A los congresistas se les negó la entrada al décimo piso del edificio, donde, según dicen, se estarían reteniendo a los inmigrantes detenidos después de sus audiencias judiciales —una de las recientes tácticas del gobierno federal para deportar a personas— a veces durante varias noches seguidas.

Los congresistas Goldman y Nadler frente al edificio 26 Federal Plaza el miércoles. (Foto de la oficina de Goldman)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 20 de junio. Traducido por Victoria Moran Garcia. Read the English version here.

El miércoles, tras la detención del candidato a la alcaldía y contralor municipal Brad Lander en 26 de Federal Plaza mientras intentaba escoltar a inmigrantes sin abogado fuera del tribunal, los congresistas Dan Goldman y Jerry Nadler observaron los procedimientos judiciales e intentaron entrar a la oficina de Nueva York de Operaciones de Ejecución y Expulsión (ERO por sus siglas en inglés) del Servicio de Inmigración y Aduanas de EE.UU (ICE por sus siglas en inglés), en el mismo edificio. 

A pesar de avisar a ICE con antelación de que estarían presentes, a los congresistas se les negó la entrada al décimo piso del edificio, según dicen, se estarían reteniendo a los inmigrantes detenidos después de sus audiencias judiciales —una de las recientes tácticas del gobierno federal para deportar a personas— a veces durante varias noches seguidas.

Los legisladores reiteraron que una ley de 2024 (Appropriations Act of 2024) otorga a los miembros del Congreso la facultad de conducir visitas de supervisión a las instalaciones “operadas por o para el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional utilizadas para detener o alojar extranjeros”. 

Nadler dijo que los funcionarios de ICE afirmaron que el décimo piso del edificio federal no es técnicamente un centro de detención y, por lo tanto, no está sujeto a la misma supervisión. En un video que compartieron los legisladores, el subdirector de campo de ICE, Bill Joyce, les dice que el lugar se está utilizando para personas detenidas que están “en tránsito” y listas para trasladarse a otro lugar.

Pero Nadler rebatió que la gente es retenida allí “durante una, dos o tres noches”, y obligada a dormir en el suelo o en bancos.

“¿Por qué no podemos entrar? ¿Qué ocultan? Si van a tratar al contralor Lander, si van a tratar al senador Padilla, si van a tratar a la congresista McIver de la forma en que estos agentes les han estado tratando, como si fuera un estado policial, a la intemperie, en público, ¿cómo están tratando a los inmigrantes a puerta cerrada, que tienen que dormir en el suelo durante varias noches?”, dijo el congresista Goldman, refiriéndose a los políticos tanto de aquí como de otros estados a quienes se les ha prohibido entrar en las instalaciones de control de inmigración.

Video: Vídeo compartido por la oficina del congresista Dan Goldman de los dos legisladores enfrentándose al director adjunto de campo del ICE, Bill Joyce, por el acceso al décimo piso de 26 Federal Plaza, donde se retiene a los inmigrantes detenidos.

Ni ICE ni la oficina de prensa del DHS respondieron a la solicitud de City Limits de comentar sobre las críticas de los legisladores.

“Es inaceptable que nos negaran el acceso, y seguiremos presionando a los ejecutivos del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional para que nos den acceso porque están violando la ley, y no pararemos hasta que podamos entrar y observar lo que ocurre en estos centros de detención con estos inmigrantes no criminales y no violentos que siguen el proceso de la forma correcta”, añadió Goldman.

Los congresistas también asistieron a dos audiencias judiciales. Goldman dice que el gobierno está desestimando casos para poder acelerar la deportación de personas.

“Tenemos que agilizar el sistema de asilo para que las personas que tengan solicitudes legítimas puedan conseguir que se les adjudiquen”, dijo, tras observar que se fijó una audiencia de asilo para el 2029.

Goldman, que forma parte de la Comisión de Seguridad Nacional de la Cámara de Representantes, dijo que tiene previsto pedir a sus colegas republicanos que hagan una petición conjunta para inspeccionar las instalaciones.

El viernes, los legisladores enviaron una carta al DHS, firmada también por varios otros representantes federales electos de Nueva York, exigiendo que la agencia conceda a los congresistas acceso de supervisión a “cualquier instalación en la que haya personas detenidas por o para el DHS, incluidas las oficinas en las que los inmigrantes pasan la noche”.

“Su cooperación, o la falta de ella, determinará si el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional está comprometido con la transparencia y el cumplimiento de la ley con integridad o con el secreto y la obstrucción de la supervisión del Congreso”, dice la carta.

Con reportería de Jeanmarie Evelly.

Para ponerse en contacto con la reportera de esta noticia, escriba a VictoriaM@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

The post ‘¿Qué están ocultando?’: Congresistas piden acceso a zona de detención de ICE en edificio federal de Manhattan  appeared first on City Limits.

By DAVID BAUDER, Associated Press Media Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — In a case seen as a challenge to American free-speech principles, Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit by President Donald Trump over the editing of CBS’ “ 60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in October.

Paramount, which owns CBS, said the money will go to Trump’s future presidential library, not to the Republican president himself. It said the settlement did not involve an apology.

FILE – The CBS logo at the entrance to its headquarters, in New York Dec. 6, 2018. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Trump’s lawyer said Trump had suffered “mental anguish” over the editing of the interview by CBS News, while Paramount and CBS rejected his contention that it was edited to enhance how Harris, the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, sounded. They had called Trump’s case “completely without merit” and tried to have it dismissed, even while involved in settlement negotiations.

The case was widely discussed and was being seen as a referendum on how far organizations would go to curry favor with Trump. Paramount is simultaneously seeking approval from his administration for its proposed merger with Skydance Media.

In a meeting with shareholders on Wednesday, Paramount co-CEO George Cheeks said companies often settle litigation to avoid high legal costs and the unpredictability of a trial. Settlement allows a company to focus on its objectives “rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction,” Cheeks said.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said that with the settlement, Trump “delivers another win for the American people.”

Paramount agreed that ‘60 Minutes’ transcripts will be released

In early February, “60 Minutes” released a full, unedited transcript of the Harris interview.

Under the settlement reached with help of a mediator, Paramount agreed that “60 Minutes” will release transcripts of future interviews of presidential candidates, “subject to redactions as required for legal and national security concerns,” CBS News cited the statement as saying.

Related Articles

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban

Analysis shows Trump’s tariffs would cost US employers $82.3 billion

Hamas says it’s open to a Gaza truce but stops short of accepting a Trump-backed proposal

House Republicans race toward a final vote on Trump’s tax bill, daring critics to oppose

Mexican banks face cascading consequences following US sanctions

Trump, who did not agree to be interviewed by “60 Minutes” during the campaign, protested editing where Harris is seen giving two different answers to a question by the show’s Bill Whitaker in separate clips aired on “60 Minutes” and “Face the Nation” earlier in the day. CBS said each reply came within Harris’ long-winded answer to Whitaker, but was edited to be more succinct.

“This settlement is a cowardly capitulation by the corporate leaders of Paramount, and a fundamental betrayal of ‘60 Minutes’ and CBS News,” said Rome Hartman, a producer of the Harris interview for the show. “The story that was the subject of this lawsuit was edited by the book and in accordance with CBS News standards.”

Correspondents had worried of a settlement with ‘wrongdoing’ implications

In a letter to Paramount’s leadership in early May, “60 Minutes” correspondents said they were troubled by reports that Paramount might settle the case “in a way that acknowledges some sort of wrongdoing on our part.”

The correspondents, in the letter obtained by The Associated Press, said that “if our parent company caves in to his pressure and lies, it will leave a shameful stain and undermine the First Amendment.” It was signed by Whitaker, Lesley Stahl, Scott Pelley, Anderson Cooper, Sharyn Alfonsi, Jon Wertheim and Cecilia Vega.

Trump’s lawyer, Edward Andrew Paltzik, said the interview caused confusion and “mental anguish,” misleading voters and causing them to pay less attention to Trump and his Truth Social online platform.

Paramount and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone were seeking the settlement with Trump. CBS News President and CEO Wendy McMahon and “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens, who both opposed a settlement, resigned in recent weeks.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation, a media advocacy group that says it is a Paramount shareholder, has said that it would file a lawsuit in protest if a settlement was reached.

In December, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump over statements made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, agreeing to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library rather than engage in a public fight. Meta reportedly paid $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against the company over its decision to suspend his social media accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

By TODD RICHMOND

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The ban state lawmakers adopted in 1849 made it a felony when anyone other than the mother “intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.”

It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the 1849 ban in court, arguing that it could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.

Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights.

The justices concluded that “the legislature impliedly repealed” the ban “by enacting comprehensive legislation about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote for the majority. “That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion.”

In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.” She said the liberal justices based the decision on their personal preference to allow abortions.

Urmanski’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn’t immediately respond to an email Wednesday morning seeking comment. Kaul’s spokesperson, Riley Vetterkind, also didn’t immediately return an email.

Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday’s ruling. She’ll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban’s constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It’s still pending.

Related Articles

Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to hear challenges to the state’s congressional district boundaries

Wisconsin high school soccer: Pewaukee beats River Falls to reach state title game

Threats to lawmakers are on the rise, security officials tell senators

Literary pick for week of June 15: Craig Thomson’s ‘Gingseng Roots’

Community memorial set for William ‘Ike’ Eickholt, found dead last winter

By JOSH BOAK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — An analysis finds that a critical group of U.S. employers would face a direct cost of $82.3 billion from President Donald Trump’s current tariff plans, a sum that could be potentially managed through price hikes, layoffs, hiring freezes or lower profit margins.

The analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute is among the first to measure the direct costs created by the import taxes on businesses with $10 million to $1 billion in annual revenue, a category that includes roughly a third of private-sector U.S. workers. These companies are more dependent than other businesses on imports from China, India and Thailand — and the retail and wholesale sectors would be especially vulnerable to the import taxes being levied by the Republican president.

The findings show clear trade-offs from Trump’s import taxes, contradicting his claims that foreign manufacturers would absorb the costs of the tariffs instead of U.S. companies that rely on imports. While the tariffs launched under Trump have yet to boost overall inflation, large companies such as Amazon, Costco, Walmart and Williams-Sonoma delayed the potential reckoning by building up their inventories before the taxes could be imposed.

FILE – A shopping cart filled with groceries sits in an aisle at an Asian grocery store in Rowland Heights, Calif., Thursday, April 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

The analysis comes just ahead of the July 9 deadline by Trump to formally set the tariff rates on goods from dozens of countries. Trump imposed that deadline after the financial markets panicked in response to his April tariff announcements, prompting him to instead schedule a 90-day negotiating period when most imports faced a 10% baseline tariff. China, Mexico and Canada face higher rates, and there are separate 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Had the initial April 2 tariffs stayed in place, the companies in the JPMorganChase Institute analysis would have faced additional direct costs of $187.6 billion. Under the current rates, the $82.3 billion would be equivalent on average to $2,080 per employee, or 3.1% of the average annual payroll. Those averages include firms that don’t import goods and those that do.

Related Articles

Hamas says it’s open to a Gaza truce but stops short of accepting a Trump-backed proposal

House Republicans race toward a final vote on Trump’s tax bill, daring critics to oppose

Mexican banks face cascading consequences following US sanctions

US won’t send some weapons pledged to Ukraine following a Pentagon review of military assistance

FBI says it plans to move headquarters to different location in Washington

Asked Tuesday how trade talks are faring, Trump said simply: “Everything’s going well.”

The president has indicated that he will set tariff rates given the logistical challenge of negotiating with so many nations. As the 90-day period comes to a close, only the United Kingdom has signed a trade framework with the Trump administration. India and Vietnam have signaled that they’re close to a trade framework.

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that more inflation could surface. The investment bank Goldman Sachs said in a report that it expects companies to pass along 60% of their tariff costs onto consumers. The Atlanta Federal Reserve has used its survey of businesses’ inflation expectations to say that companies could on average pass along roughly half their costs from a 10% tariff or a 25% tariff without reducing consumer demand.

The JPMorganChase Institute findings suggest that the tariffs could cause some domestic manufacturers to strengthen their roles as suppliers of goods. But it noted that companies need to plan for a range of possible outcomes and that wholesalers and retailers already operate on such low profit margins that they might need to spread the tariffs costs to their customers.

The outlook for tariffs remains highly uncertain. Trump had stopped negotiations with Canada, only to restart them after the country dropped its plan to tax digital services. He similarly on Monday threatened more tariffs on Japan unless it buys more rice from the U.S.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Tuesday interview that the concessions from the trade talks have impressed career officials at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies.

“People who have been at Treasury, at Commerce, at USTR for 20 years are saying that these are deals like they’ve never seen before,” Bessent said on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.”

The treasury secretary said the Trump administration plans to discuss the contours of trade deals next week, prioritizing the tax cuts package passed on Tuesday by the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump has set a Friday deadline for passage of the multitrillion-dollar package, the costs of which the president hopes to offset with tariff revenues.