Vice President Kamala Harris faced an unexpected challenge during a recent campaign event.
According to The Daily Caller, Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, encountered difficulties speaking coherently when her teleprompter appeared to malfunction during a speech in Michigan on Friday.
The incident left the vice president visibly flustered as she struggled to maintain her composure and continue her address without the aid of pre-written text.
The mishap occurred shortly after Harris made a reference to basketball legend Magic Johnson. She began by mentioning Johnson's jersey number, seamlessly transitioning into a discussion about the upcoming election. However, her speech quickly derailed as she repeatedly emphasized the phrase "32 days," seemingly at a loss for words.
As the crowd's enthusiasm waned, Harris appeared to become increasingly uncomfortable. She looked around, seemingly searching for guidance or waiting for the teleprompter to resume functioning. The vice president's discomfort was palpable as she attempted to fill the silence with repeated mentions of the number of days until the election.
Harris eventually managed to regain her footing, albeit with some difficulty. She acknowledged the need to "do some business" and attempted to rally the audience by highlighting the competitiveness of the race. Despite the setback, she eventually found her rhythm and continued with her prepared remarks.
The Trump campaign was quick to capitalize on the incident, characterizing it as evidence of Harris's inability to speak without a script. They shared a video of the moment on social media, drawing attention to what they perceived as a weakness in the vice president's public speaking abilities.
This teleprompter incident has brought renewed focus on the Harris campaign's approach to media engagement. Since becoming the Democratic nominee 76 days ago, Harris has yet to hold a formal press conference. The campaign has been notably restrictive in granting media access, with only a handful of carefully controlled appearances.
The vice president's first joint press engagement with her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, occurred in late August during a CNN interview. Subsequently, Harris participated in a "Unite for America" rally featuring numerous celebrities and granted a one-on-one interview to MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle in late September.
Harris is scheduled to appear on the popular "Call Her Daddy" podcast, where she will discuss abortion rights in an interview taped earlier this week. This marks another controlled media appearance for the vice president as the campaign progresses.
The teleprompter incident is not the first time Harris has garnered attention for her public speaking. She has become known for what some describe as "word salads," including a viral moment where she quoted her mother saying, "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."
Other memorable moments include Harris's enthusiastic reaction to "good news" during an interview and her advice on how to season a turkey, both of which have circulated widely on social media. These incidents have contributed to ongoing discussions about the vice president's communication style and its impact on her public image.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris's recent speech in Michigan was marred by an apparent teleprompter malfunction, leading to a series of awkward pauses and repetitions. This incident has reignited discussions about the Harris campaign's media strategy and the vice president's public speaking abilities. As the election draws closer, Harris's ability to connect with voters and articulate her message clearly will likely remain under scrutiny.
Former President Donald Trump recently discussed his wife Melania Trump's pro-choice stance on abortion, which she revealed in her forthcoming memoir.
The former first lady expressed her views on abortion rights in a recent video and memoir, while her husband proposed state-level abortion decisions and said he respected his wife's opinion, as The Hill reports.
Mrs. Trump, in anticipation of her memoir release next week, shared her personal views on abortion. Her stated perspective supports the notion of choice and personal freedom, areas she has vocalized as being of paramount importance.
In a video released on Thursday, Melania Trump elaborated on her support for women's rights. She underscored the significance of "individual freedom" as a principle she champions. Emphasizing autonomy, she reiterated that there is no space for negotiation when it concerns women's rights. Speaking in the footage, Melania questioned what “my body, my choice” truly signifies, reflecting a deep commitment to women’s autonomy.
Her video highlights a pivotal theme of her memoir -- her support for individual freedoms, specifically for women, resonating strongly as one of her core beliefs.
In response to Melania's published views, Donald Trump appeared on Fox News Channel during an interview with Bill Melugin on Thursday. He encouraged Melania to be honest in her memoir, stating, "You have to write what you believe," confirming his support for her self-expression.
Donald Trump reiterated that he prefers that states determine their abortion policy rather than enforcing a federal ban. This aligns with his broader views on state sovereignty over federal mandates.
While not supporting a comprehensive federal prohibition, the former president mentions his backing for exceptions in abortion cases involving rape, incest, or potential harm to the mother's life.
Echoing recent discussions, the dialogue around Melania's perspective reflects broader national debates surrounding abortion rights. Donald Trump's stance emphasizes flexibility and state governance while maintaining specific exceptions for dire circumstances.
The former president underscored his encouragement for Melania, explaining, "I said 'you have to stick with your heart.'" He conveyed consistent advice to many people to remain true to their convictions. During the interview, Donald Trump praised his wife, describing her as "very beloved" and commending her courage to speak authentically about her beliefs on this significant issue.
This discussion emerges amid evolving discussions of abortion across the political landscape. Donald Trump's comments coincide with broader political strategies as he navigates a divided electorate with varying opinions on the issue.
Melania Trump's open stance and her memoir provide a unique insight into potential policy shifts that could influence the American public. As the upcoming election approaches, the Trump household’s internal discourse can significantly impact public opinion.
In summary, both Trumps appear to embrace different facets of the abortion debate. Donald Trump focuses on state legislation while Melania champions individual rights, both seeking alignment with their ideals.
As the conversation around individual rights versus collective policy continues, the insight offered by both Donald and Melania may serve as a touchstone for ongoing discussions surrounding women's rights and state governance.
As Election Day approaches, Michigan Democrats are increasingly worried about history repeating itself.
Michigan Democrats fear a repeat of Hillary Clinton's narrow 2016 loss, as polls indicate a close race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, as Fox News reports.
With polls showing Harris and Trump virtually tied in Michigan, concerns are mounting among Democrats who remember Clinton’s unexpected defeat in the state. In 2016, despite leading in many polls, Clinton lost Michigan to Trump -- the first Democratic candidate to do so since Michael Dukakis in 1988. For some, the anxiety is palpable, and the memory of that loss looms large.
Michigan Democratic strategist Adrian Hemond voiced his concerns, warning that Democrats should not take polling numbers for granted. “Smart Democrats have a healthy sense of paranoia,” Hemond told the Associated Press (AP). He added that if polling is as inaccurate as it was in 2016, Democrats could face a similar outcome. Polls have shown Harris leading by just one percentage point in Michigan, according to a New York Times and Siena College poll, which gives Harris 48% support and Trump 47%.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), currently running for Senate, expressed similar skepticism about the accuracy of polling data. “Anyone who’s from Michigan knows that, if you believe the polling, like, I got a bridge I’m going to sell you somewhere,” Slotkin remarked to the AP. Slotkin, who is closely watching Harris’s performance, believes the vice president is struggling in the state, admitting, "I'm not feeling my best right now about where we are on Kamala Harris in a place like Michigan."
The 2016 election still serves as a cautionary tale for many Democrats. Polls failed to capture Trump’s level of support in Michigan, leading to a shock loss for Clinton. This time, Michigan Democrats are determined to avoid underestimating Trump’s potential again.
Slotkin’s concerns over Harris’s standing in Michigan are based on internal Democratic polling, which she claims shows Harris “underwater.” Some Democrats, like Slotkin, see this as a rallying cry to boost fundraising and engagement before Election Day. The tight polling numbers have made it difficult for many Democrats to feel secure about their position in the state, especially with Trump making stops in previously overlooked areas.
Former Michigan Gov. John Engler, a Republican, noted that while Democrats have far more financial resources than Republicans in the state, the margin between Harris and Trump remains slim. Engler emphasized that Trump is focusing on places in Michigan that haven’t seen presidential visits before, a strategy that could make a difference in such a close race.
Democratic fundraiser Lori Goldman observed a significant drop in enthusiasm compared to the initial rush of donations when Harris first announced her candidacy. "What did we see? Money coming in like crazy. Everybody was excited. There was such a bump," Goldman said. "And now, you know, it’s neck and neck." For many in the party, the race feels more uncertain than ever.
Goldman’s remarks about the race being "neck and neck" echo the sentiments of many Michigan Democrats who are reliving the anxiety of 2016. She described the current mood among Democrats as “PTSD,” a reflection of the psychological toll that the memory of Clinton’s loss still exerts on the party.
Democratic strategist Patrick Schuh believes that the Harris campaign needs to focus on ensuring that voters understand her positions more clearly. Schuh reported that many voters want to hear more about Harris’s stance on key issues, which could make a difference in such a closely contested race. “What Harris stands for as a candidate” needs to be emphasized, Schuh said, especially as the election draws closer.
The lessons from 2016 have not been forgotten by Michigan Democrats, who are now urging their base to remain vigilant. While they have more financial backing than their Republican counterparts, their nervousness about the state’s unpredictability has not subsided.
As the 2024 election nears, Democrats in Michigan are haunted by the fear of history repeating itself. The race between Harris and Trump is tight, with polls showing only a narrow difference in support. While Democrats enjoy a significant financial advantage, concerns remain about whether polling errors could once again lead to an unexpected result.
Vice President Kamala Harris has shared her personal approach to maintaining mental health amid the pressures of public office.
According to HuffPost, Harris disclosed her "No. 1 rule" for protecting her mental well-being, emphasizing the importance of self-care strategies in her high-profile role.
During an appearance on the "All The Smoke" podcast, Harris engaged in a wide-ranging discussion that touched on various aspects of her personal and professional life. When asked about prioritizing mental health, especially given her groundbreaking achievements, the vice president was quick to share her top piece of advice.
Harris emphasized the importance of avoiding online negativity, stating her primary rule: "Don't read the comments." She stressed this point, underlining its significance in maintaining a healthy mental state.
The vice president elaborated on her holistic approach to well-being, mentioning physical exercise and cooking as additional strategies she employs. Harris described her method as focusing on "mind, body and spirit."
Furthermore, Harris highlighted the value of surrounding oneself with supportive individuals. She expressed gratitude for her family and longstanding friendships, including a best friend from her childhood days.
During the podcast, Harris also tackled questions about her racial identity, which has been a subject of public scrutiny and political attacks.
The vice president, born to immigrant parents from India and Jamaica, responded to false claims about her identity with confidence and clarity. She dismissed attempts to question her racial background, stating:
I'm really clear about who I am, and if anybody else is not, they need to go through their own level of therapy — that's not my issue. My mother was very clear. She was raising two Black girls to be two proud Black women. And that was never — it was never a question.
Harris's firm stance on her identity reflects her approach to dealing with political criticism and misinformation campaigns targeting her background.
The vice president's candid discussion about mental health strategies sheds light on the challenges faced by public figures in maintaining their well-being while under constant scrutiny.
Her advice to avoid reading comments aligns with growing awareness of the potential negative impacts of social media on mental health. This guidance may resonate with many individuals navigating online spaces, not just those in the public eye.
Harris's emphasis on physical activity, hobbies, and strong personal relationships as part of her mental health regimen underscores the importance of a balanced lifestyle in high-pressure environments.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris shared her top mental health tips, advising against reading online comments. She emphasized the importance of a holistic approach to well-being, including exercise and supportive relationships. Harris also addressed questions about her racial identity, firmly asserting her background and dismissing attempts to challenge it.
Special counsel Jack Smith has unveiled startling new details about former President Donald Trump's purported efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
ABC News reported that a 165-page court filing submitted on Wednesday outlines what prosecutors describe as Trump's "increasingly desperate" attempts to cling to power after losing the election.
The filing alleges that Trump privately admitted to family members that the election outcome was irrelevant, stating, "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell." This revelation stands in stark contrast to his public claims of widespread voter fraud.
According to the special counsel's filing, Trump privately expressed skepticism about some of the election fraud allegations made by his allies. Prosecutors claim that the former president described lawyer Sidney Powell's voter fraud claims as "crazy" despite publicly promoting similar arguments.
The document alleges that advisers repeatedly informed Trump that his fraud allegations were baseless. Despite this, he continued to spread these claims to the public, state election officials, and even his own vice president.
Smith's team argues that Trump's actions went beyond mere political rhetoric, stating that he "resorted to crimes to try to stay in office" after losing the 2020 presidential election.
The filing details accusations that Trump and his allies attempted to sow doubt and create chaos at polling places even before Election Day. Prosecutors allege that in one instance, a campaign employee encouraged a colleague to "make them riot" at an ongoing vote count in Detroit.
Smith's team contends that these efforts were part of a broader strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the election results. The filing suggests that Trump had laid the groundwork for his post-election actions well in advance, including plans to declare victory prematurely.
According to prosecutors, Trump was aware that the results were unlikely to be finalized on Election Day, yet he proceeded with his victory declaration despite warnings from multiple advisers.
The special counsel's filing draws a direct line between Trump's alleged actions and the events of January 6, 2021. Prosecutors argue that when legal challenges and attempts to manipulate the electoral process failed, Trump turned to inciting violence.
Smith's team describes Trump as directly responsible for the "tinderbox that he purposely ignited on January 6." They allege that his speech before the Capitol riot was designed to inflame his supporters and motivate them to march on the Capitol.
The filing characterizes this as Trump's "last hope" to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as president, suggesting that the former president was well aware of the potential consequences of his actions. In response, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung issued a statement calling the case "a partisan, Unconstitutional Witch Hunt that should be dismissed entirely."
The special counsel's filing presents a detailed account of Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. It accuses the former president of intentionally deceiving the public while privately acknowledging the legitimacy of his defeat. The document connects Trump's actions to the January 6 Capitol riot, describing it as the culmination of his attempts to retain power.
Former President Donald Trump's attorneys have made a bold move in the ongoing legal battle over presidential immunity.
According to the Washington Examiner, Trump's legal team has petitioned Judge Tanya Chutkan to mandate further redactions in special counsel Jack Smith's presidential immunity brief before its public release.
The defense attorneys argue that prosecutors have deviated from their previous approach to redactions in court filings. They claim this change is politically motivated, suggesting that the special counsel's office aims to publicize a "politically motivated manifesto" in the final month of the election campaign.
The request for additional redactions follows a landmark Supreme Court decision earlier this year. The high court ruled that presidents enjoy some level of immunity from criminal prosecution, prompting a reexamination of Smith's charges against Trump.
Judge Tanya Chutkan was ordered to review the indictment and determine which aspects of Trump's conduct are protected by presidential immunity, based on the Supreme Court's new definition. In response, Chutkan granted Smith's request to submit a comprehensive argument explaining why his charges against Trump are not subject to immunity.
Smith has indicated that this document will be significantly larger than a typical court motion and will include previously undisclosed evidence against Trump. This evidence is said to include FBI interview notes and grand jury transcripts.
Trump's attorneys have voiced their opposition to the current process, arguing that it is not the appropriate first step following the Supreme Court's ruling. They contend that this approach would allow Smith to prematurely introduce unnecessary material into the court record.
The defense team expects to succeed in getting the case dismissed entirely. They argue that Smith's filing is an attempt to highlight Trump's most unfavorable moments surrounding the 2020 election during a critical period of his 2024 campaign. Trump's lawyers stated:
The true motivation driving the efforts by the Special Counsel's Office to disseminate witness statements that they previously sought to lock down is as obvious as it is inappropriate.
A key point of contention is the issue of witness privacy and safety. Trump's attorneys highlight that Smith had previously expressed deep concern about potential threats to individuals involved in Trump's case if they were named publicly.
The defense team argues that the current redactions in Smith's document do not sufficiently address these privacy concerns. They suggest that the Special Counsel's office has shifted its stance now that public disclosure aligns with their alleged political objectives.
Despite the controversy surrounding the document's contents, Trump's attorneys downplay its significance. They claim that it contains "few, if any, new allegations" against the former president.
Prosecutors from the Special Counsel's office have defended their approach to redactions. They state that they relied on court precedent when deciding what information to withhold from public view.
In a court filing last week, the prosecutors explained their rationale:
With these guideposts in mind — and with the simultaneous goals of providing the Court with a detailed factual proffer; protecting Sensitive Materials and the witnesses whose accounts support that proffer; and allowing an appropriate degree of public access — the Government has proposed redacted versions of its sealed Motion and sealed Appendix for filing on the public docket.
The controversy surrounding Special Counsel Jack Smith's immunity brief highlights the ongoing legal battle between Trump's team and prosecutors. Trump's attorneys are seeking additional redactions to protect sensitive information, while prosecutors aim to present their case to the public. The ultimate decision on unsealing the document and its timing rests with Judge Chutkan.
A criminal investigation has been launched after unauthorized access to the medical records of vice-presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance was discovered within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
According to The Guardian, at least a dozen employees of the Veterans Health Administration, including a doctor and a contractor, are believed to have improperly viewed the confidential files of the Democratic and Republican vice-presidential nominees.
The office of Veterans Affairs Inspector Michael Missal has forwarded evidence to federal prosecutors, indicating the gravity of the situation. Of particular concern are the actions of the physician and contractor, who reportedly accessed the documents for an extended period, raising questions about their motives.
The unauthorized access appears to have been motivated by curiosity in most cases, with some employees admitting to investigators that they were interested in learning more about the backgrounds of the high-profile politicians.
Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, and JD Vance, a Republican senator from Ohio, have military service records. Walz served 24 years in the National Guard before leaving in 2005 to pursue a congressional career. Vance, on the other hand, is a former U.S. Marine who served in Iraq and has previously acknowledged receiving VA medical care after leaving the service.
The timing of the breach is significant, as it seems to have occurred shortly after both men were selected as running mates for their respective parties. This suggests that their elevated public profiles may have contributed to the increased interest in their personal information.
When unauthorized access was discovered, VA Secretary Denis McDonough immediately reinforced the department's privacy policies. McDonough sent an email to all 450,000 VA employees on August 30, emphasizing the importance of protecting veterans' privacy. In his message, he stated:
Viewing a veteran's records out of curiosity or concern – or for any purpose that is not directly related to officially authorised and assigned duties – is strictly prohibited.
This stern reminder underscores the seriousness with which the VA is treating the breach and its commitment to safeguarding the confidential information of veterans, including high-profile individuals like Walz and Vance.
The unauthorized access to medical records is an ethical violation and a potential legal infraction. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, such actions can result in significant penalties.
Individuals found guilty of improperly accessing health information without authorization may face fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. While prosecutions for individual cases are relatively rare, the involvement of high-profile political figures may lead to a more rigorous pursuit of justice in this instance.
VA officials have indicated that administrative sanctions could be imposed on those found responsible for the breach, regardless of whether criminal charges are filed. This approach demonstrates the department's commitment to maintaining the integrity of its systems and the trust of the veterans it serves.
Terrence Hayes, the VA press secretary, emphasized the department's stance on the matter:
We take the privacy of the veterans we serve very seriously and have strict policies in place to protect their records. Any attempt to improperly access veteran records by VA personnel is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
The unauthorized access to the medical records of vice-presidential nominees Tim Walz and JD Vance has sparked a criminal investigation within the Department of Veterans Affairs. At least a dozen employees, including a doctor and a contractor, are believed to have improperly viewed the confidential files. The VA has responded by reinforcing privacy policies and warning of potential legal and administrative consequences for those involved in the breach.
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) demonstrated remarkable poise when he was initially denied entry to a Primanti Bros. Restaurant and Sports Bar near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
As reported by Breitbart News, the senator's response to the situation was gracious and supportive of the local business despite the momentary confusion that led to his temporary exclusion.
The incident occurred when Vance attempted to visit the North Versailles location of the popular sandwich chain. Initially, a restaurant worker informed the press that cameras were not allowed and that the establishment did not want to host a campaign event.
However, the situation was quickly resolved, and Vance used the opportunity to display his commitment to supporting local businesses and encouraging civic engagement.
Following the brief misunderstanding, Vance addressed a crowd outside the restaurant, urging them to continue supporting the business. He revealed that his team had paid for everyone's food and left a generous tip, linking this gesture to his policy stance on tax-free tips.
Vance stated:
We paid for everybody's food, we gave them a nice tip. And, of course when I gave them a nice tip, I said, 'No taxes on tips.' Don't hold it against her, she just got a little nervous. But, it's a great local business, let's keep on supporting it, and most importantly, November 5th, or before, go vote. Let's go win this thing.
This response highlighted Vance's ability to turn a potentially negative situation into a positive campaign moment, while also reinforcing his policy positions and encouraging voter participation.
Adam Golomb, CEO of Primanti Bros., provided context to the incident in a statement to TribLive. He explained that the lack of advance notice for the campaign stop had led to momentary confusion among the staff.
Golomb clarified:
Without any advance notice, today's campaign stop caused some momentary confusion for our staff. However, Senator Vance and his team were welcomed into our restaurant shortly after and engaged with our guests inside and on the property.
The incident with Senator Vance is not isolated in the realm of political figures visiting local establishments. It comes in the wake of a separate incident reported by Fox News, where customers at another Primanti Bros. location in Moon, Pennsylvania, were allegedly asked to leave before a campaign event featuring Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D).
These occurrences highlight the complex dynamics that can arise when political campaigns intersect with local businesses. Restaurants and other public establishments often find themselves navigating the delicate balance between accommodating high-profile political visitors and maintaining their regular operations.
The handling of Vance's visit to Primanti Bros. raises questions about the preparedness of local businesses for impromptu political visits. It also demonstrates the potential for politicians to turn unexpected situations into opportunities for positive engagement with voters.
Vance's response, in particular, showcases a strategy of maintaining a positive public image even in the face of minor setbacks. By encouraging continued support for the restaurant and tying the incident to his policy positions, Vance effectively transformed a potential negative into a campaign positive.
Over 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide are living freely in the United States outside of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, according to recent data.
ICE has placed these individuals on its “non-detained” docket, which currently holds over 662,000 convicted criminal immigrants, as NBC News reports.
The non-detained docket, where cases remain pending, includes convicted immigrants who are not detained for reasons like serving time in prison or a lack of resources to locate them. In some cases, ICE is simply unaware of their exact status due to limited data sharing between federal, state, and local agencies, according to two law enforcement officials.
As of July, the data shows that ICE’s non-detained docket now includes more than 662,000 immigrants who have been convicted of various crimes, including homicides. This figure was highlighted in a letter sent by Acting ICE Director P.J. Lechleitner in response to a request from Representative Tony Gonzales in March.
Many of these convicted immigrants, including those with serious offenses, may have entered the U.S. long before the current administration. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) clarified that the data spans over four decades, and some individuals have never been in contact with ICE due to the circumstances of their entry and arrest.
In a statement to NBC News, a DHS spokesman explained, "The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes people who entered the country over the past 40 years or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this administration."
ICE’s ability to locate and arrest convicted criminals is hindered by limited resources. With more than 7.5 million immigrants on the non-detained docket, ICE officials struggle to prioritize individuals for detention. Many migrants, even those convicted of serious crimes, are released by state and local authorities without notification to ICE. This issue is particularly common in sanctuary cities, where cooperation with ICE is restricted.
Lechleitner also mentioned that some jurisdictions are beginning to reconsider their sanctuary policies due to the growing focus on crimes committed by migrants. However, the challenge of coordinating with local law enforcement remains significant, as many agencies do not consistently share data with ICE. Complicating matters further, Border Patrol agents often lack access to migrants' full criminal histories at the time of their apprehension. This can result in dangerous individuals entering the U.S. without sufficient scrutiny or tracking.
Former President Donald Trump used the latest data to criticize the current administration during a campaign stop in Michigan. Trump stated, “These are hard, tough, vicious criminals that are free to roam in our country.” He emphasized that many of the immigrants now under ICE’s non-detained docket crossed into the U.S. during previous administrations. Despite this, Trump pointed to the current situation as evidence of what he calls the administration’s failure to handle the issue of immigration properly.
The White House has not yet commented on the ICE data or Trump’s remarks. However, the issue of criminal immigrants living in the U.S. without detention has reignited debates about border security and the effectiveness of current immigration policies.
The ongoing problem of non-detained criminal immigrants is not new. A report from 2016 found that 368,000 criminal immigrants were living outside ICE detention, a figure that has increased significantly over the years. As of 2021, that number had already grown to over 400,000.
The most recent figure, over 662,000 as of July 2023, reflects the growing complexity of immigration enforcement in the U.S. and the challenges ICE faces in detaining individuals who pose potential risks to public safety. Some of these individuals, including the 13,000 convicted of homicide, may have been living in the country for decades. ICE agents, like those in Maryland recently profiled by NBC News, continue to work diligently to locate and arrest convicted criminals at large. However, the manpower required for these efforts often exceeds the agency's capacity.
The revelation that more than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide are living freely in the U.S. has drawn attention to the broader issue of immigration enforcement.
With over 662,000 convicted criminal immigrants currently on ICE’s non-detained docket, the scope of the challenge facing ICE is massive. Limited resources and cooperation with local agencies hinder the agency’s ability to locate and detain dangerous individuals, many of whom may have entered the country decades ago. The debate over how best to manage this complex issue continues, with both current and former administrations facing scrutiny.
As the Biden administration celebrates its 213th judicial confirmation, Democrats are already strategizing to boost their numbers further.
With an eye on the post-election lame duck session, the party aims to confirm enough judges to match the 234 appointments made during the Trump administration, as the New York Times reports.
This effort is part of a broader plan to rebalance the judiciary, which Republicans have shifted in a more conservative direction during the previous administration. Democrats see the upcoming November and December legislative window as a critical opportunity to close the gap, despite the narrow majority in the Senate and strong Republican opposition.
The Biden administration’s judicial confirmations have already reshaped a significant portion of the federal judiciary, turning over about 25% of its total makeup. Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Richard J. Durbin, have expressed a strong commitment to pushing through additional confirmations in the post-election session, even if it means holding extended meetings to approve nominees.
"That may mean some long sessions," Durbin acknowledged, indicating the party's willingness to work through weekends if necessary to meet its goal of confirming more judges before the congressional session ends. The Nov. 5 election will also be a key factor, as it could determine how aggressively Democrats pursue confirmations during this period. The Senate operated with a 50-50 split for two years under President Biden before moving to a 51-49 margin, making it a challenge to get nominees approved.
The diversity of Biden’s judicial picks is a point of pride for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who noted his belief that these nominees have made the federal judiciary more reflective of the American population than ever before. "These judges are the most diverse group of nominees the bench has ever seen," Schumer said.
Of the 213 judges confirmed under Biden, 64% are women, and 40% are women of color. This includes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who became the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, the group includes nominees from a wide range of professional backgrounds, including former public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and labor lawyers.
In total, Biden’s confirmed nominees include 40 former public defenders, 14 civil rights lawyers, and eight labor lawyers, in addition to 188 judges who served in other capacities. These appointments represent, Democrats say, a significant shift toward professional diversity on the federal bench, a stark contrast to the predominantly prosecutorial and corporate backgrounds of many Trump appointees.
Despite Democratic enthusiasm, the process has not been without its challenges. Republicans have pushed back on many of Biden's nominees, often describing them as extreme or unqualified. Their opposition has led to heated debates on the Senate floor and lengthy confirmation sessions. However, Democrats, bolstered by their narrow majority, have managed to overcome these hurdles, pushing through an unprecedented number of diverse judicial appointments. "I didn’t think we’d ever get to these numbers, but we were determined to do so," Durbin said.
With the possibility of long sessions ahead, Democrats are committed to matching the pace set by the Trump administration's 234 judicial appointments. They believe these efforts will help restore balance to the judiciary after the conservative shift it underwent during Trump’s presidency.
The upcoming post-election session is likely to be a critical period for Democrats to finalize their judicial confirmation efforts. Durbin has already indicated that the Senate Judiciary Committee is prepared to push through additional nominees, even if it requires extra time and effort.
Schumer remains optimistic about the impact of these confirmations, stating that the diversity of the appointees will have a lasting effect on the federal bench. "Nearly two-thirds are women, two-thirds are people of color, and we’ve confirmed more Hispanic, Asian, and Native women and more LGBTQ judges to the federal bench than under any other president’s full time in office," Schumer said.
As the Nov. 5 election looms, the outcome will undoubtedly influence how aggressively Senate Democrats can move forward with their confirmation strategy. Nevertheless, they are determined to continue reshaping the judiciary, even in the face of significant opposition.