This is long. Even long for a news nerd like me. But it is well worth it if you want to see how the current administration is using the military in ways it was not designed to do and against the laws to make it easier for them to be used in civilian control to enforce the will of tRump should he again refuse to accept the fact he has to leave office or if he wants something a governor / state won’t give him. The article shows how the military is tRump’s big stick to hit anyone who disagrees with him. Hugs
A U.S. Marine with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, attached to Task Force 51, guards a federal area in Los Angeles on July 12, 2025. Photo: Lance Cpl. Andrew Whistler/U.S. Marine Corps/DVIDS
In his first six months in office, President Donald Trump has overseen the deployment of nearly 20,000 federal troops on American soil, including personnel from the National Guard, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines, according to the Pentagon’s public statements.
But the true number of troops deployed may be markedly higher. When asked directly, the Army said it has no running tally of how many troops have been deployed. These federal forces have been operating in at least five states — Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas — with more deployments on the horizon, all in service of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.
Experts say military involvement in domestic anti-immigrant operations undermines American democracy and has nudged the United States closer to a genuine police state.
“If the president can use the military as a domestic police force entirely under his control, it can be used as a tool of tyranny and oppression.”
“This level of involvement of the military in civilian law enforcement in the interior of the country is unprecedented — and really dangerous,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s liberty and national security program, who told The Intercept that recent deployments violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a bedrock 19th-century law seen as fundamental to the democratic tradition in America which bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.
She added: “If the president can use the military as a domestic police force entirely under his control, it can be used as a tool of tyranny and oppression. We’ve seen it all around the world and throughout history.”
The norms surrounding the use of military force within U.S. borders are eroding, and the executive branch is operating with free rein, emboldened by a legislature and judiciary seemingly uninterested in curtailing its actions.
These soldiers have been sent to patrol the border, put down popular protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, participate in ICE raids, and assist in immigration enforcement missions from coast to coast. Here, to the extent of what is known so far, is what they’ve been up to.
Most Read
Feds Make It a Crime to Give PPE to ICE Protesters
Akela Lacy
Our Reporter Got Into Gaza. He Witnessed a Famine of Israel’s Making.
Afeef Nessouli, Steven W. Thrasher
Border Patrol Wants Advanced AI to Spy on American Cities
Sam Biddle
President Donald Trump began the further militarization of America on his first day back in office. “Our southern border is overrun by cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries, and illicit narcotics,” Trump announced on January 20, directing the military to “assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining full operational control of the southern border.”
Despite the fact that Trump’s fearmongering was his typical hyperbole, more than 10,000 troops are deploying or have deployed to the southern border, according to U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, which oversees U.S. military activity from Mexico’s southern border up to the North Pole.
Under the direction of NORTHCOM, military personnel — including soldiers from the Fourth Infantry Division at Fort Carson in Colorado, one of the Army’s most storied combat units — have deployed under the moniker Joint Task Force-Southern Border, or JTF-SB, since March, bolstering approximately 2,500 service members who were already supporting U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s border security mission.
One-third of the U.S. border is now completely militarized due to the creation of four new national defense areas, or NDAs: sprawling extensions of U.S. military bases patrolled by troops who can detain immigrants until they can be handed over to Border Patrol agents.
The Air Force is responsible for the recently created South Texas NDA, which encompasses federal property along 250 miles of the Rio Grande River. The Navy controls the Yuma NDA, which extends along 140 miles of federal property on the U.S.–Mexico border near the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona.
The New Mexico NDA, created in April, spans approximately 170 miles of noncontiguous land along that state’s border, serving as an extension of the Army’s Fort Huachuca. Another NDA was created in May in West Texas and covers approximately 63 miles of noncontiguous land between El Paso and Fort Hancock, serving as an extension of the Army’s Fort Bliss.
Related
When Soldiers Patrol the Border, Civilians Get Killed
Around 8,500 military personnel were assigned to JTF-SB to “enhance US Customs and Border Patrol’s capacity to identify, track and disrupt threats to border security,” chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said at the beginning of the month. JTF-SB says the current number of personnel deploys stands at 7,600, while NORTHCOM says the current number of federal troops providing border security is closer to 8,600.
No one actually knows how many troops have been involved in border operations this year. “We do not maintain a running total of Service Members who have served with JTF-SB since its inception, so the total number since March is currently unavailable,” Kent Redmond, a spokesperson for JTF-Southern Border told The Intercept. NORTHCOM didn’t have a number on hand either. But more than 10 Task Forces have assisted JTF-SB, including Task Force Mountain Warrior, consisting of soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team; Task Force Castle, made up of soldiers from the 41st Engineer Battalion; 500 Marines and Navy personnel from Task Force Sapper; and 500 Marines and sailors from Task Force Forge. The latter replaced the Task Force Sapper troops and are now conducting patrols in the Yuma NDA.
Since March alone, Parnell said, the JTF-SB has conducted more than 3,500 patrols, including more than 150 “trilateral” patrols with CBP and the Mexican military. There have, however, been only seven temporary detentions by troops within the National Defense Areas, according to Redmond. He said the seven persons were “detained in place” by JTF-SB personnel for less than 10 minutes.
“The amount being spent to have the world’s best fighting force walk around the border to pick up a handful of people is shocking.”
“Setting aside the threats to democracy and liberty, the sheer waste is staggering. The amount being spent to have the world’s best fighting force walk around the border to pick up a handful of people is shocking,” said Goitein, who also noted that the detentions violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
“They may think if they detain people for only 10 minutes it’s not a violation, but that’s not how the law works,” Goitein explained. “They may also say that the Posse Comitatus Act simply doesn’t apply when the purpose is to protect a military base, but here it’s clear that the primary purpose is enforcement of immigration law.”
Related
How Post-9/11 Visions of an Imperiled Homeland Supercharged U.S. Immigration Enforcement
The military has even dispatched Navy warships offshore to secure the border. After battling Yemen’s Houthi rebels in the Gulf of Aden earlier this year, for example, the USS Stockdale — a guided-missile destroyer — was deployed to support NORTHCOM’s southern border operations alongside the Coast Guard on the U.S.–Mexico maritime border. That ship took over for the USS Spruance, another guided-missile destroyer drafted into anti-immigrant operations.
“We are dead serious about 100% OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the southern border,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a post on X in March.
Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly announced historically low apprehensions along the southern border. “The numbers don’t lie — under President Trump’s leadership, DHS and CBP have shattered records and delivered the most secure border in American history,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem earlier this month. And as early as April, DHS announced, “Customs and Border Protection now has total control of the border.”
Despite all of this, as well as the huge influx of troops and weapons of war deployed at the border, when The Intercept inquired whether full operational control of the border had been achieved and “if not, why not?” DHS demurred. A senior DHS official, who offered comments on the condition of anonymity for no discernible reason, provided rote talking points and praise of Trump and Noem. The official added that the department was “grateful” for JTF-SB’s “support.”
More than 5,000 troops have also been deployed to Los Angeles since early June.
The National Guard soldiers and Marines operating in Southern California — under the command of the Army’s Task Force 51 — were sent to “protect the safety and security of federal functions, personnel, and property.” In practice, this has mostly meant guarding federal buildings across LA from protests against the ongoing ICE raids sweeping the city.
Since Trump called up the troops on June 7, they have carried out exactly one temporary detainment, a Task Force 51 spokesperson told The Intercept.
Related
The Military Occupied LA for 40 Days and All They Did Was Detain One Guy
Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson, described this deployment as Task Force 51 supporting “more than 170 missions in over 130 separate locations from nine federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Marshal Service, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security” in a briefing in early July. Task Force 51 failed to provide any other metrics regarding troops’ involvement in raids, arrests, or street patrols in response to questions by The Intercept.
Troops were sent to LA over the objections of local officials and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In addition to guarding federal buildings, troops have also recently participated in raids alongside camouflage-clad ICE agents. An assault on MacArthur Park, a recreational hub in one of LA’s most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods on July 7, for example, included 90 armed U.S. troops and 17 military Humvees. Its main accomplishment was rousting a summer day camp for children. No arrests were made.
California National Guard soldiers also backed ICE raids on state-licensed marijuana nurseries this month. The troops took part in the military-style assaults on two locations, one in the Santa Barbara County town of Carpinteria, about 90 miles northwest of LA and one in the Ventura County community of Camarillo, about 50 miles from LA. ICE detained more than 200 people, including U.S. citizens, during the joint operations. One man, Jaime Alanís Garcia, died while trying to flee from the raid in Camarillo.
On July 1, Task Force 51 announced that it would release approximately 150 members of the California National Guard from their LA duty. That same day, NORTHCOM said that the Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment were leaving Los Angeles but would be replaced by the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment.
Last Tuesday, Trump administration officials announced that about 2,000 more National Guard members deployed to LA would be released from service. On Monday, the Trump administration announced it was withdrawing the 700 active-duty Marines from Los Angeles. The withdrawals followed repeated reporting by The Intercept highlighting the failure of the troops to do much of substance.
All told, since the deployments began, around 5,500 troops have been sent to southern California, according to Becky Farmer, a NORTHCOM spokesperson.
On the other side of the country, Marines are being hustled to Florida to aid the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. Responding to a DHS request, Hegseth approved a mobilization of up to 700 active, National Guard, and Reserve forces.
The first contingent — approximately 200 Marines from Marine Wing Support Squadron 272, Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina — have been mobilized to support ICE’s “interior immigration enforcement mission” in Florida, NORTHCOM announced earlier this month. The command noted that they were only the “first wave” of ICE assistance. NORTHCOM says additional forces will be deployed to Louisiana and Texas. Hundreds more Guardsmen are expected to be sent to assist in more than a half dozen other states, including Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Related
Greg Abbott’s Border Theater Is Having Disastrous Consequences for Everyone Involved
Some of these same states are also using their own National Guard members in their own anti-immigrant operations. More than 4,200 Texas National Guard soldiers and airmen on state duty are engaged in Operation Lone Star, a border security initiative launched by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in March 2021. Texas’s forces were bolstered, until April, by members of the Indiana National Guard.
Nearly 70 Florida National Guard members are also on state duty, conducting base camp security at the remote migrant detention center in the state’s Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz.” While Trump insisted that the swamp gulag was reserved for “deranged psychopaths” and “some of the most vicious people on the planet,” it was revealed that hundreds of detainees had committed no offense other than civil immigration violations.
“Governors should be doing everything in their power to avoid their state’s national guard troops being pulled into this lawless, authoritarian power grab, not spending precious resources to help it along,” Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War, told The Intercept.
The Trump administration’s use of military forces in its anti-immigrant crusade has been criticized as a publicity stunt and an authoritarian power play.
The directive signed by Trump calling up the California National Guard, for example, cited “10 U.S.C. 12406,” a provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that allows the federal deployment of National Guard forces if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
There was, however, no rebellion. Vice President JD Vance even recently vacationed at Disneyland in Anaheim, about 25 miles from LA.
Still, experts say that the stunt deployments represent a clear danger to American democracy by violating the Posse Comitatus Act; normalizing the use of the military in civilian law enforcement activities; and further transforming the armed forces into a tool of domestic oppression by aiding ICE, which increasingly operates as a masked, secret police force.
“ICE is running a nationwide campaign of violent, racist kidnappings, and Hegseth’s Pentagon is bending over backward to make the military into ICE’s chief sidekicks,” said Haghdoosti. “Troops abetting violence against their own neighbors isn’t tenable for our communities, our democracy, or the troops themselves.”
IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.
This is not hyperbole.
Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation.
Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.”
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy.
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
It’s all a lot of money. But one party doesn’t get the amounts of dark money that the other party receives; one party has access to the US Treasury through POTUS that the other party does not have, as well.
House and Senate candidates recently filed their fundraising reports covering the first six months of 2025. OpenSecrets analyzed the data to determine which candidates have raised the most money and which ones are sitting on the biggest piles of cash.
Let’s start with a look at Senate races. Jon Ossoff (D) is seeking reelection in Georgia, where he won his first term in the most expensive Senate race in history. (That record has since been broken). During the first half of this year, he raised more money than any other candidate running in 2026.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who was fifth in fundraising, has the most cash on hand, with Ossoff running third after this big first-half haul.
As of today, the well-respected Cook Political Report has identified three tossup races that could determine control of the Senate in 2027: Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. The Tar Heel State race just moved into that category because Sen. Thom Tillis (R) announced his retirement June 29, so the candidate field has not yet solidified.
The three most senior members of the House of Representatives rank among the top fundraisers this year, but they were dwarfed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who raised $6.7 million more than Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), the speaker of the House.
Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) raised the most among Democrats and also have two of the biggest stockpiles of campaign cash heading into the second half of the year. It remains to be seen whether Rep. Elise Stefanik (R) will stand for re-election to Congress or make a run for governor of New York in 2026. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) is running for an open Senate seat.
This article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. View the original article. (The original includes pertinent charts that make the article make better sense. I recomment clicking through; I’m not sure why their republish code doesn’t include the charts. I tried to copy them separately to insert them, but copying was not allowed. -A.)
The United States has more money held by private citizens than any other country in the world. According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. households hold a total of $160.35 trillion, which is the value of each person’s assets minus their liabilities. However, many Americans are perplexed by the fact that, in a country with such wealth, so many people still struggle to make ends meet.
Although Americans hold the largest amount of privately held wealth in the world, many of us still struggle with financial stress. A recent report found that 68% don’t have enough money to retire, 56% are struggling to keep up with the cost of living, and 45% are worried about their debt levels. A significant reason is that a small number of people hold a large portion of the privately held wealth in the U.S..
Nearly two-thirds of America’s private wealth is held by the top 10% of people, leaving the remaining one-third to be divided among 90% of the population. (snip)
With so many people struggling in America, while a few at the top are unbelievably wealthy, what would happen if the money were magically divided evenly among the 340 million people who live in the United States? If everyone received a truly equal share of the American pie, every person would receive approximately $471,465. That’s $942,930 per couple and $1.89 million for those with two kids. (snip)
However, such a drastic redistribution of wealth would be cataclysmic for the economy, as people would have to liquidate their investments to give their assets to others. The sudden increase in wealth for many, without a corresponding increase in goods and services, would lead to incredibly high inflation. The dramatic reconfiguring of the economy would also disincentivize some from working and others from innovating. Some posit that if everyone were equal, in just a few months, those with wealth-generating skills would immediately begin rising to the top again, while others would fall behind. (snip)
Although it seems that a massive redistribution of wealth isn’t in the cards for many reasons, we do have some evidence from recent history on how programs that give people money can help lift them out of poverty. Government stimulus programs during the COVID-19 pandemic brought the U.S. poverty level to a record low of 7.8% in 2021. Child poverty was also helped by the American Rescue Plan’s Child Tax credit expansion, which drove child poverty to an all-time low of 5.2%. It’s also worth noting that the trillions in government stimulus had a downside, as it was partially responsible for a historic rise in inflation. (Note from A.: The hyperlink takes you to CNBC, which hastens to report this: “But the widespread rise in prices was mostly “a supply-side phenomenon” caused by the Covid-19 pandemic itself, Yellen told CNBC in an exit interview.”) (snip-a little MORE)
Very informative and heart felt. Aron Ra is well known for his thought approach to atheism and science, delivering it in a way that a normal person can understand. The things he says at the end and the pictures he shows makes clear that as he says this is not about protecting anyone but about enforcing bigotry. Hugs
That pesky thing called the US CONSTITUTION says that the people have a right to protest the government. The last ten or more years the federal government has been trying to restrain the rights of the people to protest or have their voices heard. This is another example. Hugs
DHS is urging law enforcement to treat even skateboarding and livestreaming as signs of violent intent during a protest, turning everyday behavior into a pretext for police action.
The Department of Homeland Security is urging local police to consider a wide range of protest activity as violent tactics, including mundane acts like riding a bike or livestreaming a police encounter, WIRED has learned.
Threat bulletins issued during last month’s “No Kings” protests warn that the US government’s aggressive immigration raids are almost certain to accelerate domestic unrest, with DHS saying there’s a “high likeliness” more Americans will soon turn against the agency, which could trigger confrontations near federal sites.
Blaming intense media coverage and backlash to the US military deployment in Los Angeles, DHS expects the demonstrations to “continue and grow across the nation” as protesters focused on other issues shift to immigration, following a broad “embracement of anti-ICE messaging.”
The bulletins—first obtained by the national security nonprofit Property of the People through public records requests—warn that officers could face assaults with fireworks and improvised weapons: paint-filled fire extinguishers, smoke grenades, and projectiles like bottles and rocks.
At the same time, the guidance urges officers to consider a range of nonviolent behavior and common protest gear—like masks, flashlights, and cameras—as potential precursors to violence, telling officers to prepare “from the point of view of an adversary.”
Protesters on bicycles, skateboards, or even “on foot” are framed as potential “scouts” conducting reconnaissance or searching for “items to be used as weapons.” Livestreaming is listed alongside “doxxing” as a “tactic” for “threatening” police. Online posters are cast as ideological recruiters—or as participants in “surveillance sharing.”
One list of “violent tactics” shared by the Los Angeles–based Joint Regional Intelligence Center—part of a post-9/11 fusion network—includes both protesters’ attempts to avoid identification and efforts to identify police. The memo also alleges that face recognition, normally a tool of law enforcement, was used against officers.
Vera Eidelman, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, says the government has no business treating constitutionally protected activities—like observing or documenting police—as threats.
DHS did not respond to a request for comment.
“Exercising those rights shouldn’t be justification for adverse action or suspicion by the government,” Eidelman says. Labeling something as harmless as skateboarding at a protest as a violent threat is “disturbing and dangerous,” she adds, and could “easily lead to excessive force against people who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights.”
“The DHS report repeatedly conflates basic protest, organizing, and journalism with terroristic violence, thereby justifying ever more authoritarian measures by law enforcement,” says Ryan Shapiro, executive director of Property of the People. “It should be sobering, if unsurprising, that the Trump regime’s response to mass criticism of its police state tactics is to escalate those tactics.”
Fusion centers like JRIC play a central role in how police understand protest movements. The intelligence they produce is rapidly disseminated and draws heavily on open-source data. It often reflects broad, risk-averse assumptions and includes fragmentary and unverified information. In the absence of concrete threats, bulletins often turn to ideological language and social media activity as evidence of emerging risks, even when tied to lawful expression.
DHS’s risk-based approach reflects a broader shift in US law enforcement shaped by post-9/11 security priorities—one that elevates perceived intent over demonstrable wrongdoing and uses behavior cues, affiliations, and other potentially predictive indicators to justify early intervention and expanded surveillance.
A year ago, DHS warned that immigration-related grievances were driving a spike in threats against judges, migrants, and law enforcement, predicting that new laws and high-profile crackdowns would further radicalize individuals. In February, another fusion center reported renewed calls for violence against police and government officials, citing backlash to perceived federal overreach and identifying then-upcoming protests and court rulings as likely triggers.
At times, the sprawling predictions may appear prescient, echoing real-world flashpoints: In Alvarado, Texas, an alleged coordinated ambush at a detention center this week drew ICE agents out with fireworks before gunfire erupted on July 4, leaving a police officer shot in the neck. (Nearly a dozen arrests have been made, at least 10 on charges of attempted murder.)
In advance of protests, agencies increasingly rely on intelligence forecasting to identify groups seen as ideologically subversive or tactically unpredictable. Demonstrators labeled “transgressive” may be monitored, detained without charges, or met with force.
Social movement scholars widely recognize the introduction of preemptive protest policing as a departure from late-20th century approaches that prioritized de-escalation, communication, and facilitation. In its place, authorities have increasingly emphasized control of demonstrations through early intervention, surveillance, and disruption—monitoring organizers, restricting public space, and responding proactively based on perceived risks rather than actual conduct.
Infrastructure initially designed to combat terrorism now often serves to monitor street-level protests, with virtual investigations units targeting demonstrators for scrutiny based on online expression. Fusion centers, funded through DHS grants, have increasingly issued bulletins flagging protest slogans, references to police brutality, and solidarity events as signs of possible violence—disseminating these assessments to law enforcement absent clear evidence of criminal intent.
Surveillance of protesters has included the construction of dossiers (known as “baseball cards”) with analysts using high-tech tools to compile subjects’ social media posts, affiliations, personal networks, and public statements critical of government policy.
Obtained exclusively by WIRED, a DHS dossier on Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia graduate student and anti-war activist, shows that analysts drew information from Canary Mission, a shadowy blacklist that anonymously profiles critics of Israeli military action and supporters of Palestinian rights.
In federal court Wednesday, a senior DHS official acknowledged that material from Canary Mission had been used to compile more than 100 dossiers on students and scholars, despite the site’s ideological slant, mysterious funding, and unverifiable sourcing.
Threat bulletins can also prime officers to anticipate conflict, shaping their posture and decisions on the ground. In the wake of violent 2020 protests, the San Jose Police Department in California cited the “numerous intelligence bulletins” it received from its local regional fusion center, DHS, and the FBI, among others, as central to understanding “the mindset of the officers in the days leading up to and throughout the civil unrest.”
Specific bulletins cited by the SJPD—whose protest response prompted a $620,000 settlement this month—framed the demonstrations as possible cover for “domestic terrorists,” warned of opportunistic attacks on law enforcement and promoted an “unconfirmed report” of U-Haul vans purportedly being used to ferry weapons and explosives.
Subsequent reporting in the wake of BlueLeaks—a 269-gigabyte dump of internal police documents obtained by a source identifying as the hacktivist group Anonymous and published by transparency group Distributed Denial of Secrets—found federal bulletins riddled with unverified claims, vague threat language, and outright misinformation, including alerts about a parody website that supposedly paid protesters and accepted bitcoin to set cars on fire, despite a clear banner labeling the site “FAKE.”
Threat alerts—unclassified and routinely accessible to the press—can help law enforcement shape public perception of protests before they begin, laying the groundwork to legitimize aggressive police responses. Unverified DHS warnings about domestic terrorists infiltrating demonstrations in 2020, publicly echoed by the agency’s acting secretary on Twitter, were widely circulated and amplified in media coverage.
Americans are generally opposed to aggressive protest crackdowns, but when they do support them, fear is often the driving force. Experimental research suggests that support for the use of coercive tactics hinges less on what protesters actually do than on how they’re portrayed—by officials, the media, and through racial and ideological frames.
Dell Cameron is an investigative reporter from Texas covering privacy and national security. He’s the recipient of multiple Society of Professional Journalists awards and is co-recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award for Investigative Reporting. Previously, he was a senior reporter at Gizmodo and a staff writer for the Daily … Read More
One voice was yelling he was a US citizen. The conditions are horrible. They get their drinking water from the toilet. Maxwell Frost is a progressive treasure. Hugs
A U.S. Marine with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, attached to Task Force 51, guards a federal area in Los Angeles on July 12, 2025. Photo: Lance Cpl. Andrew Whistler/U.S. Marine Corps/DVIDS
Scottie's Playtime 