ICE arrests fall after Minneapolis killings, shake-up



ICE agents in the street

At the peak of the crackdown, carloads of masked immigration officers were a common sight in the streets of Minneapolis, while thousands of people were being arrested every week in Texas, Florida and California.

“Turn and burn,” top Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino called the strategy, with relentless displays of force and teams of agents descending on restaurant kitchens, bus stops and Home Depot parking lots.

In December, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents peaked at nearly 40,000 nationwide and were nearly as high the next month, according to data provided to UC Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project and analyzed by The Associated Press.

In late January, the killings in Minneapolis of two American citizens by immigration officers and growing concerns over the government’s heavy-handed tactics led to a shake-up of top immigration officials. In the weeks that followed, ICE arrests across the country dropped on average by nearly 12 percent.

Polling has found the general public felt the immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota went too far, a factor that may have contributed to the abrupt firing of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in early March.

The numbers don't follow the same pattern everywhere

Bovino, who swaggered through raid scenes in tactical gear and was the public face of the Trump administration crackdown, was pushed aside following the killings in Minneapolis of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Border czar Tom Homan was then sent to the Twin Cities to chart a new course for immigration enforcement, and he announced the drawdown of immigration agents in the state on Feb. 4.

An AP analysis of ICE arrest records show the department averaged 7,369 weekly arrests nationwide in the five weeks after Homan’s drawdown announcement, , the most recent period for which data is available, down from 8,347 per week in the previous five weeks. Those arrest numbers were still higher on average than during much of the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, and were dramatically higher than during the Biden administration.

The numbers were not, however, uniform across the country.

ICE arrests rose significantly in Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina and Florida during those five weeks, in some cases hitting their highest weekly count since the start of Trump’s second term.. In Kentucky alone, weekly arrests more than doubled, reaching 86 by early March.

Those increases were offset by steep drops in a handful of large states, including Minnesota and Texas.

Many arrested were not Trump's ‘worst of the worst’

The Trump administration insists it is targeting the most vicious criminals living illegally in the U.S., and the president has referred to them as “ the worst of the worst.”

In some cases the description is accurate, but the reality is complicated.

Many of the toughest criminals taken into ICE custody were already in prison, but many others who were arrested have no criminal history.

Nationally, some 46 percent of the people ICE arrested in the five weeks before Feb. 4 had no criminal charges or convictions, dropping to 41 percent in the five weeks that followed.

Yet that’s still above the 35 percent weekly average for the time since Trump returned to office. And in a number of states, even after Feb. 4, the share of noncriminals being arrested went up, not down.

Has there been a change in approach?

Across the country, thousands of federal court filings offer an imperfect window into how the Trump administration’s deportation tactics remain in high gear, even if activity has waned.

Like the 21-year-old Honduran man with no criminal record who has filed a petition for release after being arrested Feb. 22 in a suburban San Diego traffic stop. The father of three U.S. citizen children — ages 5, 3 and 10 months — had been under ICE surveillance, the petition says, before officers in tactical gear pulled him over.

Or the 33-year-old Venezuelan woman, a well-known South Texas doctor who worked in a region designated as medically underserved, who was arrested earlier this month with her five-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen, on her way to her husband’s asylum hearing.

She was arrested, officials said, for overstaying her visa.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the research and advocacy group the American Immigration Council, says he sees signs of change in lower arrest and detention numbers but warns it’s too early to know if those shifts are permanent.

“The Trump administration says: ‘We’re not slowing down,’ ‘Nothing has changed,’” in immigration enforcement, he said. “But it’s very clear that they have pulled back from some of the tactics of Operation Metro Surge,” the crackdown that swept Minneapolis.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Lululemon clothing is being investigated for PFAS.Credit: winhorse / Getty Images
Lululemon clothing is being investigated for PFAS.
Credit: winhorse / Getty Images
  • The Texas attorney general is investigating whether Lululemon clothing contains PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals.”
  • PFAS are widely used for stain- and water-resistant products, but their long-term health effects are still not fully understood.
  • Experts say exposure from clothing is likely low, but there are some signs to tell if your clothes contain PFAS.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Monday that his office is launching an investigation into whether clothing from the athleisure brand Lululemon contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), long-lasting compounds commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” The investigation has thrust these chemicals—linked to a range of negative health outcomes and used in a variety of products—into the spotlight. Here’s what to know about the Lululemon probe, PFAS, and what it could mean for your health if these compounds are lurking in your clothing.

What's the Investigation About, Exactly?

According to a press release from Paxton’s office, the investigation will examine whether Lululemon’s clothing contains PFAS "that their health-conscious customers would not expect based on the brand’s marketing.” The office “will also review the company’s Restricted Substances List, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether Lululemon’s products comply with its stated safety standards,” the release continued.

Per the release, the allegations stem from "emerging research and consumer concerns."

Lululemon, meanwhile, denied using PFAS in its apparel, which includes leggings, workout tops, and casual athleisure wear. In an email to Health, a company spokesperson said: 

"The company phased out the substance in FY23, which had been used in durable water repellent products, a small percentage of our assortment. The health and safety of our guests is paramount, and our products meet or exceed global regulatory, safety, and quality standards. We require all our vendors to regularly conduct testing for restricted substances, including PFAS, by credible third-party agencies to confirm ongoing compliance.”

What Are PFAS?

PFAS is an umbrella term for a class of chemical compounds used in a wide range of everyday products, including furniture, carpets, paint, food packaging, and clothing. They’re often added to fabrics for their stain-resistant or water-repellant properties, said Alex LeBeau, Ph.D., MPH, CIH, a toxicologist, certified industrial hygienist, and owner of Exposure Consulting in Orlando, Florida.

These compounds—which number in the thousands—have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily and have been discovered in soil, air, water, and in animals. They’ve been found in humans, too. Nearly everyone in the U.S. has measurable amounts of PFAS in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

How Harmful Are PFAS?

Scientists still don’t fully know how PFAS affect human health. The chemicals can be particularly challenging to study because the category includes thousands of compounds, products contain varying levels, and exposure can come from many sources.

Two of the most widely studied PFAS—PFOS and PFOA—were phased out in the U.S. in the 2010s, LeBeau said. Those long-chain PFAS, which tend to accumulate in the body and stick around for longer, were largely replaced with short-chain alternatives, which are thought to be less bioaccumulative but may still raise health concerns.

Much of the research into PFAS has focused on what happens when people ingest them through water or food. A 2025 study found a link between PFAS in drinking water and increased incidence of digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and oral cancers. Still, LeBeau said that overall, “the health impacts are still up for debate in the scientific community.” Many human studies have produced mixed results, and much of the existing research has been conducted in animals.  

While it’s possible for PFAS to be absorbed through the skin from clothing, LeBeau said it’s not considered as concerning as ingesting the chemicals. “Dermal PFAS uptake does not appear to be a concerning PFAS exposure route into the body,” he said. “Limited animal studies have suggested that PFAS may permeate the skin, but skin impact may also depend on the PFAS chemical form.”

How to Know If Your Clothing Contains PFAS

There is no federal law requiring clothing manufacturers to stop using PFAS or disclose whether their products contain them. Although, some states have banned their use in apparel and other products, and many well-known brands have said they are voluntarily phasing them out—including Lululemon. 

While LeBeau said people should be most concerned about PFAS in their food and water, it's understandable to want to avoid potentially harmful chemicals altogether. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell whether clothing contains PFAS—but there are a few clues.

One is if a garment is labeled as being made with GORE-TEX or Teflon, both of which are PFAS-based materials. Clothing marketed as moisture-wicking, waterproof or water-repellant, or stain-resistant is also more likely to contain PFAS. It’s also a good sign if a brand explicitly labels a product or line as PFAS-free and that claim has been verified through third-party testing.



Source link