It is the ultimate in corruption. Jamie Raskin said yesterday, I think, That's all the work they [the Trump Administration] do is corruption. This is not only corruption, but cruelty and death due to the nature of the beast. Thank you, Mr. Carrisquillo, for an excellent article.
Corruption spans every element of this decision followed by the audacity of the current regime to build out more and more detention centers (most likely providing this well invested stockholder Venturella) now positioned to further see personal gains while leading ICE. When will this stop??? They close Alligator Alley so he can build detention centers around the US (and again personally profit). I am SO Flipping MAD! When will we ever see true and honest oversight? When we have a voice at the table and congress/senate and DOJ act with integrity.
Terrific reporting & analysis, Adrian! Great graphic at top of article - deserves a bit of explication about the private GEO ICE detention facility in Adelanto (starting with: Spanish for 'progress' or 'advancement'). Wikipedia: per 2020 census, the city is almost 2/3 Latino heritage. Area originally agricultural, an inventor of the Hotpoint electric iron bought land in 1915 to start a planned community. In 1941 the Army built an air field that eventually became George AF Base and was the main local employer. A not-uncommon American dream story... till ~1991 when 2 private prisons were built. Small/rural towns in CA and elsewhere have experienced this - whether private or state-run, the prison economy takes over. Jobs, commerce - everybody wants some! The emotional & spiritual tolls come due eventually. In the Southwest, the mix of Latino heritage and modern immigration imprisonment is an especially difficult mixture. They don't build those cells to be empty. Fits into the Republican/Project 2025 vision of privatization, to the point where the corporations drive the federal agency that pays them. The people's only participation is to supply our tax funding; with congress on permanent vacation, we don't get any real say, nor even oversight. So again, blessings to journalists like Adrian!
On the shift in visibility of the corruption (meaning decay/decomposition; your choice to apply its other definitions) - Noem & her sidekick drew too much attention for flaunting personal benefits like the tricked-out jet, Bovino for his tricked-out costumes (rivaling ICE barbie). That was self-aggrandizing and easily seen by us taxpayers, not a great image for the 'conservative' party (LOL... till I cry), but really at base retail level. The big bux are at wholesale level such as the private prison industry. Even the purely personal gain like Zampolli's domestic relations fix is harder for the public to see. More light, Adrian - keep on shinin' 🔥
Thank you for a thorough update. Nothing good is going to come of these changes. i am still wondering why Senator Mullin gave up a lifetime job in the Senate for what is hopefully a temporary gig.
Denise - sad to say, those prisons aren't built in order to go out of business. We don't give billions to DHS for them to close up shop. Mullin does have risk of his boss needing a fall guy at some point, but the larger project is intended to be a perpetual motion machine.
Red Rooter Mullin is not a kinder and gentler version of Kristi Noem in my opinion. His main advantage is his invisibility to this point and his tenure will likely hinge on maintaining a very low profile as he dances to the tune called by The Don. YMMV.
He's a 100% certified MAGA stooge so no, he's not any better. He's just a lot less likely to engage in the embarrassing cosplay antics that helped derail Noem.
Is anyone at The Bulwark prepared to offer a concrete plan for removing and dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who entered the country on Biden's watch — or even open a real conversation about it? Until you do that, you’re not merely complaining about those dealing with the issue, you’re making it worse!
Are you familiar with the bipartisan plan presented in '24? The one that was rejected? Do you know why it was rejected? It was concrete. It dealt with the immigration head-on. Among other things it increased the number of detention facilities, raised the standard of proof for initial asylum interviews, expanded pathways to legal status and increased the number of asylum officers. This is just my summary; it's pretty comprehensive. It wasn't just complaining about the issue.
It might have defused the immigration issue, as compromise can sometimes do with hot issues. But then folks couldn't "complain about" the "millions of illegal immigrants under Biden." When possible resolutions of a complicated and fraught issue are rejected, it can seem that some folks prefer it to remain a source of discord and blame. Plus, some folks just plain racist and xenophobic.
There was a plan in 2024 if you remember. A bi-partisan bill that Biden said he would sign. Crafted over months by the junior Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Felon Trump said to kill it, and Johnson agreed. That’s your current President and Congress at work. Immigration is only a means to throw out people who are not white. ICE arrested a US citizen three times. What does that tell you about ICE? According to their own data, ICE is arresting people with no criminal records! Your candidate talked about removing criminals, gang leaders and drug dealers. How is that working out when they go into schools, churches, and even the courthouses? That’s where the bad people reside? Last, the people who were entering the US at checkpoints were seeking ASYLUM. That is legal in every country.
Arguing about which devils dance on a pin is pointless. I am asking if Bulwark readers are capable of offering and discussing reasonable resolution. Your answer is clearly no. The echo chamber of TDS may be cathartic to some, but does not contribute to resolving the the enormous problem standing in plane sight.
Same as arguing that “you are making it worse.” You want The Bulwark to have a conversation about immigration then dismiss the actual solution that was proposed in 2024. How do you square that circle? What are you actually bringing to the conversation? Exactly what change would you propose that be signed into law. The only answer is to vote out Republicans, they caused it in 2024.. That is what the Bulwark is saying. Do you agree? Yes or no?
And again, Arguing about which devils dance on a pin is pointless. The Bulwark claims its mission is to put country over party, to recognize that we’re all in this together, and to offer a home for the politically homeless. Yet the constant sneering at roughly half the country doesn’t advance any of those goals. If anything, it undermines them.
My point was straightforward: maybe redirect some of that energy toward serious, good‑faith debate on the issues. I’m politically homeless myself, but I’m not looking for a “home” that’s just another arena for performative mudslinging. If The Bulwark wants to be something better, and true to its mission then actually talk about solutions might be a path towards accomplishing that.
What I'm reading in the replies to your interesting comments is not argument about devils and pins. Alondra and Katherine immediately brought up a solution that was proposed by a bi-partisan team of congressmen in '24. Too late unfortunately. But the "devils" were dancing together in a beautiful, traditional square dance!
I welcome you, sir, into my "home". Wholeheartedly. It is a place of journalism and commentary not law-making. That's Congress's job. And they did it in '24 : a bi-partisan proposal. On a very touchy but important subject. I say "Bravo!"
From a journalistic point of view, I'm surprised you chose this article which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of journalism and not in any way an example of an opinion piece. If you see any points in the article that you find opinionated, please let me know. Because I have to agree with you that sometimes the light-hearted... even foul-mouthed mockery on the shows here makes me uncomfortable and I can see how it might turn people away. But the Bulwark was founded by conservatives disenchanted with their party because of Trumpian populism and now blatant corruption. I suggest you focus on Sarah Longwell's style. That's what you're looking for because she is looking for and has found respectful ways to listen to Trump supporters and try to communicate with them without knee-jerk scorn.
We are all a bit homeless, sir. You apparently from your party - which I understand and find reassuring -, others, like me, from what we've always believed about our country, our homeland. It's troubling. Sometimes we look to laughter to make it acceptable or, rather, in order not to fall into the foul trap of hatered.
Stick with us, sir. And maybe run for something, in your community, if you want to discuss solutions with people who actually have some power over making possible solutions into laws which should then be acted upon in a democratic country.
You cover many topics in your response. The article and most of the comments beneath it, offered nothing beyond the familiar refrain: Trump is bad, his plans are worse, and his allies are cashing in. That theme is present across nearly every media outlet, and The Bulwark offers only echoes.
Raising the issue of the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act was in the context of its political demise, not for its resolution of the immigrations issue. I reviewed two sources before writing this, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/analysis-senate-border-bill/ and https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/ both agree that politics were behind the demise of the bill, but also discuss the fundamental flaws. According to Brookings the bill “focused entirely on border security without provisions to legalize the status of any migrants who had entered the country illegally, not even the “Dreamers” brought to the United States by their parents while they were infants and children and who knew no other country.” In short the evidence of some bi-partisan agreement evaporated when the bill was separated and voted on outside of its political inclusion in the emergency act.
I agree that Congress must legislate — but to do so responsibly, it must consider the views of all citizens, not just the half that voted for Democrats or the half that voted against them. Congress has chained itself to the passions of a divided electorate, prioritizing electoral advantage over national responsibility. The rise of figures like Trump cannot be understood apart from that failure. He is a symptom of a deeper institutional breakdown, not its cause.
That is the context in which I asked my question: might The Bulwark better fulfill its stated mission by contributing to actual solutions rather than amplifying political incitement? If the goal is to “put country over party” and “build a home for the politically homeless,” then endlessly mocking half the country is a strange way to get there.
Finally, I found your closing remarks dismissive — as if my concerns belonged at a town hall meeting rather than in a national conversation. The irony is that our divisions now operate almost entirely at the federal level. The structural weaknesses of our democracy are on full display, and we seem unable to resolve them. Whether The Bulwark wants to help address those weaknesses or simply continue in the mud pit is, ultimately, its choice. But ideas — not insults and the politics of division — are what might create a home for many and move the republic forward.
Using this article as an example, The Bulwark could publish far more pieces that move beyond the familiar formula: Trump’s and his cronies are crooks and his latest appointment proves his commitment to harsh mass‑detention policies of illegal immigrants. That framing may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn’t advance the debate.
The alternative I am suggesting to remove the Bulwark as part of the problem and make it part of the solution, might have framed this article as: Trump’s appointment of X again confirmed his policy of mass detention for immigrants. Polling consistently shows that roughly one‑third of Americans support deporting all illegal immigrants, more than half believe many should be deported, and well over three‑quarters want anyone involved in criminal activity removed immediately. Given that landscape, there are other alternative ideas that might better satisfy the expectations of the American electorate — without resorting to mass detention and without deepening the country’s divisions.
Serious readers could then evaluate those ideas, debate them, refine them, or propose better ones. That’s how a publication contributes to solutions rather than simply amplifying outrage. Of course, there will always be people uninterested in resolution and committed only to the perpetual political brawl. But if they choose to respond with nothing but reflexive hostility, they reveal the limits of their own intellectual capacity, not the limits of the discussion.
The corruption never ends!!!
I was starting to wonder who mass deportation benefits.
It is the ultimate in corruption. Jamie Raskin said yesterday, I think, That's all the work they [the Trump Administration] do is corruption. This is not only corruption, but cruelty and death due to the nature of the beast. Thank you, Mr. Carrisquillo, for an excellent article.
Thank you for diligence.
The corruption at DHS and in the Trump administration is abysmal.
This is just breathtakingly horrific. This is Nazi shit and these detention centers are concentration camps. For profit.
The evidence supporting Trump's removal, by whatever means, just keeps accumulating. Rich S. Octogenarian and Contrarian
Careful. Let's say by lawful means.
Private prisons are an abomination.
Corruption spans every element of this decision followed by the audacity of the current regime to build out more and more detention centers (most likely providing this well invested stockholder Venturella) now positioned to further see personal gains while leading ICE. When will this stop??? They close Alligator Alley so he can build detention centers around the US (and again personally profit). I am SO Flipping MAD! When will we ever see true and honest oversight? When we have a voice at the table and congress/senate and DOJ act with integrity.
Thanks, Adrian, for the details on what the leadership transition in DHS indicates. Very helpful. Great reporting 👏
Terrific reporting & analysis, Adrian! Great graphic at top of article - deserves a bit of explication about the private GEO ICE detention facility in Adelanto (starting with: Spanish for 'progress' or 'advancement'). Wikipedia: per 2020 census, the city is almost 2/3 Latino heritage. Area originally agricultural, an inventor of the Hotpoint electric iron bought land in 1915 to start a planned community. In 1941 the Army built an air field that eventually became George AF Base and was the main local employer. A not-uncommon American dream story... till ~1991 when 2 private prisons were built. Small/rural towns in CA and elsewhere have experienced this - whether private or state-run, the prison economy takes over. Jobs, commerce - everybody wants some! The emotional & spiritual tolls come due eventually. In the Southwest, the mix of Latino heritage and modern immigration imprisonment is an especially difficult mixture. They don't build those cells to be empty. Fits into the Republican/Project 2025 vision of privatization, to the point where the corporations drive the federal agency that pays them. The people's only participation is to supply our tax funding; with congress on permanent vacation, we don't get any real say, nor even oversight. So again, blessings to journalists like Adrian!
On the shift in visibility of the corruption (meaning decay/decomposition; your choice to apply its other definitions) - Noem & her sidekick drew too much attention for flaunting personal benefits like the tricked-out jet, Bovino for his tricked-out costumes (rivaling ICE barbie). That was self-aggrandizing and easily seen by us taxpayers, not a great image for the 'conservative' party (LOL... till I cry), but really at base retail level. The big bux are at wholesale level such as the private prison industry. Even the purely personal gain like Zampolli's domestic relations fix is harder for the public to see. More light, Adrian - keep on shinin' 🔥
Thank you for this wide-angle view.
Thank you for a thorough update. Nothing good is going to come of these changes. i am still wondering why Senator Mullin gave up a lifetime job in the Senate for what is hopefully a temporary gig.
Denise - sad to say, those prisons aren't built in order to go out of business. We don't give billions to DHS for them to close up shop. Mullin does have risk of his boss needing a fall guy at some point, but the larger project is intended to be a perpetual motion machine.
Thank you. That makes sense.
You bring up ethics????????? No such thing from the GOP
New brand for DHS, CORRUPT R US! Same old, same old. So little time, so much to steal.
Red Rooter Mullin is not a kinder and gentler version of Kristi Noem in my opinion. His main advantage is his invisibility to this point and his tenure will likely hinge on maintaining a very low profile as he dances to the tune called by The Don. YMMV.
He's a 100% certified MAGA stooge so no, he's not any better. He's just a lot less likely to engage in the embarrassing cosplay antics that helped derail Noem.
Is anyone at The Bulwark prepared to offer a concrete plan for removing and dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who entered the country on Biden's watch — or even open a real conversation about it? Until you do that, you’re not merely complaining about those dealing with the issue, you’re making it worse!
Are you familiar with the bipartisan plan presented in '24? The one that was rejected? Do you know why it was rejected? It was concrete. It dealt with the immigration head-on. Among other things it increased the number of detention facilities, raised the standard of proof for initial asylum interviews, expanded pathways to legal status and increased the number of asylum officers. This is just my summary; it's pretty comprehensive. It wasn't just complaining about the issue.
It might have defused the immigration issue, as compromise can sometimes do with hot issues. But then folks couldn't "complain about" the "millions of illegal immigrants under Biden." When possible resolutions of a complicated and fraught issue are rejected, it can seem that some folks prefer it to remain a source of discord and blame. Plus, some folks just plain racist and xenophobic.
There was a plan in 2024 if you remember. A bi-partisan bill that Biden said he would sign. Crafted over months by the junior Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Felon Trump said to kill it, and Johnson agreed. That’s your current President and Congress at work. Immigration is only a means to throw out people who are not white. ICE arrested a US citizen three times. What does that tell you about ICE? According to their own data, ICE is arresting people with no criminal records! Your candidate talked about removing criminals, gang leaders and drug dealers. How is that working out when they go into schools, churches, and even the courthouses? That’s where the bad people reside? Last, the people who were entering the US at checkpoints were seeking ASYLUM. That is legal in every country.
Arguing about which devils dance on a pin is pointless. I am asking if Bulwark readers are capable of offering and discussing reasonable resolution. Your answer is clearly no. The echo chamber of TDS may be cathartic to some, but does not contribute to resolving the the enormous problem standing in plane sight.
Same as arguing that “you are making it worse.” You want The Bulwark to have a conversation about immigration then dismiss the actual solution that was proposed in 2024. How do you square that circle? What are you actually bringing to the conversation? Exactly what change would you propose that be signed into law. The only answer is to vote out Republicans, they caused it in 2024.. That is what the Bulwark is saying. Do you agree? Yes or no?
And again, Arguing about which devils dance on a pin is pointless. The Bulwark claims its mission is to put country over party, to recognize that we’re all in this together, and to offer a home for the politically homeless. Yet the constant sneering at roughly half the country doesn’t advance any of those goals. If anything, it undermines them.
My point was straightforward: maybe redirect some of that energy toward serious, good‑faith debate on the issues. I’m politically homeless myself, but I’m not looking for a “home” that’s just another arena for performative mudslinging. If The Bulwark wants to be something better, and true to its mission then actually talk about solutions might be a path towards accomplishing that.
Dear John,
What I'm reading in the replies to your interesting comments is not argument about devils and pins. Alondra and Katherine immediately brought up a solution that was proposed by a bi-partisan team of congressmen in '24. Too late unfortunately. But the "devils" were dancing together in a beautiful, traditional square dance!
I welcome you, sir, into my "home". Wholeheartedly. It is a place of journalism and commentary not law-making. That's Congress's job. And they did it in '24 : a bi-partisan proposal. On a very touchy but important subject. I say "Bravo!"
From a journalistic point of view, I'm surprised you chose this article which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of journalism and not in any way an example of an opinion piece. If you see any points in the article that you find opinionated, please let me know. Because I have to agree with you that sometimes the light-hearted... even foul-mouthed mockery on the shows here makes me uncomfortable and I can see how it might turn people away. But the Bulwark was founded by conservatives disenchanted with their party because of Trumpian populism and now blatant corruption. I suggest you focus on Sarah Longwell's style. That's what you're looking for because she is looking for and has found respectful ways to listen to Trump supporters and try to communicate with them without knee-jerk scorn.
We are all a bit homeless, sir. You apparently from your party - which I understand and find reassuring -, others, like me, from what we've always believed about our country, our homeland. It's troubling. Sometimes we look to laughter to make it acceptable or, rather, in order not to fall into the foul trap of hatered.
Stick with us, sir. And maybe run for something, in your community, if you want to discuss solutions with people who actually have some power over making possible solutions into laws which should then be acted upon in a democratic country.
Respectfully,
M. Darnay
You cover many topics in your response. The article and most of the comments beneath it, offered nothing beyond the familiar refrain: Trump is bad, his plans are worse, and his allies are cashing in. That theme is present across nearly every media outlet, and The Bulwark offers only echoes.
Raising the issue of the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act was in the context of its political demise, not for its resolution of the immigrations issue. I reviewed two sources before writing this, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/analysis-senate-border-bill/ and https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/ both agree that politics were behind the demise of the bill, but also discuss the fundamental flaws. According to Brookings the bill “focused entirely on border security without provisions to legalize the status of any migrants who had entered the country illegally, not even the “Dreamers” brought to the United States by their parents while they were infants and children and who knew no other country.” In short the evidence of some bi-partisan agreement evaporated when the bill was separated and voted on outside of its political inclusion in the emergency act.
I agree that Congress must legislate — but to do so responsibly, it must consider the views of all citizens, not just the half that voted for Democrats or the half that voted against them. Congress has chained itself to the passions of a divided electorate, prioritizing electoral advantage over national responsibility. The rise of figures like Trump cannot be understood apart from that failure. He is a symptom of a deeper institutional breakdown, not its cause.
That is the context in which I asked my question: might The Bulwark better fulfill its stated mission by contributing to actual solutions rather than amplifying political incitement? If the goal is to “put country over party” and “build a home for the politically homeless,” then endlessly mocking half the country is a strange way to get there.
Finally, I found your closing remarks dismissive — as if my concerns belonged at a town hall meeting rather than in a national conversation. The irony is that our divisions now operate almost entirely at the federal level. The structural weaknesses of our democracy are on full display, and we seem unable to resolve them. Whether The Bulwark wants to help address those weaknesses or simply continue in the mud pit is, ultimately, its choice. But ideas — not insults and the politics of division — are what might create a home for many and move the republic forward.
You did a lot of talking, saying nothing. There is an expression,” You are either part of the problem or the solution.” You want Bulwark to do what?
Using this article as an example, The Bulwark could publish far more pieces that move beyond the familiar formula: Trump’s and his cronies are crooks and his latest appointment proves his commitment to harsh mass‑detention policies of illegal immigrants. That framing may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn’t advance the debate.
The alternative I am suggesting to remove the Bulwark as part of the problem and make it part of the solution, might have framed this article as: Trump’s appointment of X again confirmed his policy of mass detention for immigrants. Polling consistently shows that roughly one‑third of Americans support deporting all illegal immigrants, more than half believe many should be deported, and well over three‑quarters want anyone involved in criminal activity removed immediately. Given that landscape, there are other alternative ideas that might better satisfy the expectations of the American electorate — without resorting to mass detention and without deepening the country’s divisions.
Serious readers could then evaluate those ideas, debate them, refine them, or propose better ones. That’s how a publication contributes to solutions rather than simply amplifying outrage. Of course, there will always be people uninterested in resolution and committed only to the perpetual political brawl. But if they choose to respond with nothing but reflexive hostility, they reveal the limits of their own intellectual capacity, not the limits of the discussion.