Trump’s WashingtonHow President Trump is changing government, the country and politics.Good evening. Tonight, I’m speaking with my colleague Hamed Aleaziz about his reporting on how family separations are unfolding in the second Trump administration. We’re also seeking your questions about immigration policy. We’ll start with the latest.
‘Interior separation is approved’
It was one of the most explosive policies of President Trump’s first term: the systematic separation of migrant children from their parents as the families crossed into the United States from Mexico. Now, a more targeted version of that practice is back, far from the border. My colleague Hamed Aleaziz, who covers immigration, found at least nine cases in which migrant parents already in the country were separated from their children after they refused to comply with deportation orders. “Interior separation is approved,” officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement wrote in one case. Officials denied that there was any new policy on family separations. They told Hamed that parents had the option of staying with their children by leaving the country with them. Today, I called Hamed, who told me the effort represented a new front in the administration’s effort to persuade as many people as it could to leave the country. JB: You spoke with several parents who have been separated from their children in recent months, all of whom were in ICE custody. What did they tell you? HA: They expressed anguish, first and foremost, at being separated from their kids. They were still coming to grips with this idea that they were not with their children — and that there weren’t any prospects of being with their children anytime soon. One thing that stuck with me was a father who told me he blamed himself for being separated from his child. He said that he’d had a nice life in Russia, and that he’d ruined it by being a dissident. He said that he had brought his family to the United States, and that, ultimately, the reason he wasn’t with his child was because of his decisions. This raises a bigger question about agency. During Trump’s first term, parents weren’t presented with a choice about being separated from their children after crossing the border — it was something that happened fairly systematically. This time, the administration says it is giving parents a choice. Is that true? The administration has repeatedly told me that these families have the opportunity to remain together. They could have been deported, as they were ordered to be, and they would still be together. They say it is the refusal to comply with this deportation that led them to this point. For the Russian families I spoke with, this was not a choice in any way. To be removed back to their home country was not a choice that they could make. As one of the fathers told me, being returned to Russia would have meant an even longer separation, a surefire imprisonment and danger to his child. So to them, it wasn’t a choice, but to the government, it was. This practice isn’t nearly as widespread as it was during the first term, at least not right now. Why is it still important to understand? I think this is a new front in family separation. I spoke with former ICE officials, with advocates, with lawyers, with the A.C.L.U., and nobody had known about these types of separations. During the first administration, there was a court order that blocked family separations at the southern border, although separations continued for certain reasons, including national security threats, public safety threats or child endangerment, with different protocols and procedures. In this instance, the government has decided, at least internally, according to the documentation that we’ve seen, that separations happening within the country fall outside the scope of that court order. And as a result, they would argue, those parameters and those requirements don’t apply here. What does this tell us about how the administration is pursuing its goal of deporting millions of people? ICE is under an incredible amount of pressure to meet these lofty goals of mass arrests and mass deportations. Every single way that ICE can, they’re looking to boost their numbers. In the past, when a family refused to be deported or refused to comply with a deportation order, they might have been allowed to remain in the country, perhaps under ICE monitoring. Now, families are going to be separated, and they will continue to be held in custody. And the government will continue to try to deport them in the toughest way possible. This is not going to be a situation where people are going to be released into the country and allowed to live their lives. This interview was condensed and edited for clarity. Read Hamed’s full story here. Tell us: What do you want to know about immigration?With the nation’s approach to immigration changing so fast, we want to hear your questions about immigration and the Trump administration’s policies. What do you want to understand better? What is confusing you? And, crucially, how has all of this affected your life? Tell us here. We’ll answer some of your questions here in the newsletter — and what you tell us may, with your permission, shape our reporting. Click here to submit your response.
IN HIS WORDS Remodeling the ‘People’s House’President Trump has a new pet project. My colleague Minho Kim, who monitors his social media accounts, explains. Yesterday, President Trump made a trip to the White House roof, where he surveyed the proposed site of his latest home-improvement project: a $200 million White House ballroom. On Wednesday, he used Truth Social to trumpet his personal contribution to the “beautification” of the White House. “My first ‘Paycheck’ went to the White House Historical Association, as we make much needed renovations to the beautiful ‘People’s House,’” Trump wrote. The president earns $400,000 a year, or 0.2 percent of the ballroom’s estimated cost. Critics have expressed concern over the price tag and the lack of details surrounding where the rest of the funding would come from. It appears the project has been Trump’s dream for at least a decade, according to David Axelrod, a White House senior adviser during the Obama years. In 2015, Axelrod wrote in his memoir that Trump had at one point reached out to his team to suggest that it build a ballroom for the White House. Axelrod said Trump had proposed “a modular ballroom” that Obama’s team could assemble and take apart. His ambition for the project has evidently grown. Got a tip? BY THE NUMBERS
Views of the Democratic Party are dismal, suggesting the party out of power still has work to do to entice voters back after big losses in 2024. Ruth Igielnik, The Times’s polling editor, has more. The Democratic Party’s favorability ratings are at an all-time low, with just 34 percent of Americans saying they have a positive view of the party, according to Gallup. Views of political parties often sag when they are out of power, and while views of the Republican Party are also down, survey after survey suggests that Democrats are at a particularly low moment. Driving this change is the diminished image Democrats have of their own party. Just 73 percent of self-identified Democrats view their party favorably, compared with 91 percent of Republicans who hold a favorable view of their party, according to Gallup. An Associated Press-NORC survey provides some insight into Democrats’ self-image problem. Democrats were much more likely to use negative language than positive language to talk about their party, leaning on terms like “weak” and “ineffective.” Republicans, on the other hand, were twice as likely to describe their party positively than negatively. Still, there is a glimmer of hope for Democrats. Americans, overall, see the Democratic Party as more honest and ethical than the Republican Party, and more likely to put the country’s interest ahead of their own, according to Gallup. Still, Americans give the Republican Party more credit for bringing the changes that they say the country needs.
ONE LAST THING An expert weighs in on the great Coca-Cola debateLast month, President Trump, a well-known imbiber of Diet Coke, announced that Coca-Cola would begin producing Coke, not with high fructose corn syrup, but with real cane sugar in the United States, jovially claiming that “it’s just better.” My colleague Julia Moskin, who writes about food, wondered: Is it? To find out, she enlisted the help of Eric Asimov, The Times’s wine critic, who boldly embarked on a taste test of Coca-Cola and Pepsi products sweetened with both corn syrup and cane sugar. He weighed concepts like aromatics (clove!), finish (briskness!) and structure (laser beam!) on his way to crowning a winner — and it’s probably not what will please Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up |
