Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s Guantánamo Bay detention plan is a disaster. Just look at history.

Published

on

Trump’s Guantánamo Bay detention plan is a disaster. Just look at history.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration had sent 10 immigrants to Guántanamo Bay, Cuba, for detention — an unprecedented move. And just the beginning.

On Jan. 29, President Donald Trump signed a 128-word memo calling for a 30,000-bed immigrant detention facility to be built at Guantánamo Bay for “high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.” The memo set in motion a project that, if fully realized, will be a financial disaster while posing a grave threat to immigrants and citizens alike, potentially for decades to come.

The memo set in motion a project that, if fully realized, will be a financial disaster while posing a grave threat to immigrants and citizens alike.

Transporting tens of thousands of people from the U.S. mainland and detaining them at Guantánamo makes no sense financially. The U.S. government will need to construct a massive site for detention — along with medical facilities, food and sanitation services, staffing and security on a remote island with limited, aging infrastructure — with a likely, albeit as yet unknown, cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Defense officials were reportedly shocked by Trump’s order. The island’s existing Migrant Operations Center was designed for people picked up in boats by the Coast Guard — not tens of thousands of longtime U.S. residents, including children. NBC News is reporting that already tent camps are being built to house some of these new detainees, while there are also plans to detain immigrants at the high-security prison built after 9/11.

This expensive project will continue to drain American coffers for years, even decades, especially if Guantánamo becomes a detention site for people who have been ordered deported but whose home countries do not accept deportations.

The first U.S. military aircraft to carry detained migrants to Guantanamo Bay is boarded from an unspecified location in the U.S.
The first U.S. military aircraft to carry detained migrants to a detention facility at Guantánamo Bay is boarded from an unspecified location in the U.S. on Tuesday.DHS via Reuters

While the operational feasibility of Trump’s plan is dubious, history suggests that such a move could enable the government to commit human rights abuses and inflict serious neglect on people detained there, far from lawyers, the media and congressional oversight. Unfortunately, that could also be the point.

Our government held hundreds of men without charge at Guantánamo after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and made it a notorious site of torture and crueltyfalsely claiming that international and U.S. law did not apply to people with terrorism allegations. Perhaps less well-known is that Guantánamo also has a sordid history of quasi-hidden migrant detention. In the 1990s, the Coast Guard intercepted at sea tens of thousands of people from Haiti and Cuba fleeing violence and human rights violations.

More than 45,000 peoplewere taken to Guantánamo and held in tent camps plagued by inhumane conditions. Thousands of Haitian nationals were returned to Haiti despite having credible fears of persecution, forcing parents to leave their children behind at Guantánamo.

By 1995 more than 200 unaccompanied kids from Haiti were still languishing on the island despite having relatives and other sponsors in the United States ready to welcome them. At the time, a New York Times columnist wrote that the tents that housed them leaked when it rained, medical attention was inadequate, and children were isolated and fearful — some even contemplated suicide.

Fast-forward 30 years, and we are now at risk of entering a new chapter of this shameful history. By design, there is little public information about how the existing migrant facility operates, prompting a federal lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union and the International Refugee Assistance Project in September. Any detention standards, such as they exist, are not public. We do not know what procedures are being used to keep people safe and address their medical conditions or to provide care and educational services to children or religious accommodation or even access to lawyers. Moreover, the U.S. government deniesthat the people it intercepts and holds at the facility are actually “detained.”

Fast-forward 30 years, and we are now at risk of entering a new chapter of this shameful history.

The Trump administration has already shown an utter disregard for the rights and dignity of people who are immigrants. Previous reports suggest that migrants who have been detained at Guantánamo have been denied their basic rights to medical care, sanitation and hygiene, as well as access to counsel. Though little is known about how the Trump administration might execute on this unprecedented plan at the scale it proposes, officials cannot simply wave away the rights of immigrants they wish to detain at Guantánamo or the legal barriers to operating what would become essentially the largest detention camp known to the United States. For example, immigrants who are detained have a right to access counselbut there is no indication that the government has considered how to ensure it in this high-security, remote setting. And in the past, numerous lawsuits were filed over the detention and treatment of Haitian refugees held there.

Congress should use upcoming spending and defense bills to prohibit the Trump administration from using taxpayer dollars to build and operate this massive and ill-advised detention site. In doing so, it would deny Trump the opportunity to turn Guantánamo into an island of despair for thousands of our immigrant neighbors and loved ones.

Naureen Shah

Naureen Shah is the deputy director of government affairs, Equality Division, for the ACLU.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Charlie Kirk’s death leaves lawmakers on edge across party lines

Published

on

Charlie Kirk’s death leaves lawmakers on edge across party lines

Lawmakers are on high alert after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirkvoicing concerns about their safety and making calls for increased protection as the political atmosphere in the U.S. grows more tense.

Fears have been aired on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans, many of whom maintained a close relationship with Kirk, say they’re worried about their own security and that of their families, staffers and colleagues.

Some members of Congress are taking immediate action.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is postponing two upcoming events in North Carolina, according to her office. Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., canceled events this weekend, though he asked his staff that a church service remain on the schedule. And Reps. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., and Nancy Mace, R-S.C., told BLN they are pausing public events in the near term.

Moskowitz — who was targeted last year by an armed man who has been sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for illegal firearms offenses — said he is concerned about the safety of the entire House of Representatives.

‘We all go to things like that. We all speak at colleges, we all go to public events, we all do parades. That could’ve been anybody.’

“I’m worried about everybody in that chamber, including myself,” Moskowitz said. “I’m worried about my Republican colleagues that are vocal on TV and social media; I’m worried about my Democratic colleagues who are vocal on TV and social media.”

He called the shooting death of Kirk, video footage of which quickly went viral, “shocking and terrifying and dehumanizing” and said it hits close to home for politicians who routinely make public appearances. “We all go to things like that. We all speak at colleges, we all go to public events, we all do parades. That could’ve been anybody,” he said.

Mace said she has requested police officers be stationed outside her offices, is doubling her security team and now plans to carry a firearm. She said she planned to go to a gun range this weekend.

“I never thought we would get to this place, but here we are. I think an invisible line was crossed,” she said. “I don’t even feel safe walking outside, I don’t feel safe being in my own vehicle, and I certainly don’t feel safe going anywhere without someone with a gun on my side or carrying myself.”

The fears and emotions among members were still raw two days after Kirk, the 31-year-old darling of the right, was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, sending shockwaves and sparking fury through conservative circles, Washington and the entire country. Authorities announced Friday morning that Tyler Robinson, 22, had been apprehended in connection with the killing.

The newfound concern comes as threats against lawmakers have already been spiking. The U.S. Capitol Police told BLN on Friday that the agency is “on track to work through roughly 14,000 Threat Assessment Cases by the end of 2025,” a nearly 50% percent increase from the prior year.

Capitol Police investigated 9,474 “concerning statements and direct threats” against members of Congress and their families and staff in 2024, compared to 8,008 incidents in 2023.

The stunning increase in threats against lawmakers is playing out against a heightened political environment nationwide, with attacks against politicians and activists on the rise. President Donald Trump has faced two assassination attempts, including the campaign rally incident in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a bullet grazed his ear.

And in June, Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, and her husband, Mark, were fatally shot at their homes. Another Democrat in the state Senate, John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, were critically injured after both were shot at their house the same night.

In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, members of Congress in both parties are demanding increased security.

The House Administration Committee in August temporarily increased members’ monthly security allotment from $150 to $5,000 a month to allow them to hire personal protection through the end of the fiscal year, which closes on Sept. 30. The action also gave lawmakers an extra $10,000 to pay for residential security systems.

“I hope the speaker extends that and makes it more permanent, and I think that’s necessary, but I also don’t think that’s sufficient,” Moskowitz said, predicting that every member will soon need one staff member dedicated solely to security.

Mace, a vocal Trump ally, agreed the temporary funding increase is “not nearly enough, particularly for the higher profile members who are outspoken.”

Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Thursday “there’s been a lot of discussion” about how to address security for members of Congress following Kirk’s death, and how to pay for it.

“We’re under a very thorough review of the existing options and how we might need to enhance that to ensure member security and safety,” he said. “It’s a big concern of all of them and their spouses back home and their families and, and everything. So there’s a cost associated with that. I mean, a financial cost that is significant.”

The question of increasing funding for members’ security could come to a head in the coming weeks, as Congress stares down a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown. Several sources said additional funding for protection could be dealt with during the government funding process.

“We’ve gotta protect people who run for public office or no one will,” Johnson said.

Mychael Schnell

Mychael Schnell is a congressional reporter at BLN, where she covers all happenings on Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News.

Mychael graduated from The George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in Journalism & Mass Communication and Political Science. She’s a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s #1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Erika Kirk remembers her husband Charlie Kirk in first public address since his killing

Published

on

Erika Kirk remembers her husband Charlie Kirk in first public address since his killing
  • Psaki: National crises of political violence call for unifying leadership

    08:18

  • Erika Kirk delivers first public address since her husband Charlie Kirk’s assassination

    02:37

  • Now Playing

  • UP NEXT

    Ali Vitali explains the shortfalls of Senate Republicans’ nuclear option

    08:20

  • Memphis Mayor pressed on what the Guard would do in his city

    06:27

  • Michael: ‘Brazil’s Supreme Court upholds the rule of law – in America, it doesn’t matter’

    05:10

  • New emails reveal Maxwell ‘was not telling Todd Blanche the complete truth’: Lisa Rubin

    07:44

  • Talarico: ‘Political violence has no place in America’

    09:01

  • John Bolton search warrant affidavit released

    02:07

  • Lawmakers feeling ‘vulnerable’ and concerned about security: Ex-U.S. Capitol Police Chief

    06:13

  • Lawmakers scale back public events after Kirk killing

    06:20

  • ‘This is our moment’: Utah Gov. calls for ‘off ramp’ to political violence

    14:47

  • Trump admin to claim link between Covid shots and child deaths

    05:40

  • Utah Gov.: ‘Hey fascist! Catch!’ written on bullet casing

    09:21

  • ‘We got him’: Utah Gov. on Charlie Kirk shooting suspect

    14:11

  • ‘Somber and harrowing’: The Weeknight marks the 24th anniversary of 9/11

    04:14

  • Congress inches closer to Epstein files

    07:22

  • Rev. Al Sharpton: ‘Political violence has to stop’

    08:10

  • ‘Our country is in a really dark place’: Political violence on the rise in recent years

    11:19

  • Bridging divide amid rising political violence

    06:24

BLN

  • Psaki: National crises of political violence call for unifying leadership

    08:18

  • Erika Kirk delivers first public address since her husband Charlie Kirk’s assassination

    02:37

  • Now Playing

    Erika Kirk remembers her husband Charlie Kirk in first public address since his killing

    04:09

  • UP NEXT

    Ali Vitali explains the shortfalls of Senate Republicans’ nuclear option

    08:20

  • Memphis Mayor pressed on what the Guard would do in his city

    06:27

  • Michael: ‘Brazil’s Supreme Court upholds the rule of law – in America, it doesn’t matter’

    05:10

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Justin Baldoni pushes to depose Taylor Swift in legal feud with Blake Lively

Published

on

Justin Baldoni pushes to depose Taylor Swift in legal feud with Blake Lively

By Are Salam

Taylor Swift may be compelled to provide evidence in the long-brewing legal battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively.

Baldoni’s legal team on Thursday requested that the federal judge in Lively’s case against him and his studio extend the discovery deadline to accommodate Swift’s schedule so she can sit for a deposition.

Lawyers with Venable LLP, a law firm representing the pop star, wrote to federal Judge Lewis J. Liman on Friday to clarify that Swift “has no material role in this action” but offered time in late October if a deposition is necessary. “We take no role in those disputes,” the lawyers added.

Lively’s representative, Michael J. Gottlieb, called Baldoni’s “disrespect for Ms. Swift’s privacy and schedule” “astounding” in a letter to Liman.

The legal saga between the celebrities began on the set of the film “It Ends With Us,” in which Baldoni played opposite Lively as the story’s main love interest (Baldoni also directed the film). Speculation about a possible feud began when the two opted to do press for the film separately when it was released in August 2024.

In December, the “Gossip Girl” star sued Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studiosalleging sexual harassment and retaliation for speaking out, accusations Baldoni has vehemently denied.

In January 2025, Baldoni released unseen footage from the film as part of an effort to defend himself. He and his studio countersued Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, alleging defamation and extortion and seeking $400 million in damages. Baldoni also sued The New York Times for reporting on Lively’s accusations.

Baldoni attempted to subpoena Swift, claiming Lively had leveraged her friendships with famous people, like the singer, to gain creative control over the film. Swift’s legal teams successfully rebuffed the attempt. At the time, a representative for Swift told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that her involvement in the film was limited to the licensing of one of her songs, adding that “this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”

Baldoni’s legal team dropped the subpoena against Swift that same month, and his suits were dismissed by Liman in June.

The trial is scheduled to begin on March 9, 2026.

Are Salam

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for BLN Digital. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending