By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

A mass ICE operation has rocked one of the country’s most liberal enclaves — just as Trump ramps up deportations ahead of summer.

WHAT HAPPENED

In late May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested nearly 1,500 undocumented immigrants across Massachusetts in a coordinated, multi-day operation. Among those detained, at least 40 were from Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket — two small islands known for their liberal politics, wealthy seasonal residents, and heavy reliance on immigrant labor.

According to The Washington Post, the raids occurred at homes, construction sites, and service businesses where many undocumented workers — largely Brazilian — are employed. Some immigrants were taken while commuting to work. Locals described the arrests as “arbitrary,” and many who were not targeted went into hiding. Business owners shuttered operations, schools saw lower attendance, and panic gripped communities.

ICE defended the operation, stating that more than half of the detainees statewide had criminal records. But on Martha’s Vineyard, locals said many of those arrested had lived peacefully on the island for years, owned businesses, and had no criminal histories.

The Post reported that Portuguese is now widely spoken on the island and that Brazilian immigrants, many of whom arrived decades ago on temporary visas, have become a core part of the local economy — offering cleaning, cooking, and construction services that keep the resort town running.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is not just a story about immigration enforcement — it’s a story about what happens when federal policy collides with the values and economy of a community. Martha’s Vineyard brands itself as a sanctuary. Its residents include prominent liberals, including former President Barack Obama. But the recent ICE action suggests that even the most insulated and progressive communities aren’t immune from the Trump administration’s broader deportation push.

The crackdown also highlights the real-world costs of immigration raids — not only on the people detained but on entire local economies that depend on undocumented labor. One business owner warned, “The money is just going to stop flowing.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Legal fallout: Whether any of the detained residents seek legal relief or are deported

* Local response: How Martha’s Vineyard residents organize in opposition to federal enforcement

* Federal escalation: Whether more “sanctuary” communities will face similar ICE actions this summer

* Political impact: Reaction from Massachusetts officials, including Gov. Maura Healey

BOTTOM LINE

The ICE raid on Martha’s Vineyard was more than a law enforcement action — it was a political earthquake. It tested the island’s liberal values, threatened its economy, and left immigrant families fearful and fractured.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow Jerrod on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Washington Post article on the ICE raid

* ICE press release on Massachusetts operation

* Massachusetts Governor’s statement on ICE actions

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

The U.S. is moving quickly to protect its people in the Middle East after a direct threat from Iran’s defense chief.

WHAT HAPPENED

On June 10, the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. is evacuating nonessential personnel from its embassy in Baghdad — and authorizing voluntary departure for military families in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar.

This comes after Iranian Defense Minister Mohammad-Reza Ashtiani declared that “all U.S. bases are within our reach” if nuclear negotiations fail and war breaks out. The comment was made during a televised briefing Monday.

The U.S. military is assisting with flights out of Iraq and other key sites, though commercial routes are being used wherever possible.

The State Department emphasized that this is a “precautionary step,” not a mass evacuation. But the order in Baghdad is mandatory for nonessential staff — signaling serious concern about security threats in the Iraqi capital.

WHY IT MATTERS

The U.S. hasn’t issued a region-wide evacuation, but it’s clearly bracing for escalation. Iran’s threat comes at a time when nuclear talks are faltering and the potential for miscalculation is high.

Military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain are among the most strategically important U.S. installations abroad. If Iran is willing to signal strikes on those sites, it marks a major shift in posture.

This also raises fears of proxy attacks in Iraq and Syria — where U.S. troops and facilities have been targeted by Iranian-aligned militias in the past.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether U.S.-Iran nuclear talks officially collapse

* Changes to U.S. military posture in the Persian Gulf

* Regional responses from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and NATO

* Cyber or proxy attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq or Syria

BOTTOM LINE

The U.S. is quietly pulling back some of its people from the Middle East — not because war is guaranteed, but because Iran just threatened every American base in the region.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow Jerrod on Instagram and Substack for more

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* State Department: Iraq Ordered Departure

* Reuters on Embassy Evacuation

* AP Coverage of U.S. Reductions

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

Miami-based, nation-wide implications — this story matters because it shows how immigration enforcement can clash with civic and economic interests.

WHAT HAPPENED

ICE and CBP issued a public reminder urging non‑U.S. citizens to bring proof of legal status to attend FIFA’s Club World Cup matches in Miami. The notice triggered immediate criticism — from local leaders, immigrant advocates, and media — as a dangerous overreach  .

Within hours, Miami-Dade officials, including Sheriff Cordero‑Stutz and Mayor Levine Cava, assured the public no federal status checks would be held at stadium gates  . ICE quietly deleted its public post.

WHY IT MATTERS

The reversal shows ICE understands that enforcement actions can backfire politically and economically. U.S. host cities for 2026 are warning “uncertainty” from immigration enforcement already threatens their ability to attract global fans  .

Meanwhile, ongoing ICE actions — from aggressive raids to administrative detention of legal residents, visa holders, DACA recipients, and green-card holders — have rattled public confidence . Reports regularly show U.S. citizens and permanent residents mistakenly detained based on faulty databases and clerical errors  .

ICE faces a political cost: enforcement that deters stadium attendance threatens both tourism dollars and broader civic trust.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Will ICE adjust its public messaging ahead of major events like the 2026 World Cup?

* Will local and federal officials negotiate clear rules preventing federal agents from status-checking at sports and cultural venues?

* What legal safeguards can be adopted to protect lawful residents from mistaken enforcement?

BOTTOM LINE

ICE’s swift retreat on the stadium notice was no accident — they realized scaring away legal immigrant fans would hurt them both in optics and outcomes.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Reuters – Host‑city concerns about ICE raids ahead of Club World Cup

https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/us-begins-uneasy-world-cup-countdown-trump-moves-marines-los-angeles-2025-06-11/

Guardian – 2026 World Cup host cities admit “uncertainty” amid ICE raids

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jun/09/2026-world-cup-host-city-ice-raids

Syracuse TRAC – ICE detention figures (Jan 2025)

https://tracreports.org/whatsnew/email.250218.html

DHS OIG – ICE cannot effectively monitor unaccompanied alien children (March 25, 2025)

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2025-03/OIG-25-21-Mar25.pdf

ACLU – Asylum seeker wrongfully detained for 6 years

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/asylum-seekers-wrongful-6-year-detention-is-emblematic-of-a-broken-system

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

Trump is escalating his war on DEI by promising to undo bipartisan military base renamings tied to racial justice.

WHAT HAPPENED

Speaking at Fort Bragg on June 10, Donald Trump declared he will reverse the Pentagon’s renaming of seven military bases — restoring their Confederate names. These include Fort Hood, Fort Polk, Fort Rucker, and Fort Robert E. Lee.

Trump claimed: “We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It’s no time to change. I’m very superstitious.”

The renamed bases were changed under a 2021 bipartisan defense law. Congress ordered the Naming Commission to remove Confederate figures from U.S. military facilities — and by 2023, bases had new names honoring diverse war heroes.

The Department of Defense has not commented yet. Legal experts note Trump may not have the authority to reverse what Congress already enacted and what the Pentagon executed.

WHY IT MATTERS

This goes beyond base names — it’s about what America chooses to honor. Reinstating Confederate names could undermine racial justice efforts and deepen military division.

Trump’s move also signals how cultural warfare is shaping policy in real time — especially on race, history, and national identity.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Pentagon response: Will the DoD comply with Trump’s orders?

* Legal challenges: Is a reversal even lawful?

* Congressional reaction: Will lawmakers move to block Trump?

* Military morale: How will troops respond, especially Black and Latino service members?

BOTTOM LINE

Trump’s move is a direct challenge to years of bipartisan effort to remove Confederate symbols from federal institutions. It’s likely to spark political, legal, and cultural backlash.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow Jerrod on Instagram and Substack for more

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Congressional Naming Commission Law (.gov)

* DoD Renaming Implementation Report (.mil)

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story breaks down a critical ruling on Trump’s use of military forces inside U.S. cities — and what comes next in court.

WHAT HAPPENED

A federal judge has denied California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency request to immediately block the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles — part of Donald Trump’s sweeping military enforcement plan at the southern border and in sanctuary cities.

On June 10, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the deployment. They argued the president’s plan violates federal laws that prohibit the use of the military for domestic policing — including the Posse Comitatus Act and longstanding court precedents.

But Judge Breyer refused to issue an immediate order, instead giving the federal government until June 11 at 2 p.m. ET to respond in writing. A full hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, June 12 at 1:30 p.m. PDT in San Francisco.

The federal deployment includes 4,000 federalized National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines operating in and around Los Angeles. Trump announced the mission on June 8 as part of “Operation Fortress” — a campaign that White House officials claim is focused on deportation raids and “securing American cities from lawless illegals.”

WHY IT MATTERS

California’s lawsuit could set a national precedent on the limits of presidential power — especially when it comes to using military force inside U.S. cities.

Trump’s deployment bypasses state approval, which governors typically have the right to grant or deny under the Insurrection Act and the National Guard Act of 1933. Newsom’s legal team argues that allowing Trump to move forward could dismantle those protections and give future presidents unchecked military powers.

This is the first time since the George Floyd protests in 2020 that active-duty military forces have been mobilized for immigration enforcement on American soil.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* June 11 – DOJ deadline to file legal arguments in defense of Trump’s deployment

* June 12 – Federal hearing in San Francisco before Judge Charles Breyer

* Future – Possible Supreme Court appeal depending on Breyer’s ruling

BOTTOM LINE

A federal judge just said no to Gavin Newsom’s urgent request to stop Trump’s troop deployment — but the fight is far from over. California will make its full case in court on Thursday, in a battle that could redefine how military power is used at home.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow Jerrod on Instagram and Substack for more

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* California’s emergency motion filing (PDF)

* Politico: Judge Charles Breyer background

* Guardian live coverage: Trump’s LA operation

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

The Trump administration is starting mass deportation transfers through Guantánamo Bay — a policy with global and legal consequences.

WHAT HAPPENED

The Trump administration is preparing to send as many as 9,000 undocumented migrants to Guantánamo Bay starting this week, according to internal planning documents obtained by Politico and The Washington Post.

Roughly 500 migrants have already passed through the facility earlier this year, but this marks a major expansion.

The site — located on a U.S. military base in Cuba — is being used as a temporary processing and holding center for migrants before deportation. Officials say this helps ease pressure on domestic detention centers.

Those targeted include citizens of Venezuela, Russia, Germany, Austria, France, Romania, and the UK — including individuals without serious criminal records.

A January 2025 Trump administration memo ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Defense (DoD) to prepare the facility for 30,000 people.

WHY IT MATTERS

Guantánamo Bay has long been associated with human rights violations and indefinite detention. Civil liberties groups — including the ACLU — have filed suit, calling the plan unconstitutional and inhumane.

Critics warn it sets a dangerous precedent: using offshore detention to avoid U.S. court protections.

European governments have protested the policy, calling it diplomatically reckless and legally questionable.

Costs are also a concern. Guantánamo reportedly costs over $100,000 per detainee per day, far exceeding any U.S.-based facility.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Federal court hearings on ACLU lawsuits filed this week

* Possible emergency injunction to block transfers

* U.S. State Department responses to European diplomatic pressure

* First confirmed flights arriving at Guantánamo from U.S. air bases

BOTTOM LINE

Trump’s use of Guantánamo Bay for mass deportation transfers is no longer just a threat — it’s beginning now. Thousands may be detained offshore in the coming weeks, sparking legal, humanitarian, and global backlash.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow Jerrod on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Politico – Trump team plans migrant transfers to Guantánamo

* Washington Post – Trump to ramp up Guantánamo deportations

* DoD memo on Guantánamo expansion – Jan 2025 (link)

* ACLU class action filing – June 2025 (PDF)

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

Multiple U.S. allies have updated their travel guidance, warning citizens about new risks or restrictions when visiting the United States.

WHAT HAPPENED

Over the past six months, at least a dozen U.S. allies—including Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, and others—have revised their official travel advisories to the United States.

The core concern isn’t crime or terrorism—it’s the tightening of U.S. immigration enforcement, particularly around border checks, identity documentation, and entry procedures.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), which represents over 72,000 educators, issued a public statement discouraging academic travel to the U.S., citing increased reports of digital device searches, interrogations about political or academic work, and threats of denial of entry.

Meanwhile, several European nations have added new warnings for transgender and nonbinary travelers. Because U.S. travel systems no longer recognize gender-neutral “X” markers on passports, some visitors face mismatches between their documentation and official forms—leading to delays or refusals at the border.

These warnings follow a series of regulatory changes made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security in late 2024 and early 2025.

WHY IT MATTERS

While Americans often hear about U.S. travel warnings for other nations, it’s rare for allied democracies to caution their own citizens about traveling here. These new warnings aren’t about safety from violence—they’re about access, identity, and civil rights.

At stake is whether the U.S. is still seen as a freely accessible democracy for scholars, students, and travelers from allied nations. The concerns raised—especially around transgender rights and academic freedom—signal growing global unease over U.S. domestic policies under the Trump campaign and Republican-led border crackdowns.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Further travel warnings or restrictions from EU states or Canada.

* Legal challenges from affected travelers or advocacy groups.

* Policy changes at DHS and CBP tied to immigration or gender identity.

* Impact on tourism, research partnerships, and foreign relations.

BOTTOM LINE

Several allied nations now warn their citizens about traveling to the U.S. because of border enforcement policies that may detain, deny, or delay travelers over identity or visa issues. The warnings reflect a deeper shift in how the U.S. is viewed by its allies—not just as a destination, but as a gatekeeper with increasingly rigid and politicized rules.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* CAUT Travel Warning for U.S. Academics – AP

* European Travel Warnings on U.S. Gender Policy – Axios

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

Trump has not ruled out invoking a rare emergency law to expand military force on U.S. soil — with protests in LA as the backdrop.

WHAT HAPPENED

On Tuesday, June 10, President Donald Trump told reporters he is not ruling out invoking the Insurrection Act in response to ongoing protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids and detentions.

Speaking outside the White House, Trump said:

“If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We’ll see.”

(Source: Reuters, Guardian)

He made the remarks as Marines and National Guard troops were already on the ground in LA — deployed under separate federal authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that troops would remain in place for at least 60 days and that deployment costs would exceed $130 million. (Source: AP, Guardian)

The protests began after mass ICE raids and detentions in Southern California. They have since escalated, with some property damage and mass arrests — though civil rights groups and journalists dispute government claims of widespread violence.

The Insurrection Act, last used in 1992 during the LA riots, allows the president to deploy active-duty military inside the U.S. under narrow conditions, including suppressing “insurrection” or enforcing federal law when state authorities cannot.

WHY IT MATTERS

Invoking the Insurrection Act would mark one of the most extreme uses of presidential power in modern history. Civil rights experts warn it would expand the military’s role in civilian law enforcement — a move historically reserved for genuine national emergencies.

The act bypasses state consent if the president declares a breakdown of law and order. But critics say Trump’s comments risk inflaming tensions and framing political dissent as insurrection.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether Trump formally invokes the Insurrection Act in the coming days

* Legal challenges from California or civil liberties groups

* Congressional reaction or hearings on military use inside the U.S.

* Further escalation or de-escalation of protests in LA

BOTTOM LINE

Trump has not declared an insurrection — but by saying “we’ll see,” he left the door open to deploying full military force under a rarely used emergency law. The country hasn’t seen this since the Rodney King unrest. The stakes are enormous.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This article is part of our ongoing coverage of the Trump administration’s response to national protests and escalating domestic militarization.

WHAT HAPPENED

During a White House briefing on Tuesday, President Donald Trump was asked whether he expected demonstrations at his upcoming June 14 military parade in Washington, D.C. His response was blunt:

“Any demonstration at the parade will be met with very heavy force.”

He added,

“These are people who hate our country.”

The remarks immediately sparked concern among civil rights groups and legal scholars. Trump’s language echoes previous authoritarian statements—branding dissenters as enemies and promising a military-style response to public protest.

This comes just days after the president deployed 700 active-duty Marines and 4,500 National Guard troops to Los Angeles during immigration protests.

WHY IT MATTERS

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. No president has the authority to punish protest through military force unless public safety is seriously and demonstrably threatened—and even then, only under very specific constitutional limits.

Trump’s statement goes far beyond lawful crowd control. It suggests that any demonstration—regardless of its size, nature, or purpose—will be met with what he called “very heavy force.” This is a threat, not a warning.

The deeper danger is the precedent this sets: equating protest with treason, and patriotism with blind loyalty to one man.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, which allows use of the military domestically.

* How local law enforcement and the Pentagon respond to White House pressure.

* Whether civil liberties groups file preemptive legal challenges before June 14.

* The scale and tone of protests planned nationwide in response to the parade.

BOTTOM LINE

A sitting U.S. president just warned that protesting a military parade could trigger “very heavy force.” That’s not normal. It’s not constitutional. And it’s not the America many of us served to protect.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow Jerrod on Instagram and Substack for ongoing coverage of Trump’s parade threats, military deployments, and First Amendment clashes.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story exposes a disturbing shift: children—babies to teens—who have lived in foster homes or with vetted sponsors are now being pulled into federal custody under Trump-era directives.

WHAT HAPPENED

* In 2025, ICE and DHS began conducting no-notice “welfare checks” on homes of unaccompanied immigrant children placed with sponsors or guardians  .

* These visits have led to around 500 children being removed and placed back into federal custody—some within days—separated from loving environment and familiar faces  .

* Plainclothes agents have reportedly entered homes and even schools to question minors, with sponsors—especially undocumented ones—arrested on the spot  .

* In February, an ICE memo revealed a coordinated effort to locate and deport unaccompanied minors using federal databases, DNA screening, and door-to-door operations  .

WHY IT MATTERS

* Children treated like criminals: These kids arrive alone seeking safety. Now, even after living in homes deemed secure, they face the trauma of being re-detained.

* Legal protections eroded: Changes during Trump’s administration allow ORR to share sponsors’ immigration status with ICE and deny release based solely on status  .

* Emotional harm: The back-to-back disruptions inflict deep trauma. Advocates note heightened anxiety, sleeplessness, and feelings of abandonment among affected children .

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Federal lawsuits: Advocacy groups are challenging these policies. A federal judge has already ordered ORR to reassess vetting rules after noting delays that violate legal protections .

* State pushback: In places like Colorado, officials are suing over data-sharing that facilitated ICE tracking of sponsors  .

* Rising protests: Cities across the country, including Boston and Los Angeles, have seen demonstrations opposing ICE actions and detentions linked to these same policies .

BOTTOM LINE

The Trump administration has effectively resurrected family separation—not just at the border, but within American homes—by rescinding safeguards and using sponsors’ legal vulnerabilities as entry points. Children between infants and teens are being torn from caregivers, returned to custody without warning. Families and children are in crisis even after going through official vetting, and legal action is ramping up to challenge these new precedents of interior immigration enforcement.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Reuters – Trump directs ICE to locate, deport unaccompanied minors

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-immigration-authorities-plan-deport-unaccompanied-minors-2024-11-22/

Reuters – ORR shares sponsors’ immigration info with enforcement

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-reverses-trump-rule-sharing-immigrant-sponsors-info-ice-2023-09-20/

AP – Judge orders US refugee office to reconsider some children’s cases

https://apnews.com/article/be5a05ed23e309dcd28f56787a88438c

The Guardian – Plainclothes welfare checks and arrests during check-ins

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/05/trumps-immigration-children-unaccompanied-minors

LA Times – DHS welfare checks force detentions

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-03/unaccompanied-minors-ice-welfare-checks-detention

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe