Trump said Guantanamo would hold ‘high threat’ migrants — but others have ended up there
Simancas family
Early this month, as part of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, the first flight carrying “high threat” migrants landed at Guantanamo Bay, home of the notorious U.S. prison camp that administration officials said would house the most violent “worst of the worst” migrants apprehended on American soil.
ABC News, however, has spoken with the families of two migrants who say they’re being held there despite having no criminal record.
“President Donald Trump has been very clear: Guantanamo Bay will hold the worst of the worst. That starts today,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after releasing photos of the migrants boarding a C-17 military plane in Texas on Feb 4.
The move followed an executive order by Trump directing the secretaries of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to “expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity” for “high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”
“There’s a lot of space to accommodate a lot of people,” Trump said in the Oval Office last month when he signed the order. “So we’re going to use it.”
But in the weeks that have followed, as more migrants have been sent to Guantanamo, immigrant advocacy groups and some relatives of those detained claim the administration has provided no evidence that those detained are “high-threat” — and that people are being sent to the military base without access to legal counsel or the ability to communicate with relatives.
“It’s troubling enough that we are even sending immigrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo, but it’s beyond the pale that we are holding them incommunicado, without access to attorneys, family or the outside world,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
A federal lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., last week and backed by the ACLU, says this is the first time in U.S. history that the government has detained noncitizens on civil immigration charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
A DHS spokesperson told ABC News last week that in addition to holding violent gang members and other “high-threat” migrants, the military is also holding other undocumented migrants with final deportation orders.
An ABC News review of 53 Guantanamo detainees whose names were published by The New York Times found federal cases associated with 14 of the names. That number does not account for possible variations in spelling, nor does it include any possible state cases.
According to federal court records, among those cases, one individual was charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding an officer during a riot at a detention center. Another was charged for allegedly being involved in an “illegal alien smuggling scheme,” and one was charged with “intentionally conspiring to transport” undocumented people in Texas.
In the other federal cases ABC News found, the individuals were charged for entry or illegal reentry into the U.S., a criminal offense.
ABC News spoke with the families of two migrants who are in Guantanamo, who claimed their detained relatives do not have ties to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua or other criminal groups as authorities have alleged.
A senior DHS official told ABC News the two migrants are members of Tren De Aragua, but did not elaborate or offer any details.
“There is a system for phone utilization to reach lawyers,” added the official. “If the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union cares more about highly dangerous criminal aliens including murderers & vicious gang members than they do about American citizens — they should change their name.”
The family members said they believe their relatives were unfairly targeted because of their tattoos.
“He told us he was being targeted because of his tattoos … he was accused of being part of Tren de Aragua, but that is not true,” said Barbara Simancas, the sister of Jose Rodriguez Simancas who is reportedly one of the migrants in Guantanamo. “His tattoos have nothing to do with that … they are of his children’s names.”
Barbara Simancas told ABC News that her brother last spoke to a relative on Feb. 4 to let them know he was being transferred to the military base in Cuba the next day. She said her brother surrendered to authorities after crossing the southern border last year and claiming asylum, and that he was placed in a detention center in El Paso, Texas.
Barbara Simancas maintains her brother does not have a criminal record and provided to ABC News a criminal background check from Venezuela.
Rodriguez Simancas was charged with “improper entry” into the U.S. in May 2024. Court records obtained by ABC News noted that he has “no criminal history” other than the improper entry to which he pleaded guilty.
Barbara Simancas said she has not been able to get in touch with ICE or DHS since her brother was sent to Guantanamo.
“I just ask the government to send him back to Venezuela,” Simancas said. “His kids are worried. They want to see their dad.”
ABC News also spoke with Jhoan Lee Bastidas, the father of Jhoan Lee Bastidas Paz, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was charged with “improper entry” into the U.S. in November 2023 and pleaded guilty. Court records also indicate he has “no criminal history” besides that charge.
Lee Bastidas told ABC News he found out about his son’s detention when his other son saw a photo on social media of Bastidas Paz on a military flight to Guantanamo.
“When I saw the photo of him, I said ‘Oh my God,'” said Lee Bastidas, who told ABC News that his son’s name was also in the list of Guantanamo detainees published by the Times.
“We’re thinking the worst things because on social media, they say Guantanamo is the worst … that it’s where they house the terrorists,” Lee Bastidas said. “I am tormented.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about negotiating a nuclear deal, while also threatening military action if an agreement isn’t reached.
Trump said he sent the letter on Wednesday during an interview with Fox Business, a clip of which was released by the network on Friday.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled, militarily or you make a deal. I would prefer to make a deal,” Trump told Fox host Maria Bartiromo.
“I would rather negotiate a deal. I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily,” Trump said. “But the time is happening now, the time is coming up. Something is going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran, and I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.”
Bartiromo asked the president if he gave Iranian leadership an ultimatum.
“No I didn’t say, ‘You better.’ I said, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate,’ because it will be a lot better for Iran. I think they want to get that letter. The other alternative is we have to do something because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump warned.
This isn’t the first time Trump has sent a message to Khamenei. In 2019, with the help of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he sent a similar message, but the Iranian leader publicly rejected that offer to talk.
Khamenei reportedly said at the time, “I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging any message with.”
Trump’s comments proposing a nuclear deal come after he withdrew the U.S. from an agreement reached between Iran and the Obama administration during his first term in office. That nuclear deal, established in 2015, allowed Iran to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity and maintain a stockpile of uranium of 300 kilograms.
Last month, Trump signed a memorandum that seeks to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran, including pushing its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from possessing nuclear weapons capability.
“I’m going to sign it, but hopefully we’re not going to have to use it very much. We will see whether or not we can arrange or work out a deal with Iran,” he said.
Asked about what kind of deal he’d like to see, Trump responded: “We’re going to see. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. With me, it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
As he spoke on the issue in the Oval Office, Trump also said he’s left instructions to “obliterate” Iran if they ever carried out an assassination.
(WASHINGTON) — Federal judges have been blunt in their rulings from the bench as the Trump administration has been hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its policies, layoffs and firings and other orders.
While many of the cases are still working their way through the system, several federal judges have been swift in issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, questioning the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions.
The president and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been at the center of some of the suits, have dismissed many of the orders in interviews and on social media. Musk has called for the impeachment of multiple judges, and Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Boasberg has called on the administration to stop deporting Venezuelans as part of Trump’s executive order that invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little to no due process, as a lawsuit plays out.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on behalf of five Venezuelans contending the deportees were not criminals. The judge argued that the accused deportees could face real harm and granted the TRO.
Several of the judges have faced increased harassment and threats, according to the U.S. Marshals Service and sources with knowledge of the situation.
Here are some of the major rulings issued by judges against the administration.
March 21
Boasberg said during a court hearing over the AEA deportations of Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadorian prison that the administration’s use of the law was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”
“I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has been used … in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was,” Boasberg said.
The judge noted that the Trump administration’s arguments about the extent of the president’s power are “awfully frightening” and a “long way from” the intent of the law.
The Trump administration argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the gang’s national security risk warranted the use of the 18th century act.
Boasberg vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable, if necessary, if it violated his court order from March 15.
“The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my word and who ordered this and what’s the consequence,” he said.
Boasberg also grilled Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over his compliance with the court order to turn back the flights already in the air and questioned how the deportation flights were put together.
“Why is this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday night, early Saturday morning, when people [were] rushed on the plane?” Boasberg asked. “To me, the only reason to do that is if you know the problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed.”
“I don’t have knowledge of those operational details,” Ensign said.
Boasberg also raised concerns that the rapid nature of the deportations prevented the men from being able to challenge the allegations that they belonged to Tren de Aragua.
“[What] they’re simply saying is don’t remove me, particularly to a country that’s going to torture me,” Boasberg said.
An attorney for the ACLU argued that those targeted by the AEA should be able to contest whether they fall within the act.
“Otherwise, anybody could be taken off the street and removed,” said Lee Gelernt, the attorney for the ACLU. “This is a very dangerous road we’re going down.”
As Ensign appeared to undermine arguments made earlier in the week about the timing of the order and struggled to answer Boasberg’s questions, the judge suggested the Department of Justice might be risking its reputation and credibility.
“I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility,” Boasberg said. “I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson.”
Boasberg decided on March 24 that the men who were deported were entitled to due process in court.
“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such. Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.
Later that evening, the Trump administration invoked the “state secrets privilege” in a court filing to attempt to stop the federal judge from learning more information about the flights.
“Removal flight plans-including locations from which flights depart, the planes utilized, the paths they travel, where they land, and how long they take to accomplish any of those things–reflect critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the filing.
March 20
U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander slammed DOGE in a 137-page ruling that blocked the group’s unlimited access to Social Security information.
“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” she wrote.
“The government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task,” Hollander added. “Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”
The White House has not commented on the case as of March 25.
Reyes said the policy continued an unfortunate history of the armed services excluding marginalized people from the “privilege of serving.”
“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” Reyes wrote.
“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” she added.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve,” she said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has slammed the judge on X and vowed to appeal.
Lawyers for the administration argued in court papers that the court “has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants” and claimed the Department of Defense’s new guidance “underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”
March 13
U.S. District Judge William Alsup scolded a DOJ attorney during a hearing for a lawsuit against the mass firing of federal workers.
Alsup slammed the attorney for refusing to make acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell available for cross-examination and withdrawing his sworn declaration, which Alsup called a “sham.”
“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here and then set forth sham declarations,” Alsup said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” Alsup said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”
Alsup bashed the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false but then withdrawing it and making Ezell unavailable for testimony.
“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me,” Alsup said. “I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”
Alsup later ruled that thousands of federal workers needed to be rehired.
The judge determined the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the procedures in place for issuing reductions in force by asserting that the employees were terminated for performance reasons without providing evidence.
“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”
If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, it needs to follow the process established in federal law, he said.
“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.
His ruling is being appealed by the administration, which asked the Supreme Court on March 24 for an emergency stay.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in her filing that the labor unions and nonprofit groups that challenged the mass firings lack standing, saying they have “hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”
“This Court should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions — much less do so by vastly exceeding the limits on the scope of its equitable authority and ordering reinstatements en masse,” she wrote.
Jan. 23
Just days into Trump’s second presidency, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and expressed shock in the order from the president.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” the judge told the DOJ’s attorney during the hearing. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
The Trump administration has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Harris, the acting solicitor general, argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she wrote.
ABC News’ Emily Chang and Laura Romero contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Richard Hudson, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, encouraged House Republicans to do more virtual events over in-person town halls, according to multiple sources familiar with the meeting.
The plea comes as multiple House Republicans have faced fiery constituents at recent in-person town halls concerning cuts to the federal workforce and the impact Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has had on communities.
Hudson told members that communicating with constituents via Facebook Live, tele-town halls and other virtual avenues would be more effective, allowing them to screen questions and have better control over the events.
“Chairman Hudson supports members reaching and helping as many of our constituents as possible, using technology makes this a heck of lot easier. Chairman Hudson opposes attention-seeking MoveOn and Indivisible activists hijacking these events,” Will Kiley, NRCC’s spokesman, told ABC News.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., claimed tele-town halls are “more productive than if you just go to an open forum right now,” accusing Democratic activists, without evidence, of showing up to in-person town halls to portray Republicans in a negative light.
“Look, these are their people who do this as a profession,” Johnson said at the GOP press conference. “They’re professional protesters. So why would we give them a forum to do that right now? The best thing that our members can do is communicate directly, frequently, consistently, with their constituents, and there are other avenues to do it than just going in to try to give the other side sound bites.”
This comes after President Donald Trump made accusations, without evidence, that “paid troublemakers” were interrupting GOP town halls, not constituents.
Outside Tuesday’s GOP conference meeting, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., claimed she experienced safety concerns in her district, saying that virtual events were safer and more effective.
“I’ve done many tele-town halls, and I think those are very productive and we can reach 1,000s more people than we ever could in person,” she said. “And so, I think that that is a great strategy, but for me personally, it’s just not safe to do an in person town hall because I don’t know what to expect.”
Meanwhile, some Democrats said that if Republicans won’t host town halls, they will.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said on Tuesday that he’d soon go out to red districts in his state to speak out against DOGE layoffs.
“Starting March 24th, I will be going to three red districts in California to speak out against DOGE’s mass firings and the Republicans’ Medicaid cuts,” Khanna wrote in an op-ed in The Prospect published on Tuesday.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee, posted on X Tuesday morning that he’d host events in districts where Republican representatives won’t meet constituents.
“If your Republican representative won’t meet with you because their agenda is so unpopular, maybe a Democrat will,” he said. “Hell, maybe I will. If your congressman refuses to meet, I’ll come host an event in their district to help local Democrats beat ’em.”
