The Reign of Trump

[wautd]

Just because Trump called it terrorism, doesn't mean the Courts will call it terrorism, or that it can be prosecuted as terrorism.

Vandalism? Yes
Destruction of Property? Yes
Terrorism? Probably not

Don't rule out insurance fraud either

[bilateralrope]

Just because Trump called it terrorism, doesn't mean the Courts will call it terrorism, or that it can be prosecuted as terrorism.

Vandalism? Yes
Destruction of Property? Yes
Terrorism? Probably not

Don't rule out insurance fraud either

Leave thinking about that to the insurance companies. Until they do something we find problematic.

[Ralin]

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Establishing that people can vandalize your Tesla and insurance won't cover it because it's a political car will likely affect people's willingness to buy one and eventually damage the value of Musk's Tesla stock.

[bilateralrope]

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Establishing that people can vandalize your Tesla and insurance won't cover it because it's a political car will likely affect people's willingness to buy one and eventually damage the value of Musk's Tesla stock.

But also would cause a reaction from Trump, so insurance companies might be hesitant to go there.


Though they do set their premiums backs on statistics. If a car is more likely to get damaged, its premiums go up automatically. That's going to get interesting when people notice.

[Raw Shark]

The most economical vehicle is the one I can fix myself. As an American, for better or worse, my familiarity as a hobbyist is primarily with Fords. You pretty much have to choose a team between that and Chevy here, there are snarky bumper stickers and everything.

So, I'm a Ford guy. I can do basic stuff on a Ford. Oil or tire change in a raging blizzard, and had to swat a guy in the snow with the tire tool one time. Helpless with anything else. Probably average for a male citizen here. I know basic maintenance on the car I've been dealing with. Totally screwed if that changes.

[bobalot]

Surely the reliability and manufacturing quality issues with Teslas must flow into their insurance costs?

[bilateralrope]

Yes, but that would already be factored in.

Except for cybertrucks. They have been out for less than a year, with all sorts of unpleasant surprises. Anyone who has theirs insured is going to be in for a major price increase when it comes to renew their policy.

[Lost Soal]

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Establishing that people can vandalize your Tesla and insurance won't cover it because it's a political car will likely affect people's willingness to buy one and eventually damage the value of Musk's Tesla stock.

I am fairly sure that the vast majority of Teslas burnt, and specifically the ones the admin are threatening terrorism charges over, are the thousands of unsold Teslas sitting in lots and those at the dealerships.

[Ralin]

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Establishing that people can vandalize your Tesla and insurance won't cover it because it's a political car will likely affect people's willingness to buy one and eventually damage the value of Musk's Tesla stock.

I am fairly sure that the vast majority of Teslas burnt, and specifically the ones the admin are threatening terrorism charges over, are the thousands of unsold Teslas sitting in lots and those at the dealerships.

Whether it is or isn't I've seen a video of someone spray painting a swastika onto one with the owner inside and that sort of thing will likely have an out-sized effect on people's opinions of whether getting one is worth the risks.

[Solauren]

OKay, the 'painting it while the owner is trapped inside' IS terrorism. That was an intimidation tactic.

[Solauren]

.. and in more Trump related news....

Remember how he tried to end/possibly retroactively revoke 'Birthright Citizenship'?

It's at the Supreme Court....

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/17/trump- ... wtab-en-us

What to know about birthright citizenship as it heads to Supreme Court
By Jason Lalljee

President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship is part of his sweeping immigration crackdown. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Supreme Court said on Thursday that it will hear arguments next month over President Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship.

Why it matters: Trump's bid to end the constitutionally guaranteed right for some is the centerpiece of his administration's sweeping immigration crackdown, in which he's already defied the Supreme Court.

State of play: The nation's highest court said it would hear oral arguments over the case on May 15.

Here's what to know:
What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship, as outlined by the Constitution's 14th Amendment, automatically confers citizenship to people born on U.S. soil – regardless of their parents' citizenship status.

There are two types in the U.S.: jus sanguinis, ancestry-based citizenship, and jus soli, birthplace-based citizenship.

In the former, which means "right of blood," children born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to U.S. citizenship, if they meet certain requirements.

Jus soli, on the other hand, is "the right of the soil" guaranteeing citizenship to almost everyone born in the U.S.

Zoom out: Birthright citizenship was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people who were newly freed.

The right was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1890s, cementing birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens.

What is Trump trying to change?

Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office this year, which seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents and undocumented immigrants.

Has anyone fought these efforts?

Trump's executive order was quickly met with legal challenges, which resulted in temporary blocks on the order's enforcement.

Last month, the president asked the Supreme Court to overturn those lower court orders.

How many people would be affected by the order?

In 2018, there were 4.4 million U.S.-born children with at least one parent who is an "unauthorized immigrant," per a Migration Policy Institute analysis.

Congress in 2022 defined unauthorized immigrants as "noncitizens who generally have entered the United States without inspection, overstayed a period of lawful admission, or violated the terms of their admission."

That figure represents most children living with parents who are unauthorized immigrants, 85%.

Has the number of children born to immigrants changed over the years?

In 2021, 21% of U.S. births were attributed to immigrant parents, the same share as in 2000, per child advocacy group Annie E. Casey Foundation. This per­cent­age has fluctuated slightly over the years – rising to 25% in 2006 – but has since dropped back down to its pre­vi­ous level.

Could Trump erase birthright citizenship?

Michael LeRoy, an immigration law expert and professor of labor and employment relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told Axios' Avery Lotz last year that a Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor would have far-reaching legal repercussions.

While LeRoy says he can't predict how the Supreme Court would rule, striking down a "clear provision in an amendment based on an executive order" could have implications for other parts of the Constitution.

"The day might come when a president of a different political party issues an executive order to limit or repeal the Second Amendment," he said. "To be clear, that cannot happen."

He added, "You cannot have an executive order that repeals the right to bear arms, nor can you have an executive order that repeals the birthright citizenship clause."

So, IF the Supreme Court decided that Executive Orders can remove Amendments to the Constitution, doesn't that basically make the Constitution effectively meaningless?

[bilateralrope]

So, IF the Supreme Court decided that Executive Orders can remove Amendments to the Constitution, doesn't that basically make the Constitution effectively meaningless?

Giving the president a lot of power to destroy the Supreme Court.

Hopefully SCOTUS decide to hold onto the power they have.

[bilateralrope]

The DUI hire is at it again

Hegseth Shared Attack Plans In Another Signal Chat… With His Wife, Brother & Lawyer

from the the-family-that-shares-attack-plans-together dept
Mon, Apr 21st 2025 09:20am - Mike Masnick

There’s a certain predictable pattern when unqualified MAGA political appointees get put in charge of highly technical government operations. First, they demonstrate their complete misunderstanding of the systems they’re supposed to oversee. Then, they make a series of increasingly dangerous mistakes. Finally, they try to distract from those mistakes by focusing on culture war issues.

For Pete Hegseth, this pattern has revealed itself pretty quickly.

Last month, when it was revealed that the top echelon of the Trump administration’s national security team were sharing attack plans over an insecure Signal group chat in which The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added, it seemed obvious that this couldn’t be the only such chat. Indeed, a week later it was reported that there were at least twenty similar Signal group chats set up by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz for each crisis he was dealing with.

Not surprisingly, it wasn’t just Waltz who was terribly insecure with national security information. Last night, the NY Times revealed that our least qualified Secretary of Defense ever had also set up a similar Signal chat, in which he also shared extremely sensitive Yemen attack information… with his wife, brother, and personal lawyer.

If this sounds incredibly stupid and dangerous, that’s because it is. But it’s also a perfect example of what happens when you put someone who fundamentally doesn’t understand security in charge of… security. The kind of person who thinks “well, Signal is secure, so I can share whatever I want with whoever I want” is exactly the kind of person who shouldn’t be making decisions about military operations.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen on March 15 in a private Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer, according to four people with knowledge of the chat.

Some of those people said that the information Mr. Hegseth shared on the Signal chat included the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting the Houthis in Yemen — essentially the same attack plans that he shared on a separate Signal chat the same day that mistakenly included the editor of The Atlantic.

Mr. Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, a former Fox News producer, is not a Defense Department employee, but she has traveled with him overseas and drawn criticism for accompanying her husband to sensitive meetings with foreign leaders.

Mr. Hegseth’s brother Phil and Tim Parlatore, who continues to serve as his personal lawyer, both have jobs in the Pentagon, but it is not clear why either would need to know about upcoming military strikes aimed at the Houthis in Yemen.

This is a stunning level of operational security failure that goes beyond mere incompetence — it’s a pattern revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of how secure communications should work.

To say this is bad is an understatement. To say this puts an exclamation point on how ridiculously unqualified Hegseth is would be somewhat more accurate, though it is difficult to describe just how fucked up this truly is. It absolutely suggests that Hegseth has a horrifically bad understanding of what his job is and how to keep important information secret.

He shouldn’t be sharing attack plans outside of a secure communications channel. He shouldn’t be sharing attack plans with those not within the National Security realm. He certainly shouldn’t be sharing attack plans with his wife who is not even in the government and whose experience is as a TV news producer.

With Goldberg, the administration tried to misleadingly brush it off as “well, we all accidentally text someone we shouldn’t.” That’s not a good excuse, of course, because this isn’t about accidentally texting someone, it was about sharing sensitive, classified info, on an unsecure channel.

But this is even worse. Because rather than “accidentally” adding someone who shouldn’t be in the chat, here, Hegseth appears to have deliberately added these people. Indeed, it sounds like there were even more people “from his personal circle” in the chat… and it was on his personal phone, not a government one, meaning it is almost certainly a compromised device.

Unlike the chat in which The Atlantic was mistakenly included, the newly revealed one was created by Mr. Hegseth. It included his wife and about a dozen other people from his personal and professional inner circle in January, before his confirmation as defense secretary, and was named “Defense | Team Huddle,” the people familiar with the chat said. He used his private phone, rather than his government one, to access the Signal chat.

Among those included in the chat… two of the folks from Hegseth’s inner circle who were fired just last week for leaking:

The chat also included two senior advisers to Mr. Hegseth — Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick — who were accused of leaking unauthorized information last week and were fired.

Seems super secure.

The Times article also notes that Hegseth had been warned “a day or two before the Yemen strikes not to discuss such sensitive operational details in his Signal group chat.” Of course, that suggests that a ton of people who worked with Hegseth knew full well that he had a habit of regularly sharing information he shouldn’t be sharing in Signal chats. Otherwise why warn him that he shouldn’t share details of the Yemen strike plan?

The story gets even dumber. Remember John Ullyot? One of Hegseth’s first hires at the Defense Department, the guy who proudly led the charge in “removing DEI” and managed to bungle that so badly they ended up accidentally erasing Jackie Robinson from military history? Well, he just quit as Pentagon spokesman and published a tell-all in Politico about how fucked up everything is there.

Upon leaving the Defense Department, he told Newsweek: “I remain one of the secretary’s strongest supporters going forward.”

If that quote makes you raise an eyebrow, well, just wait until you see what “one of the secretary’s strongest supporters” actually wrote. His Politico piece basically screams “Trump needs to fire this guy”:

President Donald Trump has a strong record of holding his top officials to account. Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.

Then we get a month-by-month catalog of incompetence… from, he claims, one of Hegseth’s “strongest supporters”:

First there was Signalgate, where the secretary shared detailed operational plans, including timelines and specifics, about an impending military strike on the Houthis in Yemen over an unclassified Signal chat group that happened to include a member of the news media.

Once the Signalgate story broke, Hegseth followed horrible crisis-communications advice from his new public affairs team, who somehow convinced him to try to debunk the reporting through a vague, Clinton-esque non-denial denial that “nobody was texting war plans.” This was a violation of PR rule number one — get the bad news out right away.

His nebulous disavowal prompted the reporter, Jeffrey Goldberg, to release Hegseth’s full chat string with the detailed operational plans two days later, turning an already-big story into a multi-week embarrassment for the president’s national security team. Hegseth now faces an inspector general investigation into a possible leak of classified information and violation of records retention protocols.

That was just the beginning of the Month from Hell. The Wall Street Journal and other outlets reported that Hegseth “brought his wife, a former Fox News producer, to two meetings with foreign military counterparts where sensitive information was discussed.”

Next, the Pentagon set up a top-secret briefing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on China for Elon Musk, who still has extensive business interests in China. After learning about it, the White House canceled that meeting.

He also claims that the firings last week weren’t actually over leaks, but over other reasons, and bemoans: “Unfortunately, Hegseth’s team has developed a habit of spreading flat-out, easily debunked falsehoods anonymously about their colleagues on their way out the door.”

Which is a fascinating accusation coming from someone who just went out the door.

And just to put a cherry on top of this chaos sundae, Ullyot warns that there are “even bigger bombshell stories coming this week.” Because of course there are. When your Defense Secretary is sharing military strike plans with his wife over Signal, there’s always another shoe waiting to drop.

This is what happens when you place unqualified loyalists in positions requiring technical competence and security expertise. The problems go far beyond just operational security — they extend to a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works, how information should be protected, and the proper channels for sensitive communications.

Hegseth, for his part, is trying to tweet through it, attempting (and failing) to turn the story of his gross incompetence and putting the American military at risk into one about DEI:

<snip tweet>

Of course, as law reporter Chris Geidner notes, this tweet alone appears to be Hegseth admitting that he’s violating a court order from last month, which blocked Hegseth’s ban on trans people serving in the military. And literally on Friday, just two days before Hegseth tweeted that trans people were banned from the military, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction against the ban.

Even worse, the DOJ in arguing that case had said directly to the court that Hegseth’s policy did “not discriminate against transgender people,” but rather only a subset, which the DOD defines as those “who have or have had gender dysphoria.” Indeed, the DOJ harped on the claim that the policy “scrupulously avoids using the word ‘transgender.’”

So, for him to now just tweet out that “trans” people are no longer allowed at DoD not only appears to violate the court order (upheld by an appeals court) blocking such a policy, but it undermines the (already laughable) claim that it wasn’t a “trans” ban in the first place.

This morning, Hegseth blamed the whole thing on the media (naturally) and “disgruntled former employees.” Trump echoed that claim, saying “I guess it sounds like disgruntled employees. You know, he was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people.”

Of course, this leaves out that the “bad people” Hegseth got rid of in the last few weeks were all in his inner circle of close advisors and were people he, himself, had hired.

The pattern here is unmistakable: an administration that simultaneously doesn’t understand technology while using it recklessly, doesn’t respect legal constraints, and attempts to distract from its failures by focusing on culture war issues. This is government incompetence taken to a dangerous new level.

In short, Hegseth is beyond incompetent and unqualified. He has put everyone in danger. His own “strongest supporters” are calling for him to be removed, his inner circle are being removed from the Pentagon for unclear reasons, he’s sharing attack plans with his wife and others on his personal phone using unsecured communications channels.

And his response is to tweet in a manner that not only shows he’s violating a court order, but undermines the argument he made in court.

This isn’t about policy disagreements. This is about just basic competence — or lack thereof. Hegseth never should have been nominated for the job, and every second he remains in it puts American national security in greater and greater peril.

But he's not the only one with an embarrassing security failure:

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s bag, including $3,000 in cash, is stolen from DC restaurant

By Josh Campbell and Kit Maher, CNN
2 minute read
Updated 10:29 PM EDT, Mon April 21, 2025

CNN
—
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem fell victim to a thief while eating dinner at a downtown Washington, DC, restaurant Sunday night, the secretary confirmed Monday.

Noem, who was asked about the theft at the White House Easter Egg Roll, acknowledged the incident and said the matter has not been resolved.

The Secret Service, which provides security for Noem, reviewed security camera footage at the Capital Burger restaurant and saw an unknown White male wearing a medical mask steal her bag and leave the restaurant, a law enforcement source said.

The thief got away with Noem’s driver’s license, medication, apartment keys, passport, DHS access badge, makeup bag, blank checks, and about $3,000 in cash.

The Secret Service has launched an investigation to trace any use of Noem’s financial instruments, the person added.

“Her entire family was in town including her children and grandchildren – she was using the withdrawal to treat her family to dinner, activities, and Easter gifts,” a DHS spokesperson said.

Law enforcement experts have raised concerns about whether the incident, which involved a thief getting so close to a Cabinet official and then absconding with her belongings, may have been a lapse in security.

“This is a security breach that actually has high consequences, and it needs immediate and further review by the Secret Service and DHS, and other law enforcement partners,” said Jonathan Wackrow, a CNN law enforcement analyst and former Secret Service agent.

“If necessary, the Secret Service will need to make operational changes on how they deal with these types of private events moving forward,” Wackrow told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source.”

He added that Noem remains “at higher risk for targeted threats, both by foreign and domestic actors, and just her public profile alone makes her a symbolic target.”

Isn't the Secret Service meant to stop anyone getting close enough to do this ?

Why did she have $3000 in cash ?

[LadyTevar]

That last bit is what I'm wondering. Who the fuck carries around $3000 IN CASH?
"Oh, I was taking the family out to eat, and then to buy Easter Gifts!"
Bitch, where the fuck are you eating that it will cost even $1000 for your family to eat, and what kinda gifts are you buying that would cost another $2000?

[Solauren]

That last bit is what I'm wondering. Who the fuck carries around $3000 IN CASH?
"Oh, I was taking the family out to eat, and then to buy Easter Gifts!"
Bitch, where the fuck are you eating that it will cost even $1000 for your family to eat, and what kinda gifts are you buying that would cost another $2000?

To be fair, I've dropped more then that at Toy Conventions, and I've seen people spend more then that on high end gifts (in total) for family members.

Of course, Toy Conventions are usually cash only due to problem of setting up interac and the like there. (That's changing with Apple Pay and the like).
High End gifts were usually on debit or credit cards.

[LadyTevar]

That last bit is what I'm wondering. Who the fuck carries around $3000 IN CASH?
"Oh, I was taking the family out to eat, and then to buy Easter Gifts!"
Bitch, where the fuck are you eating that it will cost even $1000 for your family to eat, and what kinda gifts are you buying that would cost another $2000?

To be fair, I've dropped more then that at Toy Conventions, and I've seen people spend more then that on high end gifts (in total) for family members.

Of course, Toy Conventions are usually cash only due to problem of setting up interac and the like there. (That's changing with Apple Pay and the like).
High End gifts were usually on debit or credit cards.

Ok. Point.
As someone who just does make $1000/month, that's a lot of money to be carrying about carelessly.

[Solauren]

Agreed. Some of that stuff should have been in a wallet in her pocket or something.

[Ralin]

Has it occurred to you that maybe she just enjoys having that much money on her?

[Solauren]

That's a possibility.

However, wouldn't some of those high end credit cards be more impressive?

[Ralin]

Ain't no rule says she can't have both.

[bilateralrope]

That's a possibility.

However, wouldn't some of those high end credit cards be more impressive?

Only if she qualifies for one.

[Solauren]

That's a possibility.

However, wouldn't some of those high end credit cards be more impressive?

Only if she qualifies for one.

Who said anything about qualifying? Just get a fake one to put in your wallet. So long as you don't try to use it, no one would know.

[Solauren]

FBI arrests Wisconsin Judge Dugan for obstruction, escalates Trump immigration enforcement effort

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/25/fbi-arr ... wtab-en-us

Federal agents arrested a Wisconsin judge on Friday after she allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant evade arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel said.

Patel announced in an X post that Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstruction for allegedly assisting Eduardo Flores Ruiz in avoiding arrest after he appeared in her courtroom last week.

A U.S. Marshals Service spokeswoman confirmed to CNBC that Dugan was arrested at about 8:30 a.m. local time on courthouse property.

Dugan is in custody pending her planned presentment later Friday in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee on the obstruction charge, a senior law enforcement official told NBC News.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Carl Ashley told NBC that the judicial code of conduct restricts him from commenting on the matter, but said Dugan’s court calendar “will be covered by another judge as needed.”



The arrest of a judge marks a sharp escalation in the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S.

Patel in his tweet wrote that the FBI believes Dugan “intentionally misdirected federal agents away” from Ruiz as agents were attempting to arrest him at her courthouse.

“Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public,” Patel said in the post.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Tuesday that the FBI was looking into Dugan’s conduct surrounding an attempted arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at her courthouse on April 18.

ICE agents have previously arrested people in the courthouse hallways in March and April, according to the Journal Sentinel.

ICE did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment. A person who answered a call to Dugan’s chambers declined to comment.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement to NBC, “The days of actively aiding and abetting illegal aliens invading our country are over.”

The Trump administration will never waver on putting Americans and America First with a no-nonsense approach to immigration enforcement. In this administration, anyone who commits crimes exposes themselves to criminal liability,” Desai said.

[bilateralrope]

I wonder how they are going to fuck up this attempt at a prosecution.

[bilateralrope]

Judge says 2-year-old US citizen appears to have been deported with ‘no meaningful process’

The girl was deported Friday with her mother to Honduras, despite her father’s efforts to keep her in the United States.

By Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein

04/25/2025 08:05 PM EDT

Updated: 04/26/2025 07:32 PM EDT

A federal judge is raising alarms that the Trump administration deported a two-year-old U.S. citizen to Honduras with “no meaningful process,” even as the child’s father was frantically petitioning the courts to keep her in the country.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, said the child — identified in court papers by the initials “V.M.L.” — appeared to have been released in Honduras earlier Friday, along with her Honduran-born mother and sister, who had been detained by immigration officials earlier in the week.

The judge on Friday scheduled a hearing for May 16, which he said was “in the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.”

The child, whose redacted U.S. birth certificate was filed in court and showed she was born in New Orleans in 2023, had been with her mother and sister during a regular immigration check-in at the New Orleans office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday. Officials there detained them and queued them up for deportation.

Trump administration officials said in court that the mother told ICE officials that she wished to take V.M.L. with her to Honduras. The filing included a handwritten note in Spanish they claimed was written by the mother and confirmed her intent. But the judge said he had hoped to verify that information.

“The Government contends that this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her,” Doughty wrote. “But the Court doesn’t know that.”

“This parent made the decision to take the child with them to Honduras. It is common that parents want to be removed with their children,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with someone the parent designates. In this case, the parent stated they wanted to be removed with the children.”

“We take our responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to ensure that children are safe and protected,” she added.

The court battle ignited Thursday, when lawyers for the family filed an emergency petition in the Western District of Louisiana seeking V.M.L.’s immediate release from ICE custody and a declaration that the girl’s detention had been unlawful. The petition was filed under the name of Trish Mack, who the lawyers indicated had been asked by V.M.L.’s father to act as the child’s custodian and take her home from ICE custody.

Lawyers for the guardian told the court that V.M.L.’s father had been attempting to contact the girl’s mother to discuss plans for their child but ICE officials denied him the chance to have a substantive phone call. He says ICE allowed the two to speak for about one minute on Tuesday, while the mother was in ICE custody, but that they were unable to make any meaningful decisions about their child.

As a U.S. citizen, V.M.L. is likely to have the ability to return to the United States, setting her case apart from others that have drawn national attention in recent weeks, such as the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Salvadoran native was deported to a prison in his home country in violation of a 2019 immigration court order. But the Louisiana case is the latest concern by the courts that the Trump administration’s rush to carry out deportations is violating due process rights — in this case, the rights of a U.S. citizen child.

Doughty said he attempted to investigate the emergency matter himself on Friday, seeking to get V.M.L.’s mother on the phone to determine whether ICE’s representation about her desire to bring V.M.L. to Honduras was accurate. The judge said he was “independently aware” that the plane he believed was carrying the family was already “above the Gulf of America.”

Trump administration lawyers called the judge back Friday afternoon and said a phone call with the mother would not be possible “because she (and presumably VML) had just been released in Honduras,” Doughty wrote. Doughty then scheduled the May hearing.

Doughty is based in Monroe, Louisiana, about 100 miles north of the staging facility in Alexandria where lawyers who filed the petition said they believed the mother and her daughters were being held prior to their deportation.

Doughty’s sharp criticism of the Trump administration is particularly notable because he issued a series of major decisions in favor of Trump and his allies in recent years, most notably backing conservatives in legal challenges to the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in what it claimed was misinformation on social media platforms about vaccines and certain politically charged topics.

Indeed, some conservatives considered Doughty so likely to be in their camp that they filed lawsuits in his judicial division in order to have a strong chance the cases would be assigned to him.

Even as Doughty made clear that he was disturbed by the government’s actions, in his order Friday the judge seemed to tip his hat to the president, adopting the term “Gulf of America” for the body of water traditionally known as the Gulf of Mexico.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

If that handwritten note really is from the mother, that would mean that ICE knew there was a disagreement between the parents about where the girl should go. Whatever the due process is for those custody disputes, they skipped it for a US citizen. Probably because the courts lose a lot of power in international custody disputes when the child is taken out of the country.

But I'll be very surprised if the note is genuine.