Tag Archives: trump

ICE: Enemy of the People

By Jorge Rodriguez

There are many qualities that make up the ideal President: empathetic, knowledgeable and considerate of everyone in the country.

None of these qualities are ones that our current President, Donald Trump, embodies. He is routinely dishonest and consistently demeans and marginalizes communities of color, specifically immigrants. This is most evident in his immigration policies and the deployment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

Since returning to the Oval Office, Trump has issued more than 500 immigration-policy related actions. In his second term, ICE arrests have more than quadrupled, reaching roughly 1,200 a day, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

It doesn’t just stop at arrests. Across the nation, cases of ICE abuse have surged. According to the National Immigration Project, at least 23 people have died in ICE custody this year alone.

In January, 42-year-old Honduran immigrant Luis Gustavo Núñez Cáceres died under ICE supervision in Texas. Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old resident of Minneapolis, was fatally shot by ICE officers the same month. Despite these atrocities, we see that ICE officers rarely face consequences for their actions.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in its most recent form, was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The agency was created to boost national security and enhance border enforcement after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and to assist in the removal of unauthorized people living in the United States.

In its first 20 years of activity, ICE served four presidents and kept a relatively low profile. Everything changed when Trump came back to office. ICE was no longer seen as an agency that protects us against terrorists. It became the parasite that kills us.

Raids became more frequent, detention centers have expanded and agents are now being directed to prioritize arrests in communities with high immigrant populations.

Americans should be asking themselves: What happens when the protector becomes the enemy?

It’s Time for an Immigration Bill

Leave a reply

By Daniela Rosales

The Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas has 65,000 seats. That’s almost enough space for the 65,765 individuals reported to be held in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers as of July 2026. Almost, but not enough.

The numbers keep growing, but Congress hasn’t passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill since 1986. The DIGNITY Act of 2025 (H.R. 4393) could change this. Introduced by United States Representatives Maria Elvira Salaazar (R-FL) and Veronica Escobar (D-TX), the bill would provide undocumented immigrants with dignity in the form of long-term legal status, protection from deportation and the ability to work and travel outside the U.S. It must be passed.

In the 40 years since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was signed into law, numerous election campaigns have promised the American people a solution. In an interview with PBS news, former President Joe Biden stated: “Within 100 days, I’m going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people.” Likewise, former President Barack Obama said during his tenure that he was “confident” that immigration reform would pass.

These promises have proved empty, leaving communities torn apart and America’s immigrants living in fear for their future in the country they call home. With bipartisan Congressional support from 19 Republicans and 20 Democrats, the DIGNITY Act offers a chance to ease that fear. It is clear that this is an issue that elected officials are willing to work across the aisle for.

Some say that the bill would be ineffective because it doesn’t tackle citizenship, but that doesn’t mean that the compromise it offers can’t move things in the right direction. The bill would allow undocumented Americans to stop hiding in fear and live their lives. It would pay respect to a group of people who have contributed trillions of dollars in tax revenue to the U.S. economy and have taken far less in welfare.

Immigrants are the backbone of the United States of America. By passing legislation like the DIGNITY Act, we can actually make America great.

“We Cannot Protect People From It,” Says Mayor Freda on ICE

Leave a reply

By Grace S.

On June 30, Princeton Mayor Mark Freda attended a press conference with the Princeton Summer Journal, where he discussed recent United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in the small New Jersey town.

“Our police do not work with ICE. We do not support ICE in immigration matters in any way, shape, or form,” he said, expressing his dislike for the federal organization.

“It seems to me that ICE is concentrating on anybody that appears to be Latino. That is their A-number-one target, and so that’s problematic,” Freda said. Of the 15 people taken, he said he was “90-some-percent” sure that at least one had work authorization. “They’re going to work,” he said. “None of them are criminals.”

Freda went on to discuss what his administration is doing to aid the detainees. One option is for the town to support the proposed New Jersey Immigrant Trust Act, which would protect immigrants and their personal information. The act has faced both pushback and support.

“The Immigration Trust Act is something the state legislature will hopefully act on at some point,” Freda said. “People are concerned that if we pass the resolution in support of the act, that somehow, ICE and others will pay more attention to Princeton.”

Freda faced pressure surrounding the legislation at a recent town council meeting. “We had probably about 60 or 70 people show up and were giving us a really hard time,” he said. Freda maintained that the act is a state matter and he is still undecided if he will support it.

Despite immigration issues being out of his hands on a federal level, Freda still wants to support his constituents, as hard as that may be.

“Why are we bothering these people? We cannot protect people from it. We just can’t,” he said. “It doesn’t matter. What resolution we pass doesn’t matter. We can’t. Until [things change] at the federal level, all we can do is offer help.”

The Stonewall Monument Is Falling—and Trump Pushed It

Leave a reply

By Norman S.

During the month of June, protest signs bounce up and down.
“Trans Rights Are Human Rights,” one of them reads.
Parades light up streets all across the United States.

Now flash forward five years: That same sign is blacklisted. Celebrating anything that strays from the “norm” is criminalized.

Sound scary? That’s the path we’re currently on.

The Stonewall National Monument—located at the site of a New York City bar—is dedicated to the uprising that sparked the LGBTQ+ rights movement in the 1960s. Before Donald Trump’s second term, the official government website for the site openly described this history using terms like “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” and “transgender.”

Today, “bisexual” and “transgender” have been removed.

The Republican Party has increasingly framed the LGBTQ+ community—especially trans people—as predators targeting children and women. This harmful narrative is being used to justify systemic rollbacks. And the quiet deletion of LGBTQ+ labels from government platforms is just the beginning.

There is precedent for this. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, anti-Japanese xenophobia surged. President Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with Executive Order 9066, creating military zones on the West Coast and forcibly relocating Japanese Americans to internment camps under inhumane conditions.

The parallels to today’s political moment are hard to ignore.

Trump and other conservative leaders regularly label LGBTQ+ identities as threats, using slurs and dehumanizing language—words like “mutilation,” “trap,” and “she-male.”

If this framing continues unchallenged, displacement or even criminalization may follow.

Removing terms like “transgender” and “bisexual” from government websites is not just erasure—it’s a warning.

If these dominoes fall, the gay and lesbian communities could be next.
And after that, all of our personal freedoms may be on the line.

Even MAGA Wants the Truth: Trump’s Broken Promise on the Epstein Files

Leave a reply

By Selah D.

Trump promised to release the Epstein files if elected—but now, he’s refusing to follow through.

Liberals and MAGA supporters seem to disagree on almost everything, but when it comes to the Epstein files, they’ve found rare common ground. While many Americans see wrongdoing and injustice in the Trump administration, it’s uncommon for Trump’s own right-wing base to feel the same.

That’s what makes this different. The Epstein files are one of the few issues causing noticeable disillusionment among his most loyal supporters.

But the Epstein files are just one of many examples where Trump and his administration have contradicted themselves or been caught in lies.

What’s revolutionary about this moment is that even his own party is upset. The backlash from the right may mark a turning point in how much trust President Trump still has—even within his base.

In an interview with Fox News, Trump was asked directly whether he would declassify the Epstein files. He responded:

“Yeah, yeah, I would.”

This wasn’t the only time he made the promise. He also brought it up on a podcast with Lex Fridman and during a radio show with Will Cain. On the latter, he said:

“It’d be interesting to find out what happened there.”

But two weeks ago, when asked by reporters about the Epstein case, Trump backtracked completely:

“I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody.”

Why did he suddenly change his mind? Did he ever mean it in the first place—or was it just another campaign ploy to gain support?

These are the questions that explain why even his supporters are starting to lose trust.

Trump is a liar—and always has been.

Mayor Mark Freda Provides Updates on Recent ICE Raids

Leave a reply

By Gabrielle B.

In a press conference with student journalists, Princeton Mayor Mark Freda provided updates regarding a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid that sparked fear in the community. Freda discussed the continued impact of the raid on the town and its immigrant communities.

Early morning July 24, 15 people were detained while heading to work. According to Freda, ICE was only looking for one person, but when the person entered the van, agents detained the others.

“We are very sure, like 90-some-percent sure, that at least one of those people had working papers and is here legally, and there was no reason for that person to be taken,” Freda said. “I mean, these are all people who are going to their jobs. They’re going to work. None of them are criminals.”

“Princeton has always been a very welcoming place,” he said, noting that his Italian family immigrated to Princeton in the 1900s. But now, the town’s immigrant community is questioning its safety.

After the raid, Freda called the regional ICE director, demanding further information. He said he was “surprised” by the raid because ICE had not visited Princeton since last summer, marking the first raid since the Trump administration took office.

While Freda is working to resolve the issue, the town is considering its stance on the New Jersey Immigration Trust Act, which protects immigrants by limiting cooperation between federal and local authorities.

During a recent town council meeting, Freda said, officials faced a significant backlash when 70 people came to advocate for a resolution supporting the act, but the debate turned unproductive.

Many of those supporting the act were not from Princeton. However, Freda explained, “other people in our immigrant community here in town have suggested to us that passing such a resolution would be counterproductive,” because it could possibly make Princeton more of a target for ICE raids.

He believes that the legislation is a state rather than a local matter. “We cannot protect people from ICE. We just can’t. It doesn’t matter what resolution we pass,” he said.

Freda said his administration does offer support through the town’s Human Services Department that provides an emergency expense fund and connects immigrants with legal services, but there is only so much assistance the town can provide.

“It doesn’t matter. We can’t until the federal things change at the federal level. All we can do is offer help,” Freda said.

Trump’s rhetoric is harmful, reporters say

Leave a reply

By Kayla Ricumstrict

Detroit, MI

Though journalists are facing higher levels of mistrust and physical intimidation, two journalists say their work feels more important than ever.

In talks at The Princeton Summer Journalism Program, Gabriel Debenedetti of New York Magazine and Megan Garber of The Atlantic spoke to a small group of student journalists about the problems facing journalists in the age of Trump.

Criticism is a part of the job for journalists, but Trump’s words have made it worse. “The failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories, even on very positive achievements,” the president wrote in a recent tweet, “and they will never change!”

For some reporters, this mistrust has turned into intimidation—and even violence. At a recent Trump rally, a woman gave CNN reporters the finger. Verbal attacks and offensive gestures are only two of a number of issues journalists have to face. “I know a lot of political writers who’ve felt under physical threat,” said Debenedetti, who covers politics for New York. “That is not something we should get used to, and we should not just say ‘that’s just okay, that’s just what it is.’ We shouldn’t have to deal with that.”

Garber, the Atlantic staff writer, agreed. “There is a feeling of fear, I have to say, among journalists,” she said. “People will feel entitled to send me all kinds of terrible feedback, and I think that’s a very common experience for women. I’m pretty sure it’s worse for women of color.”

Intolerance for women and people of color is also a problem within the newsroom, said Garber. That has weakened the public’s trust in journalists because many people don’t see their stories represented. “Journalism has been a profession dominated by white men,” said Garber. “I think people now are responding to that narrowness by resenting journalism overall, but I don’t think that’s fair.” Despite that, Garber is excited to see more diversity. “We are getting more and more people into journalism, more and more voices,” she said. Those people are “able to share their own experiences to tell the stories of people whose stories weren’t always told before.”

Nominee seen as threat to abortion rights

Leave a reply

By Myrna Moreno

Phoenix, AZ

After Anthony Kennedy announced in June that he was retiring from the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump made good on his promise to appoint a justice who would uphold conservative values, nominating D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans are thrilled with the opportunity to appoint another conservative justice to the highest court; Democrats, meanwhile, are fearful that Kennedy’s replacement would lean further to the right. But Princeton University politics professors Charles Cameron and Keith Whittington say they do not expect much to change with Kavanaugh on the court.

“The shift in the median is very tiny,” Cameron said. Like four other justices on the court, Kavanaugh is a conservative, originalist judge. Whittington agreed: Observers should not expect huge changes, he said, because the court is exchanging a conservative for another conservative.

Although Kennedy was appointed by a Republican president, he sometimes diverged from the court’s conservative wing, becoming a crucial swing vote. He voted with liberal justices on cases about gay rights, abortion, the death penalty and affirmative action.

Kavanaugh, 53, is more reliably conservative, which means that there will likely be more conservative court decisions. Liberals fear his confirmation could change the balance of the court—tilting it even further to the right—for a generation.

But Whittington said things won’t change too much. Kavanaugh, he said, is very careful with cases that are very controversial, taking “small steps rather than big steps.”

Because conservatives will continue to dominate the Supreme Court, abortion-rights supporters are concerned that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that cemented a woman’s right to get an abortion, might be overturned. Both Cameron and Whittington predict the court will never completely overturn Roe v. Wade, but they both concede the conservative justices could chip away at abortion rights in other ways. Cameron believes that the court might allow greater restrictions on abortion, while Whittington said the justices could undermine the ruling by “nibbling away on the margins.”

Ultimately, Cameron said he doesn’t “think Trump gives a damn about the Supreme Court,” crediting the Federalist Society, which grooms reliably conservative judges and pushes for their installation on the court, with his selection.

Cameron said Kavanaugh is thoughtful, humorous, and articulate. But politically, his appointment fulfills a major conservative priority.

“Kavanaugh,” he said, “is the perfect candidate for Republicans.”

Trump picks Kavanaugh, conservative favorite

Leave a reply

By Evelyn Moradian

Glendale, CA

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump looks like another major victory for the right. If confirmed, Kavanaugh could dramatically affect how the court rules on contentious issues such as abortion, religious liberty, and separation of powers.

During his campaign, Trump promised to nominate conservative judges, and he delivered last year with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. After swing vote Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June, Trump again narrowed his list of possible nominees to several strong conservatives before choosing Kavanaugh, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Charles Cameron, a Princeton University professor of politics and public affairs, said he doesn’t “think Trump gives a damn about the Supreme Court,” but he believes Kavanaugh is the “perfect” Republican candidate, fulfilling everything the party desires. From abortion to labor unions, Kavanaugh’s views are in line with mainstream conservatism. Cameron chalks up Trump’s selection of Kavanaugh to the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers, judges, and scholars that has helped Republicans staff the judiciary.

Cameron believes Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate barring a scandal—a “smoking gun” that discredits the judge. Likewise, Princeton professor Keith Whittington said he’d be “shocked” if Kavanaugh is not confirmed. Whittington, a conservative who opposed Trump in 2016, found Kavanaugh’s nomination to be a “pleasant surprise,” though he doesn’t believe Kavanaugh will significantly change the direction of the Supreme Court. Despite Whittington’s skepticism of Trump’s commitment to conservatism during the campaign, the professor supports Trump’s handling of judicial nominations.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Democrats fear that the Supreme Court will reverse several important decisions—notably Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to an abortion. But both professors argued that the Supreme Court will not overturn that decision outright. Rather, Whittington believes that the court will instead limit abortion by “nibbling away on the margins,” while Cameron said the court will let “the exceptions to the rule destroy the rule.” In other words, although the case may not be overturned, it can be stripped to the point of nothingness.

Roe isn’t the only precedent at risk. Kavanaugh’s nomination could also change how the court approaches presidential power, voting rights, labor, and a host of other issues. But while the nomination fight over Kavanaugh will be heated, Cameron believes it’s only part of a larger picture of polarization.

President draws mixed reviews

Leave a reply

By Oswaldo Vazquez and Matea Toolie

Los Angeles, CA and Savoonga, AK

A crowded night in Princeton served as the perfect setting to gather diverse perspectives on one of the most talked-about Americans today: President Donald Trump. On August 3, reporters from The Princeton Summer Journal asked Princeton residents to name one positive and one negative thing about the president. Some were enthusiastic to give their thoughts, others were uninterested—and their opinions varied.

“Trump is ruining the country. He is an embarrassment,” said Chris Michie when asked his views about the president. Michie, a middle-aged Democrat, thinks that the president’s current policies are “destroying decades of hard work from his predecessors. … He has no respect for the people and is a liar.” When asked if he could identify a positive aspect of Trump, he answered with an emphatic, “no!”

Cornelia O’Grady, a former Republican who no longer supports any party, said she did not quite like Trump, but she appreciated his ability to unite people. She said that Trump “is bringing people together—the people who would not normally be together. He unifies the middle.” She is concerned, however, about the president’s financial conflicts and the corruption in his administration. “He is making money off this country,” she said. “There is evidence that he is selling us out to the Russians. An example of that would be the cyber attacks” on Democrats.

It wasn’t just Americans who had opinions about the president. “He is brave for being a 70-year-old man. Probably one thing I like,” said Cici Zhan, who was visiting from China.

Perplexed, indifferent, or annoyed by the journalists’ questions—or perhaps a combination of all three—a man named Rene Saiguro said frankly: “I don’t know about the politics today. I don’t think anything of it.” As soon as the interview was done, Saiguro was on his way.

Rob and Kristen Holly, two registered Republicans, had positive things to say about Trump. Both commented on the “brave and fearless speeches” the president has given to the public since the start of his political campaign. The couple still had some concerns. “I wish he was not socially awkward. I would like to see a more eloquent president,” said Rob Holly.

The Hollys ultimately agreed that Trump still has a long way to go to become the “ideal president,” further criticizing his colleagues in the White House who don’t have the political experience to run the country properly.