(WASHINGTON) — Gen. CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top admiral, are among the list of general officers provided to Congress this week indicating that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could fire or remove from their current jobs, according to two U.S. officials.
Brown serves as the president’s senior military advisoer and has been chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since October 2023, his four year tenure is supposed to end in 2027.
Franchetti has been the Chief of Naval Operations since November 2023.
Both officers had previously been criticized by Hegseth prior to his becoming defense secretary during the Trump administration.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Fired CFPB employee, Elizabeth Aniskevich says they were ‘tossed on the streets’ with no info, haven’t been able to get forms for unemployment; ABC News
(WASHINGTON) — For many, a federal government job was a marker of stability or a way to serve the country, in some cases a “dream” job.
But a week after the Trump administration started to hack away at government agencies, many employees who were cut are left fearing for their future and in the dark about their next steps.
Days after they’d been let go, employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s hadn’t received the paperwork they needed to file for unemployment, said Elizabeth Aniskevich, who was a litigation counsel for the agency before she was told her job was eliminated.
“It’s really been a total roller coaster of emotions,” she said. “I will say the solidarity among those of us who have been terminated has been amazing, but we can barely get information.”
Aniskevich was fired with 70 other employees who were still in their probationary period. Many of them are keeping in touch through a group chat.
“We have not received forms that are requested to file for unemployment,” she said. “We have no real understanding of when our health insurance terminates,” she said. “We just have no information. We were just basically tossed out on the streets, and so that has been angering and heartbreaking, and our pay stopped the day we got the termination letter, so we’re all without a paycheck as of Tuesday.”
“I think the main question is, ‘What are we going to do?’” she said.
“I’m a single person in my house. I’m responsible for my insurance and for my mortgage, and I worked really hard to buy this house on my own after putting myself through law school, and I don’t know how I’m going to continue to make mortgage payments very far into the future,” she said.
Aniskevich said she chose to work for the CFPB because she was raised in a military family that believed in service.
“My dad was in the military for 27 years, and he really instilled in me a commitment to this country and to public service,” she said.
Katie Butler, a Department of Education lawyer, knew her days with the agency were numbered.
“Ever since the start of the Trump administration, we knew there would be a cut in federal employees,” she said.
She and her colleagues also knew that the first people to go would be probationary employees with less protection.
And while she expected to be terminated, certainty came with the “Fork in the Road” notice, an email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that introduced a new program called “deferred resignation, that allowed them to continue to work until Sept. 30. Around 75,000 federal employees took the buyout, according to the White House.
Butler is also an adjunct professor at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Duquesne University in Pennsylvania, where she earned her law degree.
She says she was teaching a class when she got the Fork in the Road notice and didn’t see it immediately. The next day, she got a termination letter.
Her supervisors asked, “Did you get a termination notice, because we don’t know who got one.”
Butler doesn’t hold her abrupt termination against them.
“I don’t think this is coming from them, they are doing their best, but this is not the way you run the federal government system.”
Butler and her colleagues were told they could appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board but she says she knows the decision would be hard to appeal.
The loss of her job has also hit her financially — she had just bought a house in June that she’s been remodeling and also has student debt of around $140,000.
Butler began working for the federal government “right out of college.”
She worked for the National Park Service and at the Bureau of Labor Statistics before getting into law school. In September 2024, she joined the Department of Education, where she had to complete a new probationary period despite having previously established career status.
She says the job she lost was “one of the exact jobs I went to law school for.”
“Career-wise, this is a big detour from what I expected,” she said. “I went to law school because I planned to work long-term as a public servant.”
Given what she calls “the somewhat disrespectful and unthoughtful way this is being handled,” Butler says she will take a detour away from the federal government.
“It’s honestly just really disappointing, from like a personal standpoint.”
Her plan is to go into general litigation at a mid-size to large law firm or a solicitor’s office. She has also considered local government work, given her experience.
She may go to work for a city. Even now, she is “still dedicated to doing good as a civil servant but not under the present circumstances.”
Victoria DeLano, who was an equal opportunity specialist in the education department’s Office for Civil Rights based in Birmingham, Alabama, said she was outraged when she received notice that she had lost her job last week.
“I think that the work that the Office for Civil Rights does is absolutely instrumental to children in my state,” she said.
“When you take out of the equation a fully staffed Office for Civil Rights, you’re taking away an avenue to resolution and an avenue to law enforcement, a really important avenue to law enforcement.”
“These students have no one else,” she said. They can still file complaints with OCR. Please understand OCR is understaffed at best, and OCR right now does not have external communication with you all. So I don’t know where they turn,” she added.
DeLano also called her position a “dream job.”
“It’s something that I’m extraordinarily passionate about because I believe with my history working with students with disabilities,” she said. “So I jumped at the chance to take this job, and absolutely loved it.”
She is concerned that the Trump administration has no clear plan to shrink the federal government, nor is it considering students with disabilities.
“This dismantling of our government right now is just being done with a sledgehammer without thought of what are the implications be to the individuals who are serviced by these agencies,” she said.
That sentiment is echoed by Butler.
“It takes a while to build a government system, but when [you] tear it down this quickly, it can cause a lot of damage,” she said. “The progress feels slow. This could take 100 years for us to rebuild.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Thursday will vote on Kash Patel’s controversial nomination to lead the FBI.
If confirmed, Patel will be the 18th Cabinet official approved by lawmakers since President Donald Trump’s inauguration one month ago.
Republicans have rallied around Patel, arguing he would bring reform to the nation’s top law enforcement agency they allege has been corrupted.
“Mr. Patel should be our next FBI director because the FBI has been infected by political bias and weaponized against the American people. Mr. Patel knows it, Mr. Patel exposed it, and Mr. Patel has been targeted for it,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said last week as the committee met to consider his nomination. The panel advanced Patel in a party-line vote.
Democrats, meanwhile, have objected to Patel up until the last minute. Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, held a press conference outside FBI headquarters on Thursday morning railing against Patel’s “bizarre political statements” on Jan. 6 to retribution.
He accused Republicans of “willfully ignoring red flags on Mr. Patel,” who he argued has “neither the experience, the judgment or the temperament” to be FBI chief for the next 10 years.
“Mr. Patel will be a political and national security disaster,” Durbin said.
Patel, 44, is a loyalist to the president and worked in a number of roles during Trump’s first administration, including acting deputy director of national intelligence.
Shortly after the November election, Trump indicated he would fire then-FBI Director Christopher Wray and tap Patel to take his place. Wray, first appointed by Trump in 2017, stepped down at the end of the Biden administration.
Patel has been a vocal critic of the FBI for years, and previously said he wanted to clean out the bureau’s headquarters in Washington as part of a mission to dismantle the so-called “deep state.”
He faced pointed questions from Democrats on those comments and more — including support for Jan. 6 rioters and quotes that appeared favorable to the “QAnon” conspiracy movement — during his confirmation hearings last month.
Patel sought to distance from some of his past rhetoric, and told lawmakers he would take “no retributive actions” despite his history of comments about targeting journalists and government employees.
Patel, if confirmed, will take over an agency facing uncertainty and turmoil amid firings and other key changes.
The Justice Department’s sought a list of potentially thousands of FBI employees who worked on Jan. 6 cases, ABC News previously reported, prompting agents to file a lawsuit to block the effort.
(NEW YORK) — The Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce affect the World Trade Center Health Program, putting the health of 9/11 first responders at risk, critics said.
Sixteen probationary staff members at the World Trade Center Health Program have been fired as part of the layoffs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several other full-time staff members have agreed to take a buyout, according to Citizens for the Extension of the James Zadroga Act.
The firings and buyouts amount to a 20% reduction in the staff that supervises and administers the World Trade Center Health Program. There are also cuts to research grants that fund efforts at the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) to determine whether new health conditions are related to service at the World Trade Center site on and after 9/11.
Decisions on certifications to allow for treatment of new cancers and other conditions will be delayed because of the firings and layoffs, Benjamin Chevat, of Citizens for the Extension of the James Zadroga Act, told ABC News. Additionally, decisions on pending petitions to expand coverage to autoimmune and cardiac conditions will be delayed and there will be fewer people to intervene when there are problems with prescriptions and treatment, according to Chevat.
“We cannot believe that the Trump administration or the new HHS Secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr. intends to harm 9/11 responders and survivors in the World Trade Center Health Program, but that will be the outcome of these cuts,” Chevat said.
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., New York Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer demanded that the funds be restored.
“‘Never forget’ is not just a slogan. It is a sacred promise to always stand by 9/11 heroes, a promise being broken by slashing funding and vital staffing for their healthcare in the World Trade Center Health Program. It’s unacceptable, and un-American,” said Schumer in a joint statement with Gillibrand. “To say funding for 9/11 first responders is government waste is outrageous and insulting.”
“These brutal cuts mean layoffs for staff who have dedicated their careers to caring for our 9/11 survivors. It means delayed care for our sick first responders. It is telling 9/11 survivors that after they risked everything to protect us, we can’t support their healthcare needs,” the statement continued.
The World Trade Center Health Program was created in 2011 as part of the Zadroga Act. It was extended until 2090 to compensate the growing number of people who have contracted illnesses related to 9/11.
About 140,000 survivors have enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Program, including about 12,000 last year alone, according to the CDC.
“Slashing funding and laying off workers who run this vital program will have a devastating impact on its ability to provide sick responders and survivors with the care they need. This is betrayal of our heroes who stepped up and risked their lives to put our community back together in one of our nation’s darkest hours, and we will not let it stand. HHS Secretary Kennedy must reverse these cuts and terminations immediately,” Gillibrand said in the statement.
Early this month, as part of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, the first flight carrying “high threat” migrants landed at Guantanamo Bay, home of the notorious U.S. prison camp that administration officials said would house the most violent “worst of the worst” migrants apprehended on American soil.
ABC News, however, has spoken with the families of two migrants who say they’re being held there despite having no criminal record.
“President Donald Trump has been very clear: Guantanamo Bay will hold the worst of the worst. That starts today,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after releasing photos of the migrants boarding a C-17 military plane in Texas on Feb 4.
The move followed an executive order by Trump directing the secretaries of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to “expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity” for “high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”
“There’s a lot of space to accommodate a lot of people,” Trump said in the Oval Office last month when he signed the order. “So we’re going to use it.”
But in the weeks that have followed, as more migrants have been sent to Guantanamo, immigrant advocacy groups and some relatives of those detained claim the administration has provided no evidence that those detained are “high-threat” — and that people are being sent to the military base without access to legal counsel or the ability to communicate with relatives.
“It’s troubling enough that we are even sending immigrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo, but it’s beyond the pale that we are holding them incommunicado, without access to attorneys, family or the outside world,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
A federal lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., last week and backed by the ACLU, says this is the first time in U.S. history that the government has detained noncitizens on civil immigration charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
A DHS spokesperson told ABC News last week that in addition to holding violent gang members and other “high-threat” migrants, the military is also holding other undocumented migrants with final deportation orders.
An ABC News review of 53 Guantanamo detainees whose names were published by The New York Times found federal cases associated with 14 of the names. That number does not account for possible variations in spelling, nor does it include any possible state cases.
According to federal court records, among those cases, one individual was charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding an officer during a riot at a detention center. Another was charged for allegedly being involved in an “illegal alien smuggling scheme,” and one was charged with “intentionally conspiring to transport” undocumented people in Texas.
In the other federal cases ABC News found, the individuals were charged for entry or illegal reentry into the U.S., a criminal offense.
ABC News spoke with the families of two migrants who are in Guantanamo, who claimed their detained relatives do not have ties to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua or other criminal groups as authorities have alleged.
A senior DHS official told ABC News the two migrants are members of Tren De Aragua, but did not elaborate or offer any details.
“There is a system for phone utilization to reach lawyers,” added the official. “If the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union cares more about highly dangerous criminal aliens including murderers & vicious gang members than they do about American citizens — they should change their name.”
The family members said they believe their relatives were unfairly targeted because of their tattoos.
“He told us he was being targeted because of his tattoos … he was accused of being part of Tren de Aragua, but that is not true,” said Barbara Simancas, the sister of Jose Rodriguez Simancas who is reportedly one of the migrants in Guantanamo. “His tattoos have nothing to do with that … they are of his children’s names.”
Barbara Simancas told ABC News that her brother last spoke to a relative on Feb. 4 to let them know he was being transferred to the military base in Cuba the next day. She said her brother surrendered to authorities after crossing the southern border last year and claiming asylum, and that he was placed in a detention center in El Paso, Texas.
Barbara Simancas maintains her brother does not have a criminal record and provided to ABC News a criminal background check from Venezuela.
Rodriguez Simancas was charged with “improper entry” into the U.S. in May 2024. Court records obtained by ABC News noted that he has “no criminal history” other than the improper entry to which he pleaded guilty.
Barbara Simancas said she has not been able to get in touch with ICE or DHS since her brother was sent to Guantanamo.
“I just ask the government to send him back to Venezuela,” Simancas said. “His kids are worried. They want to see their dad.”
ABC News also spoke with Jhoan Lee Bastidas, the father of Jhoan Lee Bastidas Paz, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was charged with “improper entry” into the U.S. in November 2023 and pleaded guilty. Court records also indicate he has “no criminal history” besides that charge.
Lee Bastidas told ABC News he found out about his son’s detention when his other son saw a photo on social media of Bastidas Paz on a military flight to Guantanamo.
“When I saw the photo of him, I said ‘Oh my God,'” said Lee Bastidas, who told ABC News that his son’s name was also in the list of Guantanamo detainees published by the Times.
“We’re thinking the worst things because on social media, they say Guantanamo is the worst … that it’s where they house the terrorists,” Lee Bastidas said. “I am tormented.”
The future looked bright for Luis Eduardo Perez Parra, Leonel Rivas Gonzalez and Abrahan Josue Barrios last week.
After being held in immigration custody for over a year and facing the possibility of transfer to Guantánamo Bay, the three men asked a federal court to intervene, warning they might have “disappeared into the legal black hole” of Guantánamo.
Last Sunday, a federal judge in New Mexico handed down a surprise ruling blocking the Trump administration from sending the men to Guantánamo — the first successful legal challenge to the policy since it was enacted last month.
But their victory was short-lived.
The very next day, the men were placed on the first deportation flight back to Venezuela in over a year, according to their lawyer Jessica Vosburgh.
“It’s hard to imagine that it didn’t have something to do with them filing a habeas piece and then stepping forward to challenge these threatened Guantanamo transfers,” Vosburgh told ABC News. “The court’s order only applied to transfers to Guantánamo, this is just a slap in the face to get deported the next day.”
While Vosburgh stopped short of calling the deportations retaliatory, she said she struggles to see what else could have led to the sudden deportation.
“With thousands of other post-order Venezuelans detained in the United States awaiting removal, it is hard to imagine that petitioners would have been prioritized for these first deportation flights if they had not filed this habeas action, and courageously challenged the executive branch’s reprehensible and legally unsupportable decision to begin shipping detained migrants to the notorious military prison at Guantánamo and holding them there incommunicado,” Vosburgh argued in a court filing voluntarily dismissing the case.
Vosburgh also called out the Trump administration for alleging that her clients — two of whom have no criminal records, and one who was accused of a non-violent offense — were members of the infamous Tren de Aragua gang, which could cause severe harm now that they are back in Venezuela where President Nicolás Maduro has linked the gang to his political opposition.
“Respondents’ reckless labeling of these two Petitioners as gang-affiliated is part of a disturbing pattern, beginning on the Trump campaign trail, of scapegoating and criminalizing migrants who come to this country seeking protection and a better life,” Vosburgh wrote. “It is also part of a trend, fueled by President Trump and his administration and supporters, of painting all Venezuelan migrant men as dangerous gang members deserving of being disappeared into the legal black hole of Guantánamo.”
Vosburgh noted that her clients have safely made it to their homes and been reunited with their families, but the scars of their year-long incarceration remain.
According to Vosburgh, each man endured “dismal conditions” that led them to suffer depression and suicidal ideation. One of the men was admitted into a psychiatric facility last month after he tried to hurt himself, according to the filing.
“Petitioners were needlessly separated for many months from their loved ones in the United States—including Mr. Rivas Gonzalez’s young daughter, who he has not been able to hold in his arms for half of her life. Their separation may now be permanent. It is deeply regrettable and an affront to justice that Petitioners had to suffer so much and for so long,” the filing said.
(WASHINGTON) — Freshly confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told a room packed with federal health workers on Tuesday that he plans to “investigate” whether the timing of childhood vaccinations and anti-depression medications are among several “possible factors” in the nation’s problem with chronic diseases.
“Nothing is going to be off limits,” Kennedy told the large crowd Tuesday.
The campaign-style speech at the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters was intended for staff only, although a livestream link was circulated. Staff was invited to meet him afterward, and an emailed invitation sent earlier to HHS workers noted “selfies are welcome!”
Kennedy’s offer of selfies with staff came amid widespread firings and resignations across the federal government were underway, including at HHS. Agency officials have not provided details on the firings, including what the impact there could be.
According to people familiar with the effort, some 700 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were fired late last week.
Kennedy urged staff to keep an “open mind” on Tuesday as he planned to turn the agency’s vast resources to revisit matters considered as settled science.
“We will convene representatives of all viewpoints to study the causes for the drastic rise in chronic disease,” Kennedy said. “Some of the possible factors we will investigate were formally taboo or insufficiently scrutinized.”
He then gave a list of these “possible factors” to investigate including the childhood vaccine schedule and “SSRI and other psychiatric drugs,” referring to federally approved drugs that help treat such conditions as depression and anxiety.
Studies do not suggest vaccines or SSRIs are to blame for chronic illnesses, such as autism or obesity. Critics argue Kennedy’s rhetoric could create more doubt and public mistrust of these medicines.
Also on his list was electromagnetic radiation, herbicides and pesticides, ultra-processed foods, artificial food, allergies, microplastics and long-lasting chemicals used in the production of non-stick pans. Scientists are actively exploring the possible health impacts of environmental toxins, with some studies suggesting they could play a role in chronic illnesses.
Kennedy’s willingness to revisit the childhood vaccine schedule appears to be at odds with his Senate testimony in January in which he told skeptical lawmakers that he specifically supported federal recommendations.
“I support vaccines. I support the vaccine schedule. I support good science,” Kennedy testified last month.
Vaccinating infants and young children is widely recommended as a way to prevent kids from being exposed to life-threatening diseases like measles and to protect other children in school.
Kennedy has previously pushed a debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, despite numerous large-scale studies finding no connection. He appeared to walk back that claim in his Senate testimony last month, and told lawmakers he wouldn’t try to change the vaccine schedule for children.
ABC’s Soo Youn and Youri Benadjaoud contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge appears poised to block the Trump administration if the Department of Defense attempts to place limitations on or ban transgender service members.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes is still hearing arguments Tuesday in the case but signaled deep skepticism with the claim that transgender service members lessen the military’s lethality or readiness.
“You and I both agree that the greatest fighting force that world history has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than 1% of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them. Would you agree with that?” Judge Reyes asked during a hearing this morning.
“No, Your Honor, I’m not. I can’t agree with that,” a lawyer for the Department of Justice responded.
At issue is Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order that directed the DOD to update its guidance “regarding trans-identifying medical standards for military service and to rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness.” While the Department of Defense has not issued final guidance on transgender service members, the order led to a pause in gender affirming care for service members and is expected to lead to a significant curtailment of transgender service members based on “readiness and lethality.”
With the DOD policy expected to be finalized over the coming week, Reyes said she would hold off on issuing an order but had largely made up her mind about the legality of the order, at one point remarking that “smarter people on the D.C. Circuit would have to tell me I’m wrong” about the policy. She added that the central premise of the executive order — that only two genders exist — is “not biologically correct.”
Reyes also raised concerns about the wording of the executive order, which she criticized for being intentionally imprecise and a pretext for a ban on transgender soldiers.
“If we had President Trump here right now, and I said to him, ‘Is this a transgender ban?’ What do you think he would say?” Reyes asked.
“I have no idea, Your Honor,” said DOJ attorney Jason Lynch.
“I do. He would say, ‘Of course it is.’ Because he calls it a transgender ban, because all the language in it is indicative,” Reyes said.
The judge — who began the hearing by noting that every service member regardless of their gender ideology “deserves our gratitude” — also spent a portion of the hearing questioning Lynch about the group of transgender soldiers who filed the lawsuit.
“If you were in a foxhole, you wouldn’t care about these individuals’ gender ideology, right? You would just be happy that someone with that experience and that bravery and that honorable service to the country was sitting right next to you. Right?” Reyes asked.
“Don’t want to testify as a witness, Your Honor, or offer my personal views of hypothetical,” Lynch responded before conceding, “If I were in a foxhole, I doubt that the gender identity would be a primary concern.”
Reyes also pushed the lawyer for the Department of Justice — who she later commended for arguing his case well — to admit that the transgender soldiers made the country “safer.”
“Are they honorable, truthful, and disciplined?” Reyes asked. “As far as I know, among them, they have over 60 years of military service.”
“That’s correct,” Lynch said.
“And you would agree that together, the plaintiffs have made America safer?” Reyes asked.
(WASHINGTON) — The chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, D.C. abruptly resigned Tuesday amid pressure from top Trump Justice Department appointees to freeze assets stemming from a Biden administration-era environmental initiative, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
A resignation letter sent to the office’s employees by prosecutor Denise Cheung did not detail specific reasons for her sudden departure from the office, but encouraged prosecutors to continue adhering to the Constitution.
“Please continue to support one another, to fulfill your commitment to pursuing justice without fear or prejudice, and to be kind to, and take care of, yourselves,” Cheung said. “You are the resource our nation has.”
Sources familiar with the matter told ABC News that Cheung was under pressure from Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership, including acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove and interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, to launch a formal criminal investigation into an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding initiative pursued under the Biden administration, a request Cheung believed lacked the proper predication to initiate a grand jury investigation.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has previously addressed with DOJ their effort to rescind contracts tied to the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. DOJ’s intervention in the process can only come when prosecutors can credibly allege that the funds are tied to a crime.
Cheung’s resignation letter comes just one day after President Trump announced Martin as his nominee for U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. amid a wave of controversial actions and statements by Martin in his weeks leading the office, actions that have led to growing consternation among career prosecutors.
As ABC News has previously reported, Martin has represented defendants charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and was on Capitol grounds himself on that day, though it’s unclear whether he ever entered areas officially designated as restricted.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.
(WASHINGTON) — The number of apprehensions along the southwestern U.S. border plummeted by a third during January, according to statistics obtained by ABC News on Tuesday.
There were 61,465 apprehensions along the southwest border in January, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, down from 96,048 in December 2024.
The numbers fell even more after President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, according to the data.
In the three weeks before the inauguration, there was a daily average of more than 2,000 apprehensions, which fell to a daily average of 786 migrant apprehensions after the inauguration.
There were 176,195 migrant apprehensions along the southwest border in January 2024.
From Jan. 21 through Jan. 31, the number of U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwest border dropped 85% from the same period in 2024, according to data obtained by ABC News. In the 11 days after Jan. 20, migrants apprehended at ports of entry declined by 93%.
Trump signed executive orders shortly after taking office that declared a national emergency at the border and authorized active duty military and National Guard troops to support CPB’s law enforcement activities. The government has been using military planes to return migrants to their home countries. In addition, the administration has said it is targeting gang members and violent offenders in its crackdown. It also rescinded a policy that barred law enforcement activities at schools and churches and at courthouses.
“The men and women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection are aggressively implementing the President’s Executive Orders to secure our borders. These actions have already resulted in dramatic improvements in border security,” said Pete Flores, acting CBP commissioner. “The reduction in illegal aliens attempting to make entry into the U.S., compounded by a significant increase in repatriations, means that more officers and agents are now able to conduct the enforcement duties that make our border more secure and our country safer.”
CBP and military troops have “dramatically increased” patrolling the southern border, according to CBP.
Numbers of monthly border apprehensions fell below 100,000 for the first time in years in November 2024, according to CBP data.
