The Brief

With just two weeks remaining until the presidential election, former President Donald Trump has used his most recent appearances on podcast and cable interviews to escalate attacks on fellow Americans whom he calls “the enemy from within.”

In one recent interview, Trump said that if “radical left lunatics” disrupt the election, “it should be very easily handled by — if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

That statement, on Fox News, was not the first time Trump has expressed support for using government force against domestic political rivals. Since 2022, when he began preparing for the presidential campaign, Trump has issued more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived opponents, NPR has found.

A review of Trump’s rally speeches, press conferences, interviews and social media posts shows that the former president has repeatedly indicated that he would use federal law enforcement as part of a campaign to exact “retribution.”

Vice President Kamala Harris “should be impeached and prosecuted,” Trump said at a rally last month.

“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Trump said last year.

“ELIZABETH LYNNE CHENEY IS GUILTY OF TREASON,” reads one post Trump reposted on his social media site, Truth Social, regarding the former Republican congresswoman. “RETRUTH IF YOU WANT TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.”

Journalists who decline to identify the sources of leaked information would also face imprisonment, Trump said.

“If the reporter doesn't want to tell you, it's ‘bye-bye,’ the reporter goes to jail,” Trump said in 2022. He appeared to suggest that the reporter could also face sexual assault while in custody.

Trump and his allies have either downplayed these threats, or said that these actions would be justified, in part, because of the four criminal prosecutions brought against Trump since he left office. In one of those cases, a New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts in connection with hush money he paid to keep an alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels secret. He is appealing that verdict.

When right-wing radio host Glenn Beck asked Trump if he would lock up his opponents in a second term, Trump responded, “The answer is you have no choice because they’re doing it to us.”

Legal experts said that there are few guardrails preventing Trump from pursuing his plans to prosecute opponents and noted that Trump pressured the Department of Justice to investigate rivals during his first term. In about a dozen cases, the Justice Department followed through and initiated investigations, according to one analysis.

If Trump follows through on his stated plans in a second term, these experts said, his actions could endanger Americans’ civil liberties and cause a chilling effect on criticism of the president. The threats he’s made have already led some of his targets to prepare for the worst by saving money and considering whether to leave the country if Trump wins the election.

“This is how autocrats cement their permanent grip on power,” said Ian Bassin, the executive director of the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which advocates for protections against authoritarianism.

Many of Trump’s threats relate to his persistent false claims about election fraud and the lie that he won the 2020 election.

“START ARRESTING THE POLL WORKERS AND WATCH HOW FAST THEY TELL YOU WHO TOLD THEM TO CHEAT,” reads a message Trump reposted on social media in 2023.

He has also repeatedly targeted the prosecutors, judges and even courtroom staff connected to the prosecutions against him for alleged election interference, improperly holding classified documents and business fraud.

Attorney General Letitia James sits in the courtroom during the civil fraud trial of former President Donald Trump at the New York Supreme Court on Jan. 11 in New York City.

(

Getty Images

)

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron “should be arrested and punished accordingly,” Trump said at a rally in January. James successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump, which Engoron presided over. Trump is appealing the judgment against him. He also reposted a message attacking a member of the Georgia grand jury that indicted him.

Among the other targets of Trump’s threats are former President Barack Obama (“RETRUTH IF YOU WANT PUBLIC MILITARY TRIBUNALS”), members of the U.S. Capitol Police who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot (“The cops should be charged and the protesters should be freed”), members of the Jan. 6 Select Committee in Congress (“They should be prosecuted for their lies and, quite frankly, TREASON!”), Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (“We are watching him closely, and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison”), people who criticize the Supreme Court (“These people should be put in jail, the way they talk about our judges and our justices”) and protesters who burn the American flag (“You should get a one-year jail sentence if you desecrate the American flag”).

In one instance, Trump suggested that Gen. Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his administration, could face execution for calling officials in China to try and defuse tensions in the chaotic aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack.

“This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Milley, who retired in 2023, has since told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person to this country.”

In addition to using the powers under criminal law, Trump has also promised to take greater control of agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcast television and radio, including NPR’s network of member stations.

After his presidential debate against Harris on ABC News, Trump called for the FCC to revoke ABC’s broadcast license, due to his perception of the moderators’ bias. He also called for an investigation of CBS News for campaign finance violations after it aired an interview with Vice President Harris. He’s previously floated pulling the license for NBC, as well, over criticisms of its news coverage.

“I absolutely think he will follow up on those threats,” said Stephanie Grisham, who worked for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and served as his White House press secretary. Grisham resigned in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and has since become a vocal critic of her former boss.

“I just know that once he's in office with no guardrails, no reason to worry about reelection, and only the most fervent, loyal people surrounding him,” Grisham said, “he will absolutely make sure his enemies pay for what he perceives to be their crimes.”

John Bolton, who served as national security adviser in the Trump White House, said at an event earlier this year that he believed Trump would use the Department of Justice to enact a “retribution presidency.”

In response to NPR’s reporting, the Republican National Committee issued a statement.

“Kamala Harris is the threat to democracy,” said RNC spokesperson Anna Kelly. “She and Joe Biden weaponized our justice system in order to sway an election.”

Trump’s claims of a “witch hunt”

Amid this flood of threats against his opponents, Trump has repeatedly accused the Biden administration of “weaponizing” the Justice Department and subjecting him to “political persecution” and a “witch hunt.”

Judges presiding over Trump’s criminal cases have rejected those arguments.

Biden did state publicly that subjects of the Jan. 6 Select Committee’s investigation should face prosecution for defying subpoenas. He later said that comment was “inappropriate.” But there’s no evidence that Biden has directed the federal cases against Trump. Those cases are being led by special counsel Jack Smith.

During Biden’s presidency, the Justice Department has also brought prosecutions against several high-profile Democrats, including former New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and New York Mayor Eric Adams, as well as the president’s son, Hunter Biden.

Vice President Harris has generally avoided commenting on Trump’s federal criminal cases. When supporters at recent campaign rallies started chanting “lock him up,” she told the crowd, “We’re gonna let the courts handle that.”

Could Trump actually order prosecutions of his enemies?

After the widespread abuses of presidential power by Richard Nixon, subsequent administrations generally sought to give the Department of Justice more independence from the White House, in part to insulate the agency from electoral politics.

But legal experts and former government officials said those rules and norms can be overturned or ignored.

“There are not really legal restrictions or even structural restrictions that would stop the president, if he were to appoint loyalists to be the lead prosecutors in all 93 jurisdictions around the country, from simply directing them to go and investigate his perceived opponents,” said Bassin, who also served as associate White House counsel in the Obama administration. “If he appointed a loyal director of the FBI, he would be able to make life pretty miserable for the people he is targeting.”

Trump has said he will appoint the “most ferocious legal warriors against crime and Communist corruption that this country has ever seen.”

Trump’s allies have also promised to weaken or even end the Justice Department’s independence from the White House if he returns to office, which would give Trump and his political appointees greater ability to direct the federal prosecutions.

“The president has the authority under the Constitution to conduct law enforcement,” Russ Vought, a former Trump administration official and a leader of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint, told NPR last year. Vought added that “I think you can absolutely trust Donald Trump” not to use the Justice Department for partisan purposes.

The Supreme Court also recently removed one potential guardrail preventing political prosecutions in its ruling on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

“One of the most remarkable lines in that Supreme Court opinion is that a sitting president could order their Justice Department to engage in a ‘sham’ investigation,” said Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University. “So a president would not have to fear criminal accountability for ordering a sham investigation of their perceived enemies.”

One final check against political prosecutions is the judicial branch. Judges can refuse to authorize search and arrest warrants. If an investigation leads to an actual prosecution, judges can also dismiss charges and juries can acquit defendants. But the process alone can do significant damage to a target’s reputation and finances, regardless of the final outcome. And both Trump and running mate JD Vance have suggested they might ignore the judiciary’s decisions.

Trump posted on Truth Social that “massive fraud” in the 2020 election justified “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” In a 2021 interview, Vance said Trump should ignore court rulings if they constrain the administration’s ability to replace career officials with political loyalists.

“Much of this depends upon the character of the individual in the White House and the character of those surrounding them,” said Goodman, “because there's so many levers of power that they can use.”

Trump’s actions in his first term

Trump’s actions in his first term

Trump made the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival in the 2016 election, a centerpiece of his first presidential campaign. “Lock her up” became a perennial call-and-response between Trump and his supporters at rallies.

And while the Justice Department under Trump did not ultimately charge Clinton, there’s substantial evidence that his pressure on prosecutors did have an impact in some cases.

“President Trump treated the Department of Justice like his own personal law firm, and he put people in charge there who did his bidding,” said Geoffrey Berman, who served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York during the Trump administration, in a 2022 interview with WHYY’s Fresh Air. “The Justice Department targeted political enemies of the president and assisted political allies of the president.”

One of Trump’s most frequent targets in his first term was Andrew McCabe, a longtime FBI official who became the bureau’s acting director when Trump fired James Comey in 2017.

Andrew McCabe, then-acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on May 11, 2017.

(

Andrew Harrer

/

Getty Images

)

While in office, Trump attempted to “purge” the FBI of people he perceived as disloyal, McCabe said in an interview.

Trump repeatedly attacked McCabe, because he was in the leadership of the FBI during the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election and because he perceived McCabe as a partisan enemy. McCabe considered himself a moderate Republican, but Trump seized on the fact that McCabe’s wife had run unsuccessfully for the Virginia state Senate in 2015 as a Democrat.

Trump publicly pressured the department to fire McCabe before he would be eligible to receive retirement benefits, writing on Twitter, “FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!”

“It was clear to me, he was basically saying, ‘I'm going to do whatever I can to fire this guy before he can retire,’” McCabe said.

Department of Justice leaders demoted and then fired McCabe just hours before that deadline.

“Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI,” Trump posted. “A great day for Democracy.”

Internal investigators at the Justice Department said that McCabe “lacked candor” about his contacts with journalists — an allegation McCabe denies — and federal prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into McCabe that dragged on for nearly two years.

McCabe said he was with his wife and two children when the news of the criminal investigation leaked.

“It was just an incredibly sad moment and really scary for them, because it was the first time that I think they had ever considered that what had been political nonsense might actually cost me my liberty,” McCabe said. “And it's also humiliating. It's embarrassing.”

Federal Judge Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned prosecutors over their handling of the case and Trump’s apparent influence over it.

“I don't think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted,” Walton said. “I just think it's a banana republic when we go down that road.”

Prosecutors ultimately dropped the case without bringing charges.

McCabe sued the Department of Justice over his firing. After Trump left office, he received a settlement that restored his back pay, retirement benefits and rank.

McCabe was not the only target, according to an analysis co-written by Goodman. He found 11 other cases in which Trump pushed the Justice Department to investigate his rivals.

“There is an established track record of Trump having done this before,” said Goodman of NYU. “It's not pure rhetoric.”

In one instance described in the Mueller report and cited by Goodman, Trump urged then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute Hillary Clinton. (Trump also urged prosecution publicly on Twitter.) Federal prosecutors in Utah later opened an investigation into Clinton and the Clinton Foundation without bringing charges. Hillary Clinton remained one of Trump’s most frequent targets even after he left office. Last year, he reposted a video with calls to “lock her up” for alleged treason.

The Jan. 6 Select Committee in Congress presented additional evidence of Trump putting pressure on prosecutors to say they found widespread fraud in the 2020 election, despite a lack of evidence.

Preparing for the worst

Preparing for the worst

Trump continues to threaten McCabe.

Steve Bannon, who served as Trump’s chief strategist in the White House and remains a prominent supporter, said on his podcast that McCabe “should be worried” that Trump would go after him if he returns to the White House.

“You should be very worried,” Bannon said. “But also understand this, brother, we have extradition treaties with virtually every country in the world. And you go ahead and run and run as far as you want. We're going to come and get you." (Bannon is currently serving a four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress and is due to be released at the end of October.)

Trump reposted Bannon’s comments on Truth Social.

“It shows you, I think, and in serious terms, a persistent commitment to this idea of ‘we are going on the revenge tour,’” McCabe said in response to those comments.

McCabe said he has had difficult conversations with his family about what Trump might do if he returns to the White House, and he knows other former officials who are also contemplating leaving the country.

“I don't intend to leave the country that I served for 21 years,” McCabe said. “But this kind of pits you against your children and your spouses who just want you to be safe.”

Grisham said she is also making preparations in case Trump returns to the White House — and saving up money.

Trump has not threatened her with jail time or prosecution, but did attack her in personal terms after she published a book critical of the administration.

“I'm definitely fearful for myself and for many of my friends who have spoken out, too,” Grisham said. “It's a terrifying thought, because that is literally the most powerful person in the world that knows you and wants only bad for you. It's truly a terrifying thought.”

Voters on Saturday rejected a measure that would have weakened California’s landmark environmental law by fast-tracking reviews for some projects.

With about 76% of votes counted, voters rejected Prop. 45 by 55.7% to 44.3%.

The vote maintains the status quo under the state’s Environmental Quality Act, which since 1970 has required public agencies to review project developments that could have harmful environmental impacts, and mitigate those harms.

“Californians have sent a clear message to corporate developers, utilities and data center builders that they will not stand for a broad assault at the ballot box on state law protecting our air, water and natural resources,” No on 45’s Woody Little said. “We were outspent but not outgunned.”

Supporters had said the changes would reduce building costs. The California Chamber of Commerce sponsored Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act, which would limit the length of environmental reviews for projects deemed “essential” to 365 business days and require courts to resolve litigation in 270 calendar days. Those projects include housing, water, broadband and transit developments.

Proponents said the savings from building more quickly would pass to consumers and spent $41 million campaigning for the measure. The Building a Better California political action committee was the largest donor, giving $10 million to the campaign. The organization is funded partly by current and former Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt. Two of the largest investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison, together donated $4.4 million.

Environmental groups argued the measure would go too far in weakening a law meant to protect people from environmental harms. Opponents, including a coalition of environmental, health and union organizations, spent $30 million trying to stop it. Wendy Schmidt, a Democratic philanthropist, was the largest donor, giving $10 million to the campaign. The political action committee Clean and Healthy California Sponsored by Environmental Organizations contributed $7 million.

The California Democratic Party opposed the measure. The California Republican Party supported it, while county Republican groups were split.

Deborah Sivas, an environmental law professor at Stanford University, said Prop. 45 would radically change current law. It would shift power “away from local governments and to developers by giving them some new tools … and limiting what courts can do in terms of reviewing decisions that agencies and local governments make,” she said.

CEQA and housing

California’s environmental review law, signed in 1970, requires agencies to assess the environmental impacts of developments and help mitigate them.

Over decades, developers have raised concerns about the process, arguing litigation and bureaucracy slow down construction.

State legislators have tried to fix the problem by passing laws that exempt or streamline certain projects from environmental review. In 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed laws that exempt many urban housing projects from the full review process.

But some supporters of Prop. 45, including the California Building Industry Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing, say those changes don’t go far enough.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but (that type of housing) does not produce quickly or at scale,” said Jennifer Hernandez, an attorney who helped write the measure. “We need quicker, at scale, affordable housing.”

Supporters say Prop. 45 would help California redevelop large, unused sites like malls and parking lots into housing and make it easier to build away from urban areas.

Pro-housing groups, public agencies divided 

Pro-housing and local government groups usually support CEQA reform, but Prop. 45 has divided many of them.

Housing advocates in the Bay Area, including East Bay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance, oppose the measure. Other Yes in My Backyard groups are neutral, including Abundant Housing Los Angeles and both California YIMBY and YIMBY Action — the movement’s two flagship advocacy groups.

The split between pro-housing groups lies in whether California should keep building outward onto undeveloped land or promote construction in urban centers. Some supporters, including Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, have said the state needs all types of housing.

Others say building away from urban centers would make it harder to address climate change.

“We believe we can (and must) solve the housing and climate crises simultaneously. That means building communities with denser housing and alternatives to automobile dependence,” wrote Max Dubler of California YIMBY in a blog post explaining the group’s neutral stance on Prop. 45.

Public agencies and local governments that could benefit from the building rules were also divided.

The California Municipal Utilities Association opposes the measure. But most other groups representing local governments, including the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, remained neutral.

Financial impacts for Prop. 45

Prop. 45 supporters argued that streamlining development would make life more affordable for Californians, but the long-term financial benefits are unclear.

An analysis by Blue Sky Consulting Group, commissioned by the California Chamber of Commerce, estimated the measure would produce $1.5 billion in savings and additional revenues for public agencies over 10 years that would reduce overall housing costs.

But the measure would initially cost local governments and public agencies more as they adjust to the measure’s rules, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan adviser to the Legislature.

Democrats have done well in recent elections when they win young voters by a margin of at least 20 points. On Tuesday, they carried Gen Z — those under 30 — by nearly 50 points, according to exit polling.

It's a stunning shift from 2024, when the party lost critical ground with young people. Long seen as a part of the Democratic base, voters under 30 shifted right towards Donald Trump, motivated by his pledge to better their economic prospects.

But this week, the youngest generation of voters issued a strong rebuke of Republicans, taking another chance on Democrats and their change-focused message at a moment when many of them feel as though the American Dream is out of reach.

How young voters powered Democrats to victory 

Americans ages 18-29 have a history of turning out at lower rates than older voters, and this year was no exception. Gen Z made up 11% of the total vote on Tuesday.

However, where young Americans may have made the greatest difference is on the margins in House and Senate races where Democrats flipped seats.

The Texas Senate race is a key example. Democrat James Talarico won the state by 12 percentage points; however, when looking at just Gen Z, he won it by 60 points.

Explaining the massive shift from 2024

When assessing gains more broadly, Democrats argue the party's strong slate of candidates helped drum up increased enthusiasm.

But another motivating factor remains strong opposition to Trump. Throughout his second term, Gen Z increasingly soured on the president, with some arguing he failed to make good on a number of core campaign promises — from pledging to lower prices and repeatedly vowing "no new wars," to calling for a crackdown on federal corruption and the release of the Epstein files.

Much of that disappointment was reflected in exit polling. Economic issues were the top concern for a plurality of 18- to 29-year-olds, at 43%, and these voters expressed broad frustrations with Trump's handling of the issue. More than eight in 10 said that Trump's policies have worsened economic conditions, with similar shares opposing his tariff strategy and the decision to go to war with Iran.

The young voters Trump lost

Early analysis from CIRCLE indicates that 15% of young people who backed Trump in 2024 voted for a Democratic House candidate in this year's midterms.

Democrats made gains with some young voters who backed Trump two years ago, including white men and Latino men, two blocs that narrowly voted Republican in 2024 and then voted blue on Tuesday by double digits. Democratic candidates also narrowed the margins with young rural voters and people without college degrees.  

Some of those gains may have been helped by young Trump voters who chose to sit this election out, but it's unclear how many of them there were.

How the election results broke down by age

The midterm results underscore how neither of the two major parties owns Gen Z, according to John Della Volpe, a left-leaning pollster who's extensively studied the politics of young Americans.

"The cohort of younger people in this cycle had a different set of experiences than the cohort of people two years ago, or four years before that," he said. "Every candidate, every party has to earn their votes."

Della Volpe, who runs the Harvard Youth Poll, notes that in the latest survey, released in October, there was a sizable enthusiasm gap between young Democrat and young Republican respondents. While half of Democrats said they definitely planned to vote, just a third of Republicans and less than a quarter of Independents said the same.

"I also think we shouldn't overread what's happened," he added. "Clearly a significant historic rebuke on the party in office — that's obvious — however, I think we need to more fully, kind of understand, the contour of the electorate, who showed up and who didn't show up."

By 2028, Gen Z and millennial voters will make up more than half of the electorate, a demographic shift with huge implications for Democrats and the GOP.

"Young adults can make a difference," said Elizabeth Matto, who serves as the director of the Center for Youth Political Participation at Rutgers University.

"They do care about politics. They can sway the outcome of elections. And they're a voting bloc worth paying attention to."
Copyright 2026 NPR

The morning after Tuesday's midterms was gloomy and rainy in Minneapolis, but people still gathered at the place where Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a VA nurse and U.S. citizen, last January. All week, community members have come here to place their "I Voted" stickers at the memorial.

Nicki Adams, who dated Pretti and was his close friend for nearly 17 years, watched quietly as a woman added her sticker to a street lamp completely covered in the red decals.

"I wanted to see all the stickers. I just wanted to be here," she says. "It just means a lot to me. I think it would mean a lot to Alex, too."

A few blocks away, people left their stickers where an ICE officer killed Renee Good, a mom of three and a U.S. citizen, just a few weeks before Pretti's death. In Houston, they left them where an ICE officer killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a father of three and a Mexican immigrant, in July.

Adams says these stickers, and the election results this week, send a clear message to Congress: "You work for us, and please carry on these values that we care about … We want to be seen and heard and taken care of and have our neighbors taken care of."

The deaths of Pretti and Good during the ICE surge in Minneapolis marked a pivotal moment for the country, sparking intense public backlash to President Trump's aggressive deportation efforts. But federal law enforcement officials have given little indication they're progressing in investigating their deaths, or the deaths of at least seven other people killed by federal immigration agents since Trump took office again last year. DHS did not respond to an NPR request for the status of those investigations.

Now, after Democrats' sweeping wins this week, their deaths at the hands of immigration agents will likely be the targets of renewed investigations. With a majority in Congress, Democrats can issue subpoenas to the major players in Trump's mass deportation plan, compelling them to testify under oath before the legislature.

That could include White House Border Czar Tom Homan, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, former Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, among others.

Congress can also demand internal documents, like use-of-force reports.

"They can dissect these individual shootings, and really unravel the story of what happened," says Naureen Shah, who leads the ACLU's immigration policy work.

Democrats have already held shadow hearings on the ICE shootings, during which they've called in family members and witnesses to testify.

But Shah says now Congress can ask key questions of top decision makers: What orders were given to immigration officers in the field? What was training like for these officers?

Who made the decision to paint Good and Pretti as threats, including calling Pretti a "would-be assassin" and a domestic terrorist, when video showed otherwise?

"It's like we can turn the faucet on and actually find out so much more," Shah says. "There's an aspect of this that is really about a kind of reckoning with how it's possible that things that seemed unthinkable could happen on American streets. How do you have that reckoning if you don't actually have the ability to force people to explain themselves?"

Democratic leaders have already said that's the plan.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is expected to lead the House Judiciary Committee, told NPR in a statement that Congress will use "every tool" at its disposal to investigate ICE and that it is time for the agency to "start answering to the American people."

California Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia, expected to lead the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, vowed to take on DHS and ICE abuses in a two-word statement: "Lawyer Up."

Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, expected to lead the House Committee on Homeland Security, sent a letter on Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, demanding the agency "comply with all document preservation requirements."

Illinois Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez wrote on social media that Noem, Miller, Homan, Bovino and Mullin should "clear" their schedules.

In response to that, DHS general counsel James Percival said Democrats are "more interested in political shenanigans than in governing" but said the agency is prepared to "deal with this nonsense."

There are key limitations to what Democrats in Congress can do with their majority when it comes to ICE accountability, says Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Major changes, like clawing back funding for the agency, would require a veto-proof majority, something the Democrats don't have.

"You still have a president who has shown a complete lack of interest in accountability for federal agents and in fact, a great deal of knee jerk defensiveness about their conduct," Moran says.

In a statement, a White House spokesperson told NPR "if Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people."

Democrats, the statement added, "should be reminded that we still control the federal government and all of its powers."

But that's not true. Congress has its own powers, one of them being the ability to compel testimony. Moran says a deeper probe into the shootings could still serve important purposes, like making evidence available for states to use in their own criminal investigations.

Minnesota officials, for instance, have been fighting with the federal government to get evidence related to the Pretti and Good killings.

Brent Ganger, Renee Good's brother, says learning more information about his sister's death will be hard to hear, "but I think it's also super important for us to understand what happened that day. I don't want history to keep repeating itself."

It was painful, he says, to watch immigration agents kill more people after his sister. He thought her death would be a turning point. In a way, it might have been the start of one. After the surge in Minneapolis, most Americans said ICE had gone too far.

Ganger, who considers himself a moderate, was happy to see the Blue Wave this week. On election night, he was scrolling Instagram when he saw a photo of his sister's memorial site, with all the "I Voted" stickers.

"I was very grateful to see the repudiation of this administration from the country. It felt very supportive of my entire family," he says.

The next morning, in his home in Colorado, he got up and made biscuits and gravy, his sister's favorite breakfast.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Abraham Zavala was born at Adventist White Memorial. So were his kids. So late Friday, when he heard federal immigration agents were at the Boyle Heights hospital, and that local youth were out blowing whistles to warn neighbors, he went. 

“To me that’s sacred ground,” said Zavala, an organizer with Unión del Barrio.

“I’m a dad,” he said. “I wanted to be there to support the youth.”

He was among the Boyle Heights residents who converged on the hospital and stayed in a standoff with federal immigration agents into the early hours of Saturday. Agents detained at least two people, according to rapid response groups.

Neighbors alerted each other with noisemakers and fireworks. A woman pounded her pots and pans. Teenagers ran across Mariachi Plaza, shouting that ICE was in the area and urging residents to lock their doors. 

“Even though we’re afraid, you know we’re still showing up,” said Myra Vasquez, a Boyle Heights resident who rushed to White Memorial after hearing reports of ICE in the area. “We’re not going to allow them to just come into our communities and terrorize us because they’re the real terrorists causing harm.”

Myra Vasquez, a Boyle Heights resident and co-owner of Espacio 1839 rushed to White Memorial after hearing reports of ICE.

(

Alejandra Molina

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

The confrontation peaked around 11:30 p.m. Video shared with Boyle Heights Beat shows agents pushing back protesters who had moved toward them, and the two sides begin shoving. Agents appear to pepper-spray people on the sidewalk. One agent then tackles a man and pins him to the ground, while a second person is pulled from the crowd. Both were detained.

The standoff continued past midnight. Zavala said agents got out of their vehicles and formed a line in front of the parking lot where paramedics enter, blocking an emergency exit. “They literally became White Memorial’s private security detail,” he said. Zavala said he and another person were sprayed with Mace.

Adventist Health White Memorial Hospital in Boyle Heights.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

The Dept. of Homeland Security declined to comment about the incident in Boyle Heights, and, in a statement, the agency said they would “not disclose or discuss law enforcement operations.”

The spokesperson instead said that obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime.

“ICE does not target hospitals, schools, or churches,” the statement said, despite the large turnout of protesters who encountered the masked agents at the hospital.

Father Brendan Busse, who pastors nearby Dolores Mission Church in Boyle Heights, rushed to White Memorial after seeing reports from the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network of ICE at the hospital.

Busse, a Jesuit priest, said he witnessed people caring for each other and tending to those suffering from pepper spray. People there advocated for them to find treatment at White Memorial, Busse said. Community members, he said, “were obviously doing their best, not just to communicate their feelings, but to push, to instigate the dispersal of this ICE presence.”

As clergy, Busse said their presence can help combat a narrative of those advocating for immigrants as “somehow dangerous, or violent, or vulgar.” 

“Just to be there is a sign that that’s not the only version of what this looks like,” he said.

Initially, Busse showed up wearing a hoodie, but he decided to change into his green stole he had in his car as things appeared to get tense. “Just try to do what I could to bring a presence of maybe a little moral authority,” he said.

“It’s bad enough that people have to lift up their voices to say something so obvious, that their lives matter, that our communities are sacred, that families belong together,” Busse said. “It’s bad enough that they have to be out at 3 a.m. in the morning to tell anybody that.”

“It’s even worse if they would have to suffer the consequences of retribution and violence that comes from speaking out in that way,” Busse added.

The post Fireworks, whistles, pots and pans: How neighbors came together to push ICE out of Boyle Heights appeared first on LA Local.