices warmly, even telling Roberts “thank you again, I won’t forget it.” The comment was interpreted as Trump showing appreciation for the Court’s decision granting broad-based immunity to the presidency. But Trump said on social media he was merely thanking the chief justice for swearing him in.

Regardless, justices who don’t want a televised bashing from the president may decide to steer clear on Tuesday.

How will Democrats respond?

Democrats were still adjusting to Trump’s return to power when he last addressed Congress — and it showed.

During his 2025 joint address, Democrats entered the chamber with signs containing messages ranging from “Save Medicaid” and “Musk Steals” to simply “False.” Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, heckled Trump at one point, prompting his ejection from the chamber.

The signs were widely criticized as contrived and Green’s protest was something of a distraction. For voters who were outraged by Trump’s aggressive use of power during his opening months in office, the scene didn’t offer much confidence that Democrats were in a position to serve as an effective check on the White House.

Democrats are aiming to avoid a repeat of last year’s tumult. Expect fewer signs and possibly fewer Democrats in the chamber at all. Dozens of lawmakers have said they won’t attend the speech, with some planning to attend rival events in Washington.

That may help avoid some of last years theatrics. But it might do little to encourage frustrated voters that Democrats have a coherent, effective message a decade into Trump’s political rise.

And after Democratic governors boycotted a White House dinner with Trump over the weekend, skipping the State of the Union may only reinforce the sense that America’s two main political parties are charting fundamentally different courses.

Abigail Spanberger, Virginia’s newly inaugurated governor, will give the Democrats’ official response to Trump.

How will Trump address affordability and immigration?

Trump will deliver his speech at the outset of a challenging election year for his fellow Republicans, who are holding on to a tenuous grip of Congress. Much of the GOP’s challenge has centered on a sense among voters that the party hasn’t done enough to bring down prices.

The White House insists it is aware of the economic anxiety among voters and is working to address it. But Trump consistently has trouble staying on message. During a trip to Georgia last week that was intended to focus on the economy, the president instead highlighted debunked claims of election fraud and pushed his proposal for voter identification requirements. When he addressed affordability, he said it was a problem created by Democrats that he has now “solved.”

Trump’s tone on immigration could also be notable. Republicans found themselves on defense after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month by federal agents who were conducting an aggressive immigration enforcement operation. While Trump has kept up his hardline rhetoric on undocumented immigrants, his administration has begun to draw down agents in Minneapolis. The president told New York Gov. Kathy Hochul last week that he would direct future immigration enforcement surges where they were wanted.

What does he say about foreign policy?

Trump promised a quick and easy end to conflicts across the globe when he was elected. A year later, Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to rage, there’s a fragile ceasefire in war-torn Gaza and Trump is threatening a major military strike against Iran just eight months after he claimed the U.S. had “obliterated” the nation’s nuclear facilities.

And let’s not forget about his military action in Venezuela less than two months ago in which U.S. forces snatched leader Nicolas Maduro. Trump has said repeatedly that he’s going to run the country.

Trump supporters may cheer his America First rhetoric, but the Republican president is showing far more globalist tendencies one year into his second term.

And the prospect of war with Iran is real. Trump has already built up the largest U.S. military presence in the Middle East in decades. Last week he warned the Iranian regime that “bad things will happen” soon if a nuclear deal is not reached.

How long will he go?

Trump is rarely one to self edit. His speech last year — technically a joint address and not the State of the Union — clocked nearly one hour and 40 minutes. That was the longest speech to a joint session of Congress — and Trump may want to notch another record.

“It’s going to be a long speech because we have so much to talk about,” he said on Monday.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — The Trump administration is suing New Jersey over a state order that prohibits federal immigration agents from making arrests in nonpublic areas of state property, such as correctional facilities and courthouses.

The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Trenton, challenges Gov. Mikie Sherrill ’s Feb. 11 executive order, which also bars the use of state property as a staging or processing area for immigration enforcement.

Sherrill, a Democrat who took office Jan. 20, “insists on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement,” the lawsuit said, accusing her of attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement and thwart President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Sherrill’s executive order “poses an intolerable obstacle” to immigration enforcement and “directly regulates and discriminates” against the federal government, said the lawsuit, which misspelled her name as “Sherill.”

Asked about the lawsuit Tuesday, Sherrill said: “What I think the federal government needs to be focused on right now, instead of attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe, is actually training their ICE agents.”

The state’s acting attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, said the Trump administration was “wasting its resources on a pointless legal challenge.” New Jersey will fight the lawsuit and “continue to ensure the safety of our state’s immigrant communities,” she said.

The lawsuit is the latest in the Trump administration’s fight against state and local level restrictions on immigration enforcement.

Last year, the Justice Department sued Minnesota and Colorado, as well as cities including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Denver over so-called sanctuary laws, which are aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration agents.

Last May, the Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities — Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken — over such policies. That case is pending.

By JOEY CAPPELLETTI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are betting that Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s affordability-focused message, which helped her flip a Republican-held office last November, will resonate with the country when she delivers their party’s response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

The rebuttal gives Democrats a prime opportunity to make their case against Trump and his policies ahead of the midterm elections. Spanberger’s double-digit victory in Virginia last November was viewed by party leaders as validation of a disciplined message centered on lowering costs — one they now want to elevate in campaigns nationwide.

“Virginians and Americans across the country are contending with rising costs, chaos in their communities, and a real fear of what each day might bring,” Spanberger said in a statement. “I look forward to laying out what these Americans expect and deserve — leaders who are working hard to deliver for them.”

Spanberger will deliver the speech from Colonial Williamsburg, a living history museum with restored 18th-century buildings, drawing on the site’s role at the heart of Virginia’s early opposition to British rule and connecting that legacy to the current political moment, according to her team.

She will have will have far less time than the Republican president to deliver her rebuttal. Trump’s speech before Congress last year stretched to an hour and 40 minutes, while Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s Democratic response lasted just over 10 minutes. Spanberger’s speech will be the fifth consecutive response to a president’s address to Congress delivered by a female senator or governor.

Trump on Monday told reporters that his State of the Union is “going to be a long speech, because we have so much to talk about.”

As viewership tends to drop the later the speech runs, the response has become one of the more perilous assignments in politics. Now–Secretary of State Marco Rubio was widely mocked for reaching for a water bottle during the GOP response in 2013. Other rebuttals have quickly faded from memory.

Even with the time disadvantage, Democrats argue the political winds are shifting in their favor. Spanberger’s win in Virginia was followed by other high-profile Democratic victories, including a special election earlier this month in Texas, where a Democrat flipped a reliably Republican state Senate district that Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California will deliver the party’s Spanish language response. Padilla, who in June was forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles as he tried to speak up about immigration raids, said in a statement that there is a better path than the one Trump has offered: “one that lowers costs, safeguards our democracy, and reins in rogue federal agencies.”

Some Democrats are choosing to make their point by skipping Trump’s address. Counterprogramming events are planned, including a “State of the Swamp” featuring Democratic lawmakers alongside state and local leaders and celebrities.

On Wednesday, the Great Lakes Water Authority will vote on a nearly 7% water rate increase and a 6% sewer increase.

Last year, GLWA proposed an even bigger hike — close to 8% for water — but public testimony at the hearing pushed the board to lower it. Wednesday’s hearing is another chance for residents to weigh in. What’s driving these increases — and why does water keep getting more expensive?

Suzanne Coffey is CEO of the Great Lakes Water Authority or GLWA. She spoke with The Metro‘s Robyn Vincent.

On The Metro, we also spoke about GLWA rate hikes — and why utility costs are rising — with Nick Schroek, dean of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. You can listen to that conversation here.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Trusted, accurate, up-to-date.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today »

More stories from The Metro

The Metro: Why the price of lettuce keeps increasing at your local grocery store

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Why water rates keep increasing

Sam Corey

Read More »

The Metro: Michigan gives parolees IDs. What more can be done to offer residents a second chance?

Sam Corey

Read More »

The post The Metro: Why water rates keep increasing appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

Momentum is finally building to address longstanding and systemic problems at Michigan’s only women’s prison as state lawmakers, local elected officials, and activists demand answers about mold, medical care, a recent death, and the treatment of a woman whose health has rapidly declined.

The post New push for accountability at Michigan women’s prison appeared first on Detroit Metro Times.

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer picked by judges to serve as the top federal prosecutor for a Virginia office that pursued cases against foes of President Donald Trump was swiftly fired Friday by the Justice Department in the latest clash over the appointments of powerful U.S. attorneys.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the firing of James Hundley on social media shortly after he was unanimously chosen by judges to replace former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. While the law says that the district court may choose U.S. attorneys when an initial appointment expires, the Trump administration has insisted that the power lies only in the hands of the executive branch.

“EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” Blanche said in a post on X.

Hundley, who has handled criminal and civil cases for more than 30 years, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday evening.

The firing of Hundley is the latest reflection of tumult in one of the Justice Department’s most elite prosecution offices, which since September has been mired in upheaval following the resignation of a veteran prosecutor amid Trump administration pressure to prosecute two of the president’s biggest political foes, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

That prosecutor, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out and swiftly replaced by Halligan, a White House aide who secured indictments against Comey and James but was later deemed by a judge to have been unlawfully appointed. The cases were dismissed, but the Justice Department has appealed that decision.

Halligan resigned from the position last month after judges in the district signaled continued skepticism over the legitimacy of her appointment.

U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in regional Justice Department offices around the country, typically require Senate confirmation but the law does permit attorneys general to make temporary appointments for limited time periods. In several instances, though, the Justice Department has attempted to leave its temporary appointees in place in ways that have invited court challenges and drawn resistance from judges who have found the appointments unlawful.

Last week, a lawyer appointed by judges to be the U.S. attorney for northern New York was fired by the Justice Department after spending less than a day in the job. Judges in the district appointed Kinsella after declining to keep the Trump administration’s pick, John Sarcone, in place after his 120-day term elapsed.

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s vision of the Supreme Court, in which his three appointees are personally loyal to him, collided with the court’s view of itself Friday when six justices voted to strike down Trump’s signature economic policy — global tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law.

The outcome led Trump to launch an unusually stark personal attack on the justices, with special rancor reserved for the two Trump appointees who defied him.

The case represented a challenge of Trump’s many untested, yet forcefully stated imperatives on everything from trade to immigration policy and the court’s ability to maintain its independence and, at times, act as a check on presidential authority.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country,” Trump said in the White House briefing room several hours after the court issued its decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump said he expected as much from the three Democratic appointees on the court. “But you can’t knock their loyalty,” he said. “It’s one thing you can do with some of our people.”

Asked specifically about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who were part of the majority, Trump said, “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth, the two of them.”

Vice President JD Vance, whose wife, Usha, spent a year as a law clerk to Roberts, echoed the president’s criticism, though he didn’t make it personal. “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” Vance wrote on X.

Legal opposition to the tariffs crossed political lines, with a key challenge coming from the libertarian-leaning Liberty Justice Center and support from pro-business groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Trump has had a checkered history with the court dating back to the start of his first White House term in 2017, though he won his biggest court battle in 2024, a presidential immunity ruling that prevented him from being prosecuted over efforts to undo his 2020 election loss.

In the first year of his second term, he won repeated emergency appeals that allowed him to implement major aspects of his immigration crackdown and other key parts of his agenda.

Presidential criticism of Supreme Court decisions has its own long history. President Thomas Jefferson was critical of the court’s landmark Marbury v. Madison case, which established the concept of judicial review of congressional and executive action. President Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated about decisions he thought blunted parts of the New Deal, talked about older justices as infirm and sought to expand the court, a failed effort.

In 2010, President Barack Obama used his State of the Union speech, with several members of the court in attendance, to take aim at the court’s just-announced Citizens United decision that helped open the floodgates to independent spending in federal elections. Justice Samuel Alito, who hasn’t attended the annual address since, mouthed the words “not true” in response from his seat.

Trump, though, crossed a line in the way he assailed the justices who voted against him, Ed Whelan, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote in an email.

“It’s entirely fine for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling that goes against him. But it’s demagogic for President Trump to contend that the justices who voted against him did so because of lack of courage,” Whelan wrote.

Some presidents also have criticized justices they appointed for decisions they’ve made.

Following the seminal Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told friends that appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren had been his biggest mistake, according to biographer Stephen E. Ambrose.

Objecting to a dissenting vote in an antitrust case, President Theodore Roosevelt once allegedly said of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, wounded in action during the Civil War, that he ”could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone.”

But these remarks were conveyed in private, not at a livestreamed presidential appearance in the White House briefing room.

On a personal level, Trump has had a sometimes tense relationship with Roberts, who has twice issued public rebukes of the president over attacks on federal judges.

Trump didn’t mention Roberts by name on Friday, but he seemed to be assailing the chief justice when he said he lost the case because the justices “want to be politically correct,” “catering to a group of people in D.C.”

Trump used similar language when he criticized Roberts’ vote in 2012 that upheld Obamacare.

Similar to the timing following the Citizens United ruling, the president and some members of the court, dressed in their black robes, are likely to be in the same room Tuesday when Trump delivers his State of the Union address.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once nodded off during a presidential speech in the House of Representatives, attributing her drowsiness to some fine California wine. No justice is likely to be napping Tuesday night.

By MICHAEL PHILLIS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration said Friday it backs a 10-year deadline for most cities and towns to replace their harmful lead pipes, giving notice that it will support a tough rule approved under the Biden administration to reduce lead in drinking water.

The Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court in Washington that it would defend the strongest overhaul of lead-in-water standards in three decades against a court challenge by a utility industry association.

The Trump administration has typically favored rapid deregulation, including reducing or killing rules on air and water pollution. On Friday, for example, it repealed tight limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from coal plants. But the agency has taken a different approach to drinking water.

“After intensive stakeholder involvement, EPA concluded that the only way to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s mandate to prevent anticipated adverse health effects ‘to the extent feasible’ is to require replacement of lead service lines,” the agency’s court filing said.

Doing so by a 10-year deadline is feasible, the agency added, supporting a rule that was based in part of the finding that old rules that relied on chemical treatment and monitoring to reduce lead “failed to prevent system-wide lead contamination and widespread adverse health effects.”

The EPA said in August it planned to defend the Biden administration’s aggressive rule, but added that it would also “develop new tools and information to support practical implementation flexibilities and regulatory clarity.” Some environmental activists worried that that meant the EPA was looking to create loopholes.

Lead, a heavy metal once common in products like pipes and paints, is a neurotoxin that can stunt children’s development, lower IQ scores and increase blood pressure in adults. Lead pipes can corrode and contaminate drinking water. The previous Trump administration’s rule had looser standards and did not mandate the replacement of all pipes.

Standards aimed at protecting kids

The Biden administration finalized its lead-in-water overhaul in 2024. It mandated that utilities act to combat lead in water at lower concentrations, with just 10 parts per billion as a trigger, down from 15. If higher levels were found, water systems had to inform their consumers, take immediate action to reduce lead and work to replace lead pipes that are commonly the main source of lead in drinking water.

The Biden administration at the time estimated the stricter standards would protect up to 900,000 infants from having low birth weight and avoid up to 1,500 premature deaths a year from heart disease.

“People power and years of lead-contaminated communities fighting to clean up tap water have made it a third rail to oppose rules to protect our health from the scourge of toxic lead. Maybe only a hidebound water utility trade group is willing to attack this basic public health measure,” said Erik Olson, senior director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, an environmental nonprofit.

The American Water Works Association, a utility industry association, had challenged the rule in court, arguing the EPA lacks authority to regulate the portion of the pipe that’s on private property and therefore cannot require water systems to replace them.

The agency countered on Friday that utilities can be required to replace the entire lead pipe because they have sufficient control over them.

The AWWA also said the 10-year deadline wasn’t feasible, noting it’s hard to find enough labor to do the work and water utilities face other significant infrastructure challenges simultaneously. Water utilities were given three years to prepare before the 10-year timeframe starts and some cities with a lot of lead were given longer.

The agency said they looked closely at data from dozens of water utilities and concluded that the vast majority could replace their lead pipes in 10 years or less.

Replacing decades-old standards

The original lead and copper rule for drinking water was enacted by the EPA more than 30 years ago. The rules have significantly reduced lead in water but have been criticized for letting cities move too slowly when levels rose too high.

Lead pipes are most commonly found in older, industrial parts of the country, including major cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee. The rule also revises the way lead amounts are measured, which could significantly expand the number of communities found violating the rules.

The EPA under President Donald Trump has celebrated deregulation. Officials have sought to slash climate change programs and promote fossil fuel development. On drinking water issues, however, their initial actions have been more nuanced.

In March, for example, the EPA announced plans to partially roll back rules to reduce so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water — the other major Biden-era tap water protection. That change sought to keep tough limits for some common PFAS, but also proposed scrapping and reconsidering standards for other types and extending deadlines.

PFAS and lead pipes are both costly threats to safe water. There are some federal funds to help communities.

The Biden administration estimated about 9 million lead pipes provide water to homes and businesses in the United States. The Trump administration updated the analysis and now projects there are roughly 4 million lead pipes. Changes in methodology, including assuming that communities that did not submit data did not have lead pipes, resulted in the significant shift. The new estimate does correct odd results from some states — activists said that the agency’s initial assumptions for Florida, for example, seemed far too high.

The EPA did not immediately return a request for comment. The AWWA pointed to their previous court filing when asked for comment.

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.

By MICHAEL BIESECKER and JESSE BEDAYN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released records show a U.S. citizen was shot and killed in Texas by a federal immigration agent last year during a late-night traffic encounter that was not publicly disclosed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The death of Ruben Ray Martinez, 23, would mark the earliest of at least six deadly shootings by federal officers since the start of a nationwide immigration crackdown in President Donald Trump’s second term. On Friday, DHS said the shooting on South Padre Island last March occurred after the driver intentionally struck an agent.

The shooting involved a Homeland Security Investigations team that was conducting an immigration enforcement operation in conjunction with local police, according to documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group based in Washington.

The records are part of a tranche of heavily redacted internal documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the nonprofit obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Though Martinez’s death on March 15, 2025, was reported by local media outlets at the time, federal and state authorities did not disclose that the shooting involved the team from HSI. In a statement Friday, DHS said the driver who was killed “intentionally ran over a Homeland Security Investigation special agent,” resulting in another agent firing “defensive shots to protect himself, his fellow agents, and the general public.”

The department did not respond to questions about why it had made no media release or other public notification of the officer-involved shooting over the last 11 months.

Martinez’s mother, Rachel Reyes, said her son was just days past his 23rd birthday when he and his best friend drove from San Antonio down to the beach for the weekend to celebrate. South Padre Island, located on the Gulf Coast just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, is a renowned spring break destination that attracts tens of thousands of college-aged partiers each March.

Martinez worked at an Amazon warehouse, liked to play video games and hang out with friends. His mother said he had never had any prior run-ins with law enforcement.

“He was a typical young guy,” Reyes told The Associated Press. “He never really got a chance to go out and experience things. It was his first time getting to go out of town. He was a nice guy, humble guy. And he wasn’t a violent person at all.”

Records show federal agents were assisting police

According to an internal two-page ICE incident report included in the newly disclosed documents, shortly after midnight, HSI officers were assisting South Padre Island police by redirecting traffic through a busy intersection after a vehicle accident with several injuries.

A blue, four-door Ford with a driver and passenger approached the officers, who ordered the driver to stop. The report does not say why. Initially, the driver didn’t respond to commands but did eventually come to a stop, according to the report.

Agents then surrounded the vehicle, telling those inside to get out, but the driver “accelerated forward” and struck an HSI special agent “who wound up on the hood of the vehicle,” the report said. An HSI supervisory special agent standing by the side of the car then fired his weapon multiple times through the open driver’s side window, and the vehicle stopped.

Paramedics already on the scene of the accident quickly provided medical aid and the driver was taken by ambulance to a regional hospital in Brownsville, where he was pronounced dead, according to the report. The passenger, also a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody.

The HSI officer who the report says was struck by the vehicle was treated for an unspecified knee injury at a nearby hospital and released.

The names of the two HSI agents involved in the shooting and the names of the two men in the car were all redacted from the ICE report, but Reyes confirmed the dead driver was her son. She said he was shot three times.

State investigation into shooting is still ‘active’

The report says the Texas Rangers responded to the shooting scene and took the lead as the primary agency investigating the shooting.

Reyes said she first learned her son had been shot by a federal agent, rather than a local police officer, about a week after he was killed. She was contacted by an investigator from the Rangers who she said told her there were videos of the shooting that contradicted the account provided by federal agents. DHS did not immediately respond to an email Friday about the claim that there is video showing a different account.

She said she was told by the investigator that the state report into the shooting was completed in October and that the case would be presented to a grand jury for potential criminal charges.

The Texas Department of Public Safety, which includes the Rangers, said in a statement Friday that the investigation into the shooting is still “active” and declined to offer more information.

Messages left with the office of Cameron County District Attorney Luis V. Saenz, an elected Democrat whose jurisdiction includes South Padre Island, received no response Friday. South Padre Island Police Chief Claudine O’Carroll also did not respond to requests for comment.

Attorneys for the family said Friday they have spent the past year pursuing accountability and transparency.

“It is critical that there is a full and fair investigation into why HSI was present at the scene of a traffic collision and why a federal officer shot and killed a U.S. citizen as he was trying to comply with instructions from the local law enforcement officers directing traffic,” attorneys Charles M. Stam and Alex Stamm said in a statement.

Agents involved were part of a border task force

According to the ICE report, the HSI agents involved in the shooting were part of a maritime border enforcement security task force typically focused on combating transnational criminal organizations at seaports. Over the last year, however, officers from across multiple federal agencies have been reassigned to prioritize immigration enforcement.

In January, Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother in Minneapolis, was killed in the driver’s seat of her SUV by ICE officer Jonathan Ross. Trump administration officials initially attempted to paint Good as a “domestic terrorist” who tried to ram officers with her vehicle before multiple videos emerged of the incident that cast doubt on the government’s narrative.

As in the Good case, experts in police training and tactics questioned why a federal officer apparently positioned himself in front of Martinez’s vehicle.

“You don’t stand in front of the car, you don’t put yourself in harm’s way,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a police use-of-force expert at the University of South Carolina. He added that there’s never a scenario where it’s justified, “because you don’t know whether this person is going to flee, and if he flees, you could be dead.”

Alpert said investigators will likely review any available body camera video or other footage to examine how swiftly Martinez moved the car forward, if he merely took his foot off the break or pressed down hard on the accelerator.

Martinez’s mother said she didn’t believe he would ever intentionally assault a law enforcement officer.

“They didn’t give him a chance,” Reyes said. “It’s so excessive. They could have done anything else besides that. It’s like they shoot first and ask questions later.”

Bedayn reported from Denver.

By RIO YAMAT

The ability of federal safety regulators to oversee airplane maintenance at United Airlines has been hindered by inadequate staffing, high employee turnover and the improper use of virtual inspections instead of on-site reviews in some cases, according to a government watchdog audit released Friday.

The U.S. Transportation Department’s inspector general said the Federal Aviation Administration lacks sufficient staffing and workforce planning to effectively monitor United’s large fleet. Past audits by the government watchdog also highlighted FAA challenges overseeing other airline maintenance programs, including at American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air.

The FAA declined to comment on the findings but referred The Associated Press to a letter it sent the inspector general’s office that was included in the audit report. In it, the FAA said it agreed with most of the recommendations and was taking steps to address them by the end of the year.

“FAA will implement a more systemic approach to strengthen inspector capacity and will take other measures to ensure that staffing levels remain sufficient to meet surveillance requirements,” the letter said.

The recommendations included a reevaluation of staffing rules, an independent workplace survey of inspector workloads and office culture, and improved training on accessing and using United’s safety data — a current gap that the report said currently keeps inspectors from fully evaluating maintenance issues and safety risk trends.

In a statement to AP, United said it works closely with the FAA on a daily basis in addition to employing its own internal safety management system.

“United has long advocated in favor of providing the FAA with the resources it needs for its important work,” the carrier said.

The inspector general’s office said the audit was conducted between May 2024 and December 2025, amid a series of maintenance-linked incidents at United.

It found that the FAA sometimes had its personnel conduct inspections “virtually” when it lacked staffing or funding for travel even though agency policy requires postponing reviews that can’t be done on site. Doing the work remotely can create safety risks because inspectors may miss or misidentify maintenance problems, the reported stated.

“Inspectors we spoke with stated that their front-line managers instructed them to perform inspections virtually rather than postponing inspections,” the report said.

The audit also found that ongoing staffing shortages at the FAA inspection offices tasked with United’s oversight have resulted in fewer inspections being conducted, limited surveillance of the carrier’s maintenance operations and an “overall loss of institutional knowledge.”

In March 2024, passengers had to be evacuated from a United plane that rolled off a runway after landing in Houston. The next day, a United jetliner bound for Japan lost a tire while taking off from San Francisco but later landed safely in Los Angeles.

In December 2025, a United flight experienced an engine failure during takeoff from Dulles International Airport before safely returning to the airport.

Associated Press writer Josh Funk contributed.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The federal government is asking a court to “run roughshod” over the First Amendment after seizing electronic devices from a Washington Post reporter’s Virginia home last month, an attorney for the newspaper argued Friday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter didn’t rule from the bench on the newspaper’s request for an order requiring authorities to return the devices taken from the Virginia home of Post reporter Hannah Natanson. Porter had authorized the search by FBI agents investigating allegations that a Pentagon contractor illegally leaked classified information to Natanson.

Porter said he intends to issue a decision before a follow-up hearing scheduled for March 4.

“I have a pretty good sense of what I’m going to do here,” the magistrate said without elaborating.

Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones was arrested on Jan. 8 and charged with unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. Perez-Lugones is accused of taking home printouts of classified documents from his workplace and later passing them to Natanson.

Federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive and a Garmin smart watch when they searched Natanson’s home in Alexandria, Virginia, on Jan. 14. Last month, Porter agreed to temporarily bar the government from reviewing any material from Natanson’s devices.

Post attorney Simon Latcovich said the information contained on Natanson’s devices could expose hundreds of confidential sources who routinely provided her with dozens, if not hundreds, of tips every day.

“Since the seizure, those sources have dried up,” he said.

If Porter intends to privately review the material contained on Natanson’s devices before deciding what can be shown to the government, Latcovich asked him to allow attorneys for the Post and the reporter to see it first so they can argue for keeping at least some of it under wraps.

Justice Department attorney Christian Dibblee said the government recognizes that Porter didn’t authorize a “fishing expedition.”

“The government does take that seriously,” he said.

The newspaper’s attorneys accused authorities of violating legal safeguards for journalists and trampling on Natanson’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the government is entitled to keep the seized material because it contains evidence in an ongoing investigation with national security implications.

The case has drawn national attention and scrutiny from press freedom advocates who say it reflects a more aggressive posture by the Justice Department toward leak investigations involving journalists.

“There is a pattern here, your honor, that this is a part of,” Latcovich said.