ICE
Portland: Trump Defies Court, Sends 300 CA Guard Troops
President Donald Trump ordered 300 California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, in open defiance of a federal court order. The decision, made on October 5, 2025, set off an immediate political and legal firestorm across the country. The deployment came one day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the White House from using Oregon’s own National Guard in the state. The court ruled that the administration’s justification lacked solid evidence and could violate constitutional limits on presidential authority. Despite that ruling, Trump directed troops from California to cross state lines, saying Portland needed protection from ongoing chaos and threats to federal property. President Trump reacted to the judge’s order: There’s the magic word again 👀 Trump says that “insurrectionists” are burning Portland to the ground. This is not an accident. Trump and his administration are beginning to use this word frequently for a reason. The Insurrection Act is coming. pic.twitter.com/8f9C3S0tki — Clandestine (@WarClandestine) October 5, 2025 Both Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the move. They accused Trump of abusing his power and ignoring the Constitution. Tension Builds in Portland Portland has faced waves of demonstrations since early summer. The protests began after several controversial immigration enforcement actions at a local federal facility. Over time, the gatherings drew national attention and occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents. In late September, Trump announced that his administration would send federal resources to Oregon to restore order. He blamed state leaders for failing to protect federal buildings and personnel. As part of that plan, he sought to federalize Oregon’s National Guard and place them under his command. Judge Karin Immergut halted the order. She ruled that the administration had not shown credible evidence of widespread violence or an immediate threat that justified federal intervention. Her ruling says that the president could not use the military to manage local protests without clear legal authority. Trump responded by directing troops from California instead, claiming the court’s order did not apply to National Guard units from another state. She has since issued a TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from relocating or deploying ANY federalized national guard troops to Oregon. Judge Immergut has issued her written TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from relocating or deploying federalized national guard troops to Oregon. Here it is: https://t.co/9xO5hwocck pic.twitter.com/WU11j6Or2F — Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) October 6, 2025 A Clash Over Constitutional Limits The confrontation in Portland has become a defining example of the struggle between state sovereignty and federal power. Legal scholars point to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states, as central to the dispute. Governors Newsom and Kotek argue that Trump’s decision violates that principle by seizing control over state guard forces without consent. The White House insists the president has the right to protect federal property and enforce federal law. Yet critics say the order oversteps executive authority and blurs the line between military and civilian roles. The Posse Comitatus Act also lies at the heart of the debate. The law generally forbids using the military for domestic law enforcement unless Congress explicitly authorizes it. Opponents of the deployment argue that sending troops to monitor protests crosses that legal boundary. (MORE NEWS: Apple Pulls ICE-Tracking Apps from App Store) Judge Immergut’s earlier ruling complicates matters further. In her opinion, Portland had been relatively calm in recent weeks, contradicting the administration’s portrayal of the city as a “war zone.” Governors Weigh In California Governor Gavin Newsom called the order unconstitutional and reckless. He said his state would not allow its National Guard to be used for political stunts. Newsom promised immediate legal action to block the deployment and protect the rights of California’s soldiers. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek echoed his concerns. She warned that Trump’s actions could undermine federalism and increase tensions instead of reducing them. Kotek’s office confirmed that she is working with state attorneys to seek emergency relief from the courts. Both governors maintain that the situation in Portland does not justify military intervention. They insist that local and state law enforcement agencies are capable of maintaining order without federal troops. (MORE NEWS: Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants) On the contrary, Texas Governor Abbott authorized 400 members of the Texas National Guard. He is ready and willing to assist federal law enforcement if necessary. I fully authorized the President to call up 400 members of the Texas National Guard to ensure safety for federal officials. You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it. No Guard can match the training, skill, and… https://t.co/7SUk9XlMBn — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 6, 2025 National Implications for Power and Protest The battle over Portland reaches far beyond one city or protest. It tests the boundaries of American democracy, the separation of powers, and the reach of presidential authority. The outcome could redefine how Washington interacts with state governments during times of unrest. Supporters of the deployment argue that the president is within his legal right to act, especially when local leaders order police to stand down or fail to protect federal personnel and property. Under the Insurrection Act, the president can lawfully deploy military forces if states cannot or will not uphold federal law. In this case, Trump’s allies say his decision reflects a duty to defend federal officers and facilities from escalating threats, similar to situations seen in Chicago and other cities where local enforcement retreated. The courts now face the task of determining how far the president’s powers extend under existing law. The restraining order remains in place until mid-October, giving judges time to weigh whether his actions fall within constitutional boundaries. The ruling will likely influence how future presidents handle civil unrest and the use of military forces on U.S. soil. Final Word The deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland stands as one of the most controversial moves of Trump’s second term. It has fueled intense debate over federal…
Des Moines Superintendent Arrested by ICE: Fake Degrees, Crimes
A major scandal has erupted in Iowa. Authorities arrested Ian Andre Roberts, then–superintendent of Des Moines Public Schools, raising fresh questions about his past. Investigators say his history includes drug convictions, weapons charges, fraudulent credentials, and immigration violations. As the full account unfolds, officials and the public alike are demanding answers. Background: From Education Leader to Arrested Suspect Roberts began working as superintendent in Des Moines in 2023. At first, there were few signs that serious legal trouble loomed. However, when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents moved in on September 26, Roberts attempted to flee. They pursued his vehicle, found him hiding in nearby brush, and ultimately took him into custody. His ICE arrest triggered a bombshell disclosure by the Department of Homeland Security. In a public statement, DHS asserted Roberts had a long record of criminal conduct and maintained he should never have been serving in a role overseeing children. Shortly after, Roberts resigned his position. (MORE NEWS: Apple Pulls ICE-Tracking Apps from App Store) Criminal Allegations: Drugs, Guns, and Fraud The roster of charges against Roberts is extensive and severe. Investigators allege that a search of his home revealed multiple firearms: a loaded 9 mm pistol tucked under a couch cushion, a rifle in the master bedroom closet, and a shotgun behind a headboard. Moreover, one handgun was found in a vehicle he used while fleeing ICE. 🚨Holy crap. DHS just released more info on the Iowa school superintendent and illegal alien Ian Andre Roberts. He has a very long, violent criminal record, combined with immigration fraud. He also voted in elections. pic.twitter.com/lZDeRJKmnw — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) October 3, 2025 But weapons are not the only concern. The DHS and FBI allege Roberts has a decades-long history of drug crimes. In New York, his record reportedly includes criminal possession of narcotics with intent to sell, forgery, and related offenses dating back to the mid-1990s. In Pennsylvania, the accusation includes unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in 2022. On top of that, Maryland records allegedly show reckless driving, unsafe operation, and speeding convictions from 2012. Compounding these allegations are claims that Roberts also held fake or unverified academic credentials. He listed Morgan State University as his alma mater and claimed to be an incoming MBA candidate at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. But Morgan State confirmed to the Des Moines Register that he attended without earning a degree. MIT’s registrar also told the Register that no record exists of him ever being enrolled in that program. Immigration Violations and Status Issues Beyond criminal allegations, Roberts faces severe immigration-related accusations. DHS says he entered the U.S. multiple times under different visas—first as a visitor, then on a student visa in 1999. An immigration judge in Dallas ordered his removal in absentia in May 2024. Nevertheless, Roberts filed applications for work authorization in 2000, 2018, and 2019—each granted for just one year. Those ultimately expired. (MORE NEWS: Cartel “La Diabla” Busted for Baby, Organ Ring in Mexico) DHS also claims Roberts was illegally registered to vote as a Democrat in Maryland, raising serious concerns about voter registration controls. While some aspects remain under investigation, the combined allegations portray a complex web of alleged misconduct. Impact on Public Education and Trust The arrest has rattled the Des Moines Public Schools system. The school board initially placed Roberts on paid leave, then switched to unpaid leave, and finally accepted his resignation. Many parents, teachers, and stakeholders feel blindsided. How did someone with such a background secure a leadership role in a major school district? Furthermore, the scandal calls into question hiring and vetting practices in public education. If school systems failed to detect fictitious degrees or an extensive criminal history, then oversight mechanisms may be deeply flawed. Beyond internal processes, the case risks damaging public confidence. Schools play a central role in community trust. When a leader falls under suspicion for crimes and deceit, that trust erodes quickly. Des Moines Public School Board is now suing JG Consulting: 🚨 BREAKING: The Des Moines Public School Board is now deflecting all responsibility for hiring former Superintendent Ian Roberts by taking legal action against the search firm that assisted in the hiring, JG Consulting. Roberts passed background checks conducted by both JG… pic.twitter.com/RPdqgRFPp0 — Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) October 3, 2025 Voices from DHS and Reactions In response, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated: “Ian Andre Roberts, a criminal illegal alien with multiple weapons charges and a drug trafficking charge, should have never been able to work around children. When ICE officers arrested this Superintendent, he was in possession of an illegal handgun, a hunting knife, and nearly $3,000 in cash. This criminal illegal alien is now in U.S. Marshals custody and facing charges for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearms. Under Secretary Noem, ICE will continue to arrest the worst of the worst and put the safety of America’s children FIRST.” Meanwhile, local and state-level officials have faced pressure to explain how Roberts gained access to influential education roles. As more revelations emerge, the scrutiny has intensified. Conclusion: A Scandal That Demands Clarity The arrest of Ian Andre Roberts marks a serious and complicated turning point in public education oversight. The charges span drugs, weapons, fraud, and immigration violations. His alleged falsification of academic credentials only deepens the concerns. In the wake of the revelations, Des Moines Public Schools faces not only legal fallout but a crisis of credibility. As authorities move forward, stakeholders and the public alike deserve transparency and reform. Through this case, we are reminded that leadership roles—especially those entrusted with children’s lives and future—demand rigorous scrutiny. Public systems must apply higher standards, not lower them. If that standard is not met, the consequences affect more than one man—they affect the integrity of public education itself. Forget the narrative. Reject the script. Share what matters. At The Modern Memo, we call it like it is — no filter, no apology, no corporate leash. If you’re tired of being lied to,…
Apple Pulls ICE-Tracking Apps from App Store
Apple has removed a number of apps from its App Store that allowed users to track the presence of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents, according to the New York Post. The decision came after the Trump administration threatened legal action. The removed apps included one called ICEBlock, which had gained hundreds of thousands of users. In response, Apple confirmed that it took down ICEBlock and similar apps after being contacted by law enforcement. The company did not name which agencies or detail each app removed. What Was ICEBlock and Why It Mattered ICEBlock was an app that let users anonymously report and view the approximate location of ICE agents within a five-mile radius. By crowdsourcing observations, users could see where ICE enforcement was reportedly active and warn each other. The app’s creators promoted it as a tool to help immigrants avoid law enforcement encounters. The app had 1.1 million users. Director of the FBI Kash Patel reported the shooter at the Dallas ICE facility last week used ICE tracking apps: @FBIDallas and FBI HQ have been working 24/7 to seize devices, exploit data, and process writings obtained on location and in the subject’s person/residence/bedroom. This @FBI is committed to providing timely updates, as promised: – The perp downloaded a document titled “Dallas… — FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) September 25, 2025 Because of its controversial goal—to help people evade immigration enforcement—ICEBlock drew both support and criticism. Supporters viewed it as a defense against perceived overreach. But in reality, it enabled illegal behavior and endangered public safety by interfering with law enforcement. Why Apple Acted: Legal Pressure and Enforcement Apple’s removal of the app followed intense pressure from the Trump administration. Officials issued legal threats, demanding that Apple stop distributing apps designed to help users avoid ICE. Facing potential liability, Apple complied. (MORE NEWS: Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants) In its statement, Apple said it removed the apps after being contacted by unspecified law enforcement entities. The company did not confirm whether the removal was voluntary or mandated by law. Thus, Apple appears to have acted preemptively to avoid legal exposure. The move signals how tech firms may sometimes yield to government pressure when enforcement agencies assert regulatory or legal authority. Reactions and Debate The removal has sparked fierce debate. Advocates for free speech and digital tools argued that Apple’s action constitutes censorship—restricting tools that users voluntarily choose to download. On the other hand, critics claim the apps endanger enforcement and public safety. Some supporters of ICEBlock’s removal say that no platform should host tools explicitly designed to help users dodge law enforcement. They argue developers should not assist with illegal conduct. Opponents, however, say that the government should not be able to dictate which apps people can access. The tension between safety, free speech, and corporate responsibility is central to this dispute. What It Means for Developers and Users For developers, the removal shows a warning: apps facilitating the evasion of law enforcement may be vulnerable to removal, especially if authorities condemn them. Even if an app is popular, it may not be safe from takedown under pressure. (RELATED NEWS: Dallas ICE Office Attack Sparks Grief and Political Uproar) For users, this event underscores how volatile app availability can be when government interest is involved. Tools can be removed overnight if they encroach upon legally sensitive territory. Moving forward, developers planning apps that interact with law enforcement or surveillance should tread carefully. They must anticipate potential legal challenges and consider whether their functionality may be perceived as enabling wrongdoing. Lessons on Tech, Governance, and Power This episode highlights how tech platforms serve as gatekeepers. Even though Apple is a private company, its control over app distribution gives it de facto regulatory power. Its decisions can shape which tools people can access and which voices gain amplification. However, it is important to note that this action is not government overreach. It is no different from laws in some states that ban laser jammers or radar detectors. Just as those devices interfere with traffic enforcement, ICE-tracking apps directly interfere with immigration enforcement. When technology is designed to obstruct the law, removal becomes a matter of public safety, not censorship. Moreover, the case reveals how when law enforcement deems an app inappropriate or dangerous, companies may be willing—or compelled—to submit. That is especially true when technology contributes to serious crimes, including the potential harm or even murder of innocent people. In such cases, restrictions are not about silencing dissent but about protecting lives. At the same time, the controversy underscores the tension between security and liberty. Governments want tools and mechanisms to maintain order. Citizens and activists often want the ability to observe, document, or resist government action. When technology sits in the middle of that clash, conflict is inevitable. Final Word Apple’s removal of ICE-tracking apps like ICEBlock signals a major shift at the intersection of tech, law, and politics. Under pressure from the Trump administration, Apple pulled apps that helped users avoid ICE agents. The move has stirred debate about censorship, corporate responsibility, and civil liberties. Going forward, developers must consider legal risks when building apps tied to law enforcement or surveillance. Meanwhile, users must recognize that app access is never fully secure. As technology continues to permeate government and personal lives, the boundaries of power will remain contested—and the decisions of big tech companies will carry weighty consequences. Expose the Spin. Shatter the Narrative. Speak the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t cover politics to play referee — we swing a machete through the spin, the double-speak, and the partisan theater. While the media protects the powerful and buries the backlash, we dig it up and drag it into the light. If you’re tired of rigged narratives, selective outrage, and leaders who serve themselves, not you — then share this. Expose the corruption. Challenge the agenda. Because if we don’t fight for the truth, no one will. And that fight starts with you.
Dallas ICE Office Attack Sparks Grief and Political Uproar
Dallas woke up to tragedy on September 24, 2025. A gunman climbed onto a rooftop and opened fire on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office. Three detainees were hit, and at least one died. The shooter then turned the gun on himself and didn’t survive. Investigators say this wasn’t random. They believe the attack was planned and directed at ICE officers. Now, federal, state, and local officials are digging for answers, trying to figure out why this happened and whether anyone else was involved. Who Was Behind the Gun? Authorities identified the shooter as 29-year-old Joshua Jahn. He didn’t just lash out in the heat of the moment. Police say he etched anti-ICE slogans onto his bullets, making his motive clear. That’s why investigators are treating this as more than just another crime — it looks like an ideologically driven attack. Officers searched two homes tied to Jahn — one in Fairview, Texas, and another in Durant, Oklahoma. They’re going through computers, phones, and personal records to learn what pushed him to do this and if he had help. How the Attack Happened Officials say Jahn fired “indiscriminately” from the roof. He hit the ICE building, broke through windows and lobby walls, and fired into a van transporting detainees. One of those detainees lost their life. Two more are fighting to recover in the hospital. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said this was more than an attack on detainees — it was a direct strike on law enforcement itself. He warned that bullets could have hit lawyers, visitors, or even drivers on Interstate 35, which runs close to the facility. (MORE NEWS: Utah Arrests: Explosive Device Found Under Fox News Vehicle) Lyons spoke with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum: Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons: “The ICE facility itself was a target… He was just firing at ICE vehicles… It wasn’t directed at the detainees.. wasn’t directed at civilians on the street. It was a definite attack on law enforcement. He was there to attack that building.”… pic.twitter.com/nhPiQcp2wt — RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) September 24, 2025 Political Firestorm The shooting immediately sparked political reaction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the attack was “deliberate” and warned that heated rhetoric aimed at ICE officers is dangerous. She called out comparisons that paint ICE agents as secret police, saying that kind of language makes them targets. For months, we’ve been warning politicians and the media to tone down their rhetoric about ICE law enforcement before someone was killed. These horrendous killings must serve as a wake-up call to the far-left that their rhetoric about ICE has consequences. Comparing ICE Day-in… — Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) September 24, 2025 President Trump went even further. He blamed “Radical Left Democrats” for fueling anti-ICE hatred and promised an executive order to crack down on domestic terrorism groups. He pointed to the messages written on Jahn’s bullets as proof the shooting was politically charged. Texas Senator Ted Cruz agreed, saying this is the third shooting in Texas directed at ICE or CBP: This needs to stop. Politicians using rhetoric that demonizes ICE and CBP need to stop. pic.twitter.com/NlcePjtD4Q — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 24, 2025 Dallas Responds Closer to home, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson urged the city to pray for our nation and for the city of Dallas. He said that believes in the power of prayer and that prayer changes things. Republican Mayor of Dallas Eric Johnson opened the press conference on the ICE facility shooting with a powerful call to prayer. In a moment when Democrats are demonizing faith, he doubled down. “Let me just start off by saying that I’m a person who believes very, very strongly… pic.twitter.com/Wm3wupTCHk — Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 24, 2025 Police sealed off streets around the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building and worked with federal agents to sweep the area for evidence. Tensions ran high, but local leaders stressed the need for level heads and cooperation. (MORE NEWS: Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the Deep Immigration Divide) Bigger Pattern of Violence Sadly, this isn’t the first time ICE has faced violence. Over the last year, threats against immigration facilities and border agents have been on the rise. Experts warn that when public debate turns toxic, it can encourage unstable individuals to lash out. Border Czar Tom Homan weighs in on the Charlie Kirk Show: .@RealTomHoman: This morning, a gunman was targeting an ICE facility in Dallas, Texas… it’s the third shooting that’s occurred in Texas against immigration officials… This is clearly a targeted attack against ICE. pic.twitter.com/c0aQ2EsHAr — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 24, 2025 The Dallas field office wasn’t built for long-term detention. It’s mainly a holding and processing center. ICE rules say detainees should not be kept there for more than 12 hours. But its busy role, combined with its location near major roads, makes it especially vulnerable. It isn’t just agents at risk. Civilians, lawyers, and visitors are all exposed if someone decides to attack. What Happens Next Investigators now have several big questions to answer. They’re combing through Jahn’s digital trail to see what groups he followed or talked to online. They’re reviewing his travel, finances, and social connections. And they’re asking whether he radicalized quickly or if this had been building for years. At the same time, ICE and DHS are looking hard at their security. Do facilities need better barriers? More surveillance? Stronger partnerships with local police? Those decisions could come soon. The political side won’t cool off either. Republicans are pressing for stronger protections for ICE officers. Democrats are trying to strike a balance, condemning violence while still debating immigration policy. What everyone agrees on is this: nobody wants to see another day like this. A Community Left to Heal Dallas is now dealing with both grief and fear. Families of the victims are facing unimaginable loss. ICE employees are shaken, knowing they were directly in the crosshairs. And an already divided nation is once again reminded of how dangerous…
ICE Cooperation Gets CO Deputy Sued By AG
Mesa County, Colorado, is at the center of a heated battle over immigration enforcement, law enforcement accountability, and controversial state sanctuary laws. The issue erupted after federal immigration agents detained a Utah college student who was in the U.S. illegally following a traffic stop. Instead of focusing on the individual violating federal law, Colorado’s Attorney General chose to sue a sheriff’s deputy for cooperating with ICE. This has sparked outrage across the state. The Traffic Stop That Sparked Outrage On June 5, 2025, Deputy Alexander Zwinck pulled over 19-year-old Caroline Dias-Goncalves near Fruita, Colorado. She was allegedly tailgating a semi-truck. Zwinck issued a warning and let her go. Roughly 20 minutes later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stopped her vehicle and arrested her for overstaying her visa. Clearly, Colorado leadership should be holding non-citizens accountable for breaking U.S. law—not punishing officers for helping enforce it. This case raises a serious question that deserves repeating. How can someone trusted to handle patient medications as a future nurse fail to manage something as basic as a legal visa? Instead of holding her accountable, state leaders cast her as the victim, and punish those who did their jobs. How Information Was Shared with ICE Deputy Zwinck worked on a multi-agency drug task force. It included local, state, and federal officers such as Homeland Security and ICE agents. After the traffic stop, Zwinck shared Dias-Goncalves’ location and vehicle description in a Signal chat group used by the task force. As a result, ICE acted on that information and made the arrest. Nevertheless, Colorado’s new sanctuary law, Senate Bill 25-276, banned this kind of cooperation. It was signed by Colorado Governor Jared Polis only 13 days before the traffic stop. Many officers, including Deputy Zwinck, say they were unaware or confused about the sudden change imposed by the state. Long-standing practices conflicted with the new rules, leaving deputies exposed to legal action. Attorney General Sues Deputy for Doing His Job Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed a lawsuit against Deputy Zwinck for sharing information with Immigration Customs Enforcement. This move shocked many in law enforcement. They believe the unfair lawsuit is politically motivated. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Cash Flowing Into Anti-ICE Group’s Coffers Came From Chinese Gov’t-Linked Sources) To address the fallout, Sheriff Todd Rowell said in a statement, the lawsuit “sends a demoralizing message to law enforcement officers across Colorado—that the law may be wielded selectively and publicly for maximum political effect rather than applied fairly and consistently.” He asked the Attorney General to “apply the law equally to all law enforcement and government officials instead of making Deputy Zwinck an example.” Rowell revealed that other agencies in the same task force had also shared information with ICE. None of them faced lawsuits. Even the state’s governor reportedly violated a previous sanctuary law four times without consequences. Without a doubt, the actions by this attorney general show clear political bias in how immigration laws are enforced by the state. Deputies Disciplined Amid ICE – Sanctuary Law Confusion Rowell said an internal review resulted in the department disciplining all deputies involved: “Zwinck received three weeks of unpaid leave and was reassigned to patrol. Olson received two weeks of unpaid leave and the department also reassigned him. Joe LeMoine received two days suspension. Two other commanding officers received written reprimands or counseling.” Sheriff Rowell accepted responsibility for his office’s role. He admitted deputies needed more training to clarify state law changes. Sanctuary Laws Shield Lawbreakers and Negatively Impact Law Enforcement This case highlights a larger problem. Colorado’s sanctuary laws protect those breaking immigration laws while punishing those who enforce them. The laws safeguard immigrant communities, compromise public safety, and demoralize law enforcement. The facts are clear: Dias-Goncalves overstayed her visa, a federal violation. ICE agents enforced federal law. A deputy helped by sharing information. The state punished the deputy instead of the violator. The State of Colorado openly ignores federal immigration law while punishing those who assist in enforcing it. Ultimately, officers who cooperate with federal agents do so at their own peril, facing lawsuits, career damage, and public backlash. This is unfair and undermines law and order. Conflicting state and federal directives create chaos for law enforcement. Federal law is clear: overstaying a visa is illegal, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is tasked with handling such violations. Yet Colorado’s sanctuary policies block local officers from even sharing information with federal authorities. State policies force deputies to choose between upholding federal law or protecting themselves from political retaliation by the state. This climate of fear has shaken deputies across Colorado. Many now hesitate to work with federal agents. Multi-agency task forces risk falling apart if officers fear legal action for sharing basic information. These task forces are critical for combating drug trafficking and other serious crimes. Sheriff Rowell has urged Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to release the full Signal chat from the task force. Access to this information would show that Zwinck’s actions were not unique and that multiple officers followed long-standing protocols. Yet, state officials only singled one deputy out for legal action. In the end, this legal tug-of-war leaves law enforcement trapped. As long as political agendas override federal law, cooperation between agencies will erode and public safety will continue to suffer. What Comes Next: ICE, Accountability, and Colorado’s Crossroads