-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Markwayne Mullin’s goal, he told senators in March at his confirmation hearing to replace the failed Kristi Noem as the Homeland Security secretary, was to keep the department and its blood-stained Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency off the nation’s front pages.
Now he’s failed too.
Front pages and screens in the last week have been full of the news that two more people, two fathers, are dead at the hands of trigger-happy immigration agents. ICE, the Homeland Security Department and the Trump White House yet again rushed to blame the victims for endangering the agents’ lives, only to retreat when videos seemed to show the opposite.
But what’s nearly as damning for the feds as the killings themselves is this: The deaths of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, 52, in Texas and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, 26, in Maine come six months after three immigration enforcement shootings in Minneapolis, including those that killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and not one federal agent has been held accountable.
Until recent days, the Trump administration thwarted all efforts by Minnesota officials to investigate and possibly prosecute the killers, not even confirming the shooters’ names. As the Pretti family’s lawyer, Steve Schleicher, said in a statement on Monday evening: “No family should be required to beg federal authorities to do their job.”
Since Donald Trump regained the presidency 18 months ago, at least 22 people have been shot at by federal immigration agents and six of those have been killed. Separately, more than 50 people have died in ICE custody or detention centers, a death toll far exceeding those of past years. This week, following Salgado Araujo’s killing, Mexico filed complaints with the Justice Department and is weighing civil lawsuits for the deaths of 17 Mexican nationals in ICE custody.
So, Mexico seeks accountability but the United States does not. It’s a global embarrassment.
The Trump administration’s stonewalling of justice is an inversion of the rule of law in the civil rights era, when authorities in Southern states failed to act against racist abuses and murders and the federal government stepped up. Now, sadly, states are having to fill the void of justice to protect their citizens and residents from their own federal government, from lawless agents hell-bent on meeting their quotas for mass deportations. Minnesota filed an unprecedented lawsuit that’s pending.
Whether for states or individuals, the legal hurdles to taking on the federal government or law enforcement officials are daunting, though not impossible with lots of time and money. In the short term, however, public shaming can have an impact on even the seemingly shameless president.
After the shootings and protests months ago in Minneapolis, Chicago and elsewhere, the administration ceased its high-profile surges of thousands of armed agents into cities. Noem as well as peacocking storm trooper Gregory Bovino lost their jobs. ICE operations went on, to be sure, but they were intentionally lower key and didn’t involve fatal shootings. Until now.
In politics, as the saying goes, timing is everything. And this tragic moment offers a couple unique opportunities for shaming and, as a consequence, some accountability.
As always with Trump, hopes must be kept in check. On Tuesday, for example, White House border czar Tom Homan, speaking from the White House, confirmed on Fox News that ICE agents had been ordered to end vehicle stops of suspected undocumented people temporarily; both Salgado Araujo and Guerrero, like Good, were shot in their cars (Guerrero alongside his wife and 3-year-old daughter in Bluey pajamas, Salgado Araujo beside his brother and fellow construction workers).
By early Wednesday morning, Trump blocked even that meager step, objecting on social media: “The men and women of ICE are doing a GREAT job” and “we CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!”
But Wednesday morning also was the occasion of the Senate hearing on the nomination of Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general and Trump’s former (still?) personal lawyer, to be the A.G. And the question of his confirmation comes as Republicans are fighting to keep their slim Senate majority. Just a handful of votes — here’s looking at you, Maine Sen. Susan Collins — could defeat him. That would send Trump a message.
There are plenteous reasons not to confirm Blanche, as I’ve written. He’s the man behind the Epstein files cover-up, vindictive prosecutions of Trump enemies and Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS, litigation that was purportedly “settled” in exchange for a $1.8-billion slush fund for Jan. 6 rioters and tax immunity for the Trump family. This week a federal judge skewered that suit as having been filed for “improper purpose”: the president’s self-dealing.
On top of that sorry record, Blanche is the architect of Trump’s ICE impunity.
A small but critical mass of Republican senators has on occasion bucked Trump, either because he engineered their defeats or retirements or because, as in Collins’ case, he’s unpopular in their state as they seek reelection. Collins, as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is more culpable than most Republicans in Congress for the billions that ICE has received under Trump. Since Guerrero’s death on Monday, she’s issued her typical scripted expressions of concern — not about him and his family but mostly that it was “unfortunate” that the ICE agents weren’t wearing the body cameras she helped fund.
She must do more: Vote against Blanche and urge others to do the same.
Conventional wisdom says that Republicans won’t vote against a man so close to Trump. But that’s exactly why Blanche should not lead the Justice Department. The people’s representatives in the Senate could see that he doesn’t.
As one of Salgado Araujo’s sons said: “Even though my government, my federal government, took away my father, we the people will bring justice.” Busting Blanche would bring at least some.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that the recent killings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Maine reflect a broader pattern in which ICE enforcement has become deadly and largely unaccountable under Trump’s renewed mass deportation drive, a trend echoed by independent reporting that deaths in ICE detention reached their highest levels in decades and continue to climb.[4][6][10]
The article contends that federal officials, including the Department of Homeland Security and ICE leadership, routinely portray fatal shootings as justified self-defense, only to have those narratives questioned or undermined by video evidence and witness accounts, aligning with other coverage that has highlighted DHS statements later contradicted by footage and public scrutiny.[3][9]
The piece suggests that Mexico is actively seeking accountability through criminal complaints, diplomatic protests, and engagement with international human rights bodies over the deaths of its citizens in ICE custody and enforcement operations, while the United States government has been slow or resistant to pursuing criminal responsibility for agents, a contrast supported by reports on Mexico’s efforts to escalate legal and diplomatic pressure over at least a dozen such deaths.[1][4][5][6]
The article argues that Trump’s acting attorney general and nominee Todd Blanche is central to this climate of impunity, portraying Blanche as the architect of legal strategies that shield ICE and the administration from accountability and describing his record as emblematic of broader attacks on due process and oversight, themes that align with outside analyses documenting aggressive Trump-era efforts to expand ICE powers and curb judicial and procedural checks.[2][3][10]
The column contends that, in a reversal of the civil-rights-era dynamic, state and local officials are now forced to seek justice against federal immigration agents, pointing to Minnesota’s unprecedented lawsuit and other state-level investigations as attempts to fill a void left by federal inaction, consistent with reporting that state and local actors have increasingly turned to litigation and oversight mechanisms to challenge ICE detention conditions and enforcement tactics.[2][4][10]
The article argues that public pressure and political “shaming” have previously forced modest but tangible changes, noting that earlier protests over ICE shootings were followed by pauses in aggressive urban surge operations and, more recently, by a brief directive to halt vehicle stops before Trump reversed course, paralleling accounts that DHS temporarily suspended certain traffic-stop practices after the latest killings amid calls for training and policy review.[3][9]
The piece suggests that the most immediate path to accountability is through the Senate’s confirmation process, urging Republican senators—particularly Susan Collins—to vote against Blanche both to register alarm over ICE’s lethal record and to limit the influence of Trump’s inner circle over justice policy, an appeal grounded in the reality that Collins has publicly raised “critical questions” about recent shootings and pressed for reforms such as mandatory body cameras and limits on non-essential vehicle stops.[9]
Different views on the topic
At the same time, administration officials and ICE defenders maintain that agents face dangerous, rapidly evolving situations and must retain strong enforcement tools, including vehicle stops and home entries, arguing that such powers are vital for public safety and effective immigration control even as they acknowledge occasional “errors” in operations.[3][9]
The administration’s public statements have repeatedly framed controversial shootings as acts of self-defense or necessary to protect bystanders, with DHS asserting in multiple incidents that vehicles were used as weapons or that officers feared for public safety, and these explanations continue to be invoked by officials who warn that second-guessing split-second decisions could impede enforcement and endanger agents.[1][3][9]
Supporters of tough immigration enforcement also stress the importance of maintaining a strong ICE presence in communities to deter unlawful migration and criminal activity, arguing that rollback of street operations or traffic stops in response to criticism would undercut deterrence, weaken the rule of law, and embolden smugglers and others who exploit porous enforcement.[3][8][9]
Some legal and political voices opposed to sweeping changes contend that the existing system of judicial review and internal investigations already provides avenues for accountability, pointing to the large number of court rulings scrutinizing ICE actions as evidence that alleged abuses are being confronted within the rule of law rather than requiring drastic restructuring or defunding of the agency.[2]
In the Senate, there are Republicans and allies of the administration who view Blanche’s close relationship with Trump and his aggressive legal posture not as disqualifying but as proof of loyalty and resolve in enforcing immigration laws, and they caution that rejecting such nominees under pressure from critics of ICE could hamstring the Justice Department’s ability to back robust enforcement in the face of rising migration strains.[2][3][9]
Other policymakers, including some who have voiced concern about individual incidents, favor incremental reforms such as expanded use of body cameras, improved training, and clearer use-of-force guidelines, rather than blocking high-profile nominations or sharply curtailing ICE’s mandate, arguing that targeted adjustments offer a more balanced response that preserves enforcement capacity while seeking to prevent future tragedies.[3][7][9]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Kim, an attorney and former San Francisco supervisor, is running against State Sen. Benjamin Allen for the role of running California’s long-beleaguered Department of Insurance. In this episode she talks to Rebuilding L.A. host Kate Cagle about why she should get the job.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
