‘Homegrowns are next’: Trump doubles down on sending American ‘criminals’ to foreign prisons
Win McNamee/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday doubled down on his idea of sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons, telling El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele he wanted to send “homegrown criminals” to his country next, according to a video posted by Bukele’s office on X.
The comments came as Trump welcomed Bukele, a key partner in his migrant deportations, to the White House amid controversy over the Supreme Court saying the administration should “facilitate” the return of a migrant from Maryland wrongfully sent to a notorious Salvadoran mega-prison.
As the two men entered the Oval Office, before reporters were allowed in the room, Trump discussed his proposal to send what he called American “criminals” accused of violent crimes to El Salvador and told Bukele he needed to build more prisons to house them.
“Homegrown criminals next,” Trump said, according to a livestream posted by Bukele’s office. “I said homegrowns are next, the homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.”
Bukele was heard responding “alright” and others in the room laughed.
“It’s not big enough,” Trump added.
Trump and various White House officials have repeatedly floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens to El Salvador and other places — something legal experts have said would be flatly unconstitutional.
On Monday, during a spray with reporters, Trump said his team was “studying” the issue.
“If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem,” Trump said. “Now we’re studying the laws right now, Pam [Bondi] is studying. If we can do that, that’s good.”
“And I’m talking about violent people. I’m talking about really bad people. Really bad people. Every bit as bad as the ones coming in,” he continued.
Bukele first offered to house violent U.S. criminals shortly after Trump was inaugurated.
When Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the proposal from Bukele back in early February, he called the it “an act of extraordinary friendship.” Though at the time, Rubio also noted there would be constitutional questions about such a move, saying there are “obviously legalities involved.”
Bukele on Monday said he was “very eager to help” the Trump administration.
“In fact, Mr. President, you have 350 million people to liberate. You know, but to liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some,” Bukele said.
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
Photo by Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a key progressive member of the House whose district covers swaths of the Bronx and Queens, endorsed New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Thursday for the city’s upcoming Democratic mayoral primary — one day after the candidate clashed with front-runner former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates on the debate stage.
“Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack. In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that,” Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times in an interview published on Thursday.
“In 2018, A.O.C. shocked the world and changed our politics for the better with her historic victory. On June 24, we will do the same,” Mamdani told the Times in a statement.
Mamdani, a state assemblymember and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has been steadily inching upward in the polls and fundraising. He is running on a progressive platform that includes a rent freeze for rent-stabilized apartments, eliminating fares for New York City buses and opening city-owned grocery stores. Mamdani envisions the latter two being funded by higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals; some have cautioned that he would need support from state government for those taxes.
Her announcement came the day after a chaotic two-hour debate punctuated by candidates shouting over an increasingly exasperated slate of moderators.
Nine Democrats who wish to be New York City’s next mayor sparred over how they’d interact with President Donald Trump, public safety, affordability and other topics.
Out of those who were onstage, Cuomo leads the pack in polling while Mamdani is slowly closing the gap in second place. The rest of the candidates have struggled to break through.
Each candidate was asked how they would work with — or charge against — Trump if elected mayor. Cuomo vowed that he is an adversary that Trump could not best.
“He can be beaten. But he has to know that he’s up against an adversary who can actually beat him. I am the last person on this stage that Mr. Trump wants to see as mayor, and that is why I should be the first choice for the people of the city to have as mayor,” Cuomo said.
Mamdani, answering the question, said, “I am Donald Trump’s worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in, and the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Donald Trump in D.C. … I have to pick up the phone for the more than 20,000 New Yorkers who contributed an average donation of about $80 to break fundraising records and put our campaign in second place.”
Cuomo did not directly respond to Mamdani’s attack on the debate stage.
Some billionaires who have previously supported Trump, such as prominent hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and Home Depot founder Ken Langone, have donated to an independent group, the super PAC Fix the City, that supports Cuomo. Cuomo’s campaign is not allowed to coordinate with the group. In response to reporting on Cuomo’s wealthy supporters, Fix the City spokesperson Liz Benjamin told the New York Times that “donors have supported Fix the City because they know that Andrew Cuomo has the right experience and the right plans for New York City.”
Former state assemblymember Michael Blake, while answering a question on public safety, brought up the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo: “The people who don’t feel safe are young women, mothers and grandmothers around Andrew Cuomo, that’s the greatest threat to public safety in New York City.”
Cuomo, later asked about the allegations — and if he would do anything differently given investigations that alleged his leadership fostered a toxic work environment — told the moderators, “Let’s just make sure we have the facts. A report was done four years ago making certain allegations. I said at the time that it was political and it was false.”
He added that five district attorneys found “nothing” and he was dropped from one case.
“I said at the time that if I offended anyone, it was unintentional, but I apologize, and I say that today.”
(WASHINGTON) — GOP Sen. Thom Tillis was back on Capitol Hill on Monday as Senate Republicans struggled to pass their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” he opposes — before President Donald Trump’s July Fourth deadline.
“I may look for an opportunity to speak again,” Tillis said during his fiery remarks on the Senate floor on Sunday night, in which he urged his Republican colleagues to reconsider their support for the GOP tax bill, which he said “breaks” President Donald Trump’s promises to protect Medicaid.
But on Monday it remained unclear whether any of his fellow Republicans would go along.
Monday morning, as lawmakers began another long day of debate, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lauded Tillis for his remarks calling out the GOP megabill’s provisions he said would slash Medicaid in his home state of North Carolina.
“I salute my colleague from North Carolina. We all heard what our colleague from North Carolina had to say yesterday about this bill. My guess is about half — maybe more than half of the Republicans in the Senate agree with him. But he had the courage to speak the truth,” Schumer on Monday morning, as a vote-a-rama on the bill began.
“He said it himself: the bill devastates his state but make no mistake about it, it will devastate the states of almost every Republican here,” Schumer added.
But how Tillis will navigate the rest of his term in the Senate — and perhaps the rest of the reconciliation bill’s consideration — remains to be seen — after he abruptly announced he wouldn’t run for reelection when Trump threatened to support a GOP primary challenger.
While his speech railing against the measure’s Medicaid cuts displayed some of the “pure freedom” he noted in his retirement announcement “to call the balls and strikes as I see fit,” Tillis also told reporters at the Capitol on Sunday that he would never do anything to “undermine” or “surprise” the Senate Republican Conference.
“Look, here’s the thing, I was a leader. I’m never going to do anything to undermine my conference, and I’m never going to surprise my conference,” Tillis said..
“I let Senator Thune last night know that I intended to do this today. I’m not that kind of guy. I mean, if you’ve got a surprise or jam your conference to get something done, you’re a pretty shitty legislator, and that’s just not my style,” he went on.
“So, I’m going to stand behind John and the leadership and do everything I can to make them successful,” Tillis said.
In his speech to “explain” his vote Saturday against the motion to move forward on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” he condemned the legislation.
“What do I tell 663,000 people in two years, three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding is not there anymore, guys?” Tillis asked at one point. “The people in the White House advising the president, they’re not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise.”
He said blasted the president’s self-imposed July 4th deadline to pass the legislation as “artificial.”
“I believe that we can make sure that we do not break the promise of Donald J. Trump — that he’s made to the people on Medicaid today,” Tillis went on. “But what we’re doing because we’ve got a view on an artificial deadline on July 4 that means nothing but another date and time we could take the time to get this right, if we lay down the house mark of the Medicaid bill and fix it.”
“What’s wrong with actually understanding what this bill does?” he said.
Tillis laid out how he’d done the work of understanding the bill over recent weeks, talking with leaders in North Carolina and members of the Trump administration about the impacts of the legislation’s Medicaid provisions on his state.
He said administration officials could not disprove his findings that there would be about a $26 billion cut in Medicaid across North Carolina as a result of the bill.
Tillis said he started his fact-finding process by asking Republican staff in the North Carolina legislature, members of Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s team and to the non-partisan Hospital Association for their estimates about this bill’s cuts to Medicaid in North Carolina.
“I asked three different independent groups: a partisan Democrat group, a partisan Republican group of experts, and a nonpartisan group of the Hospital Association to develop an intact assessment, independent, not talking, not sharing, reporting to me, and what I found is the best case scenario is about a $26 billion cut,” Tillis said.
He said when he presented those findings to the Trump administration, they were rejected.
“I had people in the administration say, you’re all wet, you don’t know what you’re doing,” he said.
Tillis concluded by saying that the Senate “owes it to the American people” to withhold advancement of the bill ” until it’s demonstrated to me that we’ve done our homework.”
“We’re going to make sure that we fulfill the promise And then we can feel — I can feel — good about a bill that I’m willing to vote for, but until that time, I will be withholding my vote,” Tillis said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would hear expedited oral arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s emergency request to rollback nationwide injunctions against his executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The nation’s highest court set arguments for May 15 at 10 a.m.
The move by the justices sets the stage for a decision by this summer on three separate district court injunctions that had blocked the administration from moving forward with its plan to create a new standard for establishing citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who do not have permanent legal status.
Trump had asked the Supreme Court to allow the administration to, at the very least, begin planning for the change. He also took aim at the universal lower court mandates that he argued exceeded their authority.
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Trump’s acting solicitor general wrote in the application. “The Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and the identified members of the organizational plaintiffs (and, if the Court concludes that States are proper litigants, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States).”
“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” she added.
While the immediate issue is the scope of the injunctions, it’s also possible the justices wade into the substance of Trump’s executive order itself and the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, which was enshrined in the 14th Amendment and been repeatedly upheld by high court precedent.
Four separate district courts and three federal appeals courts have kept the Trump policy on hold during litigation, finding it very likely unconstitutional.
Earlier this month, a coalition of states and immigrant advocates had asked the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s emergency request to rollback a nationwide injunction against his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
“Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay,” they wrote. “This Court should deny the federal government’s request. Many aspects of constitutional interpretation are hotly debated, but not the merits question in this case. For over a century, it has been the settled view of this Court, Congress, the Executive Branch, and legal scholars that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to babies born in the United States regardless of their parents’ citizenship, “allegiance,” “domicile,” immigration status, or nationality.”
