Afghan who died in ICE custody worked with US forces in Afghanistan, advocacy group says
The entrance to a U.S. Immigration and Customs detention facility in Dallas, Texas (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(DALLAS) — An Afghan immigrant who died after being in immigration custody for one day worked alongside U.S. forces during the war in Afghanistan, according to an immigrant advocacy group.
Mohommad Nazeer Paktyawal, 41, died last week at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Dallas, Texas. He is the 43rd person to die in ICE custody during the second Trump administration, according to lawmakers.
According to ICE, 36 detainees have died in ICE custody since Jan. 23, 2025. By federal law, ICE makes public all reports regarding detainee deaths while in custody within 90 days, according to the agency.
“For many years, Nazeer worked alongside American forces during the war in Afghanistan,” the group AfghanEvac said in a statement on behalf of Paktyawal’s family. “It was dangerous work, but he believed in helping bring stability to his country and protecting the people around him. After Afghanistan fell, the United States helped evacuate our family in 2021, and we came here hoping for safety and a better life.”
An ICE statement Sunday said that Paktyawal died Saturday morning at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas, following his arrest the day before. It described Paktyawal as “a criminal illegal alien from Afghanistan” who had “a known criminal history,” including an arrest for alleged SNAP fraud and another for alleged theft, both last year.
The ICE statement did not address whether Paktyawal had assisted U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as AfghanEvac claimed.
AghanEvac said in their statement that Paktayawal had an open asylum application and did not have any criminal convictions. ABC News has so far been unable to independently confirm claims about Paktayawal’s alleged criminal record.
The Department of Homeland Security on Monday confirmed that Paktayawal entered the U.S. in 2021 but said that his parole expired in August 2025. The agency did not address questions about an active asylum application.
“In the late evening of March 13, ICE contacted Emergency Medical Services when Paktiawal [sic] began complaining of shortness of breath and chest pains while in an ICE Dallas Field Office processing hold room,” the ICE statement said. “He was immediately transported to Parkland Hospital and received breathing treatment. The ER doctor recommended that he remain in the hospital for observation.”
“Early March 14, Paktiawal was eating breakfast when medical staff noted that his tongue had become swollen, prompting a medical response. After multiple lifesaving efforts were attempted, he was declared deceased at 9:10 a.m.,” according to the ICE statement.
Paktyawal “did not report any prior medical history” at the time of his arrest, the ICE statement said.
In a statement to ABC News on Monday, DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said Paktyawal’s tongue was swollen and said that he “received an epinephrine drip.”
“Later that day, medical staff began cardiopulmonary resuscitation,” Bis further said. “At approximately 9:10 a.m. CDT, a physician at Parkland Hospital pronounced Paktyawal deceased after multiple resuscitative efforts, including mechanical device and medical professional interventions.”
“No one in ICE custody is denied access to proper medical care,” Bis added. “It is a longstanding practice to provide comprehensive medical care from the moment an alien enters ICE custody.”
AfghanEvac stated that Paktyawal was preparing to drive his children to school when he was detained March 13.
“His children watched as he was surrounded and taken away,” the group said. “We still cannot understand how this happened. He was only 41 years old and was a strong and healthy man.”
Paktyawal served as an Afghan special forces soldier beginning in 2005 and worked alongside U.S. Army Special Forces for more than a decade, according to AfghanEvac, and was evacuated by the U.S. on Aug. 30, 2021, and resettled in Texas through Catholic Charities. Paktyawal had completed his asylum interview and held a work authorization and a valid Social Security number, AfghanEvac said.
The group said Paktyawal contacted his family members shortly after being detained on March 13 and said that he was not feeling well. He was admitted to a local hospital in Dallas that night and the family was informed on March 14 that Paktyawal had died.
“Mr. Paktyawal’s asylum case remained pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the time of his detention,” AghanEvac said in a statement.
“While ICE’s statement focuses on past allegations, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Paktyawal’s detention and death remain unclear,” the group added. “According to information currently available, those arrests did not result in criminal charges nor had Mr. Paktyawal been convicted of any crimes.”
In this handout, the mug shot of Jeffrey Epstein, 2019. (Photo by Kypros/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Department of Justice officials say they have taken down “several thousand documents and media” from its website containing files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that “may have inadvertently included victim-identifying information due to various factors, including technical or human error,” according to a letter filed on the dockets of two federal judges Monday.
The government’s update comes after attorneys for Epstein’s victims asked the judges late Sunday to urgently order that the DOJ site be taken down because of redaction failures exposing the names or personal information, they said, of “nearly 100 individual survivors whose lives have been turned upside down by the DOJ’s latest release.”
The DOJ’s letter — submitted by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — also notes that the Justice Department has “further expedited its processes” for responding to Epstein victims’ concerns and for removing documents to be reexamined for additional redactions.
The letter gives no indication that the government intends to pull the site offline, but it says they are continuing to engage with victims and their counsel to identify and remove materials, and are “making further enhancements” to best address victims’ concerns while also complying with the disclosure requirements of the Epstein Files Transparency Act that mandates the release of the files.
“As of the writing of this letter, all documents requested by victims or counsel to be removed by yesterday evening have been removed for further redaction, and the Department is continuing to process any new requests and to run its own searches to identify any other documents that may require further redaction,” Clayton wrote. He noted that the DOJ had also removed a “substantial number” of documents identified independently by the department.
Clayton wrote that the DOJ has “iteratively revised its protocols” and has “teams of personnel” monitoring requests by victims and their lawyers.
The Justice Department is not “relying solely” on the victims to identify specific documents, Clayton said. A team worked through the weekend, according to the letter, running “supplemental searches to identify missed redactions.”
“The first 24 hours of engagement on these issues, as well as the Department’s own internal review of its processes, following the release of documents on Friday led to significant enhancements to and streamlining of the Department’s processes for addressing victim concerns,” Clayton wrote.
Three million pages from the DOJ’s files on Epstein were being released to the public, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Friday. Blanche said in total there were 6 million pages of Epstein documents in the DOJ’s files, but that nearly 3 million pages were being withheld for various reasons including the presence of child sexual abuse material and the obligation to protect victims’ rights.
In this image released by the Walton County Sheriffs Office, law enforment vehicles are shown at the scene of a stabbing investigation at Walton Middle School in Defuniak, Fla., on March 24, 2026. (Walton County Sheriff’s Office, Florida)
(DEFUNIAK SPRINGS, Fla.) — A middle school student is in custody after allegedly stabbing two children and one adult at his Florida school on Tuesday, authorities said.
The attack — which happened in less than 45 seconds — unfolded after the suspect was dropped off at 7:17 a.m. at Walton Middle School in DeFuniak Springs in the Florida Panhandle, Sheriff Michael Adkinson said.
The school was not fully open at the time and there were about 40 students in the building, Adkinson said at a news conference.
The suspect allegedly went into a bathroom and then emerged a few minutes later wearing a mask and armed with a “sharp implement,” the sheriff said.
The boy allegedly went up to a fellow student and stabbed them multiple times, Adkinson said. He then allegedly went down the hall and attacked an adult, and then stabbed another child, the sheriff said.
The suspect fled but was apprehended near the school about seven minutes after the stabbings, Adkinson said.
The two children were seriously injured: one was life-flighted to a hospital in Pensacola and the other was taken to Fort Walton-Destin Hospital, a level two trauma center, the sheriff said. The wounded adult was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries, he said.
The sheriff did not discuss a potential motive.
The school canceled classes for the day, the sheriff’s office said.
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency is walking back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
President Donald Trump, joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is expected to announce the decision on Thursday.
In a statement to ABC News, the EPA said it’s “actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people. Sixteen years ago, the Obama Administration made one of the most damaging decisions in modern history – the 2009 Endangerment Finding. In the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
