Tag: marco rubio
Marco Rubio

Rubio Admits Immigrants Were Jailed For Political Speech

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now plainly saying that President Donald Trump's administration is targeting immigrants for detention and deportation if they support the wrong causes.

In the wake of this week's arrest of Tufts University graduate student Rumesya Ozturk (who was in the United States legally on an F-1 visa until it was revoked), mass protests have been taking place in the Boston, Massachusetts suburb of Somerville, attracting thousands of supporters. Ozturk co-authored an op-ed last year in the Tufts Daily calling on her school to divest its endowment from Israel due to its killing of Palestinian civilians.

Ozturk was on her way to meet friends to break her Ramadan fast when multiple masked agents with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apprehended her on the sidewalk and put her in an unmarked vehicle. She's now in federal custody in Louisiana awaiting deportation proceedings despite a judge ordering the administration to keep her in Massachusetts.

ABC News reported Thursday that Rubio defended the administration's detention of Ozturk and other noncitizens by arguing he had the absolute right to revoke any visa for any immigrant — even if only for their political speech.

"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa," Rubio said during a Thursday press conference. "If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus -- we're not going to give you a visa."

"If you lie to us and get a visa and then enter the United States, and with that visa, participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa," he added. "And once you've lost your visa, you're no longer legally in the United States. And we have a right, like every country in the world has a right, to remove you from our country. So it's just that simple."

Ozturk is just the latest noncitizen to be singled out by the Trump administration for deportation due to her pro-Palestinian activism. Her arrest comes on the heels of the DHS arresting Dr. Badar Khan Suri — a postgraduate student at Georgetown University who was in the U.S. legally on a student visa — at his Virginia home last week. Suri's attorney argued his arrest was due to his activism for pro-Palestinian causes. Trump's DHS also recently arrested 21 year-old green card holder and Columbia University student Yunseo Chung, who has been in the U.S. since she was seven years old. Assistant U.S. attorney Perry Carbone said the administration aimed to revoke her legal permanent residency "due to the situation with the protesting."

The Trump administration is also attempting to deport Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who was a central figure in last year's pro-Palestine protests on the Ivy League school's campus. Khalil, who is married to a U.S. citizen, was arrested and placed in deportation proceedings without being formally charged with a crime. The administration has argued that it has the right to do so under a statute that deems any noncitizen whose presence could present a threat to a president's foreign policy can be deported. Khalil's attorney counters that his client's potential deportation is in retaliation for his activism.

Former American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen told Reason magazine earlier this month that while noncitizens — including undocumented immigrants — have the same First Amendment rights as citizens with regard to civil and criminal issues, those rights are less clear when it pertains to the deportation process. According to the New York Times' German Lopez: "The federal government has nearly absolute power over immigration, including its ability to deport noncitizens; it gets to decide who comes and then stays in this country, potentially at the expense of constitutional rights."

Senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller said last year that he aimed to ramp up deportation of immigrants based on their political views. During a speech to National Rifle Association activists in February of 2024, he said the second Trump administration would target "people who were let in on visas but whose views, attitudes, and beliefs make them ineligible to stay in the country." Trump also told campaign donors during a May 2024 meeting that he would prioritize the deportation of immigrants who protested for pro-Palestinian causes. And the Washington Post reported this week that the Trump administration is now ordering colleges to give them the names and nationalities of noncitizen student protesters.

"One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country," Trump said. "You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Pete Hegseth

Bone Stupid: Trump Officials Leaked Military Secrets On Phone App

Democrats are aghast after the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic reported that he was accidentally added to an unsecure text chain in which Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and multiple other top national security and Trump administration officials discussed planning a military strike in Yemen.

The Trump administration says the text chain—in which the officials were discussing not only whether to strike the Iran-backed Houthi rebel group, but how and when they would do it—is authentic. They are looking into how Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the thread.

But the fact that the Trump administration officials were discussing classified and highly sensitive military plans on a messaging app is the real problem.

Goldberg reported that Hegseth was discussing information that, “could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility.”

He also reported that multiple national security lawyers said Waltz “may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of ‘national defense’ information.”

From Goldberg’s report:

All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.

And on top of that, Goldberg reported that by using an app like Signal—where texts are set to disappear—the Trump officials could also have been violating federal record laws.

“If you read one article today, make it this one,” Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) wrote in a post on X of Goldberg’s report. “Total incompetence, yet again. And putting our national security at great risk.”

Democrats are now demanding information and threatening to launch investigations.

“Only one word for this: FUBAR,” Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), who served as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq, wrote in a post on Bluesky, referring to the military slang term to describe something as “Fucked Up Beyond All Repair.” “If House Republicans won’t hold a hearing on how this happened IMMEDIATELY, I’ll do it my damn self.”

Only one word for this: FUBAR. If House Republicans won’t hold a hearing on how this happened IMMEDIATELY, I’ll do it my damn self.

[image or embed]

— Pat Ryan (@pkryan.bsky.social) March 24, 2025 at 5:11 PM

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA) also said he will demand an investigation.

This article completely exposes the Trump Administration's incompetent and irresponsible methods of handling our national security.

[image or embed]

— Rep. Salud Carbajal (@carbajal.house.gov) March 24, 2025 at 5:30 PM

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who lost both of her legs while serving in Iraq, was aghast at the recklessness of the Trump administration officials.

Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in history, is demonstrating his incompetence by literally leaking classified war plans in the group chat... Hegseth and Trump are making our country less safe.

[image or embed]

— Tammy Duckworth (@duckworth.senate.gov) March 24, 2025 at 7:54 PM

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said, “Every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime – even if accidentally – that would normally involve a jail sentence.”

And Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) connected the incompetence of the Trump administration’s national security officials to the Trump giving co-President Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency bros access to Americans’ personal information.

“The Trump Administration, which just committed one of the biggest and most incompetent national security breaches in history, is also giving Elon Musk and his team of unvetted lackeys access to every American's personal information,” Beyer wrote, putting in stark terms just how much trouble we all are in with these fools leading the federal government.

Ultimately, there is so much irony to this story.

First, almost every member of that chain criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, citing national security concerns.

“Talk about a DOUBLE STANDARD: Biden’s sitting National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sent top secret emails to Hillary Clinton’s private account and the DOJ didn't do a DAMN THING about it,” Waltz—who is responsible for adding Goldberg to the text chain in which they were recklessly discussing military operations—said in a 2023 appearance on Fox News. “No wonder Americans are losing faith in our justice system.”

“Seems like every day there are new revelations on how Hillary's private email server put national security at risk,” Rubio wrote in a 2016 tweet.

"Hillary Clinton put some of the highest, most sensitive intelligence information on her private server because maybe she thinks she's above the law, or maybe she just wanted the convenience of being able to read it on her Blackberry,” Rubio also said at a campaign event for his failed presidential bid in January 2016. “This is unacceptable."

Even more ironic is that just last week, Hegseth reported that the Department of Defense was going to be investigating who leaked his plan to brief co-President Elon Musk on the United States' plans for war with China—another thing that makes Americans less safe as there is no reason Musk should be privy to that information.

Given that Hegseth is discussing confidential military plans via Signal, maybe he should look in the mirror for why that information leaked.

Worst of all, as Democrats lambast the Trump administration officials and call for investigations, Republicans have been virtually silent—even though they would be screaming to the heavens if a Democratic administration had done anything even remotely similar.

As of press time, few Republican lawmakers have commented. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) posted on X, “Classified information should not be transmitted on unsecured channels—and certainly not to those without security clearances, including reporters. Period. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure this never happens again.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told Semafor’s Burgess Everett that it, “Sounds like a huge screw up. I mean, is there any other way to describe it?”

We can guarantee that Cornyn would’ve had much stronger words if it had been Biden administration officials doing the same.

And Trump himself used the age-old excuse that he hadn’t heard the news in order to avoid commenting on it.

“I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. ...You're telling me about it for the first time,” Trump told reporters on Monday.

If the commander in chief did not yet know about the fact that his top aides were putting the country at risk by discussing military operations via text message, then that’s a scandal in and of itself.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Why The Trump War Plans Leak Is So Much Worse Than What Hillary Did

Why The Trump War Plans Leak Is So Much Worse Than What Hillary Did

Even in a political environment marked by daily scandal and outrage, the revelation of a reckless and stupid security breach by Trump’s top cabinet members exploded yesterday. The potentially catastrophic leak of a top-secret military operation showed why President Trump’s cabinet choices were so dangerous – as many seasoned experts warned when he named them. Only by sheer luck was a disaster avoided.

It was a simple but stunning story: The Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, as reported by him and his staff, had been included by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz in a supposedly secret mid-March group text chat -- along with Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and more than a dozen other high-ranking officials. A Pentagon spokesman confirmed that the chat, convened on the encrypted app Signal, was authentic.

The chat messages conveyed highly sensitive military and diplomatic information, including “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” that occurred two hours after he received a message on March 15.

Hegseth’s feeble attempt to deny that any “war plans” had been disclosed can only be added to the long roster of lies from him and other administration officials. A former Fox News personality and the target of numerous warnings against his arrogance, drunkenness, and inexperience before his confirmation, the defense secretary ironically assured the group chat that “We are currently clean on OPSEC" -- the military acronym for operational security.

“Under the previous administration, we looked like fools,” Hegseth recently boasted. “Not anymore.” Hegseth, Waltz, and the rest of the participants in those fateful discussions should soon become subjects of a national security investigation, during which they will presumably be wired up to polygraph machines, just as Hegseth has sternly prescribed for all suspected Pentagon leakers.

As soon as she read the news, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to social media. “You’ve got to be kidding me,” quipped the irrepressible Democrat, daring her critics to bring up the old matter of “her emails” and the alleged scandal that probably cost her the presidency in 2016.

Despite Republican bleats of indignation, and angry posts urging her to “sit down” or worse, it is instructive to contrast what Hegseth and company did with Clinton’s own exhaustively investigated actions.

As reported in this space three years ago – and confirmed in a subsequent investigation by Washington Post reporter and fact-checker Glenn Kessler – Clinton actually disclosed no classified information in those fabled emails or her home server. Her innocence was confirmed not only by the Justice Department and the FBI (under Republican James Comey, who sank her campaign with his own unethical conduct), but in two subsequent State Department probes during the first Trump administration.

Among the Clinton emails that Comey used to tar her before the election, none disclosed national security information or were classified before she sent them. A typical example was a message from an aide, reminding her to send a condolence note to the president of Malawi.

Such innocuous and outdated information contrasts sharply with the real-time disclosure of a bombing mission which, if exposed, could jeopardize its success and the lives of the pilots and other military and intelligence personnel.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, described the Signal chat as “one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen.”

Joining many other Democrats and some dismayed Republicans, as well as a platoon of retired military and defense experts, Reed said, “Military operations need to be handled with utmost discretion, using approved, secure lines of communication, because American lives are on the line. The carelessness shown by President Trump’s Cabinet is stunning and dangerous.”

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), an Army veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, offered an even more pithy reaction. “If House Republicans won’t hold a hearing on how this happened IMMEDIATELY, I’ll do it my damn self,” he wrote on X. “Only one word for this: FUBAR,” a military acronym that means “fucked up beyond all recognition.”

Which aptly expresses the condition of American national security under Donald Trump and his incompetent and highly suspect minions.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. He is the author of several books, including The Raw Deal: How The Bush Republicans Plan To Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Enablers?

Where Would Trump Be Without His Spineless Enablers?

It's amazing how men who prided themselves on strength and toughness will submit to a gangster.

In 2022, after Russian tanks rolled across an international border into Ukraine and missiles pierced the quiet of cities like Kharkiv and Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earned worldwide acclaim for his courage and heroism. No one was more pro-Ukrainian than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who exulted in an arrest warrant the Russians had issued against him:

"I will wear the arrest warrant issued by Putin's corrupt and immoral government as a Badge of Honor."

Last Friday, after mad king Donald and his scheming viceroy, JD Vance, performed a tag-team ambush on Zelensky in the Oval Office, Graham sounded a different note. "Somebody asked me if I was embarrassed about President Trump. I have never been more proud of the president. I was very proud of JD Vance for standing up for our country."

Disgusting. A politician whose identity was forged as a hawk and staunch defender of liberty and democracy now praises the most powerful man in the world for sandbagging the beleaguered leader of a bleeding ally, a victim of aggression? That's standing up for America?

Ditto Marco Rubio, that gelding who has likewise transformed himself from a champion of freedom into an obedient toady to the man whose project is to destroy the Western alliance.

We live in an upside-down world where the far greater man, Zelenskyy, is being hounded to apologize to the gangster who behaved abominably.

Consider that even before the Oval Office debacle, Trump and his team had been grossly disrespectful and abusive toward Zelensky and Ukraine. Trump called him a "dictator" (though he declined to say as much about Putin). Trump then repeated Putin's propaganda that Ukraine, not Russia, had started the war. Vance told a European audience that he feared "the threat from within" far more than Russia or China. And then Trump proposed a "deal" that amounted to extortion, demanding the right to mine rare earth elements (which Trump called "raw earths") on Ukrainian soil in return for ... nothing. It was a shakedown. As Trump unguardedly admitted when he lost his temper, he regards Ukraine as a target for extortion because they "don't have any cards."

It was the most shameful moment in American history in at least a century, and a special shame attaches to the explainer class of analysts who, without even the excuse of fearing voters, perform pirouettes on their principles.

Marc Thiessen used his perch as a Washington Post columnist to excoriate not Trump for this blatant betrayal of 80 years of American world leadership but Zelensky.

As recently as June 2023, Thiessen had seen his role differently — that of guide to help MAGA types remain on the side of Ukraine. He outlined an "America First Case for Supporting Ukraine." But now, when the leader has pivoted, so has Thiessen. "The blowup was Zelensky's fault," he wrote. Thiessen excoriated Zelensky for resisting a deal without security. "He summarily dismissed Trump's idea of an immediate ceasefire — something that is extremely important to Trump, who is committed to stopping the killing — because he said Putin had already broken ceasefires 25 times."

But that's a key stumbling block, isn't it? Trump is demanding a ceasefire without security guarantees for Ukraine, which is an open invitation to Putin to sign the deal and then regroup and attack again as he has done repeatedly. Thiessen was quick to accuse Zelensky of disrespect but didn't notice the key part of an exchange he himself highlighted. When Zelensky noted that Putin had broken previous agreements, Trump interrupted to say, "He never broke to me. He never broke to me." Putin's agreement was not with Trump. But Trump's narcissism, solipsism and moral obtuseness were painfully obvious in that exchange.

Thiessen further scolded Zelensky for contradicting Trump in front of "the entire world." Well, it was Trump's decision to invite the cameras, not Zelensky's. As he boasted afterward, it was "great television." Thiessen was referring to a moment when Trump was repeating Russian disinformation about how all of Ukraine's cities have been destroyed. Zelensky was the soul of restraint saying, "No, no, you have to come, Mr. President, you have to come and to look."

Trump is as deaf to such appeals as he was indifferent to the photos of starving Ukrainian POWs Zelensky had brought along. Throughout the latter part of the meeting, when it became heated, Trump's favoritism toward Putin showed through. He scowled when Zelensky called Putin a war criminal, and when a member of the press asked whether Trump saw himself as "in the middle" between the warring parties or "on Ukraine's side," Trump said he was not on Ukraine's side and went on to scold Zelensky for his harsh words about Putin.

"It's wonderful to speak badly about somebody else," he noted sarcastically, "but I want to get it solved." Later, he said about Zelensky, "You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough for me to make a deal."

Trump is a soulless sociopath. This is not news. But without the Vances, Rubios, and Thiessens of the world, he would not be quite the danger to the Atlantic alliance, peace and security that he is.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World