Former top DOJ immigration official says she was removed with no explanation
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A former top Justice Department immigration official who was removed from her position by new DOJ leadership this week told ABC News that she did not receive any explanation for her removal.
Lauren Alder Reid was one of four top officials from the agency that operates the U.S. immigration courts who was removed from her post. She had been with the agency for more than 14 years.
“They did not give me any reason, other than not citing the 16 years of outstanding performance evaluation for lack of any discipline, administrative leave or reassignment in my entire career,” Reid told ABC News.
The firings come as President Donald Trump has signed a flurry of immigration executive orders after vowing on the campaign trail to clamp down on immigration and undo Biden-era policies.
When asked if she’s considering legal action, Reid, who was the assistant director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s office of policy, said that she and the others are considering all options available to them.
“It’s pretty hard to sit back and imagine that this could begin to happen, at will, to any employee throughout the government, especially when we’re talking about public servants who have dedicated their careers to try to make our country the best,” she said.
The Justice Department employs about 700 immigration judges who decide whether migrants seeking asylum in the United States can remain in the country legally. There is currently an historic backlog of 3.5 million cases.
Reid said drastic reform is needed to address the backlog, saying, “Congress needs to act.”
Asked what message her removal sends to other career officials in the federal government, Reid said that employees are fearful. “If fear is what they wanted, that’s what they’re getting,” Reid said.
(NEW YORK) — A 21-year-old junior at Columbia University said she was the person whom federal agents were after when they showed up at a residence on West 113 Street earlier this month — and she is now suing President Donald Trump.
Federal immigration agents showed up at Yunseo Chung’s apartment near the Columbia University campus on March 13, law enforcement sources told ABC News.
However, law enforcement officials told ABC News at the time that the woman they were seeking was not there when the agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations arrived.
Chung, who has lived in the United States since she moved from South Korea at age 7 and had become a legal permanent resident, participated in demonstrations in defense of Palestinians in Gaza and in her lawsuit accused Trump and other officials of “attempting to use immigration enforcement as a bludgeon to suppress speech that they dislike” including Chung’s.
Because Chung participated in a March 5 sit-in inside of an academic building at Barnard College, in addition to demonstrating outside, the federal agents searched her dorm, showed up at her parents’ house and said her status as a legal permanent resident had been revoked, according to her lawsuit.
“The prospect of imminent detention, to be followed by deportation proceedings, has chilled her speech. Ms. Chung is now concerned about speaking up about the ongoing ordeal of Palestinians in Gaza as well as what is happening on her own campus: the targeting of her fellow students by the federal government, the arbitrary disciplinary process she and others are undergoing, and the failure of the university to protect noncitizen students,” the lawsuit said.
“If Ms. Chung is detained and deported, she will be indefinitely separated from her family and community,” the filing continued. “Ms. Chung’s parents reside in the continental United States, and her sister is set to start college in the United States in the fall.”
Trump’s administration argued that Chung’s presence poses risks to foreign policy and to halting the spread of antisemitism — the same rationale the administration invoked for the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who was escorted from Columbia on March 8.
According to the sources, the actions against Chung are part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on individuals it has described as espousing the views of Hamas and threatening the safety of Jewish students.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge wants to hear directly from one of the top officials at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to learn if the Trump administration is unlawfully gutting the agency or just trying to streamline it.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson — who expressed concern the CFPB might be “choked out of its very existence” — said she plans to hold a hearing next Monday to get testimony from CFPB Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez and others about the state of the agency tasked with protecting American consumers.
During a lengthy hearing Monday, Jackson grew frustrated with a lack of clear answers from either side about the current state of the CFPB. Lawyers with the Department of Justice argued the relief requested by the federal unions who brought the lawsuit amounted to putting the CFPB into receivership, while the plaintiffs argued the Trump administration was causing irreparable harm by slowly starving the agency.
“According to the plaintiff, the sky is falling. According to the defendant, if I issue the order, the sky will be falling,” Jackson remarked.
Jackson is considering issuing a preliminary injunction to block the dismantling of the CFPB but added she might consider additional relief if the plaintiffs can demonstrate that the government’s actions are causing irreparable harm.
“I think what we’re talking about is interim oversight to make sure that it hasn’t been choked out of its very existence before I get to rule on the merits,” she said.
In a sworn court filing last week, Martinez argued the changes at the CFPB — which has operated under a stop work order for the last month — are simply a “common practice at the beginning of a new administration.” Jackson raised skepticism to the idea that what’s happening at the CFPB is business as usual.
“One of the big defenses of all this is that this is normal, that this is what happens when the new team comes to town, and I’m just not sure that’s true at all, at least not since I’ve been here,” she remarked. “Are you telling me that … when President Reagan took over from President Carter — on top of freezing regulations and enforcement and litigation — fired all provisional employees, shut the building, stopped all work and said the funding should stop?”
Lawyers with the Department of Justice insisted the Trump administration is trying to improve the CFPB, not destroy it.
“You can’t blow it up, but why should you be able to starve it to death?” Jackson asked.
“Acting Director [Russell] Vought wants to have a more streamlined and efficient bureau, not to blow it up,” responded a DOJ attorney.
Elon Musk, however, wrote “RIP CFPB” in a post on X on Feb. 7, the same day workers received termination notices.
The CFPB is an independent agency established by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis under the landmark Dodd-Frank Act. It’s a consumer watchdog aimed at protecting American households from unfair and deceptive practices across the financial services industry.
Its oversight applies to everything from mortgages to credit cards to bank fees to student loans to data collection. By law, the CFPB has the rare ability to issue new rules and to impose fines against companies who break them.
Since its establishment in 2011 through last June, the CFPB said it has clawed back $20.7 billion for American consumers.
ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Congressional Democrats are renewing their push to expand in vitro fertilization access for military service members by introducing legislation that would require the Department of Defense’s health care program to fund access to IVF for military service members.
The legislative effort, being led in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth and in the House by Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs, would bring IVF access afforded to military service members in parity with the services available to members of Congress. It would also modify current requirements that service members prove that their infertility challenges are directly connected to service, a barrier that the lawmakers say is often cumbersome or impossible to overcome.
The legislation, Jacobs said in an exclusive interview with ABC News, could be “life-changing” for military service members who are often forced to choose between continuing their military service and starting a family.
“I think it will be huge. We know so many military families are struggling to make ends meet as it is, and are facing really significant fertility challenges. It would be life-changing,” Jacobs told ABC News. “We shouldn’t make them choose between serving our country and building their families.”
Duckworth and Jacobs say that some members of the military have been forced to abandon their military careers because of the lack of infertility treatment coverage by their health care program, called TRICARE. It could present a risk to military readiness, they told ABC News.
“For too many service members, the lack of TRICARE coverage of IVF has left them with only a few choices: beat the odds and prove that their infertility is directly related to their service, pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a chance at a family, forgo having children, or leave the military. This is wrong,” Duckworth said.
It’s also about parity, they said: Starting this year, members of Congress are afforded access to plans that offer coverage for infertility treatments. Jacobs and Duckworth say the same should be true for military service members.
“It makes no sense that members of Congress and the rest of the federal workforce will get this, but military families still won’t,” Jacobs said.
This is not the first time that Jacobs and Duckworth have attempted to expand IVF access for military service members. They tried to get this same provision included in the massive military spending package, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, last year as both parties tried to reassure voters of their support for IVF and other infertility treatments.
Though the proposal made it through the House Armed Services Committee, it never made it into the final version of the bill that President Joe Biden signed into law during the waning days of his presidency.
Similar legislation was separately blocked in the Senate by Republican Sen. James Lankford last year. At the time, Lankford said that while he supports IVF, he was concerned about the indefinite cost of the legislation and the possibility it opened for “future definitions for gene editing or for cloning.”
Duckworth and Jacobs’ newest effort, however, is a stand-alone bill that could be voted on not as an amendment, but as it’s own legislation.
Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran, has been vocal about her own experiences using IVF to conceive her two children. She was involved in multiple efforts to expand IVF access last Congress that were ultimately blocked by Republicans.
She said this new proposal would give Republicans the opportunity to make good on President Donald Trump’s pro-IVF rhetoric that he’s used on the campaign trail and at the White House.
“President Trump pledged to voters on the campaign trail that he would go even further by making IVF free if elected and has repeated the bold-faced lie that he is governing on the principle of ‘promises made, promises kept,'” Duckworth said in a statement. “Republicans can now help him partially fulfill his broken IVF promise by joining our commonsense legislation that would make sure those who answer the call to serve have access to the care they need to build their family.”
No Republican has yet signed on as a cosponsor, but Duckworth and Jacobs are pointing to Trump’s comments as recently as last week touting his support for IVF as a possible boon to their efforts.
On the campaign trail, as an Alabama State Supreme Court ruling temporarily threw IVF access into question, Trump was vocal about his hope to make IVF continually accessible. He referred to himself as the “father of IVF” and issued a statement that said “I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”
Trump has continued to make his support for IVF known. As recently as Wednesday when, during a Women’s History Month event, he referred to himself as the “fertilization president.”
“Fertilization. I’m still very proud of it, I don’t care. I’ll be known as the fertilization president, and that’s OK,” Trump said. “That’s not bad. I’ve been called much worse. Actually, I like it, right?”
It’s at this point unclear if the bill, which if pushed by Democrats to the Senate floor as a stand-alone bill would require the unanimous support of the Republican conference, would have the support it needs to pass. It’s also unclear if efforts to include it in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act or other major legislative pushes could lead to passage.
