Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

Getty Images

America’s Gridlock Is Beijing’s Best Argument

Americans tend to treat democracy’s superiority as settled, and the long-run evidence backs them up. A major study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues found that countries that democratize end up about 20 percent richer per person within a generation. But most of the world does not grade governments on long-run studies. For billions of people outside the wealthy West, the test is simpler: does the power stay on, are food prices steady, is there work, and do the roads get built? When the stomach is empty, a ballot can feel like a luxury.

China understands this and sells its model on exactly those terms. Its GDP per capita has climbed from about $300 in 1980 to nearly $15,000 today, by IMF figures, and the World Bank credits it with lifting some 800 million people out of extreme poverty. India, the world’s largest democracy, started from a similar place and sits near $2,800. Beijing’s centralized system, paired with Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms, built power plants, factories and rail lines at a pace India’s more deliberative politics has not matched. Anyone who values liberty will find little to admire in that model. It does explain why the model sells.

Keep ReadingShow less
American soldier in headquarter control center

American soldier in headquarter control center

Getty Images

Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria

When American forces conducted airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation signaled a renewal of security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. Yet for Nigerians living in communities plagued by terrorism, kidnapping, and armed attacks, a critical question remained: Will these strikes make their daily lives any safer?

That question demands serious consideration in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing, and tactical training. Yet, armed violence continues to disrupt daily life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the effectiveness of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pete Hegseth

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on October 28, 2026.

(Photo by Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)

Pete Hegseth and the High Price of Compromised Governance

Just days after a historic midterm election in which everyday Americans sent a clear, undeniable demand for political accountability and transparency, the halls of Congress have devolved into a new theater of crisis. Republican Representative Thomas Massie’s introduction of eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has thrown the Department—and the nation’s fragile democratic norms—into uncharted territory.

Massie, a longtime Trump critic who plans to retire from Congress at the end of the year, accuses Hegseth of bypassing Congress and violating constitutional limits on war powers.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of pharmacist hand taking meds from drawer

New federal law already targets PBM pricing and rebate practices. An opinion on why state pharmacy ownership bans go too far, and the freight-rail lesson.

Cris Cantón/Getty Images

State Healthcare Reforms Have Gone Off the Rails

Government generally has two ways to address problems in a marketplace. It can establish clear rules, target harmful conduct and let competition produce better outcomes. Or it can design the market itself by controlling business decisions and dictating how companies must operate. That is the decision facing lawmakers in healthcare today.

America's freight-rail experience shows what is at stake. For decades, the Interstate Commerce Commission controlled railroad rates, restricted routes and made it hard for carriers to shed unprofitable lines. Intended to stabilize an essential industry, the rules instead contributed to bankruptcies and lagging investment.

Keep ReadingShow less