Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, delivered a forceful response to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani today, declaring that federal immigration agents will continue operating throughout New York City and New York State regardless of the mayor’s demands to halt immigration enforcement following a controversial ICE shooting.

Homan’s remarks came after Mamdani called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be removed from the city following Thursday’s shooting of a 28-year-old Dominican immigrant during a federal enforcement operation in the Marble Hill neighborhood, near the Bronx.

“He can scream and yell ALL HE WANTS. He’s NOT gonna stop us from doing this job,” Homan declared.

“I don’t know what color the SKY is in Mamdani’s world, but ICE ISN’T GOING ANYWHERE!” he continued.

“We’re gonna be in New York City, we’re gonna be in New York State, we’re gonna KEEP enforcing the law — that’s why President Trump is in the OVAL OFFICE.”

The response underscored the escalating confrontation between the Trump administration and Mamdani over the federal government’s immigration enforcement operations in New York, where the mayor has repeatedly condemned ICE tactics and demanded an end to the agency’s activities.

The latest dispute began Thursday afternoon when ICE agents attempted to apprehend a man in Marble Hill. During the confrontation, a federal agent opened fire on the man’s vehicle, striking him in the neck while his five-year-old son was seated inside.

NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said at least one federal agent fired seven rounds during the encounter. The child was not physically injured and was subsequently placed in the care of a family member.

The wounded man was transported to NewYork-Presbyterian Allen Hospital for treatment before being taken back into federal custody.

Federal authorities identified the man as Oscar Belgal, a Dominican national with a criminal record who was wanted for immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security alleged that he had ties to the Trinitarios gang, although that allegation has not been independently verified.

According to federal officials, Belgal attempted to escape arrest and struck two ICE vehicles during the encounter. The circumstances surrounding the shooting remain under investigation, including what prompted the agent to discharge his weapon.

Mamdani responded with an unusually sharp denunciation of federal immigration authorities, accusing ICE of endangering residents and demanding that its agents leave the city.

“This is an unconscionable and incredibly serious situation,” the mayor said in a statement issued Thursday.

“I have called the President; when we speak I will demand that he ends all ICE enforcement actions in our city. I will not stand by while ICE agents terrorize our communities.”

He concluded the statement with a series of demands:

“Get ICE out of our neighborhoods. Get ICE out of our hospitals. Get ICE off our streets. Get ICE away from our children.”

“Abolish ICE.”

At a subsequent news conference near the scene of the shooting, Mamdani intensified his criticism, describing the federal agency as fundamentally flawed.

“We know that ICE is rotten to its core,” the mayor declared.

Mamdani also questioned the tactics used by agents during the operation, including their reported use of masks, plainclothes and construction-style vests. He argued that such methods made it difficult for residents to identify the individuals approaching them as federal law enforcement officers.

The mayor said he had spoken directly with Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in an effort to secure Belgal’s release from federal custody.

Those discussions were unsuccessful.

Mamdani subsequently told reporters that federal authorities had removed the wounded man from the hospital in an unmarked vehicle, despite his administration’s objections.

The Department of Homeland Security defended the operation and pointed to Belgal’s previous encounters with law enforcement.

Federal officials said he had been arrested by the NYPD in December 2023 and subsequently released. DHS cited the case in criticizing New York’s sanctuary policies, although its public statement did not establish that those policies had caused his release.

The agency acknowledged that an ICE officer fired his weapon and that Belgal was injured. It said officers provided medical assistance and that the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations were involved in examining the incident.

DHS did not initially provide a detailed public explanation of the precise circumstances that prompted the officer to fire.

The shooting also triggered protests in New York, with demonstrators demanding accountability from federal immigration authorities and an end to ICE operations in residential neighborhoods.

Several prominent Democratic officials, including Governor Kathy Hochul and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, criticized the federal operation.

The controversy has also intensified divisions within Mamdani’s political coalition, with socialist activists demanding that NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch take stronger action against federal immigration enforcement.

Some of those activists have called for Tisch’s removal, accusing the NYPD of assisting federal agents during the aftermath of the shooting. Tisch has said city police did not participate in the ICE operation and responded only after the gunfire.

Homan’s response made clear that the administration has no intention of allowing the mayor’s opposition to determine where federal immigration officers can operate.

While New York City’s sanctuary policies restrict certain forms of cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials, they do not give the mayor the authority to prohibit ICE from enforcing federal immigration law within city limits.

Homan said the administration would continue its enforcement activities in both New York City and the rest of the state, regardless of Mamdani’s objections.

Phil Gordon, who served as Vice President Kamala Harris’s national security adviser during the Biden administration, has accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of delaying a hostage-release agreement with Hamas by six months in 2024, alleging that the Israeli leader introduced new demands that prevented an earlier deal and left Israeli captives in Gaza, where several were subsequently murdered.

In a lengthy statement published today, Gordon claimed that Hamas had accepted the basic framework of an American-backed agreement in July 2024, only for Netanyahu to insist on additional conditions that made an agreement impossible until January 2025.

Gordon’s allegations follow explosive claims made earlier this week by Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, who accused the prime minister of passing up opportunities to secure the release of hostages because of political considerations.

The former American official argued that an agreement could have been reached months earlier if Netanyahu had accepted the framework being negotiated at the time, and suggested that the delay contributed to the deaths of Israeli hostages who might otherwise have returned home alive.

Gordon’s intervention also exposed disagreements among senior officials who served in the Biden administration over responsibility for the prolonged negotiations and whether Washington should have applied greater pressure on Israel to end the fighting.

The immediate trigger for Gordon’s comments was the publication of a new book by Brett McGurk, a senior Biden administration Middle East adviser who played a central role in negotiating the eventual hostage agreement.

Gordon accused Netanyahu’s supporters of selectively using McGurk’s account to defend the prime minister’s wartime decisions.

“Netanyahu supporters seem to be taking advantage of Brett McGurk’s book and interviews to claim vindication for Netanyahu’s conduct of the war in Gaza,” Gordon wrote on X.

“But while Brett’s front-row account is valuable, that doesn’t mean it is definitive or its perspectives widely shared — including among former members of the Biden administration,” he continued.

Gordon pointed specifically to a July 4, 2024, telephone conversation between President Joe Biden and Netanyahu, which he said represented a critical moment in the negotiations.

According to Gordon, Hamas had finally agreed to the central framework of a proposed exchange, abandoning its previous insistence that Israel commit to a permanent ceasefire before any hostages were released.

“Brett tells the story of the Biden phone call after [Israel’s accidental strike on a convoy for World Central Kitchen], but not the story of how Biden called Netanyahu on July 4, 2024, to press him to conclude the hostage deal after Hamas had finally accepted the basic framework, dropping its demand that Israel commit to a permanent ceasefire before any hostages were released,” Gordon wrote.

He alleged that Netanyahu responded by introducing additional Israeli conditions, despite objections from senior Israeli security officials.

“Netanyahu instead added so many of his own conditions — against the advice of his own security chiefs — that the deal became impossible for another six months, during which nearly 9,000 more Palestinians were killed and more Israeli hostages died, including the six that Hamas executed in August,” Gordon stated.

The six hostages Gordon referenced were Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi, Almog Sarusi, Ori Danino and Alexander Lobanov, whose bodies were recovered from a tunnel in Rafah in late August 2024 after they were murdered by Hamas terrorists.

Gordon’s claim that an earlier agreement could have saved their lives is an assessment of what might have happened had negotiations succeeded in July, rather than an established finding about the outcome of a proposed agreement.

Gordon identified two specific Israeli demands that he said were responsible for preventing an agreement during the summer of 2024.

The first involved Netanyahu’s insistence that Israeli forces remain along the Philadelphi Corridor, the narrow strip of territory running along Gaza’s border with Egypt. Israel had taken control of the corridor during its military offensive in Rafah, after the original hostage agreement framework had been presented.

Netanyahu argued at the time that maintaining control of the corridor was essential to preventing Hamas from rebuilding its military capabilities through weapons smuggling from Egypt.

The second demand concerned the Netzarim Corridor, an Israeli-controlled route dividing northern and southern Gaza. Netanyahu wanted a mechanism to screen Palestinians returning to northern Gaza to prevent armed Hamas terrorists from moving back into areas cleared by the IDF.

Gordon maintained that both requirements complicated the negotiations and were eventually abandoned when Israel agreed to the January 2025 arrangement.

“The Israeli changes included a demand that Israel retain forces along Gaza’s entire border with Egypt, which the IDF had seized only after the original proposal, and a new enforcement mechanism to screen Gazans who were returning home to the north which would have required Israeli troops to remain in central Gaza. Both of those new conditions were dropped in the deal ultimately concluded in January 2025,” Gordon wrote.

His account differs in important respects from the version presented by McGurk, who has emphasized Hamas’s refusal to agree to key provisions during the negotiations.

In an October 4 interview with CBS News, McGurk described the fundamental disagreement between Israel and Hamas as one of the central obstacles to reaching a ceasefire.

He explained that Hamas wanted to retain control of Gaza and secure the release of Palestinian prisoners, while Israel insisted that the terrorist organization could no longer govern the territory following the October 7 massacre.

McGurk said Netanyahu believed sustained military pressure would ultimately force Hamas to accept an agreement favorable to Israel, while Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar calculated that prolonging the conflict would increase international pressure on Israel.

According to McGurk, negotiations continued to encounter major obstacles in December 2024, including Hamas’s refusal to provide an acceptable list of living hostages who would be released under the proposed agreement.

McGurk described a meeting with Netanyahu in December in which the prime minister agreed to a central provision of the deal, contingent on Hamas accepting the proposed list of 33 hostages.

Hamas subsequently indicated that only 12 of those hostages would be released alive, according to McGurk, creating another major obstacle.

The negotiations ultimately produced an agreement in January 2025, shortly before Trump returned to the White House. Representatives of both the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration participated in the final diplomatic effort.

McGurk has credited the involvement of Trump’s incoming Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, with helping overcome remaining disagreements.

Gordon, however, argued that McGurk’s account should not be treated as the definitive interpretation of the negotiations or of the Biden administration’s handling of the war.

He said many former Biden administration officials believed Washington should have adopted a tougher approach toward Israel and pressed for an earlier conclusion to the fighting.

“I would say most of my former colleagues think that President Biden should have put more pressure on Israel to conduct the war differently and end it sooner,” Gordon wrote.

He added that few of his former colleagues believed Biden’s principal mistake had been publicly disagreeing with Netanyahu.

The accusations emerged just two days after Avi Gil, who served as Netanyahu’s military secretary from July 2021 until May 2024, made a series of allegations concerning the prime minister’s conduct before and after the October 7 massacre.

In an interview broadcast Thursday on Israel’s Channel 12, Gil alleged that Netanyahu had prioritized political considerations when making decisions about hostage negotiations.

Asked whether some hostages who died in captivity could have been brought home alive, and whether surviving hostages could have been released earlier, Gil responded, “We could have.”

Gil suggested that Netanyahu had been influenced by pressure from coalition partners who opposed ceasefire agreements and favored continuing the military campaign against Hamas.

His interview also included allegations concerning warnings Netanyahu received before October 7 and purported attempts by members of the Prime Minister’s Office to alter records relating to the morning of the attack.

Netanyahu’s Likud party strongly rejected Gil’s accusations, describing the interview as “part of the false and politically motivated propaganda campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu and Likud.”

The prime minister has consistently maintained that Israel’s military operations were necessary to dismantle Hamas’s military and governing capabilities and to increase pressure on the terrorist organization to release the hostages.

He has also argued that agreements must prevent Hamas from rearming and returning to power, warning that concessions without adequate security guarantees could leave Israel vulnerable to another October 7-style attack.

Israel has sharply condemned the decision to award the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, the South African jurist who headed a United Nations investigation accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, with the Foreign Ministry denouncing the selection as a disgraceful misuse of the prestigious award and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accusing the Nobel Committee of abandoning its moral principles.

The fierce Israeli reaction followed Friday’s announcement that Pillay, a former judge at the International Criminal Court and longtime United Nations human rights official, had been selected for the honor. Her role in advancing allegations of genocide against Israel immediately became the focus of criticism from Israeli officials, who accused the Norwegian Nobel Committee of rewarding an individual responsible for spreading false and inflammatory claims about the Jewish state.

In a blistering statement published on X, Israel’s Foreign Ministry accused Pillay of participating in a sustained campaign to vilify Israel and questioned how someone with her record could receive an award intended to recognize contributions to peace.

“If there were an award for lies, hatred, and blood libels, Navi Pillay wouldn’t just be a contender. She’d be a frontrunner,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote.

“Her role in the relentless, politically motivated demonization of Israel and promotion of the genoLIE speaks volumes.”

The ministry maintained that the decision represented a fundamental betrayal of the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that the committee had used the award to lend legitimacy to accusations against Israel that the Israeli government categorically rejects.

“Awarding Pillay the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t a recognition of justice. It’s the grotesque weaponization of an award to legitimize anti-Israel hatred and prejudice,” the statement continued.

Israeli officials went even further in their condemnation, drawing a comparison to the propaganda machinery of Nazi Germany and invoking Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister.

“Now that the Nobel commission has rewarded the biggest lie of the 21st century, Joseph Goebbels is certainly applauding from hell.”

Netanyahu separately issued a strongly worded response, accusing the Nobel Committee of rewarding an individual whose work he said had been characterized by hostility toward Israel.

The committee “has lost its moral compass,” Netanyahu declared.

“It has awarded its highest honor to a bigot who built her career around inventing and propagating blood libels against the one and only Jewish state,” Netanyahu said on X.

Pillay served as chairwoman of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. In September 2025, the commission released findings accusing Israeli authorities and security forces of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel has consistently denied the genocide allegations, maintaining that its military campaign was launched in response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and was directed at dismantling the terrorist organization’s military capabilities. Israeli officials have also accused the UN investigative commission of pursuing a politically motivated campaign against the Jewish state.

President Donald Trump joined the criticism on Friday, sharing a statement from attorney David Schoen’s law firm that sharply attacked the Nobel Committee’s selection.

“Today the Nobel Committee shamed itself beyond repair and demeaned the once great Nobel Peace Prize by giving it to the UN’s Navi Pillay,” the statement said.

The statement also highlighted Trump’s diplomatic record, including his role in negotiating the Abraham Accords and his administration’s efforts to resolve international conflicts.

The award came amid an intensifying confrontation between Washington and the International Criminal Court, where Pillay previously served as a judge. Just hours after the Nobel announcement, the Trump administration unveiled sweeping new sanctions against the Hague-based tribunal, targeting its financial operations and access to American services.

The administration has accused the ICC of overstepping its authority by pursuing cases involving American and Israeli officials, despite neither country being a party to the treaty establishing the court. The tribunal previously issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over allegations connected to the war in Gaza, charges Israel has rejected.

The new American measures are designed to restrict the court’s ability to conduct transactions through the U.S. financial system, escalating earlier sanctions imposed against individual ICC officials.

ICC President Tomoko Akane welcomed the recognition of Pillay, describing the Nobel decision as an affirmation of the role of international legal institutions.

“This is an important recognition of the vital role that international justice plays as a cornerstone of lasting peace,” Akane told Politico.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee defended its selection by emphasizing Pillay’s decades of work in international criminal law and human rights. The 85-year-old South African jurist previously served as president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Her legal career began under South Africa’s apartheid system, where she represented individuals facing racial discrimination and defended anti-apartheid activists. She later became involved in major international prosecutions concerning genocide and crimes against humanity.

In announcing the 2026 award, the Nobel Committee said Pillay had made significant contributions to strengthening international legal institutions and holding perpetrators of serious crimes accountable.

“Peace requires justice,” the committee said in its announcement.

The committee also warned that international law and the institutions responsible for enforcing it were facing mounting pressure, arguing that accountability for serious violations remained essential to lasting peace.

Pillay, who was attending an international legal conference in Nuremberg, Germany, when the award was announced, dedicated the recognition to victims of international crimes and those working to secure justice.

The Nobel Peace Prize carries a monetary award of approximately $1.2 million and is scheduled to be formally presented in Oslo on December 10.

{Matzav.com}

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing a growing rebellion from within his own socialist political coalition, with the Democratic Socialists of America and several elected officials demanding the removal of NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch following a federal immigration enforcement shooting in the Bronx.

The confrontation intensified Friday after the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization Mamdani has described as his political home, issued an ultimatum demanding that Tisch end what it characterized as NYPD cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or lose her job.

The demand marks a significant escalation in tensions between Mamdani and the left-wing activists who helped propel him into City Hall, many of whom have opposed his decision to retain Tisch, a Jewish police commissioner who has been regarded as a moderating influence on his administration.

The socialist organization declared that Tisch “must get ICE out of New York and end NYPD complicity with these terrorists.”

“If the Commissioner can’t put a stop to these injustices, she must be fired,” the organization said.

The ultimatum followed Thursday’s shooting of a 28-year-old Dominican man during an ICE enforcement operation in the Marble Hill section of the Bronx. An immigration agent fired seven shots at the man’s vehicle, wounding him while a five-year-old child was seated in the back.

The child escaped physical injury, while the wounded man was transported to a hospital. The incident triggered demonstrations against federal immigration authorities and renewed criticism of the NYPD’s handling of protests.

Tisch said the NYPD had not participated in the federal operation and was not present when the shooting occurred. City police officers responded afterward, provided assistance and transported the wounded man for medical treatment.

Nevertheless, socialist activists accused the NYPD of protecting federal agents from demonstrators and facilitating their departure from the scene.

Among those demanding Tisch’s resignation was Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democratic socialist who won a congressional primary with Mamdani’s endorsement and is expected to represent parts of Upper Manhattan and the Bronx.

“The NYPD’s Strategic Response Group must be disbanded as quickly as possible, and Commissioner Tisch must step down,” Avila Chevalier declared.

The Strategic Response Group, commonly known as the SRG, is a specialized NYPD unit frequently deployed during large demonstrations and other major public safety operations. It has long been a target of criticism from left-wing activists who accuse it of using excessive force against protesters.

Avila Chevalier, who participated in demonstrations following the shooting, accused police of prioritizing the protection of federal immigration personnel over the safety of city residents.

She alleged that unmarked law enforcement vehicles struck protesters as NYPD officers cleared a path for them, an accusation that has not been independently established.

Another 17 democratic socialist elected officials and political nominees, including congressional nominee Claire Valdez, signed a letter demanding that Tisch halt police assistance to ICE operations and dismantle the Strategic Response Group.

The letter stated that Tisch “must end police assistance for ICE operations and disband NYPD’s Strategic Response Group — and if she won’t, she must be fired.”

Illapa Sairitupac, a Democratic socialist and State Assembly nominee who also received Mamdani’s endorsement, issued an even more direct demand.

“Abolish ICE. Disband the SRG. Fire Tisch,” Sairitupac wrote.

The calls place Mamdani in a politically difficult position because his decision to retain Tisch was among his most consequential moves following his election.

Tisch, who comes from a prominent New York Jewish family and has publicly identified herself as a Zionist, was originally appointed police commissioner under Mayor Eric Adams.

Mamdani’s decision to keep her in charge of the NYPD was welcomed by moderate political figures and Jewish communal organizations, including UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council.

Those organizations viewed the decision as an encouraging indication that Mamdani, who had previously made strongly critical statements about the NYPD, intended to maintain continuity in the leadership of the nation’s largest police department.

For more radical elements of his political coalition, however, the appointment represented an unacceptable compromise.

Some activists had already demanded Tisch’s removal before Mamdani took office, citing her positions on policing, demonstrations and the department’s response to anti-Israel protests.

The dispute deepened in June when the New York City DSA criticized Mamdani’s proposal to increase the NYPD’s headcount by approximately 580 officers, a move the organization said contradicted his earlier commitment to maintain existing staffing levels.

The socialist organization and several allied groups argued that the additional funding should instead be directed toward community-based public safety initiatives.

Friday’s demand to remove Tisch represents a further escalation, with the organization’s citywide leadership now directly challenging one of Mamdani’s most important personnel decisions.

The controversy comes just days after Mamdani faced another confrontation with anti-Israel activists over his participation in an October 7 memorial gathering.

On Wednesday, the third anniversary of the Hamas massacre in Israel, Mamdani attended a vigil in Union Square organized by Israelis for Peace NYC to remember Israelis and Palestinians killed during the conflict.

Hundreds of anti-Zionist demonstrators gathered nearby, denouncing the mayor for attending the event and accusing him of abandoning the positions that had helped attract support from pro-Palestinian activists.

“Traitor, traitor, come on out, you sold all your people out,” protesters chanted.

Others shouted, “Mayor Mamdani you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.”

Some demonstrators displayed signs attacking Mamdani’s relationship with Tisch, while others criticized his administration’s approach to antisemitism and his failure to carry out certain campaign positions concerning Israel.

One protest sign portrayed Mamdani as the head of the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group and included a Star of David alongside a derogatory alteration of his name.

The demonstration included participants affiliated with organizations such as Within Our Lifetime and Pal-Awda, as well as student activists associated with the Young Democratic Socialists of America.

The protest also exposed divisions within the socialist movement itself.

Several campus DSA chapters subsequently accused the organization’s citywide leadership of pressuring youth activists to remove online advertisements promoting the demonstration.

Some protesters had demanded Tisch’s removal, linking their criticism of Mamdani’s policing decisions with their opposition to his attendance at the October 7 vigil.

However, other left-wing activists questioned whether the demonstrators genuinely represented Mamdani’s electoral supporters.

Abby Stein, a DSA member associated with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, criticized aspects of the demonstration while acknowledging that concerns about Tisch’s continued leadership were shared by some members of the mayor’s political base.

“There are things that people are upset over that I think are legit — like keeping Jessica Tisch on, for example,” Stein said. “A lot of us were not very happy about it.”

The dispute over Tisch has also raised questions about what authority New York City officials actually possess over federal immigration operations.

Although the NYPD can establish policies governing its own officers’ participation in immigration enforcement, the city’s police commissioner does not have the legal authority to expel federal ICE agents from New York or prevent them from carrying out federal operations.

Mamdani himself strongly condemned Thursday’s shooting and demanded that federal immigration authorities cease their enforcement activities in the city.

“What happened today was an outrage,” the mayor said Thursday night.

“When ICE agents opened fire, a five-year-old child – a five-year-old child! – was in the back seat of that car. Thank God that child is physically unharmed.”

Mamdani also contacted President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in an effort to secure the release of the wounded man from federal custody.

Those discussions did not immediately produce the release sought by the mayor.

The Department of Homeland Security defended its immigration enforcement operation, while federal officials criticized New York’s sanctuary policies and the political response to the shooting.

The Trump administration is offering migrant children as young as five years old $3,000 to voluntarily leave the United States, expanding a controversial immigration initiative that previously targeted unaccompanied teenagers and extending the financial incentives to younger children involved in deportation proceedings.

The new offers are being presented to minors appearing before immigration courts, according to immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations familiar with the practice. In some cases, lawyers representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement have raised the possibility of receiving the payment, while immigration judges have also informed children about the option.

The expanded initiative represents a significant change from a program introduced in October 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security began offering $2,500 payments to unaccompanied migrant children aged 14 and older who agreed to return to their home countries.

Under the latest arrangement, the amount has increased to $3,000, and the offers are reportedly being extended to children younger than 14, including some who are only five years old.

The development was reported by Bloomberg Law, which interviewed immigration attorneys and organizations working with migrant children. The report has raised questions about whether young children, particularly those appearing in court without legal representation, can fully understand the consequences of accepting money in exchange for abandoning their immigration cases.

The administration has made voluntary departure a central component of President Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy, arguing that encouraging people to leave on their own can reduce the substantial costs associated with arresting, detaining and deporting individuals who lack legal authorization to remain in the country.

Immigration advocates, however, contend that offering cash payments to children facing the possibility of deportation creates pressure on vulnerable minors who may have legitimate claims for asylum or other forms of legal protection.

Shaina Aber, executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice, said her organization had received reports over the past month from attorneys and court observers across the country describing offers made to children, including some who did not have lawyers.

“We’re seeing this as part of a larger pattern of really trying to coerce children, bully children, intensify pressure on children so that they abandon their cases,” Aber told Bloomberg Law. “And it’s part of this deport-at-all-costs policy that seems to be in particular targeting children.”

Aber said some immigration judges had presented the payment as a one-time opportunity, leaving children with little time to consider the consequences or consult with an attorney.

“They’re basically asking children to make a decision on the spot about something incredibly consequential, like waiving your right to seek asylum or to have other kinds of humanitarian relief in exchange for $3,000,” Aber said. “They might not understand what the longer term consequences are down the line.”

Michael Lukens, executive director of the Washington-based Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said his organization and other legal assistance groups had received emails from ICE attorneys offering the $3,000 payment to children who agreed to voluntary departure.

Lukens said one such offer was made this week to an 11-year-old child represented by his organization.

“I don’t think anybody should be comfortable with this situation where a child is being denied a fair day in court because they’re being told that they should take voluntary departure and that they should get paid for it,” Lukens said.

The Department of Homeland Security did not directly confirm that the payments were being offered to children as young as five. A department spokesperson instead emphasized the administration’s efforts to reunite unaccompanied migrant children with their families.

“Many of the children who came across the border unaccompanied were allowed to be placed with sponsors who were smugglers and sex traffickers,” the spokesperson said.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the nation’s immigration courts, did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the reported offers.

The latest development follows a series of administration initiatives designed to encourage unauthorized immigrants to depart without undergoing the traditional deportation process.

In October 2025, federal officials introduced a one-time $2,500 resettlement payment for unaccompanied migrant teenagers aged 14 and older who agreed to voluntarily return to their countries of origin.

The earlier program was administered through the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with federal agencies responsible for the care of unaccompanied migrant children.

The administration subsequently expanded financial incentives for other unauthorized immigrants through its Project Homecoming initiative, which offers government-arranged transportation and cash assistance to eligible individuals who agree to leave the United States.

The program uses the CBP Home mobile application, through which migrants can register their intention to depart and receive assistance arranging their travel.

In December 2025, DHS temporarily increased its voluntary departure incentive to $3,000 for eligible migrants who registered and left the country before the end of the year.

The government has promoted the initiative as a less expensive alternative to traditional deportation. Federal officials have estimated that apprehending, detaining and removing an unauthorized immigrant can cost approximately $18,000, substantially more than arranging voluntary travel and providing a financial incentive.

According to internal government figures reported in July, approximately 132,000 immigrants had departed through Project Homecoming by the middle of that month, with roughly 70,000 additional individuals registered to leave.

Those figures were separate from broader administration claims concerning the total number of unauthorized immigrants who had departed the United States.

The new offers to young children are being reported as the administration accelerates immigration court proceedings involving unaccompanied minors.

More than 16,500 cases involving unaccompanied children remained pending in immigration courts as of July, according to Justice Department figures.

At the same time, immigration judges have been directed to limit certain postponements in cases involving children who entered the country without a parent or guardian. Bloomberg Law previously reported that supervisors had instructed judges to generally restrict those delays, known as continuances, to 21 days.

Such postponements can be important for children seeking legal representation, gathering evidence or preparing asylum applications.

The availability of legal assistance has also become an issue following the expiration of federal funding in July for organizations providing representation to unaccompanied minors, including groups working with the Acacia Center for Justice.

Immigration attorneys argue that the combination of accelerated proceedings, reduced access to lawyers and financial incentives to depart could affect children’s ability to pursue claims for humanitarian protection.

Under federal immigration law, voluntary departure can allow certain individuals to leave the United States without receiving a formal removal order. However, accepting that option can require abandoning pending applications for asylum or other immigration relief, and the consequences for future eligibility to return depend on the individual’s circumstances.

The administration has defended voluntary departure programs as a way to enforce immigration laws while reducing detention costs and facilitating the return of migrants to their home countries.

For the expanded offers involving children under 14, federal officials have not publicly disclosed how many minors have been approached, how many have accepted the payments, or whether additional safeguards are being applied when young children are asked to make decisions about leaving the United States.

{Matzav.com}

Lockheed Martin has unveiled a new generation of Patriot missile interceptor designed to shoot down hypersonic weapons and other advanced aerial threats at greater distances and higher altitudes, as the defense giant competes for a major U.S. Army contract to strengthen America’s missile defense capabilities.

The new weapon, called PAC-3 Edge, was introduced Friday as part of the Army’s Future Interceptor program, an initiative aimed at developing more powerful defenses against increasingly sophisticated missiles being deployed by American adversaries.

The interceptor builds on Lockheed Martin’s existing Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement, known as PAC-3 MSE, which is already used by the United States and allied militaries to defend against ballistic missiles and other aerial threats.

According to the company, PAC-3 Edge is intended to extend the reach of the Patriot system, allowing American forces to engage incoming threats farther away and at greater altitudes than existing interceptors.

Lockheed Martin plans to begin testing the new interceptor in 2027, with an anticipated deployment date of 2031, provided development and procurement proceed as planned.

The unveiling comes amid mounting concerns at the Pentagon about the growing capabilities of hypersonic missiles, which travel at exceptionally high speeds and can maneuver during flight, making them more difficult to detect, track and intercept than conventional ballistic missiles.

Such weapons present a particular challenge for existing air defense systems because their speed and flight characteristics can significantly reduce the time available for radar systems to identify an incoming threat and for defensive missiles to respond.

The Army’s Future Interceptor program is intended to address those challenges by developing a missile capable of defeating advanced threats before they reach their intended targets.

Lockheed Martin has advanced to the next stage of the Army’s development process, positioning PAC-3 Edge as a contender for the program as military officials evaluate competing technologies.

A central feature of the new missile is its upgraded guidance technology, developed at Lockheed Martin’s Strigo Product Center. The advanced seeker is designed to improve the missile’s ability to identify, track and strike fast-moving targets, including those that change direction during flight.

Lockheed Martin has invested approximately $250 million in the Strigo facility to support the development of more sophisticated missile seekers.

The company is also incorporating a new propulsion system developed by Northrop Grumman. Unlike conventional rocket motors that deliver their thrust in a single sustained phase, the new multi-pulse solid rocket motor is designed to provide additional bursts of thrust during flight.

That capability could allow the interceptor to preserve energy and maneuver more effectively as it closes in on incoming missiles, particularly at extended ranges or higher altitudes.

The new propulsion system will be combined with upgraded flight controls and guidance equipment intended to improve the interceptor’s speed, agility and ability to respond to rapidly changing threats.

Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control division, said the PAC-3 Edge represents a substantial advance over the company’s existing interceptor technology, with improvements in maneuverability, power and velocity.

Another important element of the program is the missile’s planned compatibility with existing American air defense infrastructure.

Lockheed Martin is designing PAC-3 Edge to operate with the Army’s M903 Patriot launchers and Integrated Battle Command System, which connects sensors, weapons and command centers across the military’s air defense network.

The company is also exploring integration with containerized launch systems and HIMARS Flex, potentially allowing the interceptor to be deployed from a wider variety of platforms.

The ability to use existing launchers and command systems could reduce the need for entirely new supporting infrastructure, although the Army would still have to evaluate the technical and financial requirements of integrating the missile.

The announcement comes as the United States is investing heavily in replenishing and expanding its missile defense inventories following extensive use of interceptors in conflicts involving Iran and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

In August, the Pentagon announced an agreement worth more than $3 billion with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to expand production of critical components for Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, missile interceptors.

That agreement followed the announcement of a contract worth up to $58.6 billion for Lockheed Martin to manufacture Patriot interceptors, reflecting the Pentagon’s effort to secure a substantially larger supply of defensive missiles.

American officials have said the production expansion is intended to support a tripling of Patriot interceptor output and a fourfold increase in THAAD production.

The demand for Patriot missiles has grown as the United States and its allies seek to protect military installations, population centers and critical infrastructure against increasingly frequent missile attacks.

Ukraine has relied heavily on Patriot batteries to defend against Russian ballistic missiles, while American and allied forces in the Middle East have used missile defense systems against Iranian attacks.

These operations have underscored both the effectiveness of modern interceptors and the logistical challenge of maintaining sufficient missile inventories during prolonged conflicts.

PAC-3 Edge, however, is intended to address a different requirement from the immediate effort to replenish existing stockpiles. Its development focuses on improving the Army’s ability to defeat future threats that may exceed the capabilities of current missile defense systems.

The Pentagon has increasingly emphasized the need for layered air and missile defenses, combining different interceptors, radar systems and command networks to engage threats at multiple stages of their flight.

Under that approach, shorter-range air defenses, Patriot batteries and higher-altitude systems such as THAAD perform complementary roles rather than relying on a single weapon to defeat every type of incoming missile.

The new Lockheed Martin interceptor would expand the options available within that architecture, particularly against advanced ballistic and hypersonic weapons.

Despite Friday’s unveiling, PAC-3 Edge remains a developmental system and has not yet demonstrated its full capabilities through the testing process.

Lockheed Martin’s schedule calls for initial testing next year, followed by further evaluation and development before a potential introduction into Army service in 2031.

The Army has not yet selected the winning interceptor for its Future Interceptor program, and Lockheed Martin must still demonstrate that PAC-3 Edge meets the military’s performance and operational requirements before it can secure a production commitment.