Blumenthal Accuses ICE of Violating the Constitution--Todd Lyons Fires Back

Ajouté : 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]Why did you keep this memo secret?

[00:00:02]>> I didn't keep that memo secret, sir. It was blasted out to >> learned about it when two whistleblowers came to us and said that you were using it as a basis for the policy.

[00:00:13]It was never announced publicly. It was never released to the press or the American people.

[00:00:20]Why did you keep it secret?

[00:00:22]>> Sir, I didn't keep it secret. If sending an email to a workforce of 30,000 people is keeping something secret, it's a bad secret.

[00:00:27]>> It never reached those people.

[00:00:28]>> Yes, sir, it did. Well, the the the email did, sir. Yes, sir.

[00:00:31]>> Who's lying, you or him?

[00:00:33]>> Sir, I'm speaking for the men and women of ICE in my operation. I didn't arrest that individual, sir.

[00:00:37]>> But the facts contradict what you said.

[00:00:39]Will you admit that you don't know, for example, about Elahe Rahman, a disabled woman from Minneapolis? She came to this hearing. She testified before our Spotlight forum. Violently dragged from her car, detained without medical attention until she passed out. She lying or are you lying?

[00:00:57]>> No, sir, she's not lying.

[00:00:58]>> Well, then you were mistaken when you said no US citizen has been detained.

[00:01:02]>> No, sir, I said no US citizen is subject to immigration law and deportation removal. I said >> Well, that's a circular argument. She wasn't subject to immigration law cuz she's a US citizen. But she was detained, and that contradicts directly, as does your statement applied to Miramar Martinez, who was almost killed, shot seven times by CPP. This picture is of ICE agents forcing their way into the Minneapolis home of Garrison Gibson, uh banging down the door, detaining Mr. Gibson in front of his wife, Tiana, and their 10-year-old daughter and niece who happened to be there at the time. I don't know whether you're familiar with what happened here. It's one of many, many, many similar incidents that have happened all around the country.

[00:01:54]And it was done pursuant to what is called an administrative warrant.

[00:02:01]Uh I'm going to hold up a copy of that warrant.

[00:02:06]Uh signed by an FDDO who is, I believe, a uh member of the ICE workforce, another agent, a supervisory detention and deportation officer, not a judge, correct?

[00:02:28]>> Correct, Senator.

[00:02:29]>> So, in effect, this is not a warrant, it's a permission slip. It's a green light from another ICE agent to go bash down a door, smash into a home, detain and arrest someone without a judge finding probable cause and without any sort of objective, independent finding.

[00:02:59]Is that correct?

[00:03:00]>> No, sir. So, the I-205 is the arrest warrant, but the I-205 is based on a executable final order issued by an immigration judge from the Department of Justice.

[00:03:09]>> that order is from an immigration judge who is part of the executive branch, not an independent judge.

[00:03:18]But, the the warrant issued is simply a permission slip.

[00:03:23]>> Blumenthal challenged the ICE director over immigration warrants, home raids, and the rights of American citizens. The senator questioned whether current enforcement practices respect constitutional protections and demanded answers about controversial operations.

[00:03:39]>> Now, let's be very clear. You were a local police officer.

[00:03:42]>> Yes, sir.

[00:03:44]>> To bang down a door, barge into someone's home, if you're the FBI or a local police officer, you need a judicial warrant from a judicial officer, a judge, who is going to find or not probable cause, which has a specific meaning under the law.

[00:04:04]These ICE agents are banging down doors doing the same thing without that kind of judicial warrant.

[00:04:11]What is so different about ICE that it regards itself as an exception to the Fourth Amendment and the requirement for a judicial warrant is a Fourth Amendment requirement.

[00:04:22]>> We do We don't [clears throat] Senator.

[00:04:24]Um we There is case law US versus Lucas uh 2007, which is out of the 8th District of Minnesota, which authorizes the entry of a home to catch a fugitive based on administrative warrant.

[00:04:35]>> I beg your pardon, sir. It does not abrogate the Fourth Amendment. It does not say that ICE agents or CPPA agents can simply bash down doors and barge into people's homes, terrorize their children, detain and arrest people without a judicial warrant. And there is nothing different about what ICE does as compared to the FBI or local police that would justify it. The policy that they're acting under, in fact, is the result of a memo that you issued in May. You're as familiar with it. Yes, sir. That's your signature.

[00:05:12]>> Yes, sir.

[00:05:12]>> Which says, in effect, they don't need judicial warrants. They can act on the basis of the 205 warrant that you've just described, which is administrative. It's not judicial.

[00:05:25]>> Why did you keep this memo secret?

[00:05:27]>> I didn't keep that memo secret, sir. It was blasted out >> learned about it when two whistleblowers came to us and said that you were using it as a basis for the policy.

[00:05:40]It was never announced publicly. It was never released to the press or the American people.

[00:05:48]Why did you keep it secret?

[00:05:49]>> Sir, I didn't keep it secret. If sending an email to a workforce of 30,000 people is keeping something secret, it's a bad secret.

[00:05:55]>> It never reached those people.

[00:05:56]>> Yes, sir, it did.

[00:05:58]>> Well, >> The The The email did, sir. Yes, sir.

[00:06:00]>> I can work with your community to get >> At the center of the debate was a case involving an ICE operation at a family home in Minneapolis. Blumenthal argued that administrative warrants give immigration agents too much authority without approval from an independent judge. Lyons defended ICE procedures, saying they are supported by existing legal rulings and immigration law.

[00:06:21]But does following policy automatically mean the public will see it as fair?

[00:06:26]That became the key issue throughout the exchange.

[00:06:29]>> Let me just have to get that. Let me move to another topic.

[00:06:32]Uh you stated on Tuesday, quote, "No US citizen is subject to immigration enforcement, and that doesn't happen. If a US citizen is detained in the course of the immigration investigation, they are quickly released."

[00:06:48]Uh I ask unanimous consent that a report that we did uh the ranking uh member uh staff did uh entitled "Unchecked Authority" that documents 22 US citizens being detained and assaulted by immigration agents, as well as written statements from eight US citizens who have been detained, shot at, and nearly killed by ICE agents who came to speak >> Thank you.

[00:07:16]Um so, let's take George Reed, for example. He's an Army veteran, a father from California, trying to go to work.

[00:07:22]He said he was tear-gassed and held for 3 days without charges.

[00:07:28]Is he lying?

[00:07:30]>> Sir, ICE wasn't involved in that arrest, sir.

[00:07:32]>> Were you mistaken when you said that no US citizen is subject to immigration enforcement?

[00:07:38]>> No, sir.

[00:07:40]>> Well, who's lying, you or him?

[00:07:42]>> Sir, I'm speaking for the men and women of ICE in my operation. I didn't arrest that individual, sir.

[00:07:46]>> But the facts contradict what you said.

[00:07:48]Will you admit that you don't know, for example, about Elia Rahman, a disabled woman from Minneapolis? She came to this hearing. She testified before our Spotlight forum. Violently dragged from her car, detained without medical attention until she passed out. She lying, or are you lying?

[00:08:09]>> No, sir, she's not lying.

[00:08:11]>> Well, then you were mistaken when you said no US citizen has been detained.

[00:08:15]>> No, sir, I said no US citizen subject to immigration law and deportation or removal. I does >> Well, that is a circular argument. She wasn't subject to immigration law cuz she's a US citizen, but she was detained.

[00:08:27]And that contradicts directly, as does your statement applied to Miramar Martinez, who was almost killed, shot seven times by CPP agents. It is true of Diana Figueroa, who told us she was violently dragged from her car after dropping her son at school, thrown into a van, also detained. Is she lying?

[00:08:51]>> No, sir, but Sir, you know, I've worked personally with you on many cases when you come to me with on constituent, especially in Connecticut when I was a field office director in New England. You know that I am a transparent. We do not lie.

[00:09:04]So, to say that we're lying is incorrect.

[00:09:05]>> you first whether you were mistaken when you said that no US citizen, I'm quoting, is subject to immigration enforcement.

[00:09:14]>> Correct, sir.

[00:09:15]>> Enforcement. I would call that misconduct enforcement by your agents. I'm out of time.

[00:09:24]>> The hearing grew even more intense when Blumenthal presented examples of US citizens who claimed they were detained or mistreated during immigration operations.

[00:09:34]He challenged earlier statements suggesting citizens are not targets of immigration enforcement. Lyons maintained that ICE does not seek to deport American citizens, but the senator argued that detentions themselves create serious concerns.

[00:09:48]Should mistakes involving citizens be treated as isolated incidents, or do they reveal a larger problem? In my view, this hearing showed why immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in America. Both security and constitutional rights matter, and policy makers must find ways to protect both.

[00:10:07]The debate highlighted how complicated immigration enforcement can be, and why public oversight is important.

[00:10:13]What do you think? Did either side make a stronger case? Share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to like, subscribe, and turn on notifications for more political news and analysis.