Immigrants often don’t open the door to ICE, but that may no longer stop officers

posted in: All news | 0

By JULIE WATSON and AMY TAXIN, Associated Press

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Since coming to the United States 30 years ago from Mexico, Fernando Perez said U.S. immigration officers have stopped by his home numerous times, but he has never once answered the door.

“There are rules and I know them,” said Perez, speaking in a mix of English and Spanish in a Home Depot parking lot where he has routinely sought work as a day laborer from contractors and people renovating their homes.

Over the decades it has become common knowledge in immigrant communities across the country to not open the door for federal immigration officers unless they show a warrant signed by a judge. The Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure prohibits the government’s forced entry into someone’s home.

Teyana Gibson Brown, center left, wife of Garrison Gibson, reacts after federal immigration officers arrested Garrison Gibson, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/John Locher)

As a result, immigration officers have been forced to adapt by making arrests in public, which often requires long hours of surveillance outside homes as they wait to nab someone walking to the street.

But an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press states immigration officers can forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, marking a dramatic shift that could upend the legal advice given to immigrants for decades.

The shift comes as President Donald Trump’s administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.

Perez said officers in the past would knock, wait and then move on.

“But if they are going to start coming into my home, where I am paying the rent — they are not paying the rent — that’s the last straw,” he said.

Most immigration arrests have been carried out under administrative warrants, documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize an arrest. Traditionally they do not permit officers to enter private spaces without consent. Only warrants signed by independent judges have carried that authority.

It is unclear how broadly the memo’s directive has been applied in immigration enforcement operations. AP witnessed ICE officers ramming through the front door of a Liberian man’s home in Minneapolis on Jan. 11 with only an administrative warrant, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut is demanding congressional hearings on the ICE memo and calling on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for an explanation.

“Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home,” Blumenthal said in a news release.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in 1980 that the “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

A sign reads “ICE OUT” and informs people of their rights outside a barbershop on Tuesday, October, 28, 2025 in Chicago. (AP Photo/Elliot Spagat)

The waiting game

For years, people have managed to evade arrest by skipping work and outings for days until agents move on. A senior ICE official once likened the surveillance experience to watching paint dry.

In July, the AP observed as immigration officers saw a Russian man enter his home in Irvine, California. They gave up when he didn’t leave after three hours. They waited longer for a Mexican man who never emerged from his house in nearby El Monte, though they caught up with him two days later at a convenience store.

ICE has tried what the agency called “knock and talks” to get people to answer the door by casually asking residents to step outside to answer a few questions, according to a 2020 lawsuit in which a federal judge found the practice illegal. In one case, they told a woman they were probation officers looking for her brother.

More often, immigration officers simply play the waiting game — a pace that is not conducive to Trump fulfilling his promise of mass deportations.

Not answering the door is a key part of know-your-rights trainings

Since shortly after ICE was created in 2003, advocacy groups and immigrant-friendly state and local governments have diligently spread the word that people should not open their doors for immigration officers unless they can show a warrant signed by a judge.

They’ve held know-your-rights trainings for communities, passed out flyers and posted videos on social media to teach immigrants how to protect themselves.

Ahilan Arulanantham, co-faculty director of the UCLA Law School’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy who has held such trainings, called the memo “quite disturbing.”

“Know-your-rights trainings have included that information for decades and even people who are only minimally aware of their rights learn that because it’s sort of the first and foundational elements of Fourth Amendment law,” he said. “They know to ask officers to slide the warrant under the door so they can see if it was signed by a judge or is an administrative warrant.”

In the predominantly Latino city of Santa Ana, where ICE agents were seen roaming the streets in recent days, several residents who did not want to give their names said they were well aware of that right. Jesus Delgado, a father of three, said the local elementary school sent out information to parents about what to do if ICE comes to your door.

“They send us bulletins, to not answer the door, to not answer any questions,” he said.

Another man said he learned that from TikTok.

Trump’s border czar Tom Homan has been highly critical of groups providing the information.

“They call it ‘know-your-rights,’” he said last year on CNN. “I call it ‘how to escape arrest.’”

Experts warn barging into homes could put all at risk

The memo says immigration officers can forcibly enter homes and arrest immigrants using solely a warrant signed by an immigration official if they have a final order of removal.

Related Articles


Luigi Mangione is due in court as judge weighs legality of police seizing his backpack


Today in History: January 23, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducts first members


TikTok finalizes deal to form new American version of the app


FAA is making the rules imposed after an airliner collided with an Army helicopter permanent


NASA and families of fallen astronauts mark 40th anniversary of space shuttle Challenger accident

Officers must first knock on the door and share who they are and why they’re at the residence, and they can only go into the home after 6 a.m. and before 10 p.m. The people inside must be given a “reasonable chance to act lawfully.” But if that doesn’t work, the memo says, they can use force to go in.

Law enforcement and legal experts warn if more immigration officers barge into homes, everyone could be put at greater risk.

With stand-your-ground laws, people in many states have the right to shoot intruders, which could lead to officers being shot, or agents opening fire on someone coming at them with a baseball bat or other item they grab in the heat of a moment, Arulanantham said. ICE records often contain wrong addresses, which could further lead to confrontations and agents busting into homes of U.S. citizens.

Arulanantham said agents’ aggressive tactics have been building since the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s order in September that barred federal agents in the Los Angeles area from indiscriminately stopping people because of their race, language, job or location.

“This would just be another step down that path,” he said. “Obviously it will be more significant because it suggests you’re not safe even in your own house.”

Associated Press writers Elliot Spagat in San Diego and Rebecca Santana in Washington contributed to this report. Taxin reported from Santa Ana, Calif.

Americans split on using AI for personal finances

posted in: All news | 0

By Kurt Woock, NerdWallet

The investing information provided on this page is for educational purposes only. NerdWallet, Inc. does not offer advisory or brokerage services, nor does it recommend or advise investors to buy or sell particular stocks, securities or other investments.

Most U.S. adults say AI has a role to play in a number of high-stakes tasks, including weather forecasting, developing new medicines and rooting out criminals, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Related Articles


A sharp drop for Intel helps tug the US stock market lower


Economic leaders at Davos say global growth is resilient despite disruption from Trump


Minnesota employment flat in December; jobless rate 4.1%


Under Armour looking into data breach affecting customers’ email addresses


Trump sues JPMorgan for $5 billion, alleges the bank closed his accounts for political reasons

But what about using the technology to improve your personal finances? According to a NerdWallet survey conducted online by The Harris Poll in October 2025, the answer depends on who you ask.

About half (48%) of Americans say using AI will have a positive impact on their personal finances while the other 52% disagree, according to the NerdWallet survey. Look closer at the data, though, and you’ll find pockets of greater optimism and pockets of greater pessimism.

The following groups are more likely to see an upside in using AI for personal finances:

Younger adults. 60% of Gen Z (ages 18-28) and 66% of millennials (ages 29-44) say using AI will have a positive impact on their personal finances. Meanwhile, only 48% of Gen X (ages 45-60) and 26% of baby boomers (ages 61-79) share that outlook.
Parents. 64% of parents of children under 18 think AI will have a positive impact on their finances. Only 40% of those who are not parents of children under 18 say the same.
Men. 56% of men say using AI will have a positive impact on their personal finances compared to 41% of women.

So who’s right? It depends.

In general, AI can be a useful starting point to ask general purpose questions, to brainstorm and to troubleshoot ideas. If you’re in a rut thinking about an open-ended question, like where to go on your next vacation, it’s an easy way to get a new perspective or sort through your options.

However, using AI can be risky. “Fake it till you make it” seems baked into its digital DNA, as it seems unable to say “I’m not sure” when that would clearly be the best response. That swollen sense of confidence makes for funny memes about AI stumbles, but, for people seeking advice about their finances, it can lead to real damage. In other words, don’t place your trust in AI the same way we’ve let Google Maps replace paper maps. AI can quickly get you to the doorstep of a decision, but don’t cross the threshold without the additional confirmation from expert, trustworthy sources.

Here are a few common scenarios and what helpful — and dubious — prompts might look like.

Understanding your workplace’s retirement plans

Imagine you’re choosing what funds to invest in through your employer’s 401(k). AI can be a useful partner if you’re asking general questions, but be wary of using it to make investment decisions. For informed advice that takes into account the totality of your financial situation, work with a financial advisor.

Avoid prompts that ask AI to suggest what’s best for you, like:

I’m uploading the investments available in my 401(k) — what are the best options?

Consider prompts that help you with general background:

I started a new job and am filling out 401(k) paperwork. It says the default investment option is a target date fund. What are some reasons a person might consider something else?

Doing your taxes

Taxes can be notoriously complex. In the thick of filing season, you might be tempted to ask for advice about your return. Leave those questions for professionals. “My AI told me it was OK” is not going to work if you’re audited.

Avoid prompts that suggest taking a specific course of action, like:

I’ve uploaded my tax forms. Do you see any ways to avoid taxes?

Consider prompts that answer low-stakes questions, like:

It’s almost tax time. Can you make a list of documents I should start gathering?

Reviewing your spending

If you use a budget app to track spending, you likely have a dashboard view that summarizes your spending by category as well as a downloadable list of all your transactions. Upload that information and use AI to help analyze it. But beware of questions that cede your role as the decisionmaker of your own finances.

Avoid prompts that force a yes-or-no answer, like:

This is my spending from last year. Can I afford a new car?

Consider prompts that augment your own brainstorming process, like:

I have a goal to lower my spending by $150 per month next year. Looking at my spending from last year, can you come up with 20 different ways I could save money?

Kurt Woock writes for NerdWallet. Email: kwoock@nerdwallet.com.

Trump steals the show in Davos with a mixed bag of rhetoric and results at elite gathering

posted in: All news | 0

By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump took center stage in his whirlwind visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, overshadowing the yearly gabfest among national leaders, executives and other elites in the Swiss Alpine snows.

Related Articles


5 Democratic states asking judge to keep Trump from withholding money for child care


‘The ultimate insult’: Trump downplaying NATO’s Afghanistan involvement causes distress in UK


Economic leaders at Davos say global growth is resilient despite disruption from Trump


Kushner’s vision for rebuilding Gaza faces major obstacles


FACT FOCUS: White House shares altered image showing arrest of civil rights attorney in Minnesota

While some experts highlighted business leaders’ ambitions to leverage AI for productivity, efficiency and profits or a boom in renewable energy investment led by China, Trump largely stole the show when it came to politics. Climate and other concerns didn’t draw the same attention as in past years at the event that ended Friday.

“I think there were two Davoses,” said Jane Harman, a former Democratic Congresswoman. “One of them was very senior industrial leaders talking about AI. … The second was foreign policy, or geopolitics, and that was dominated by one person.”

On his third visit to Davos while president, Trump came and went over about 24 hours. He delivered a rambling and at times hyperbolic speech that touted America’s global role.

Unlike his previous trips to Davos among adoring corporate chiefs, Trump faced criticism from the likes of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who repeatedly spoke to media scrums in the Congress Center.

Still, others were more congratulatory: NATO chief Mark Rutte and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who met with Trump in Davos, praised his efforts to help end Russia’s war in Ukraine, boost Western defense and deliver security guarantees to Kyiv.

One narrative that emerged in Davos: The U.S. under Trump and its Western allies have grown too divided. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke of a “rupture” that would never be repaired.

A backpedal on Greenland

In the runup to his trip to Davos, Trump sowed new discord with America’s longtime allies in Europe by announcing plans to set new tariffs on eight European countries who opposed his takeover bid for Greenland — a semiautonomous territory of NATO member Denmark.

By Wednesday, amid an uproar at home and abroad, Trump had backed off in a dramatic reversal — not long after insisting he wanted to get the island “including right, title and ownership.”

In a post on his social media site, Trump said he had agreed with NATO chief Rutte on a “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security, potentially defusing tension that had far-reaching geopolitical implications.

‘Board of Peace’ lures some, bristles others

Trump launched his Board of Peace to spearhead efforts at maintaining a ceasefire in Israel’s war with Hamas, and eventually help underpin efforts to map a future of the war-torn Gaza Strip.

The idea drew support from countries as diverse as Belarus, Kosovo, Indonesia and Argentina, but critics — including longtime U.S. allies in Europe — oppose it. They reject his claim that it could rival the United Nations one day.

Some critics said details were scarce about how the Board of Peace will work — under the chairmanship of Trump himself — and suggested the better move would be to reinforce and improve current U.N. structures, not replace them.

“I think they were trying to duplicate — replicate — what happened when the United Nations came about,” Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said in an interview. “But frankly it was a very poor and sad attempt to repeat what happened in the 1940s.”

AI an alternative

Artificial intelligence was — as usual in recent times — a hot topic: Billionaire Elon Musk and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang made their Davos debuts.

Musk, who had previously called the WEF event “boring,” jetted in with little advance notice to discuss robotics, address AI’s electricity demands and gently rebuke the Trump administration for imposing tariffs on Chinese solar panels.

Huang pushed back on fears that the AI boom might wipe out jobs, saying it would create work for people building out its infrastructure, such as “plumbers and electricians and construction and steel workers and network technicians.”

The U.S.-China rivalry got a mention from another AI chieftain: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei compared the Trump administration’s move to green-light sales of an advanced Nvidia chip to selling nuclear weapons to Pyongyang.

But overall, it was can-do optimism among technology, AI and other business executives encapsulated the stated motto and mindset of the forum to improve the world and promote dialogue — not fear and doom-and-gloom predictions about the future.

“I want to end this forum with the quote that Elon Musk said in closing yesterday’s session — that it’s better to be an optimist and wrong than be a pessimist who’s right,” said forum co-chair Larry Fink, the BlackRock chairman and CEO, at the closing ceremony.

Associated Press writer Kelvin Chan in London contributed to this report.

5 Democratic states asking judge to keep Trump from withholding money for child care

posted in: All news | 0

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press

Five Democratic-controlled states are asking a judge Friday to order President Donald Trump’s administration to keep money flowing for child care subsidies and other programs aimed at boosting low-income families with children.

Related Articles


Trump steals the show in Davos with a mixed bag of rhetoric and results at elite gathering


‘The ultimate insult’: Trump downplaying NATO’s Afghanistan involvement causes distress in UK


Economic leaders at Davos say global growth is resilient despite disruption from Trump


Kushner’s vision for rebuilding Gaza faces major obstacles


FACT FOCUS: White House shares altered image showing arrest of civil rights attorney in Minnesota

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was pausing the funding because it had “reason to believe” the states were granting benefits to people in the country illegally, though it did not provide evidence or explain why it was targeting those states and not others.

The states say the move was instead intended to damage Trump’s political adversaries.

A judge previously gave the states a reprieve to the administration’s plan to halt funding for the states unless they provide information on the beneficiaries of some programs, including names and Social Security numbers. The temporary restraining order is set to expire Friday.

The request under consideration now is to keep the programs funded while a legal challenge to the administration’s plan moves ahead.

The states in question are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York. Around the same time as the actions aimed at the five states, the administrations put up hurdles to Minnesota for even more federal dollars. It also began requesting all states to explain how they’re using money in the child care program.

The programs are intended to help low-income families

The programs are the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidizes child care for 1.3 million children from low-income families nationwide; the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides cash assistance and job training; and the Social Services Block Grant, a smaller fund that provides money for a variety of programs. The states say that they receive a total of more more than $10 billion a year from those programs — and that the programs are essential for low-income and vulnerable families.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent letters to the states on Jan. 5 and 6 telling them they would be placed on “restricted drawdown” of program money until the states provided more information.

For TANF and the Social Service Block Grant, the request required the states to submit the data, including personal information of recipients beginning in 2022, with a deadline of Jan. 20.

States call the action ‘unlawful many times over’

In court papers last week, the states say what they describe as a funding freeze does not follow the law.

They say Congress created laws about how the administration can identify noncompliance or fraud by recipients of the money — and that the federal government hasn’t used that process.

They also say it’s improper to freeze funding broadly because of potential fraud and that producing the data the government called for is an “impossible demand on an impossible timeline.”

The administration says it’s not a freeze

In a court filing this week, the administration objected to the states describing the action as a “funding freeze,” even though the headline on the Department of Health and Human Services announcement was: “HHS Freezes Child Care and Family Assistance Grants in Five States for Fraud Concerns.”

Federal government lawyers said the states could get the money going forward if they provide the requested information and the federal government finds them to be in compliance with anti-fraud measures.

The administration also notes that it has continued to provide funding to the states, not pointing out that a court ordered it to do so.