SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
racial profiling
ICE Killings Are Part of a Pattern of Hundreds of Civil Rights Violations by Agency Under Trump, Says ACLU Report
One of the report authors said it showed how under the Trump administration, federal agents have “used force in a way we’ve never seen from these agencies, in their history.”
Jul 16, 2026
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is facing intense scrutiny once again after agents killed at least two people during arrests in less than two weeks.
But the author of a report out Thursday from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tells Common Dreams that this rash of violence is just "the tip of the iceberg" in a much broader campaign by immigration agents that has been indiscriminate, violent, and lawless.
Naureen Shah, one of the authors of the ACLU report, said that these killings were part of a "much, much bigger pattern, where ICE agents and the agents who are working with them have threatened to use force and used force in a way we've never seen from these agencies, in their history."
Our new report is the first in-depth civil rights review of immigration enforcement actions throughout 2025 in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and New Mexico.Read more about how we’re exposing the deportation machine’s depravity.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) July 16, 2026 at 10:01 AM
The report examined more than 1,200 immigration enforcement actions by the Trump administration in 2025 across eight states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and New Mexico—in what the organization called "the first in-depth civil rights review of immigration enforcement actions throughout 2025."
In more than a third of the cases, it found examples of misconduct, including excessive force, intimidation, and racial profiling.
The report detailed how agents have used extreme force as a "default" tool. On 418 occasions, agents pushed, shoved, tackled, or pinned people to the ground.
In many cases, the report said force was used to "coerce immediate compliance rather than to respond to a threat." Often, it found, that force was excessive and potentially deadly.
In one exemplary case, Border Patrol agents reportedly grabbed Ricardo Aguayo Rodriguez, a 54-year-old construction worker who is the father of two deaf teenagers, as he was riding his bicycle home from the grocery store in Illinois.
According to the report: "Agents grabbed him in a stranger’s driveway, pepper-sprayed him, locked an arm around his neck, and struck his head. Video captures him gasping, 'Por favor, amigo.' While he was hospitalized with head wounds, masked agents barred his US citizen sister from seeing him at the hospital."
Threats of force and the brandishing of weapons were also commonplace, appearing in at least 128 cases.
In Hawthorne, California, masked agents surrounded the truck of US citizen Cary Lopez Alvarado, who was nine months pregnant. After she called 911, an agent asked her, "Do you want to get killed?" before shoving her into the side of her truck, pressing her stomach against it.
Children were detained, targeted, or subjected to misconduct in 214 cases, the report found. At least 32 of them were US citizens.
A father in Colorado was detained after a court visit, with agents using their vehicles to box his car in at a traffic stop.
"One agent pointed a gun at them as he approached the vehicle, and another smashed the driver’s side window while his US citizen partner screamed there was a baby in the car. Glass cut her as she shielded their 1-month-old infant,' the report said.
The report also identified racial profiling as an "operating practice," with agents routinely stopping people without prior information to question them about their legal status. At least 437 cases were identified that likely involved racial profiling.
Often these cases involved agents targeting certain workplaces and occupations where many immigrants worked and stopping people based on appearance, spoken language, and location.
In Arizona, agents followed a member of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe in an unmarked van for several minutes before jumping out to tackle and arrest him for “suspicious activity." They then took him to an immigration facility where he was deprived of food and water.
When they attempted to prove his citizenship by showing a tribal ID, driver's license, and state identification, agents said his documentation "seemed fake" and claimed he was an "illegal." He was detained for nearly a day before being released.
The report makes clear that no place or person was off limits for immigration agents. More than half the observed cases occurred in public spaces like streets, bus stops, stores, and gas stations. Hundreds of other cases involved individuals being targeted at their places of work.
Under the Trump administration, agents have routinely operated at “sensitive” sites previously deemed off limits, like schools, places of worship, shelters, and courthouses in a reversal of previous policies.
And while the administration has portrayed its mass deportation campaign as part of a fight against illegal immigration, more than 200 incidents involved US citizens or people with other forms of legal immigration status being detained, targeted, or subjected to alleged misconduct.
The report identified 150 incidents affecting at least 782 protesters, legal observers, journalists, elected officials or staff members, and clergy, many of whom faced retaliation, verbal abuse, and intimidation while attempting to document the actions of agents, a protected right under the First Amendment.
“Street arrests have always been part of what ICE did, but never at the scale that we have now,” Shah told Common Dreams. “We never had a situation in this country’s modern history where civil arrests were taking place habitually in grocery store parking lots, at bus stops, at gas stations because the public safety imperative just wasn’t there.”
“They’re often in plain clothes, sometimes they’re masked, they’re heavily militarized, it’s scary looking, and it sends fear in all these communities,” she said. “If you’ve got these agents out there constantly trolling for people they believe are immigrants, you know, that means all of us are exposed to those agents.”
The report examined just a fraction of the more than 400,000 immigration arrests that took place in 2025. The vast majority of those arrested have not been convicted of crimes, and most of those who have were convicted of nonviolent offenses.
ICE agents have shot and killed two men in vehicle stops over the past ten days—neither of whom was the intended target of the operation—while two other men died during an ICE operation or in the agency’s custody.
As scrutiny of the agency intensified this week, the Department of Homeland Security briefly announced it was suspending vehicle stops, only for President Donald Trump to order the policy to continue.
Through recent spending bills, the Republican-controlled US Congress has more than tripled ICE's budget, providing roughly $240 billion for immigration enforcement over the next four years.
According to the report, ICE has used these funds to hire at least 12,000 agents and send them out into the field with limited training and vetting, while diverting another 25,000 personnel from other agencies.
The ACLU describes this as part of an effort to create a "national deportation policing force" of more than 50,000 agents.
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, has pushed for a quota of 3,000 immigration arrests per day and has emphasized to ICE personnel that when carrying out deportations, "there is no list" of people to be targeted and "everyone is fair game."
Administration officials have hinted that with ICE's newfound wealth of resources, the public can expect even more aggressive tactics in the months to come.
"You ain’t seen shit yet," said Trump's border czar Tom Homan at a border security expo in May. "This year will be a good year. Mass deportations are coming."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details Trump Effort to Quietly Lay Groundwork to 'Steal Future Elections'
"It seems one of the ways this effort will take shape is, as with DHS's deportation efforts, to racially profile voters and try to invalidate their votes by pretending they're not citizens," said one critic.
Apr 28, 2026
President Donald Trump is using the US Department of Homeland Security to quietly assert federal control over elections in at least eight states, according to an investigation out Monday from Reuters.
Under the US Constitution, elections are run by states, rather than the federal government. But under Trump, who has called on Republicans to "nationalize" voting in Democratic strongholds, DHS—which typically handles issues of counterterrorism, immigration, and national security—along with other executive agencies, has launched what Reuters described as "a wider-than-known federal push into the machinery and conduct of US elections."
"Trump administration officials and investigators have fanned out across the country, seeking confidential records, pressing for access to voting equipment, and reexamining voter-fraud cases that courts and bipartisan reviews have already rejected," the report continued.
Branko Marcetic, a writer for Jacobin, said that the revelations showed that "Trump's push to steal future elections by taking federal control of them is quietly gaining steam."
In Ohio, DHS agents have called local boards of elections in at least six counties, requesting immediate access to data about specific voters, including registration forms, voting histories, and other confidential data, citing unspecified "investigations." Though Ohio leans red, all of the requests were made in counties that either had competitive elections coming up in 2026 or were solidly Democratic.
The Nevada secretary of state received a request from the FBI for voter information as part of an investigation into the 2020 election, which Trump has continued to claim was marred by fraud that cost him a victory despite evidence to the contrary. He never fulfilled the request because those records did not exist.
In Arizona, the state senate complied with a similar subpoena for records related to its report on an audit of the 2020 election, while DHS requested information related to the state attorney general's fraud probe.
In Colorado, Jeff Small, a lobbyist with connections to the White House who claimed to be working on behalf of Stephen Miller, the president's homeland security adviser, called 10 county clerks to request access to Dominion voting machines, which were at the center of Trump's fraud conspiracy theories.
Later, some of those clerks received the same request from a person who identified themselves as a senior official at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which oversees election security. The clerks said they did not comply with these requests, which some said would violate state law.
These efforts follow a high-profile January raid by the FBI on an election facility in Fulton County, Georgia, to seize hundreds of boxes of ballots, tabulator tapes, and voter roll information from the 2020 election. Trump has directly influenced the investigation, speaking with FBI agents about it the day after dispatching Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, to take part.
According to Reuters, election officials in many other states are bracing for similar investigations and raids into their operations.
“There is an intimidation factor,” said Amy Burgans, the Republican clerk and treasurer of Douglas County, Nevada. “It puts the question in the back of your mind... Who’s going to be next?”
As Republican chances of prevailing in the 2026 midterms appear grim, Trump has suggested on multiple occasions that elections be "canceled," something he has no power to do.
He has thus far failed in his efforts to pass the SAVE America Act through the Senate, which would require every voter to reregister and provide documents proving their citizenship, a measure experts say would likely disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
But Reuters' investigation has revealed efforts to achieve similar ends by contacting states to compare their voter rolls with federal citizenship databases.
This happened in Missouri, where Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins shared publicly available voter roll data with federal authorities, who handed back lists of potential noncitizens flagged for removal.
Clerks in several of Missouri's counties said that most of the individuals flagged in the federal screenings were US citizens who'd been naturalized.
Clinton Jenkins, the Republican clerk for Miller County, said none of the names of people identified by the review had voted illegally. Rather, he suggested that federal authorities were targeting people who seemed to be of Hispanic and Latino heritage.
"It looks like if you have too many vowels in your name, you show up on a list,” Jenkins said.
"They are doing this through DHS, which it's clear by now this administration views as its own personal police force," Marcetic said.
"It seems one of the ways this effort will take shape is, as with DHS's deportation efforts, to racially profile voters and try to invalidate their votes by pretending they're not citizens," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware Brett Kavanaugh: Trump's Favorite Justice
It’s frightening but indisputable: The future of American law may rest in his ideological, incompetent hands.
Apr 08, 2026
If I asked you to name the most unpopular Supreme Court justice, you might choose the venal Clarence Thomas or the perpetually enraged Samuel Alito. In either event, you’d be wrong. Americans’ least popular member of the high tribunal is Brett “I like beer” Kavanaugh. Poll after poll has shown Kavanaugh taking the honor since his nomination in 2018.
Kavanaugh also holds the honor of being President Donald Trump’s favorite justice, an accolade he earned with his dissenting opinion from the court’s February invalidation of Trump’s worldwide “reciprocal tariffs.” Kavanaugh is now poised to deliberate on pending voting rights cases and a ruling on birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. It’s frightening but indisputable: The future of American law may rest in his ideological, incompetent hands.
Kavanaugh’s initial low public standing stemmed from his snarling televised response to the testimony of psychologist Cristine Blasey Ford, who credibly accused him during his confirmation hearing of sexually assaulting her at a boozy high school party. Declaring his innocence and choking back tears, Kavanaugh described the allegations as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump [and] millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.” Trump quickly came to his embattled nominee’s rescue in a tweet posted hours after the hearing, calling his testimony “powerful, honest, and riveting.”
Long before Senate Republicans approved his nomination by a vote of 50-48, Kavanaugh had built a well-earned reputation as a credentialed and loyal Republican hitman, highlighted by his decision to join Ken Starr’s Office of Independent Counsel in 1997 to assist in the investigations that eventually led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
Since taking his place on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh has proven a reliable Trump flunky. But unlike Thomas and Alito, he’s also proven to be an intellectual lightweight.
While in Starr’s service, Kavanaugh penned a lurid memorandum that suggested 10 questions for prosecutors to ask Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky when he testified before a federal grand jury. Among them:
- “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”
- “If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give [you] oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?”
- “If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary’s office, would she b[e] lying?”
After a brief stint in private practice, Kavanaugh joined the GOP’s legal team in the run-up to the Supreme Court’s infamous Bush v. Gore decision, which handed the presidency to George W. Bush. In 2001, he was rewarded with an associate’s position in the White House counsel’s office, and two years later he was nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Senate Democrats were alarmed at the thought of an enrobed Kavanaugh, and they managed to put the nominee through two confirmation hearings. “As I look through all of the different issues that you have been involved in as an attorney in public service and the private sector, it seems that you are the Zelig or Forrest Gump of Republican politics,” the normally mild-mannered Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) remarked in 2004. “You show up at every scene of the crime. You are somehow or another deeply involved, whether it is Elian Gonzalez or the Starr Report, you are there.” In the end, the Democrats failed to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2006.
During his 12 years on the circuit court, Kavanaugh won praise from right-wing advocacy organizations for a record of overtly pro-business rulings that routinely undercut federal regulations on air quality, consumer protections, and other issues.
Since taking his place on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh has proven a reliable Trump flunky. But unlike Thomas and Alito, he’s also proven to be an intellectual lightweight, penning few consequential majority opinions of his own and generally following the lead of Chief Justice John Roberts, with whom he voted more than 95% of the time in his first few years on the court.
Recently, however, Kavanaugh has begun to break with Roberts to more closely align with Trump—sometimes to comical effects.
Consider the interim “shadow docket” ruling issued last September, Noem v. Perdomo. The court’s decision lifted a lower-court injunction that had barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles from detaining suspected undocumented immigrants based solely on their ethnicity, language, geographic location, and occupations. Like most shadow docket decisions, the Perdomo order was bare-bones, comprising a single paragraph that failed to explain the court’s rationale, but permitted litigation to continue in the lower courts. Kavanaugh, however, took it upon himself to write a 10-page concurrence filled with misstatements of fact and law, in which he argued without evidence that because 10% of people in the Los Angeles region are illegally present, the “totality of circumstances”—including race, location, and language—indicated a high probability that such stops would enable ICE to fulfill its important core mission.
He also added, again without evidence, that any such detentions would be basically benign, reasoning:
The Government sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the immigration status of those who gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to work in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English. If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a US citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.
The concurrence was widely panned as authorizing violations of the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of individualized suspicion and probable cause—which soon became known as “Kavanaugh stops.” The criticism became so intense that Kavanaugh was compelled to add a footnote to his concurring opinion in the court’s December shadow docket ruling that struck down the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago (Trump v. Illinois). “The Fourth Amendment requires,” he wrote,
that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force. Moreover, the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity.
The mea culpa did little to restore Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential standing or dignity. In February, his career hit a humiliating low when Chief Justice Roberts publicly rebuked him for essentially cutting and pasting the Trump administration’s arguments for tariffs into his dissenting opinion.
It’s not easy to imagine Kavanaugh sinking much lower than he already has, but one thing remains constant: Trump’s favorite Supreme Court justice has no business casting votes on the most powerful judicial body in the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular