Hillary Clinton’s full official prepared statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Benghazi attacks.
Watch Live Here Now: Hillary Clinton Testifies About Benghazi Attack
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS WASHINGTON, DC
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity.
The terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 that claimed the lives of four brave Americans — Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty — are part of a broader strategic challenge to the United States and our partners in North Africa. Today, I want to offer some context for this challenge and share what we’ve learned, how we are protecting our people, and where we can work together to honor our fallen colleagues and continue to champion America’s interests and values.
Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact: Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities. Benghazi joins a long list of tragedies, for our Department and for other agencies: hostages taken in Tehran in 1979, our embassy and Marine barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in East Africa in 1998, consulate staff murdered in Jeddah in 2004, the Khost attack in 2009, and too many others.
Of course, the list of attacks foiled, crises averted, and lives saved is even longer. We should never forget that our security professionals get it right 99 percent of the time, against difficult odds all over the world. That’s why, like my predecessors, I trust them with my life.
Let’s also remember that administrations of both parties, in partnership with Congress, have made concerted and good faith efforts to learn from the tragedies that have occurred, to implement recommendations from the Review Boards, to seek necessary resources, and to better protect our people from constantly evolving threats. That’s what the men and women who serve our country deserve. And it’s what we are doing again now, with your help. As Secretary, I have had no higher priority, and no greater responsibility.
As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.
Taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis and further protect our people and posts in high- threat areas across the region and the world. It meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. And it meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and support emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond.
Let me share some of the lessons we have learned, the steps we have taken, and the work we continue to do.
First, let’s start on the night of September 11 itself and those difficult early days. I directed our response from the State Department and stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan government. So I saw first- hand what Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen called “timely†and “exceptional†coordination. No delays in decision-making. No denials of support from Washington or from the military. And I want to echo the Review Board’s praise for the valor and courage of our people on the ground – especially the security professionals in Benghazi and Tripoli. The Board said our response saved American lives in real time – and it did.
The very next morning, I told the American people that “heavily armed militants assaulted our compound†and vowed to bring them to justice. And I stood with President Obama as he spoke of “an act of terror.â€
You may recall that in that same period, we also saw violent attacks on our embassies in Cairo, Sanaa, Tunis, and Khartoum, as well as large protests outside many other posts where thousands of our diplomats serve.
So I immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world, with particular scrutiny for high-threat posts. We asked the Department of Defense to join Interagency Security Assessment Teams and to dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards. I named the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for High Threat Posts, so Missions in dangerous places get the attention they need. And we reached out to Congress to help address physical vulnerabilities, including risks from fire, and to hire additional Diplomatic Security personnel.
Second, even as we took these steps, I also appointed the Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen so that we could more fully understand what went wrong and how to fix it.
I have accepted every one of their recommendations — and I asked the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources to lead a task force to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely… as well as to pursue additional steps above and beyond those in the Board’s report.
Because of the effort we began in the days after the attacks, work is already well underway. And, as I pledged in my letter to you last month, implementation has now begun on all 29 recommendations. Our task force started by translating the recommendations into 64 specific action items. All of these action items were assigned to specific bureaus and offices, with clear timelines for completion. Fully 85 percent are on track to be completed by the end of March, with a number completed already.
We are taking a top-to-bottom look, and rethinking how we make decisions on where, when, and how our people operate in high threat areas, and how we respond to threats and crises.
As part of our effort to go above and beyond the Review Board’s recommendations, we are initiating an annual High Threat Post Review chaired by the Secretary of State, and ongoing reviews by the Deputy Secretaries, to ensure pivotal questions about security reach the highest levels. And we will regularize protocols for sharing information with Congress.
All of these actions are designed to increase the safety of our diplomats and development experts and reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.
Now, in addition to the immediate action we took and the Review Board process, we have been moving forward on a third front: addressing the broader strategic challenge in North Africa and the wider region.
Because Benghazi didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. And instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria.
And let me offer my deepest condolences to the families of the Americans and all the people from many nations who were killed and injured in the recent hostage crisis. We remain in close touch with the Government of Algeria and stand ready to provide assistance if needed. We are seeking to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so that we can work together to prevent terrorist attacks like this in the future.
Concerns about terrorism and instability in North Africa are not new. Indeed they have been a top priority for our entire national security team. But after Benghazi, we accelerated a diplomatic campaign to increase pressure on al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other terrorist groups across the region.
In the first hours and days, I conferred with the President of Libya and the Foreign Ministers of Tunisia and Morocco. Two weeks later, I met with regional leaders at the United Nations General Assembly and held a special meeting focused on Mali and the Sahel. In October, I flew to Algeria to discuss the fight against AQIM. In November, I sent Deputy Secretary Bill Burns to follow up in Algiers. And then in December, he co-chaired the Global Counterterrorism Forum in Abu Dhabi and a meeting in Tunis of leaders working to build new democracies and reform security services.
In all these diplomatic engagements, and in near-constant contacts at every level, we have focused on targeting al Qaeda’s syndicate of terror – closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering extremist ideology, and slowing the flow of new recruits. We continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice. And we’re also using all our diplomatic and economic tools to support the emerging democracies of the region, including Libya, to strengthen security forces and provide a path away from extremism.
The United States must continue to lead… in the Middle East and all around the globe. We have come a long way in the past four years. We cannot afford to retreat now. When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened.
That’s why Chris Stevens went to Benghazi in the first place. Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution and then during the transition. A weak Libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups… a bomb
exploded in the parking lot of his hotel, but he didn’t waver. Because he understood that it was critical for America to be represented in that pivotal place at that pivotal time.
Our men and women who serve overseas understand that we accept a level of risk to protect this country we love. They represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation. And they cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs.
It is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need to do their jobs and to do everything we can to reduce the risks they face.
For me, this is not just a matter of policy… it’s personal.
I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters.
It has been one of the greatest honors of my life to lead the men and women of the State Department and USAID. Nearly 70,000 serving here in Washington and at more than 275 posts around the world. They get up and go to work every day – often in difficult and dangerous circumstances thousands of miles from home – because they believe the United States is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the earth has ever known.
And when we suffer tragedies overseas, the number of Americans applying to the Foreign Service actually increases. That tells us everything we need to know about what kind of patriots I’m talking about. They ask what they can do for their country. And America is stronger for it.
Today, after four years in this job, after traveling nearly 1 million miles and visiting 112 countries around the world, my faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words “United States of America†touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world’s indispensible nation. And I am confident that, with your help, we will continue to keep the United States safe, strong, and exceptional.
So I want to thank this committee for your partnership and your support of our diplomats and development experts around the world. You know the importance of the work they do day-in and day-out, and that America’s values and vital
national security interests are at stake. It is absolutely critical that we work together to ensure they have the resources and support they need to face increasingly complex threats.
I know that you share our sense of responsibility and urgency. And while we all may not agree on everything, let’s stay focused on what really matters: protecting our people and the country we all love.
Now I am now happy to answer your questions. ###
Â
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
As a candidate, Donald Trump campaigned—and won—this year on the promise he would lower prices for Americans angry after the COVID pandemic’s inflation brought steep price increases, but now he’s backtracking, saying he’s not sure he will actually be able to fulfill those vows. Outrage at Trump, and the people who voted for him based on that pledge, was palpable on Thursday.
As recently as Sunday, MSNBC reports, Trump insisted, “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
On Monday, Fox News reported: “Pointing to high grocery prices, Trump says, ‘I won an election based on that'”
But in his TIME magazine “Person of the Year” interview, Trump suggested he might not be able to lower prices as he promised to do. Appearing to remove himself from the equation, he declared: “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”
Sam Stein of The Bulwark and MSNBC noted via social media, “’Prices will come down,’ Trump told voters during a speech last week laying out his vision for a return to the White House. ‘You just watch: They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast, not only with insurance, with everything.'”
READ MORE: ‘Marxist’ Agenda: Hegseth Says Gay Troops ‘Erode Standards’ in ‘Social Engineering’ Push
The President-elect told TIME he would “like to bring them down” when asked, “If the prices of groceries don’t come down, will your presidency be a failure?” but insisted if prices do not drop he doesn’t think that will make his second term a failure.
On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly promised he would lower prices and inflation, as HuffPost reported Thursday:
“’We will end inflation and make America affordable again, and we’re going to get the prices down, we have to get them down,’ Trump said at a rally in September. ‘It’s too much. Groceries, cars, everything. We’re going to get the prices down.'”
“’We will cut your taxes and inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages and bring thousands of factories back to America,’ Trump said at a Georgia rally in October, reciting a line he used in speeches at several other events.”
“Trump also specifically promised to get gas prices down: ‘I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.'”
Stein’s post earlier Thursday morning quoting Trump saying “You know, it’s very hard” to bring prices down set of an explosion of anger at the incoming occupant of the White House.
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
“Trump has already folded on prices. He has no plans to make life more affordable for the majority of Americans,” declared Lindsay Owens, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Groundwork Collaborative.
Donald Trump, Nov. 4, 2024: “A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper.” https://t.co/ZKnbJkVT17 pic.twitter.com/wmHn2f84J8
— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) December 12, 2024
“All of you idiots who voted for Trump over food prices should feel pretty stupid,” journalist Roland Martin remarked in response.
Politico White House reporter Adam Cancryn responded to Stein: “Trump in Asheville in August: ‘From the day I take the oath of office, we will rapidly drive prices down, and make America affordable again’ ‘Prices will come down. You just watch. They’ll come down and they’ll come down fast. Not only with insurance, with everything.'”
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake added: “Trump on Sept. 23: ‘Vote Trump, and your incomes will soar. Your net worth will skyrocket. Your energy costs and grocery prices will come tumbling down.'”
“Oh, Trump doesn’t have a plan to bring down costs for Americans? I’m shocked,” snarked Democratic U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Tom Bonier, a veteran Democratic political strategist noted, “He’s likely right, which is why the Biden record of increasing wages while slowing inflation has put our country on the right track, but of course no one could admit that until Trump won by running against inflation.”
Ron Fournier, a business executive and former journalist asked, “Wait. He promised to bring them down. Did he …
… lie?”
READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents
Image via Reuters
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial pick to oversee the Department of Defense and its 3.4 million military and civilian personnel, has a long history of anti-LGBTQ statements. According to multiple reports, Hegseth has opposed gay service members, labeling them a threat to military standards and a part of a “Marxist” agenda promoting “social engineering.”
“At least when it was an ‘Army of One,’ they were, you know, tough looking, go get ‘em army – but you’re right, that was the subtle shifting toward an individual ad campaign,” Hegseth told far-right podcaster Ben Shapiro, CNN reports. “Now you just have the absurdity of ‘I have two mommies and I’m so proud to show them that I can wear the uniform too.’ So they, it’s just like everything else the Marxists and the leftists have done. At first it was camouflaged nicely and now they’re just, they’re just open about it.”
Hegseth, now a former Fox News weekend co-host under fire for alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, an affinity for Christian nationalism, and mismanagement of two veterans’ charities, has repeatedly denigrated gays and lesbians, and expressed opposition to LGBTQ Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and women serving in the military — especially in combat roles.
RELATED: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’
“In his 2024 book ‘The War on Warriors’ and in subsequent media promotions this year. Hegseth described both the original ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a ‘gateway’ and a ‘camouflage’ for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness,” CNN reports.
Studies before and after the repeal of DADT have proven LGBTQ service members serving openly do not diminish unit cohesion or impair military readiness. “The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale,” a Palm Center report found one year after DADT repeal.
As MeidasTouch News reported Wednesday, Hegseth has “argued that allowing women and openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve undermines the readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces. He dismissed these inclusivity efforts as ‘social engineering’ aimed at satisfying political agendas rather than improving national security. In his words, the changes were about achieving symbolic milestones, such as having a female Navy SEAL, rather than maintaining operational excellence.”
Hegseth lamented on Fox News’ “Red Eye” in 2015 that America has a “military right now that is more interested in social engineering led by this president than they are in war fighting, So, as a result, through Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and women in the military and these standards, they’re going to inevitably start to erode standards because they want that one female special operator, that one female Green Beret, that one female Army Ranger, that one female Navy Seal, so they can put them on a recruiting poster and feel good about themselves and has nothing to do with national security.”
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
“So it started, you know, we saw it under Clinton with the tinkering of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the reasons for those changes,” Hegseth said in November on a podcast promoting his book, also according to CNN. “And I talked to some of the people involved in when that was changed, but it really happened, started to accelerate under Obama.”
And yet, when asked on Wednesday by CNN if he still holds that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a mistake, Hegseth grew silent and did not answer, ignoring the reporter (video below).
Hegseth has a long, documented history of anti-LGBTQ and anti-women statements and positions.
“The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said on a podcast this year, ABC News reported last month.
“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Francisco to staff the 82nd Airborne like you need, you need the boys in Kentucky and Texas and North Carolina and Wisconsin,” Hegseth also said earlier this year, ABC noted. On a separate podcast, he “said that transgender soldiers are ‘not deployable’ because they are ‘reliant on chemicals’ and suggested that women should not serve in certain combat roles.”
“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse,” Hegseth also said, ABC added. He also argued “that men are ‘more capable’ in combat roles because of biological factors.”
Hegseth, under fire, this week claimed he supports women in the military, but did not specifically state he supports women in combat roles.
“I strive to defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity,” Hegseth wrote in 2002 as publisher of The Princeton Tory, the university’s conservative student magazine, The New Yorker reported last month.
“In the same year that Hegseth was defending the West against diversity, he and the other editors of the Tory opined that the New York Times’ decision to publish announcements of same-sex marriages had opened the floodgates to incest and bestiality: ‘At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?’”
And in a 2002 publisher’s note at The Tory, Talking Points Memo reported, Hegseth “declared that he was ‘not encouraged’ by the ‘educational principles … guiding our generation.’ Among other things, he cited the ‘encouragement and support’ for ‘homosexuality.'”
“In pieces for the Tory,” TPM continued, “Hegseth and the team he oversaw railed against efforts to promote diversity on campus and what they described as the immoral ‘homosexual lifestyle.'”
The New Yorker also reports that during Hegseth’s tenure, The Tory wrote: “boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”
“Hegseth and The Tory’s editor also wrote: “Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Trump’s Defense Secretary pick, Pete Hegseth, has called allowing openly gay troops a “Marxist” push for social justice and said it “erodes” military standards.
He declined to clarify his comments when asked Wednesday by CNN.
Watch: www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/p…
— Andrew Kaczynski (@kfile.bsky.social) December 12, 2024 at 9:48 AM
RELATED: ‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
Image via Reuters
Despite public opinion polls that find the majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the incoming Trump administration is forging ahead with President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to begin his mass deportations of millions of people “on day one.” That will now include the green lighting of arrests of undocumented immigrants who happen to be sick in the hospital, worshipping or marrying in a church, synagogue, or mosque, or studying — or even teaching — in a school classroom, according to an NBC News exclusive report.
Since 2011, under the Obama administration, ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, has been banned from, as NBC reported, “arresting undocumented people at or near so-called sensitive locations, including houses of worship, schools and hospitals or events such as funerals, weddings and public demonstrations without approval from supervisors.”
That ban has been described as a “fundamental” principle by the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. “Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants,” he noted.
As Trump positions himself to achieve his promised goal of enacting the “largest deportation operation in American history,” that ban will be rescinded to remove as many barriers as possible that stand in his way.
READ MORE: House Republican Says They Were Told ‘In Conference’ Hegseth Accusations ‘Were Anonymous’
The Biden administration had expanded the ICE policy to include “colleges or mental health institutions, and even places where religious studies were happening,” according to NBC News’ Julia Ainsley in her on-air report Wednesday. She noted that the ban will also be lifted on arrests at events, including rallies.
“So that means if you have a protest against mass deportations where you would expect undocumented immigrants to show up, that could be a place that ICE could target for arrest,” Ainsley explained.
Immigration experts oppose allowing arrests at sensitive places, believing that access to them, including by undocumented immigrants, benefits society as a whole.
“Immigration enforcement has always required a balance. In the past, Presidents of both parties have recognized that merely because it may be lawful to make arrests at hospitals and schools doesn’t mean it’s humane or wise public policy,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told NBC News. “We don’t want people with contagious diseases too scared to go to the hospital or children going uneducated because of poorly considered deportation policies.”
“There are churches that have historically served as sanctuaries, knowing that ICE can’t come in and arrest them there, and they do that in communities to offer a safe space for migrants,” Ainsley reported, noting that now, faith leaders and others are “worried not only because of policies like these, but because what they see as a change, a shift to the right, in the American public where people are more in favor of deportations than they were previously, and they’re worried about threats to them or to backlash if they continue to give migrant sanctuary within their spaces.”
But as Vox reported in October, Americans are more supportive of deportations only when there are no other legal avenues open to the undocumented, like a path to citizenship.
READ MORE: Trump’s Guilfoyle Nomination Surfaces Allegations Old and New
A Pew Research poll in August, Vox reported, found “that about 6 in 10 registered voters say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to ‘stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met.’ And a similar share, 58 percent, favored ‘allowing undocumented immigrants to legally work and stay in the country if they are married to a US citizen.'”
Trump, in an NBC News “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday said he supports deporting legal U.S. citizens who are children of undocumented immigrants, in what he called an effort to not break families apart.
In September of 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo explaining the ban on arrests in sensitive areas.
“In our pursuit of justice, including in the execution of our enforcement responsibilities, we impact people’s lives and advance our country’s well-being in the most fundamental ways. It is because of the profound impact of our work that we must consider so many different factors before we decide to act. This can make our work very difficult. It is also one of the reasons why our work is noble,” Secretary Mayorkas wrote. “When we conduct an enforcement action – whether it is an arrest, search, service of a subpoena, or other action – we need to consider many factors, including the location in which we are conducting the action and its impact on other people and broader societal interests. For example, if we take an action at an emergency shelter, it is possible that noncitizens, including children, will be hesitant to visit the shelter and receive needed food and water, urgent medical attention, or other humanitarian care.”
“To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities. Such a location is referred to as a ‘protected area.’ This principle is fundamental. We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants.”
Mayorkas offered some examples of sensitive areas where arrests should not be made. Presumably, under the Trump administration, arrests will be allowed in some or all of these locations.
They include:
“A school, such as a pre-school, primary or secondary school, vocational or trade school, or college or university.”
“A medical or mental healthcare facility, such as a hospital, doctor’s office, health clinic, vaccination or testing site, urgent care center, site that serves pregnant individuals, or community health center.”
“A place of worship or religious study, whether in a structure dedicated to activities of faith (such as a church or religious school) or a temporary facility or location where such activities are taking place.”
“A place where children gather, such as a playground, recreation center, childcare center, before- or after-school care center, foster care facility, group home for children, or school bus stop.”
“A social services establishment, such as a crisis center, domestic violence shelter, victims services center, child advocacy center, supervised visitation center, family justice center, community-based organization, facility that serves disabled persons, homeless shelter, drug or alcohol counseling and treatment facility, or food bank or pantry or other establishment distributing food or other essentials of life to people in need.”
“A place where disaster or emergency response and relief is being provided, such as along evacuation routes, where shelter or emergency supplies, food, or water are being distributed, or registration for disaster-related assistance or family reunification is underway.”
“A place where a funeral, graveside ceremony, rosary, wedding, or other religious or civil ceremonies or observances occur.”
Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, says: “Not even most ICE agents want to barge into churches or schools and carry out arrests. But the Trump admin wants people to be afraid; so they want nowhere to seem safe, no matter how draconian and brutal the operation may seem and how much backlash it may generate.”
READ MORE: ‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
Image via Reuters
‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents
‘I Love His Charisma’: Republican Lauds ‘Man of Integrity’ Hegseth Who Will ‘Get Rid of DEI’
‘USA Is a Threat’: Canadians Slam ‘Bully’ Trump’s ‘Arrogant’ Mockery of ‘Governor Trudeau’
‘When She Is Already Governor and Senator?’: Kari Lake Mocked Over Possible Ambassador Nom
Hegseth Successfully Gaslights on Women in ‘Combat’
Jason Miller Tries to Spin Trump
‘Swarm of MAGA Attacks’ Making Hegseth Confirmation Seem More Likely: Report
‘Pay-to-Play’: Trump Offers ‘Fully Expedited’ Approvals for $1 Billion Investments
