How Well Are ICE Officers Screened and Trained?

Training

ICE officers receive training that prepares them for various roles within the agency.  There are differences in training length and focus depending on specific duties. Customs Border Patrol (CBP) officers receive more training than the Enforcement Removal Operations officers (ERO).  Both receive less than Homeland Security Investigators (HIS).  Officers receive a mix of classroom instruction, practical skills training, and ongoing field education, with training durations varying significantly between different roles within the agency. 

Prior to January 2025, most ICE recruits attended training at a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.  The enforcement and Removal operations officers (ERO) had a training program just short of 8 weeks, which focused on operational tasks and safety in high-contact situations.  Most of the training focused on locating, arresting, and removing illegal immigrants who have violated the law.  Customs Border Patrol (CBP) candidates had a 90-day (12 week) academy experience.  Specifically, these officers received training in firearms, driving skills, defensive tactics, and use of force.  The training also included de-escalation techniques.  There was heavy emphasis on immigration law, the Constitution, and criminal investigations.  Officers were required to take a basic Spanish course or test out of the offering.

Unfortunately, the training for the new recruits has been substantially reduced to 47 hours due to the hiring surge needed to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement policies.  This reduction of hours for ERO officers from 320 to 47 creates an important question regarding officer readiness and public safety, especially in high stakes situations.  The Spanish course was dropped from the curriculum.

Screening

Prior to 2025, background checks and psychological screening were consistent with hiring practices in most municipal departments.  The process generally included a combination of clinical interviews and standardized psychological tests.   

Of concern is the impact of the hiring surge on the level of background and psychological screening. Top of Form

According to multiple sources, ICErecruits are showing up for training with disqualifying criminal backgrounds.  New hires are reportedly failing background checks, drug tests, and open-book tests (Alex Woodward, New York Times). Often times, new recruits are reportedly failing physical fitness requirements.  Some new recruits are entering training programs before the agency performs background checks or finishes a screening process.  ICE officials have discovered that some recruits failed drug testing or had disqualifying criminal backgrounds while they were already enrolled in training.  At least one recruit at the agency’s training academy in Brunswick, Georgia, had been previously charged with strong-arm robbery and battery stemming from a domestic violence incident, according to a Homeland Security official.  Some recruits had not submitted fingerprints or gone through any background checks at all before entering the six-week training course (NBC News).  

“The loosening of hiring standards and training requirements is unacceptable and will likely result in increased officer misconduct — similar to or worse than what occurred during a small surge in hiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in the early 2000s,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.  He continued, “Exacerbating our concerns, DHS has gutted offices responsible for overseeing ICE officers and ensuring accountability for use-of-force incidents.  Given these developments, greater congressional oversight of ICE’s hiring is essential.”

To boost recruitment, Homeland Security offers a “maximum $50,000 signing bonus” and student loan forgiveness. DHS also dropped age limit requirements, allowing people as young as 18 years old to apply and opening ICE to recruits older than 40 years old (The Atlantic).  Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said that many new recruits are former law enforcement officers who go through a different hiring process.  McLaughlin said the figures in above cited NBC’s report “reflect a subset of candidates in initial basic academy classes.”

How does the training of ICE officers compare to that provided by most police departments in America?

For all municipal police departments, the average duration of training for municipal officers ranges from 4 to 5 months, with an average of 672 hours.  State Police Officer Standards and Training Boards (POST) require anywhere from 12 to 24 weeks.  After graduation from the POST academy, most officer complete months of supervised training by a field training officer.

Most POST academies include the following in their core curriculum:

  • Constitutional & criminal law
  • Arrest/search/seizure procedures
  • Firearms training
  • Defensive tactics
  • Emergency vehicle operations
  • Report writing & courtroom testimony
  • Community policing principles
  • Use of technology (body cameras, digital evidence, databases)

The curriculum is updated regularly to include new laws, changes in technology, and changing police strategies.  The academies also stress training in the use of force, and de-escalation techniques.

ICE Training Compared to Municipal Departments

Prior to January 2025, the training received by ICE ERO officers was closer to that received by municipal police recruits.  However, 320 hours of training, which included instruction on Spanish, was still far below the municipal average of 672 hours.  CBP training was 480 hours at the low end of the municipal training spectrum.  Given the new 47-hour standard for ERO officers, is it any wonder that ICE officers are not performing well?

How the U.S. Compares Internationally

While the training of ICE ERO officers is far below the US municipal average, consider the fact that American police receive far less training than many countries where police training lasts 2–3 years (e.g., Finland, Norway, Germany).  In 1994, an effort by the federal government attempted to increase the training to 2 years by incorporating traditional academy experiences with more classroom study.  However, due to concerns over federal involvement in local police training, the program ended in 2009.  The shorter training period for American police is often cited in debates about police professionalism, use‑of‑force outcomes, and public trust.

Conclusions

ICE ERO officers and CBP officers are NOT trained to deal with police situations or the public when they receive only 47 hours of training.  Even the pre 2025 curriculum for CBP officers (480 hours) does not begin to properly prepare these officers for the job.  The training of the ERO officers is not much more than a citizen in Illinois who gets a firearms permit.  In Illinois, individuals must complete a 16-hour course from an Illinois State Police approved instructor.  The course covers firearm safety, marksmanship, and Illinois firearms laws.

The ERO officers are not qualified to enforce customs laws and certainly not prepared to handle police situations.  The training needs to be improved.  Hiring practices need to be restored to pre-2025 levels.  The current threat to defund ICE operations should be taken as a wakeup call.  The entire organization needs to be reformed.  Officers need more training than they currently receive.

A Hard Look at ICE

Over the past year I have written about immigration, ICE, and other politically charged issues.  I have attempted to keep my opinions to a minimum by looking for the facts.  My life has been shaped by the idea that the truth is only discoverable when you ask questions and look for accurate information.  That’s difficult today where there are so many instant sources, many with less than Walter Cronkite honesty!

The shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE agents yesterday clearly points out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration.  Watch the videos and look at the stills.  The story fabricated by Noem, Bondi, and Bovino can’t begin to defend the actions of these ICE officers.  It is clear that Pretti was observing and recording the actions of ICE agents. He had his cell phone in his hand.  It is clear that an ICE agent pushed a woman into a snow pile.  It is clear that Pretti was attempting to help her up.  It is also clear that as he helped this woman, an ICE agent dispensed spray at Pretti, followed by additional officers taking him to the ground.  Pretti was doing nothing wrong!  He was shot because an overly excited and poorly trained officer likely informed his peers that there was a gun.  There was a gun.  However, the gun was not visible in his hand as claimed by ICE, but in his holster. 

The shooting of Alex Pretti is the fifth deadly shooting by ICE since January.  The killing of Renee Nicole Good was not the first time that federal officers have killed civilians.  Federal officers have fatally shot at least three other people in the last five months. In September, Silverio Villegas González, a father originally from Mexico who worked as a cook, was killed while reportedly trying to flee from officers in a Chicago suburb (WBEZ). In December, a border patrol agent killed a 31-year-old Mexican citizen while trying to detain him in Rio Grande City, Texas. And on New Year’s Eve, an off-duty ICE agent used his service weapon to shoot a man in Los Angeles, California. Authorities mistakenly said the man had raised a rifle at the officer (CBS News).  Agents have also shot other people. The Trace, the nonprofit news organization covering gun violence, has counted more than a dozen such shootings. In some cases, the victims survived, including a woman who suffered multiple bullet wounds in an incident in Chicago in October (Marshall Project).

My examination of media reports points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates.  In a prior post, I noted that the training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during this Minneapolis confrontation.  While at least some of the officers involved had received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, the training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants– not police tactics.  The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS.  Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training.  DE-ESCALATE THE TENSION in any given situation.  This recent ICE citizen interaction shows ICE escalating the situation, not de-escalating!

To be clear, the entire ICE operation is based on fabricated stories about immigrants.  Immigrants are invading America.  “There are many rapists, killers, and gang members among our immigrants.”  The Trump administration is increasing deportation of these “dangerous” criminals.  The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations. It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants.  Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony.  It is a misdemeanor punishable with no more than a six-month jail term for the first offense.  Citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. They have a right to life!

While being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor crime, President Trump has said that ICE would focus on “the worst of the worst,” those with felony convictions.  Federal officials and DHS communications assert that a large majority of arrests target people with criminal convictions or pending charges (officially cited by DHS as about 70%), However, independent analyses of ICE and detention data finds that roughly three quarters of people held in ICE detention in late 2025 had no criminal convictions, and that only a small share—about 5%—had violent convictions (CATO Institute).

Indeed, relative to native-born citizens and legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants have the lowest felony arrest rates across all crime types. In fact, the gaps between native-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are substantial. US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes (National Institute of Health study). Trump used a false narrative to instill fear in his MAGA base. 

Immigration reform has been a topic of debate for decades.  During the end of the Biden administration, a bipartisan immigration reform bill was finally on its way through Congress. The bill, a $118 billion package, was introduced by Senators James Lankford, Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Arizona. It included $20.23 billion to strengthen border security and stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics through the border into the United States.  The package gave the secretary of Homeland Security the power to close the border if more than 4,000 encounters with migrants occurred during a period of seven consecutive days. The immigration overhaul also included:  raising the bar for migrants claiming asylum; clarification of the White House’s use of parole authority to grant temporary protections to migrants; and no longer allowing migrants to live in the U.S. while waiting for their case to be heard by an immigration judge. It didn’t get passed because candidate Trump wanted the immigration issue to remain as a campaign issue (Associated Press, February 2024).

It is also worth noting that under President Obama deportation figures were the highest of any president.  During his tenure, 2.7 to 3 million people were deported.  The daily average ranged from a high of 1,000 to a low of 800.  All of this was accomplished without a surge in ICE arrests.  In contrast, to date, Trump’s ICE is averaging 810 arrests per day with pending deportation.  Most of these individuals are being held in detention centers on a misdemeanor charge.

Why do we need an ICE force that is now 22,000 strong and growing? This number is double that of the 10,000 officers in the organization under past administrations.    Just 10 years ago, the annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, was less than $6 billion. But ICE’s budget has skyrocketed during President Trump’s second term, becoming the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency, at $85 billion. And why does the operating budget include bonuses for arrests?  Do we really want this type of federal immigration enforcement?  Do we support ICE officers who receive only 47 hours of training?

Minneapolis and prior ICE operations in Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other cities are a harbinger of possible things to come.  There was no crisis that required the surge in ICE operations!  This was perhaps only a political ploy.  While most MAGAs likely support this move, the majority of Americans are appalled.  A recent FOX News report found that only 35% of those polled support ICE actions in Minneapolis. When thousands of demonstrators take to the streets to protect the immigrants in their communities, that should tell us that there is something wrong with the administration’s policies.  Americans must make their voices heard when the protection that the Trump administration says it is providing becomes a greater threat than the fabricated problem! 

  We deserve to know why so many ICE officers are being hired.  We should demand that all federal officers receive at least a minimum of 400 hours of training, the minimum required by our states for police officers, not 47 hours as currently for ICE officers.  Also, consider the fact that ICE officers are not subject to the stringent pre-employment screening which most police department applicants face.  ICE officers not only lack training in police tactics, such as de-escalation, but some may even have tendencies toward violence. Contact your legislators (specifically Republicans) and tell them not to support the funding of ICE operations until Americans get answers to questions regarding Trump’s false narrative on immigration.

President Donald Trump’s Record of Achievements in 2025

There is a list of more than 100 promises President Trump made for his second term.  His MAGA supporters (approximately 36% of those polled) must be happy.  Many of his promises have been kept, but at what cost?  The following narrative will be broken into ten separate articles.  There is too much to say in just one article.

Immigration

Trump’s promise– Carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.  He had failed to achieve this goal during his 2016 to 2020 presidency due to established guardrails and costs associated with such a massive undertaking.  In January 2025, he said he would begin by deporting criminals and use local law enforcement and the National Guard to help. He indicated that they would build mass deportation camps and did not rule out the use of the military.  As of January 2026, he has in fact initiated what will be the largest deportation operation in American history.  The guardrails have been diminished by Supreme Court decisions, while Congress appropriated $29.85 billion to hire 10,000 additional ICE officers.  This is just a portion of the $170 billion appropriated for enhancing immigration deportation efforts.  President Trump is keeping his promise to MAGA. 

However, what is the impact of this program on Americans?  While the administration focuses on numbers, it is a fact that more illegal immigrants were deported in a single year by President Obama than were deported in 2025. But under President Obama, there were no deportation camps, there was no surge in ICE agents, there was no call-up of the national guard, and citizens were not illegally detained or searched.  There were no headlines regarding citizen pushbacks or ICE killings of protesters. 

The reality of this portion of President Trump’s immigration plan is like many of his proposed operations It is a show that is harming American citizens and illegal immigrants.  Being an illegal immigrant is not a felony.  In the United States, illegal immigration is a federal offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. But the maximum punishment, six months’ prison term for the first offense, is a misdemeanor.  And United States citizens who support the immigrant community have the right to free speech and demonstration. (But they do not have a right to obstruct an arrest.)

While being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor crime, President Trump has said that ICE would focus on “the worst of the worst,” those with felony convictions.  Federal officials and DHS communications assert that a large majority of arrests target people with criminal convictions or pending charges (officially cited as about 70%), while independent analyses of ICE and detention data find that roughly three quarters of people held in ICE detention in late 2025 had no criminal convictions and that only a small share—about 5%—had violent convictions (CATO Institute).

Build a border wall

During his first presidency, Trump built approximately 450 miles of border barriers along the southern U.S. border, many of which replaced old, dilapidated barriers. He redoubled his promise to build the wall in 2025.  But large portions of the U.S. southern border are on privately owned or federally protected land, where barriers can’t be placed unless the federal government buys the land or seizes it through eminent domain.  During this past year, over 80 more miles of border wall (and water barriers) have been completed.  And additional wall construction is supported by a Congressional appropriation of $46.5 billion.  To date there are now 776 miles of border protection on the 1,954-mile border. 

No single dataset proves that the wall alone caused net reductions; the truth rests in a tangle of sector-specific outcomes, enforcement changes, and external factors.   The money spent building a border could be used for so many other programs to support American citizens.

End birthright citizenship

During his first presidency, President Trump failed  to fulfill his promise to end the people’s right to become U.S citizens if they’re born in the U.S.. This is regardless of their parents’ immigration status. He promised to do this during his second term, issuing executive orders to that effect.  However, legal experts note that such a change would require a constitutional amendment.  The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether President Trump’s plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil is unconstitutional. The justices recently announced that they will take up the issue, with arguments likely in April of 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

Restore and expand the travel ban

During his first presidency, President Trump signed executive orders to ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. He faced numerous legal challenges requiring rewrites of the orders. The travel ban’s third and final version restricted U.S. entry to people from these seven countries, plus Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. In June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld this travel ban.  

During his second term, President Trump issued an executive order ending visa processing for 75 nations.  The order took effect on January 21, 2026.  There are currently 175 countries in the world.  Thus, this order blocks entry to the U.S. for 43% of the world’s countries.

Suspend refugee resettlement

President Trump has suspended refugee resettlement. As defined by U.S. law, refugees, are people outside of the U.S. who fled their home countries because of persecution related to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. They have received refugee protections from the U.S. before they enter the country. Asylum seekers must also meet the refugee definition, but they must be physically in the U.S. to seek protections.  

In addition, Trump made a promise to Cap Refugee Admissions.  The cap for 2026 is 7,500, the lowest since the implementation of the program in 1980.  The groups selected are more prioritized, with a focus on white South Africans.

Terminate the Customs and Border Protection’s “CBP One” app

Even though his administration launched the tool in 2020, Trump ended a mobile phone application that migrants use to access Customs and Border Protection services.  His reason was that the Biden administration had expanded its use, allowing immigrants to make appointments at official ports of entry to begin the asylum-seeking process.  It is easy to speculate that he ended the program to curb migrant applications for asylum.

Revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at colleges and universities.

Federal officials were already checking applicants’ backgrounds, including the monitoring of social media. Trump hasn’t said what the additional ideological screening entails, its purpose, or method.  Expanded backgrounding has introduced privacy concerns and discouraged visa applications.

Give college graduates, including those from junior colleges, a green card to be able to stay legally in the U.S.

Changes in eligibility for permanent resident status, also known as receiving a green card,  requires congressional action. Congress had not passed reforms to the immigration system in decades. 

In 2025, Congress passed new stricter green card rules.   These stricter rules do not make it easier for college graduates to stay legally in the United States as promised by President Trump.  The new rules are as follows:

These changes are designed to strengthen immigration enforcement and ensure that green card holders meet their legal obligations.  Trump’s promise to give college graduates (including those from junior colleges) a green card to be able to stay legally in the U.S. has not been fulfilled.  In reality, it has become more difficult to obtain a green card!

Terminate work permits for immigrants in the U.S. illegally

During his first term, President Trump tried to end a program that protects certain people (people who crossed the border illegally as children) from deportation and gives them work permits. The Supreme Court ruled against him, but its legality is unsettled; the case is expected to again reach the Supreme Court in 2026.

Make it illegal to distribute welfare benefits to illegal immigrants

Most immigrants living illegally in the country are  ineligible for benefits from federal programs. A valid Social Security number is needed to receive most federal benefits and immigrants in the country illegally are not issued Social Security numbers. Trump has separately pledged to make immigrants in the U.S. ineligible for public housing assistance. But noncitizen eligibility for housing has generally be prohibited since 1996 under Title IV, or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.   

It is easy to promise something that has already been established!

Invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members

This 1798 law was created when the U.S. feared an impending war with France. It allows the president to arrest, detain and deport people without due process under certain circumstances. But legal experts said Trump faces legal obstacles in this endeavor. 

Designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations

As president in 2019, Trump said he would designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. According to the Wilson Center, this legal designation is used to identify foreign groups that “engage in premeditated, politically motivated acts of terrorism against noncombatant targets.” However, Trump said he would temporarily hold off on the designation at the request of Mexico’s president. Now that Trump is again President, he has followed through on his earlier promise.  His attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, along with his invasion of Venezuela to arrest President Maduro, have been premised on his definition of narcoterrorism.  

International and counterterrorism experts have questioned his actions which have hurt diplomatic relations with Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Create a compensation fund from the seized assets of criminal gangs to support victims of “migrant crime”

Trump announced on Oct. 29, 2024, that he would create a compensation fund from the seized assets of criminal gangs to support victims of “migrant crime” — crime purportedly committed by immigrants who are in the country illegally. “We will be seizing the assets of the criminal gangs and drug cartels, and we will use those assets to create a compensation fund to provide restitution for the victims of migrant crime, and the government will help in the restoration.”  It is interesting to note that immigrant crime contributes little to the violent crime statistics.

So far, nothing tangible has been done in this area.  Most of the revenue from Venezuelan oil (from an alleged drug cartel kingpin) is currently sitting in banks in Qatar.

Revoke the Temporary Protected Status of Haitians in Springfield, Ohio

Trump and his Vice President, JD Vance, targeted Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, including the accusation that they are eating their neighbors’ pets. Trump revoked their legal status and said, “bring them back to their country [sic].” That involved ending their Temporary Protected Status, which protects them from deportation because they are from a country experiencing war, environmental disasters, or epidemics. 

The administration has not only revoked the protected status for Haitians, but also for other foreign nationals, including Cuban and Burmese (Myanmar).

Other Immigration Changes

The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.  The H-1B visa now has an added $100,000 fee on certain new petitions, making the cost associated with the visa prohibitive for many potential educated and skilled applicants and their perspective employer.

Refugee Admissions Cap

Work Authorization and Employment Extension Document (EAD) Changes

Fees for work authorization and employment extensions are being adjusted upward.  Automatic extensions for employee authorization documents are being rescinded for some employment categories.  For example, work authorization for asylum applicants and green card applicants has been reduced from five years to eighteen months.

Gold Card Visa

President Trump announced a $1 million “Gold Card” visa for high-net-worth investors. The program allows a pathway to permanent residence for foreign nationals.  Buy your way into the USA!

Summary

Immigration policy has seen many changes under President Trump.  Most have occurred through executive order or policy changes in Customs Immigration Services policies.  There has been no Congressional approval sought.  But Congress has not taken any steps to intervene.  Applicants, employers, and immigration advocates are required to navigate these changing policies where the benefits seem to change quickly.

The “foreseen” consequences of this paradigm shift in immigration policy are many.  There is a reason that the Statue of Liberty has a plaque that says, ““Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  America was built by immigrants.  The success of this nation is the result of people who came here with a dream.  Some achieved greatness in various endeavors.  Most have lived productive and rewarding lives.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated the country’s total population is projected to stop growing in 2056. But according to the report, in 2030, without immigration, the population would begin to shrink as deaths start to exceed births, making immigrants an increasingly important source of population growth. This has important implications for our workforce and economy.

Congress for Sale

“We the People” are supposed to be the government.  Our founding fathers made it clear that a democratic republic needed educated and involved people.  The earliest members of Congress were chosen by the people.  However, these early leaders also understood the temptations that power brought to various individuals and groups.  George Washington, in this farewell address, cautioned against political parties.  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and others cautioned against the influence of monied interests.  As designed, the system would work only if “guard rails” were established.

Washington’s concern was soon disregarded, as the founding fathers themselves could not agree on whether to have a strong central government or a system of states represented in a republican nation.  This basic difference of opinion continues under our present political two-party system, with smaller parties playing only a tangential role. 

The concerns of John Adams and the others were also ignored.  While early representation was likely to be influenced by those already in local power and those with financial influence, at least the elected representatives did represent the districts that they served.  In today’s political environment, these same influences continue but have been distorted by the Supreme Court Decision in Citizen’s United and a lack of strong rules regarding lobbying efforts.  Large corporations now have a political voice.  Lobbyists represent not only individual monied interest, but large corporations with unlimited funds that are used to sway representative views.

The founding fathers created a democratic republic where the people were to be decision makers. However, monied interests were soon influencing elected officials.   While the problem of money in politics is not new, today’s PACs, and dark money operations, have eroded the power of the people in favor of those who can influence our political leaders with money and other opportunities, such as paid vacations, and personal favors.

Who (or what) has the greatest impact on legislation and our elected representative?  Companies, labor unions, trade associations, social and political groups, and other influential organizations spend billions each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Last year over 4.5 billion dollars was spent by 13,000 lobbyists. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.  How can the average voter compete?

Organized spending by PACs and special interests have a great deal of influence.  In 2024 the biggest spender was Future Forward USA, spending over $510 million dollars.  This organization leans democratic and worked to elect Kamala Harris.  The next biggest spender was MAGA at $377 million.  Other major groups leading the list are political action organizations supporting both democrats and republicans.  America PAC (Texas), a group primarily funded by Elon Musk, supports President Trump with $196 million.  Americans for Prosperity spent $138 million, with funding by the Koch family supporting Libertarian causes.  Fairshare PAC is funded by Cryto, Coinbase, Ripple (cryto firm), and Andreessen/Horowitz (capital investment firm) at $112 million.  The most altruistic group is Preserve America, founded by G. W. Bush, to support American culture and nature spending at $112 million.

Individual companies spending large sums include SpaceX with contributions of $289 million, followed by Adelson Clinic spending $147 million.  Adelson Clinic was established to study drug use and abuse issues following the Opioid epidemic.  Third is Uline funded by Robert Uihien, a prominent ultra conservative, at $146 million. 

National Associations also spend large sums lobbying for their organizations.  At the top of the list is the National Association of Realtors spending $86 million.  They are followed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at $76 million.  The next grouping, which includes pharma, hospitals, Blue Cross, and the AMA, spends a combined total of $113 million.

There are many others that spend millions of dollars to influence legislation.  If the government was truly of the people, should these special interest groups be allowed to have such a massive impact on elected officials?  There is a reason that so many in Congress are millionaires.  Consider our key legislators.  Mike Johnson received over $618,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2023.  and Lockheed Martin added another $60,000 in donations. Hakeem Jefferies received $866,000 from the AIPAC, and $64,000 from Lockheed.  Chuck Shumer is supported by Blackstone (investment firm) with $281,000 and an additional $235,000 from NextEra Energy.  John Thume received $122,000 from AIPAC and $96,000 from Sanford Health.  Dick Durbin is supported by Power Rodgers LLP (Chicago law firm) with $102,000 and Simmon Hanly Conroy (law firm) for $80,000.  For more information about specific legislators go to Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org).

Perhaps the answer to why so many Congressional initiatives that might help the average American don’t get passed lies with the undue influence of big money!  We need to support efforts to get big money and excessive lobbying out of Congress!

The Unnecessary Killing of Renee Nicole Good

Overview

On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE officer Jonathan Ross during a confrontation between ICE officers and observers.  Federal officials claimed she attempted to run over an agent. Local officials and eyewitness accounts dispute this. Video evidence has raised further questions. The Trump administration and DHS assert that Ross acted in self‑defense.  The Homeland Security Secretary described the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” a characterization rejected by Minnesota officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has sharply criticized the federal narrative, calling it misleading, and is demanding a state‑involved investigation.

The FBI took control of the investigation, reportedly blocking Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence.  Local leaders argue this exclusion undermines trust and transparency. The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension have worked together on many cases over the years.  As a retired law enforcement professional, I have so many questions that need to be answered.  A joint investigation should be initiated so that the family, community, and nation can have trusted answers to the questions. 

Questions

What authority does ICE have in dealing with blocked traffic flow?  For that matter, what are the mandates for ICE, and what legal authority do officers have in implementing orders? 

Who is Jonathan Ross?  How well trained was he in dealing with the type of situation that he found himself in on January 7?  Did he position himself in a place of danger?  Was deadly force his only option?  How badly was he injured 6 months ago in a previous apprehension attempt, where he was dragged over 50 yards by a fleeing vehicle?  Did he receive any follow-up medical or psychological treatment?  If not, why not?  If so, did the psychological team clear him for a return to duty?

What were Renee Good’s intentions on the morning of January 7?  Did she intend to block an ICE operation?  Was she shocked by the manner of approach by an ICE officer when he attempted to open her door?  Was she defiant?  Was she simply trying to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation?  

Commentary

Only an open, joint investigation can answer these questions.  The various videos and eyewitness statements will help answer some questions.  An investigation into ICE operations, training, and policies that address officer actions will provide additional information.

What is ICE and its mandate?  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was created in 2003 as part of the post‑9/11 reorganization of federal security agencies. Its core mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws inside the United States.  ICE is responsible for investigating, enforcing, and preventing violations of federal immigration, customs, and border‑related laws. It operates primarily inside the U.S. interior, not at the border. Border operations are handled mainly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

ICE is responsible for locating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws.  They are also responsible for prioritizing individuals who are recent arrivals, fugitives, or those with criminal convictions.  A third major area of responsibility is conducting worksite enforcement to ensure employers maintain a lawful workforce. Secondary functions include investigating human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other cross‑border criminal networks. In fulfilling their duties, ICE must also manage needed detention facilities, ensuring the “safe and humane” detention and removal of individuals ordered to be deported.

ICE agents can conduct operations in public spaces without restriction, but entering private areas requires a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants—common in immigration cases—do not authorize entry into private spaces without consent.  ICE agents, while federal agents, are NOT police officers.  Their scope of authority is limited to detaining and arresting with probable cause, and/or signed arrest warrants, individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally.  ICE has no authority to pull anyone over for a traffic violation.  Any involvement with vehicles must be justified with probable cause that the driver or passengers are wanted on immigration violations.

ICE has been under pressure to rapidly expand its workforce, leading to streamlined training and more field‑office‑based on‑the‑job learning.  Prior to the surge in hiring, ICE agents received 240 days of training which included 25 days of training in Spanish.  New recruits now receive 47 days of training.  The training is less than that of most police officers, who receive at least 75 days of training (with some states requiring 125 days). The ICE training comes closer to the 5-day requirement for citizens to receive firearm permits in many states.

My own cursory examination points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. The training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during the Minneapolis confrontation.  While Officer Ross received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, his training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants, not police tactics.  The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS.  Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training.  De-escalate the tension in any given situation.

 In addition, Officer Ross was involved in an arrest attempt in June 2025 where he was injured by being dragged over 50 yards by a suspect in a fleeing vehicle.  He was hospitalized with severe injuries.  To treat his injuries, doctors used 20 stitches in his right arm and 13 in his left hand. It is possible that Officer Ross was not given a proper vetting before being returned to duty.  Without proper clearance, it is possible that Ross did act to protect himself from his own perceived harm.   He was not mentally prepared for a return to duty.   It does not justify what happened, but it does point a guilty finger at the ICE organization.

Conclusion

The administration’s goal of deporting illegal immigrants (particularly criminals) has required additional ICE agents.  To accomplish this goal, the agency has increased its hiring numbers.  To get the new agents on the job quickly, the required training has been reduced to a level that is far below an acceptable level for agents who are now also acting as if they are police officers. 

There are no public records of Officer Ross’s previous leave requirements or the requirements to return to duty.  However, given the just over six-month time span between his first tragic vehicle arrest encounter and the January 7 incident, there should be interest in whether the ICE agency policy of psychological support falls short regarding the officer’s suitability to return to duty.

Why Can’t Congress Find a Solution to Health Care Cost?

A Brief History

The modern U.S. healthcare system has its roots in World War II. To circumvent wartime wage controls implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, employers boosted fringe benefits, notably health insurance. These benefits were later institutionalized by the Internal Revenue Service in the 1950s, when it excluded employer-sponsored health insurance from taxable income.

By 1965, significant legislative changes expanded health coverage with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid under the Social Security Act amendment. Medicare provided healthcare to the elderly, while Medicaid expanded access to the impoverished. These programs, especially Medicare, were modeled on employer-sponsored plans which were prevalent at the time but lacked stringent cost controls. This led to a system in which healthcare providers were reimbursed based on the “usual, customary, and reasonable rate,” significantly influencing increased charges for services.

Until 1973, health care in the United States was considered a public health service provided by doctors and hospitals.   Payment for such services was paid by the user or through some type of insurance plan.   In 1973, President Nixon signed the Health Maintenance Organization Act (HMO) into law. The HMO model was developed in response to rising medical costs and aimed to provide a cost-effective alternative to traditional health insurance. By focusing on preventive care and establishing fixed reimbursement rates, HMOs were supposed to reduce overall health care expenditure while maintaining quality services. The Act encouraged private investment in HMOs and required employers with a certain number of employees to offer these plans alongside traditional insurance options. The definition of what an HMO is has morphed a bit over time. Today the HMO is essentially a company that blends insurance functions and health care functions.  After the 1973 act, HMOs became easier to form and operate. (Daniel Polsky, health economics professor at Johns Hopkins University) Many of the early HMOs (non-profit) were bought by for-profit insurers.  (Paul Starr, Pulitzer Prize author, Professor, Sociology, Princeton University)

Today, what we have is not what Nixon signed into law.  The U.S. healthcare system operates through a complex hybrid model. Private insurance, primarily employer-sponsored, is the main access mode for most Americans, complemented by public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. These public programs serve critical demographic segments, with Medicare covering over 60 million elderly and Medicaid providing for over 72 million low-income individuals as of 2023.

While most Americans believe that the United States has the most advanced and best health care in the world, this is not entirely true! The facts do not support this myth.  In fact, the data shows that the United States lags far behind a significant number of other nations.

The Data

A good comparative source for health care is the Office for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It collects and analyzes data from each of the 100 member countries on a wide range of social, economic and health-related topics.  Its data gives insight into how the health of the U.S. population compares with the health of other countries.   The data compared the U.S. with other OECD member countries on three health measures: infant mortality, health spending, and life expectancy.

The results show that the United States has a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy compared with most other OECD member countries. Even the top U.S. state ranked lower among member countries for the infant mortality and life expectancy measures. The United States also had the highest amount of health spending of all OECD countries.

Our Strong Points

Another good source for health statistics is the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP) Index. The Index evaluated the national healthcare systems of 32 high-income countries on four key dimensions: quality, choice, fiscal sustainability, and science and technology. Those categories were chosen to examine not only the quality of each healthcare system, but also the ability of that system to improve over time through scientific and medical advances.

The top four national healthcare systems — Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, and the Netherlands — have all achieved universal coverage in part by relying on private insurance. Those countries empower patient choice and allow private insurers to innovate without delays due to political or regulatory inaction. In addition, those systems tend to be more fiscally sustainable than the U. S.  because subsidies are phased out for wealthier patients.

Ultimately, the U. S. ranked 7th overall, a result of excellent scientific advancement (1st), good quality medical coverage (14th), and moderate choice (6th). Such rankings allude to the nation’s relative strength in research and development along with its struggle to control rising spending on healthcare.  At the same time, spending on healthcare in the United States has far outpaced other major healthcare systems without yielding better outcomes. The Index makes clear that pure scientific advancement is not enough to create a strong healthcare system; it is necessary to control rising costs and ensure that high-quality healthcare is accessible to every American

Congress and Fiscal Sustainability

The United States is positioned last (32nd) in Fiscal Sustainability, primarily due to its exceptionally high government health spending, which is the highest globally. Per capita spending reached $13,500 for this year’s Index, of which nearly $7,500 is public spending. For comparison, Switzerland, with the second-highest health spending, recorded a per capita expenditure of $9,200 but only $1,999 in public spending. The fiscal outlook for the United States is likely to worsen as healthcare inflation continues to escalate the costs associated with subsidies for Medicare, Medicaid, the employer tax exclusion, and the insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.

Switzerland achieves universal coverage through a tightly regulated private insurance market, ensuring that everyone has access to essential care. By contrast, the U.S. relies on a fragmented mix of private and public systems, resulting in higher costs, uneven access, and significant administrative complexity.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to an affordable universal health care policy is the insurance lobby (HMOs) The insurance lobby wields substantial influence over US health policy through massive financial investments, strategic lobbying, and close relationships with lawmakers. This influence shapes legislation, regulatory priorities, and public program funding—often prioritizing industry interests over consumer outcomes. The scale of spending and the number of lobbyists involved underscore the lobby’s power, while public opinion reflects widespread concern about its impact.

What role does the insurance lobby play in the failure of meaningful reform?  America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s main trade group, spent over $4.2 million on lobbying in just three months (July–September), marking its highest level on record for that period. This level of spending isn’t an outlier; it reflects a long-term strategy of saturating Congress with data, arguments, and pressure.

The industry is currently fighting hard to preserve enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire unless Congress acts. These subsidies directly affect millions of Americans and billions in insurer revenue. Insurers have made this extension a top legislative priority, coordinating with hospitals and other health‑sector players through coalitions like Keep Americans Covered.

Lobbyists emphasize that in today’s Washington, direct engagement (“the inside game”) is more likely to produce favorable outcomes. This means constant meetings, briefings, and relationship‑building with lawmakers and staff. The industry’s approach is sophisticated: they combine economic arguments, constituent‑impact data, and political pressure to shape legislative outcomes.

Bottom Line

The health insurance lobby wields significant, sustained influence over Congress. Their power comes from: enormous lobbying budgets, deep relationships with lawmakers, coalitions that amplify their message, and the economic stakes tied to federal health policy

They don’t win every fight, but they remain one of the most formidable players in federal policymaking. Other major lobbies which influence health policy include pharma, hospitals, and the health technology industry.

Venezuela:  A Legitimate Action or Something Else?

Following yesterday’s arrest of Maduro, politicians and pundits are debating the legality of the arrest and looking for an explanation of the actions taken by the Trump administration.  While I have my personal opinions, the following is a look at legal arguments for and against Donald Trump’s decision to order the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, supported by U.S. military operation used to assure the success and safety of the arresting team.  I have attempted to present the information as it has been reported by the media, legal experts, and the Trump administration.

Legal Arguments Against Arrest

 1. Violation of International Law- Many experts argue that the operation was an illegal use of force inside a sovereign nation without its consent.  Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, said the operation was a “clear violation of international law.” (Lisa Mascaro, Joshua Goodman and Ben Finley, “Capture of Maduro and U.S. claim it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions,” The Associated Press)  The military strikes inside Caracas typically require either UN authorization, self‑defense justification, or host‑nation consent—none of which were present.

2. No Congressional Authorization–The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war.  Trump’s own chief of staff previously said that.  Congress was not notified before the operation, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (Tom Hals and Andrew Goudsward,“Was the US capture of Venezuela’s president legal?” Reuters, January 3, 2026)

 3. Inconsistent Legal Justification—Experts note the administration blurred the line betweena law enforcement action (arresting an indicted individual), anda military regime‑change operation (Trump’s statements about “running” Venezuela and taking its oil).  Jeremy Paul of Northeastern University said:“You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country.” (Hals, Goudsward)

4. No Extradition Treaty or Legal Basis for Seizure–The U.S. has no extradition treaty with Venezuela.Mark Nevitt, former Navy attorney, said “I see no legal basis for us to go into another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty.” (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

 5. Precedent of Unlawful Targeted Killings/Strikes–The U.S. had already conducted 35 boat strikes, killing more than 115 people since September.  Many experts say this likely violated U.S. and international law. (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

Legal Arguments for Arrest (These are the justifications the Trump administration or its defenders have offered.)

 1. Maduro Was Under U.S. Indictment—Maduro had been indicted in New York on narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges in 2020.  The Justice Department requested military assistance to apprehend him. (Hals, Goudsward) Attorney General Pam Bondi said the defendants would “face the full wrath of American justice.” (Hall, Goudsword)  This frames the operation as a law enforcement action, not an act of war.

2. National Security Justification–The administration claimed Maduro supported drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations, responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths from illegal drug use. (Hall, Goudsword)Under this theory, the president can act to protect U.S. national security without prior congressional approval.

3. Precedent for Limited Military Actions Without Congress— Presidents of both parties have used military force without congressional authorization whenthe action was limited in scope andtied to national interests.  Examples that are often cited includeReagan in Grenada, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya and George H. W. Bush in Panama.  The administration may argue this operation fits that pattern.

4. Maduro’s Status as an “Illegitimate Leader” —Some international actors and the U.S. government had previously recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela.  If Maduro is not recognized as head of state, the argument goes, the U.S. did not violate sovereignty by seizing him. 

Other Factors

President Trump has been clear that the United States will run the country and rebuild the oil industry in Venezuela.  How can this be accomplished? Who benefits the most from this plan?

China and Cuba have been major importers of Venezuelan oil.  How will the United States deal with the complications in oil trade? 

The United States entered a foreign county and arrested its leader.  Does this mean that the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia can be justified?  Can China reclaim Tawain?  Can Netanyahu be arrested by another country and presented to the United Nations since he is currently wanted for war crimes by the World Court?  Can a country be justified in kidnapping President Trump if they don’t like him?

Summary

There are so many questions that this incident has raised.  How will Congress react?  Should Americans allow their government to act as the sole authority on issues that impact our nation?  There are many opinions.  As is apparent from the above arguments for and against the legality of Maduro’s arrest, the weight of the legal arguments makes it apparent that the arrest, supported by the military, was illegal.  The arguments supporting the administration are justifications, not legal interpretations.

Nigeria—A Real Crisis or a Distraction?

The Trump administration, following the President’s post, shared that the United States had attacked terrorists in Nigeria.  To be fair, President Trump had warned Boko Haram that if they continued to carry out attacks on Christians that they would pay a heavy price.  The question that should be asked is, “Are terrorist organizations in Nigeria targeting Christians in a jihad?”  The answer should be easy to find in the news media.  However, there has been little to no mention of a jihad against Christians in Nigeria, except in social media, blogs, and right leaning Christian media.  Mainstream churches have not mentioned any concerns.  Mainstream non-biased media had not covered any stories related to a Christian jihad.  The Nigerian government, while struggling with political turmoil, did not report any targeted attacks on only Christians. 

Questions need to be asked and researched, and the source of the reporting needs to be considered in any evaluation.  I advise you to look to mainstream media that generally do not have a right or left leaning bias.  To verify this check out the AllSides Media Bias Chart (allsidesmedia.com) or The Media Bias Chart (adfontsmedia.com).

Are Christians being killed?  Yes, but so are Muslims and other Nigerians.  Nigeria is a nation with mostly Christians in the north and Muslims in the south.  There have been clashes between farmers and herders in central Nigeria, much like the former problems in our own country decades ago.  The herders are primarily Muslim, while the farmers are generally Christian.  Most of these disputes are over access to water and pasture. However, there is little evidence that either group is disproportionately at fault.  Olajumoke Ayandele, an assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who specializes in conflict studies, told the AP that the violence in Nigeria represents widespread killings rather than targeted attacks against a specific group.

What are the neutral mainstream media saying? The BBC reports that there is NO evidence that more Christians are being killed than Muslims.  Al Jazeera reported that there are reports of attacks by Boko Haram and other fringe groups.  However, the attacks do not target only Christians.  The attacks are not about religion.  The Associated Press reports that analysis does not support the idea of genocide as defined by the United Nations.  There is no one group dedicated to destroying a religious group.  Reports claiming “Christian genocide” hide the fact that Nigeria is having an ongoing civil conflict.

Although less known, the Armed Conflict Location and Event (ACLED) organization reports that most of the victims of Boko Haram and the Islamic State have been Muslims.   Since 2009, 53,000 civilians have been killed due to internal civil conflicts.  The group reports that data from right wing Christian groups claiming that 100,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria, is not supported by the data.  Most deaths are attributed to political power grabs, land disputes, cult affiliations, and simple banditry.  (acleddata.com March 15, 2024)

The issues in Nigeria are not about Christian genocide.  The U.S. involvement appears to be another distraction from the political turmoil in Washington.

Donald Trump and the International Criminal Court

Historical Background

It has been 50 years since the United Nations first recognized the need to establish an international criminal court, to prosecute crimes such as genocide. On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly, “Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required, adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states (countries) or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council.

“In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished.”  — Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General 

The Roman Statute (named for its introduction in Rome, Italy) establishing the ICC was signed by 125 countries.  Former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, but according to official documentation, the U.S. government under the Bush administration, requested the country’s removal from the treaty before ratification.  Other non-signers included China, Russia, and Israel.  The United States did not sign the Rome Statute for several reasons, primarily related to concerns over the jurisdiction and effectiveness of the ICC.  The U.S. government also expressed fears that the court’s jurisdiction cold be politicized and that it might not be effective in preventing unwanted scrutiny of U.S. military personnel and officials. 

The ICC’s Role

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.  The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.  

Today the Court has over 900 staff members from approximately 100 States.  It is Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. Since 2002, there have been 34 cases before the Court, with some cases having more than one suspect.  ICC judges have issued a total of 61 arrest warrants. Since 2002, thanks to cooperation from member countries, 22 people have been detained in the ICC detention center and have appeared before the Court. Thirty-two people remain at large. Charges have been dropped against 8 people due to their deaths.  ICC judges have also issued 9 summons to appear.  The judges have issued 13 convictions and 4 acquittals.

The Office of the Prosecutor is an independent organ of the Court. The Prosecutor conducts preliminary examinations and investigations, and is the only one who can bring cases before the Court. Defendants are entitled to public, fair proceedings that they can follow in a language they fully understand. Victims’ voices are heard in the Courtroom, as the Rome Statute grants victims unprecedented rights to participate in ICC proceedings. The ICC has a victim and witness protection program that uses both operational and procedural protective measures.

The Court engages in two-way dialogue directly with communities that have suffered from crimes under its jurisdiction, so that they can communicate directly with the Court and gain a sense of ownership in the judicial process. By supporting the Court, the countries that have joined the Rome Statute system have taken a stand against those perpetrators who, in the past, would have had no one to answer to after committing widespread, systematic international crimes. The ICC calls on all countries to join the fight against impunity, so that perpetrators of such crimes are punished, and to help prevent future occurrences of these crimes.  (UN International Criminal Court)

The Trump Administration’s Attack

The Trump administration’s dislike of the court goes back to his first term. The ICC was investigating possible war crimes committed by the United States, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan.  As a result, in 2020, The Trump administration imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court’s work. 

During his second term, on August 20, 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration again imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the ICC over its targeting of Israeli leaders. Washington designated sanctions against Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the U.S. Treasury and State Department. The designations freeze any U.S. assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the U.S. financial system. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States.  In a statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court “a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare” against the United States and Israel.  ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict.  The ICC also has high-profile war crimes investigations under way in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela.  (Humeyra Pamuk and Anthony Deutsch,  Reuters,  August 20, 2025)

 “The United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach,” Rubio said. “I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution.” Countering Rubio’s call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity.  “The Court calls upon States Parties [countries] and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes,”

Both France and the United Nations said the judges’ work is crucial for international justice.  “Their role is essential in the fight against impunity,” a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said.  The U.S. sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: “The (U.S.) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor.”  Netanyahu’s office issued a statement welcoming the U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s Pressure Campaign Against the ICC Reaches New Heights

On December 10, 2025, a U.S. official told Reuters that the White House pressured the International Criminal Court (ICC) to alter its founding document to prevent it from investigating U.S. President Donald Trump and his senior officials. These threats mark a significant escalation in Trump’s long-time campaign against the world’s war crimes tribunal at a time when legal experts are suggesting that the administration may have violated international law with U.S. military operations against alleged drug boats near Latin America.

The White House wants the court to alter the Rome Statute so Trump and his officials can’t be prosecuted.  The anonymous U.S. official did not specify which issues the Trump administration fears could become subject to an ICC investigation. However, the official said there was growing concern that “in 2029, the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them,” referring to Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The timing of the renewed pressure campaign comes as the White House faces growing congressional pressure to release the full, unedited video of a Sept. 2 double-tap strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, in which a second strike killed two survivors of an initial U.S. attack.  According to the U.S. official, the Trump administration wants the ICC to also formally end its probe into U.S. military actions in Afghanistan as well as to drop its investigations of senior Israeli officials related to the war in Gaza.

The Trump administration has threatened to penalize more ICC officials and potentially sanction the court itself if its three demands are not met. (Alexandra Sharp, the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy)

The Trump Hegseth War on Drugs

One the issues that the Trump administration campaigned on was the alleged out of control drug problem.    Following President Trump’s lead, his Secretary of Defense (War) has declared a full-scale war on “narco terrorists.”  Since July, Secretary Hegseth has ordered twenty-one strikes against the narco terrorists, blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that were allegedly transporting illegal drugs to the United States.  Nothing new!  The war began under Richard Nixon.

As a police officer more than 50 years ago, I arrested drug users and dealers.  I was often frustrated by the way the legal system handled many of these drug cases.  I saw people die from overdosing!  I wanted stronger penalties for those who sold drugs.  Over the past decades various efforts have been made to curb drug abuse, with little or no apparent success.

The “War on Drugs”

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and announced what would soon be known as the country’s “war on drugs”. The policy promised to cleanse streets of narcotics, dismantle trafficking networks, and deliver a safer environment for Americans.

Instead, according to estimates by the Center for American Progress, decades of punitive policing and militarized crackdowns left the U.S. with a record number of overdose deaths, one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, and more than $1 trillion spent, with little measurable impact on drug availability or demand.  The war on drugs helped reshape policing and criminal justice, disproportionately sweeping Black communities into prisons. Internationally, it fueled a parallel conflict across Latin America, where U.S. backed operations deepened cycles of corruption and organized crime. Today, overdose deaths driven by fentanyl have reached historic highs.

Nixon’s administration laid the groundwork for a punitive system, including new federal agencies, tougher penalties, and a rhetoric that framed drug use as a threat to national stability. The political logic behind the move was later revealed by John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide, who in 2016 told a reporter that the administration saw two main “enemies” – the antiwar left and Black Americans. Since the government could not criminalize dissent or race, it instead associated “hippies” with marijuana and Black communities with heroin, and then heavily criminalized both. The aim, he said, was to disrupt and discredit those communities by raiding homes, arresting leaders, and vilifying them on the news.

The campaign intensified dramatically in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 toughened sentences for marijuana possession.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive administrations upheld these approaches. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill expanded federal funding for prisons, led to more aggressive policing, and introduced a controversial “three-strikes” approach– a mandatory life sentence for a third violent felony conviction.

Not much changed under the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not until the 2010s that the conversation around drug use started to change, especially as cannabis legalization expanded, and the opioid crisis – driven by prescription painkillers – showed that punishment couldn’t curb addiction.  “The War on Drugs turned out to be more of a war on America’s poor than an effective solution to rampant drug abuse in the United States.”

The war on drugs did not remain limited to the US and its borders. In the 1980s, Washington funded and trained military and police forces across Latin America to fight drug trafficking at its source.  In Colombia, the US invested at least $10 billion from 2000 to the present under what was known as Plan Colombia, according to the Latin America Working Group.

According to Colombian human rights organizations and Columbia’s Truth Commission, while the government succeeded in weakening some armed groups, coca cultivation eventually returned to record levels, but civilians paid a high price. Between 1985 and 2018, an estimated 450,000 people were killed in the conflicts involving the cocaine trade.

In Mexico, a government offensive launched in 2006, supported by US intelligence and equipment, caused a wave of cartel fragmentation and turf wars. Since then, more than 460,000 people have been killed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and tens of thousands more have disappeared. Cartels diversified into extortion, fuel theft and human smuggling, while corruption spread among police forces as well as local governments. (This section on the Drug Wars is edited from Farah Najjar’s article in El Jazzar, published On 4 Dec 2025.)

A Real War?

Today, the US continues to carry out military operations targeting alleged traffickers. More than 83 people have been killed in 21 known military strikes.  The U.S. alleges that these are drug smuggling vessels.

Currently, the Trump administration appears poised for military action against Venezuela over accusations that the South American nation’s government is driving narcotics trafficking into the U.S.   Could Secretary Hegseth be right?  Should the U. S. declare a real war that should be fought on all fronts, whether in drug producing nations, on the high seas, or here in the United States?   Just a thought!! What could go wrong!

In a declared war, soldiers (police officers) would not have to allow for the rule of law.  Law enforcement officers could “take out” those that they believe are narco terrorists.    No need to make an arrest.  There would be no requirements for due process or a right to trial.  Justice would be served on the street.  Speedy and final.  The drug war can be won if only Americans would give full war powers to police officers!  Kill the foot soldiers.  These are frightening thoughts!

The Real Solution

The US has continued to fail in treating addiction as a public health issue. As enforcement ramped up, investment in prevention treatment, and mental health care fell behind. Instead of reducing use, the environment helped drive people into other forms of consumption.  Today, the US faces its deadliest drug crisis ever.  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are more than 100,000 overdose deaths each year, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44.

To address the US drug problem, there needs to be recognition that a war of arrest and punishment has limits.  The root causes of alcohol and other drug addictions must be addressed.  Treatment and recovery programs, to treat the disorder through public health initiatives, are essential. 

Community engagement where citizens learn to trust their government officials and share information regarding illicit drug use should be improved.  Communities need to find their own way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs.  Government policies (federal, state, and local) must send the same message. 

These strategies aim to reduce overdose deaths, improve treatment availability, and disrupt the drug supply chain, ultimately addressing the broader issues that contribute to the drug crisis in the United States.  Some of these issues deal with poverty, associated with a low minimum wage.  Too many jobs that do not pay enough to support a single person, and certainly not a family.  Other issues include the need to rebuild our mental health support network and strengthen our drug rehabilitation programs.

We DON’T need a war!  We need a socially based strategy to address the root causes.