ICE and CBP officials grilled on enforcement tactics at hearing on immigration
Rep. Bennie Thompson speaks during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Feb. 10, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A top Democrat said Tuesday’s House committee hearing on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement is the beginning of “accountability” for Department of Homeland Security officials, including Secretary Kristi Noem.
“This hearing is just the start of a reckoning for the Trump administration and its weaponization of DHS against American citizens, and the principle our country stands for. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem must be held accountable for this lawlessness immigration operation,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) Commissioner Rodney Scott, and Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, are appearing in the first of two hearings on oversight of the two agencies.
Scott highlighted the low border crossing numbers and the work of the men and women of CBP.
“We have now implemented effective policies, established unified priorities and objectives across all federal departments, and empowered our workforce to do their jobs by simply enforcing the laws that already exist,” Scott said.
Lyons pushed back on those who label ICE officers “Gestapo or secret police.”
“I know this first hit firsthand because my own family was targeted, but let me send a message to anyone who thinks they can intimidate us: You will fail,” Lyons said. “Despite these perils, our officers continue to execute their mission with unwavering resolve. We are only getting started. ICE remains committed to the fundamental principles that those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable.”
Lyons said that since the beginning of the second Trump administration, ICE has achieved “historic results.”
“ICE has conducted nearly 379,000 arrests, among those arrests were for more than 7,000 suspected gang members and over 1,400 known or suspected terrorists,” he said.
Lyons declined to apologize to the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were shot by federal agents in Minneapolis last month, when asked by Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., to respond to remarks by administration officials calling them domestic terrorists. He instead offered to meet with their families in private.
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the family in private. But I’m not going to comment on any active investigation.”
Lyons said he wants to release the body-worn camera footage from Minnesota, now that ICE agents are equipped with them.
“That’s one thing that I’m committed to is full transparency,” Lyons said.
Gavin Newsom, governor of California, during the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. (Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(SANTA BARBARA, Calif.) — Are there too many Democrats running for governor in California
Corrin Rankin, the chair of the California Republican Party, told ABC News on the sidelines of a Republican National Committee meeting last month, “I think the Democrats should have a few more candidates. I say, if you’re a Democrat, and you feel like running for governor? I say, jump in.”
Rankin’s taunt reflects very real anxiety among some Democrats in the state in the 2026 race to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom.
California uses top-two primaries, in which all candidates regardless of party are on the same ballot and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
It’s been expected that a Democrat and Republican will advance or, given California’s blue tilt, two Democrats. But a crowded Democratic field increases the chances that two Republicans and no Democrats make it past the June primary.
“The fact that it’s a possibility at all is enough to raise eyebrows and generate concern,” Steven Maviglio, a California-based Democratic operative, told ABC News.
RL Miller, who chairs the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus, told ABC News that the scenario where no Democrats advance is a bit “more of an academic exercise,” but certainly something candidates are discussing in fundraising emails.
The Democratic field was effectively frozen for months until former Vice President Kamala Harris announced she would not run. Around a dozen Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, are vying for the nomination.
For some candidates, it’s been tough to break through, but they say they want to stay in because they feel their experience means they’re best for the job.
Antonio Villaraigosa, a former mayor of Los Angeles and former state representative, told ABC News on the sidelines of a recent candidate forum in the city he once led that he’s pointing to himself as “a proven problem-solver … people are looking for competence, common sense and of course-correction. They want the next governor to focus on the challenges we face.”
Asked more directly how he’s trying to stand out and if he thinks the Democratic field needs to consolidate more before the primary, Villaraigosa did not say anyone should drop out but pointed again to his record.
“I’m running on a vision for California that says we can restore the California Dream… [I’m] the only one in this in this race who’s been a chief executive of a large city,” he said.
Betty Yee, California’s former state controller, told ABC News on the sidelines of that forum in Los Angeles that she is pointing to her statewide job experience and financial acumen as a way she stands out from the pack.
“I think at the end of the day voters really do want somebody who can really just get on the job and begin to do the work,” Yee said.
She also added that Democratic candidates have not had a “long runway” to run, given the focus on the Proposition 50 congressional map election last November and the uncertainty over whether Harris would run for the governorship.
“So now, with all that behind us, we now have the focus on the race… what I did during that time was just to engage and just do as much direct voter engagement as I could,” Yee said.
Among the Republican candidates, front-runners Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco are expressing confidence that either one of them will make it to one of the top two slots in the primary.
Hilton, a business owner and former Fox News host, told ABC News that’s because of what he said is backlash to high costs and other challenges in California, which has been dominated by Democrats in the state legislature and executive branch for years.
“There’s a majority, a clear majority, who think we need change, and that means a change from the Democrats,” he said.
Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, told ABC News that he feels there is a crowded Democratic field because Newsom has not cultivated an heir apparent.
“So the Democrat Party below him is just [in] complete disarray, which is why you see a dozen Democrats — prominent Democrats — jumping in this race, wanting to be the next heir apparent, and it has to benefit Republicans,” Bianco said.
But Hilton expressed some skepticism about the benefits for the GOP of the top-two primary.
“Now on the Democrat side, you’re right, there’s a lot of candidates, but I think we’ve all seen how things work in California,” Hilton said, speculating that unions and donors will at some point coalesce around one candidate.
But Maviglio, the Democratic strategist, cautioned that donors and labor unions are holding back because of the crowded field, and labor groups in particular have multiple allies in the ring.
“It’s splintered,” Maviglio said.
Some Democrats have pointed to the state party’s upcoming convention in late February as a moment of truth — since candidates may drop out afterwards if it becomes clear they don’t have support to gain enough internal votes for the party’s endorsement.
But no candidate is expected, at the moment, to clear the threshold for an endorsement.
President Donald Trump looks on during a meeting of his Cabinet in the Cabinet Room of the White House on December 02, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Amid the news that the U.S. carried out a “large scale strike” on Venezuela overnight Saturday and captured the country’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, Americans may be wondering why Trump, who promised voters no more wars, would launch a risky ground operation to capture a foreign leader.
So far, Trump and his top aides have offered shifting explanations since Trump’s military buildup in Latin America began earlier this year.
Initially, Trump defended his military operations near Venezuela as keeping drugs out of the US, although experts say the cocaine that passes through Venezuela winds up mostly in Europe while fentanyl is sourced from China.
Trump also accused Maduro of emptying Venezuela’s prisons and “mental institutions” into the U.S., although there’s no evidence of that either. According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have settled in the U.S. in recent years due to economic and political instability in their home country.
By mid-December, Trump accused Maduro of “stealing” U.S. oil and land. Trump appeared to be alluding to work done in the 1970s in Venezuela by Western oil companies before the government there opted to nationalize its reserves, eventually forcing out American companies.
In a Dec. 17 social media post – around the same time sources say Trump was making a decision to greenlight the Jan. 3 military operation — Trump said the U.S. military threat to Venezuela will “only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.”
Trump aide Stephen Miller made a similar claim.
“American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property,” Miller wrote on X.
Two days later at a press conference, Secretary of State Marc Rubio offered a more general explanation than access to oil reserves, calling Maduro’s presidency “intolerable” because it was cooperating with “terrorist and criminal elements” instead of the Trump administration.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has staked much of his political career as opposed to the communist Cuban government. He has long blamed Maduro as a primary source of instability in the region, including in Cuba where the regime still relies on Venezuela’s cheap oil.
“There is a regional threat, and in the case of Venezuela we have no cooperation,” Rubio told reporters Dec. 19. “To begin with, it is an illegitimate regime. Second, it is a regime that does not cooperate. It is anti-American in all its statements and actions. And third, it is a regime that not only does not cooperate with us, but also openly cooperates with dangerous, terrorist and criminal elements.”
The Venezuelan government issued a statement condemning what it called “the grave military aggression perpetrated by the current government of the United States of America.”
U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on December 22, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said in a post on his social media platform Thursday that he launched a “powerful and deadly strike” on ISIS terrorists in Nigeria, whom he claimed have been “targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians.”
This comes after the president posted a video in early November threatening to go into Nigeria “guns-a-blazing.” Around that time, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump’s message and said in a post on X that the Department of Defense was “preparing for action.”
“I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was. The Department of War executed numerous perfect strikes, as only the United States is capable of doing,” Trump added in the post.
It is not yet clear the outcome of that strike or what the exact target was. ABC News has asked the White House for more information.
In a post on X, Hegseth further said there will be “more to come” and expressed his gratitude to the Nigerian government for its support and cooperation.
“The President was clear last month: the killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end.
“The @DeptofWar is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight — on Christmas.”
Hegseth ended his post with, “Merry Christmas!”
In a post on X, U.S. Africa Command confirmed the strikes, which it said were conducted “in coordination with Nigerian authorities.”
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Abuja later released a statement saying that the U.S. strikes were carried out together with Nigerian authorities and are part of the ongoing security work they do with the U.S. and other partners to tackle ISIS and extremist groups.
“In line with established international practice and bilateral understandings, this cooperation includes the exchange of intelligence, strategic coordination, and other forms of support consistent with international law, mutual respect for sovereignty, and shared commitments to regional and global security,” the ministry said.
The Defense Department also reposted President Trump’s statement, along with a brief video clip labeled “unclassified” that shows a missile being launched from a ship, presumably at targets in Nigeria.
The strike against ISIS in Nigeria Thursday comes just days after U.S. strikes were launched against ISIS in Syria, following an attack on U.S. and partner forces in Syria that killed three Americans earlier this month.
Trump in November instructed the Pentagon to prepare for possible action against Nigeria after accusing the Nigerian government of not doing enough to protect Christians from violence.
Asked if there was a possibility of U.S. troops being boots on the ground in the West African country, Trump replied, “Could be.”
“They’re killing the Christians and killing them in very large numbers, we’re not going to allow that to happen,” he said.
Days later, the State Department officially updated its designation for Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for its alleged “severe violations of religious freedom” and persecution of Christians.
Last week, Nigeria was also added to the U.S. travel ban list of countries facing partial restrictions and entry limitations.
Nigerian President Bola Tinubu doesn’t deny the violence against Christians in Nigeria, but says previous claims that Nigeria is religiously intolerant “does not reflect our national reality.”
Independent experts say extremist groups have targeted both Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, killing tens of thousands of civilians in recent years.
On Christmas Eve, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu posted on X, saying that he prayed “for peace in our land, especially between individuals of differing religious beliefs.”
“I stand committed to doing everything within my power to enshrine religious freedom in Nigeria and to protect Christians, Muslims, and all Nigerians from violence,” the post continued.
