Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Veterans Day Betrayal: ICE Detains U.S. Military Veterans Under Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

Military veterans face detention, tear gas, and denied due process under aggressive ICE enforcement.

Opinion

Close up of U.S. Army and American flag patches on a uniform

When ICE detains U.S. veterans, it betrays the very people who swore to defend America. These arrests expose a moral failure in our immigration system.

Serhej Calka/Getty Image

There is no clearer measure of a nation's character than how it treats those who volunteered to defend it.

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains U.S. military veterans—as it has done in recent months—it doesn't just make a bureaucratic error. It commits an act of profound infidelity that strikes at the heart of the military covenant and degrades the very meaning of service and citizenship. These detentions reveal a system that has lost sight of what veterans have sacrificed and what the nation owes them in return.


George Retes raised his right hand and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He stood ready to deploy wherever his country needed him, to face whatever dangers that service might bring. And when an immigration raid swept through his workplace in July, he was pepper-sprayed, dragged from his vehicle, and locked up for three days, missing his daughter’s birthday, and denied due process.

Retes claims that he asked for the agent’s badge number before being detained and, while in custody, was denied a call to his family or an attorney. He was released after three days and never charged. Video footage seems to confirm Retes’ story.

This is what betrayal looks like.

Retes joined the Army at the age of eighteen, telling Jon Favreau on the “Pod Save America” podcast that he joined the Army because he wanted “to do something bigger.” After training, he was deployed to Iraq for ten months, and at the end of his service, he was honorably discharged.

Military service, like what Retes signed up to do, is a transformative commitment that asks young men and women to risk their lives and place the nation's needs above their own. When an individual joins the military, they accept that they may be called upon to kill or be killed in defense of their fellow citizens.

Members of our armed services agree to miss births, funerals, and countless ordinary moments that make up a life. They sign away years of their youth to an institution that will demand everything and promise, in return, only that their service matters, that they are valued, that they belong.

When ICE detains a veteran like Retes, when agents tear gas an American soldier and throw him in detention while he pleads that he served this country, every single element of that sacred exchange is violated. The veteran held up his end of the bargain. He did everything his nation asked. And in return, his country treated him like an invader.

Another veteran who was detained in Newark, N.J., had his military documentation questioned by ICE agents. His proof of having served in the United States Armed Forces wasn't enough.

At a recent press conference, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters: “No American citizens have been arrested or detained. We focus on those that are here illegally. And anything that you would hear or report that would be different than that is simply not true.”

In response to Noem’s statement, Retes, again to Favreau, said, “People see what’s going on in the world.” Backing up Retes’ claims is a ProPublica investigation, which documented 170 cases of U.S. citizens who have been arrested by immigration agents across the country since Trump started his second term.

Veterans are experiencing real trauma from these encounters, which are taking place not on the battlefield, but here at home. Being detained is not a minor inconvenience—it is imprisonment. Being pepper sprayed by your own government's agents after serving that government is not an administrative mishap—it is assault. Being told your service doesn't prove your citizenship is not an administrative question; it is an erasure of identity.

And it doesn't end when they are released. These veterans must live with the knowledge that their sacrifice was insufficient proof of belonging. They must reconcile having served a nation that would treat them this way. They must carry the psychological weight of being caged by the very system they defended.

The current system under the Trump administration reveals something dark about us as a society—we have allowed an immigration enforcement apparatus that feels free to attack soldiers or dismisses military service as insufficient evidence of belonging, leading to the duplicity of the very people who believed most deeply in what America promises.

And this is not a system that operates in moral ambiguity. It is one that has been explicitly endorsed by the president. In a recent 60 Minutes interview, President Donald Trump was asked whether ICE raids had gone too far. His response was chillingly clear: “No, I think they haven't gone far enough because we've been held back by the judges, by the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama.”

We made a deal with our veterans. We asked them to serve, and we promised that service would mean something. When ICE detains them, that promise is broken in the cruelest way possible. There is no policy goal, no enforcement priority, no operational concern that justifies this disloyalty.


Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.


Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less