ICE field director defends agents after ramped-up enforcement, arrests of US citizens at Chicago immigration court protest

The head of Chicago's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office Tuesday defended the conduct and decorum of federal agents who have ramped up arrests of undocumented immigrants, which has incited clashes with elected officials, immigration advocates and protesters.
On Monday, three U.S. citizens were detained by ICE after allegedly assaulting an officer in Chicago, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.
In an interview Tuesday with the Tribune, Samuel Olson, ICE's Chicago field office director, explained that 'the last thing (the agents) want to do is to have to arrest somebody who's assaulting them or impeding them from doing their jobs.'
ICE released all three protesters Monday afternoon. Asked whether the protesters were charged, Olson said the arrests of the protesters are under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.
'It's a hard enough job that they have to worry about who the target is that they're arresting, whether that person might be assaultive or combative,' Olson said.
The arrests of U.S. citizens caught immigration advocates by surprise, as pushback against increased immigration enforcement has only grown across the country. On Tuesday, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, a mayoral candidate, was arrested for allegedly 'assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer' at immigration court, according to DHS. The arrest was captured on video that quickly went viral on social media.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump sent out a directive to ramp up deportations further in Democrat-run cities. Immigration enforcement has increased at courts and offices in Chicago in recent weeks, with two immigrants from Colombia detained on Father's Day for showing up to their check-in appointments.
At a City Hall news conference Tuesday, Mayor Brandon Johnson delivered an implicit warning against Trump's latest threat to crack down on Chicago demonstrators next.
'I think it's important that the president respects the Constitution. If you're asking me if this president is going to work with city leaders, it's clear that he's not interested in doing that,' Johnson told reporters when asked if he's heard from the federal government.
Olson said the ICE agents were acting in their rights to arrest the protesters Monday because they are law enforcement officers who are sworn to uphold administrative immigration law, and who can also enforce federal criminal law.
He emphasized that agents undergo quarterly training on defensive tactics and firearms operations. Many agents hail from Chicago or the surrounding area, and Olson noted they 'have deep ties to the community.'
'They're trying to ensure public safety of the same communities that they're living in,' he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois decried ICE's arrest of U.S. citizens.
'The presence of unidentified, federal officers conducting arrests and detentions — while heavily armed — undermines the public's ability to ensure that law enforcement is acting in a legal and constitutional fashion and runs the risk of further violence,' Ed Yonhka, ACLU's director of communications and public policy, said in a statement.
On Monday around 9 a.m., about a dozen protesters stood outside immigration court at 55 E. Monroe St., according to Bianca Paiz, who was on her way to work. ICE agents entering the building, then started to take the three individuals into custody, Paiz recounted. The immigration agents wore masks and didn't identify themselves, she said.
Paiz said the protesters did not resist arrest, and that the agents handcuffed them before forcing them into an unmarked vehicle.
As someone who has participated in civil disobedience, she called the arrests 'alarming.'
ICE transported the protesters to a different federal building on West Ida B. Wells Drive in the Loop. Two of the individuals were released about three hours later, according to protesters.
The third protester was released from the building around 5 p.m. after worried family members alerted local officials about the detention. In a statement, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said ICE officers 'are facing a 413% increase in assaults against them.' 'ICE and our federal law enforcement partners will continue to enforce the law,' she said. 'And if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' While the last protester was detained, family members waited outside the federal court building in the Loop for hours. Their calls weren't going through, and they weren't sure if ICE had provided legal assistance. They declined to share their names until they had spoken to an attorney.
Later that afternoon, two members of Mayor Johnson's staff arrived to offer support. At one point, the protester's family attempted to speak with the security guards inside the building, but they were told to leave. As the day wore on, they stood on the sidewalk outside, waiting for news.
After the protester came out of the building, they cried and hugged. The protester declined to comment further about the arrest.
ICE's Chicago field office director, Olson, said Tuesday that agents do not intend to arrest U.S. citizens. He declined to speculate on future enforcement actions, such as sending the National Guard to Chicago to assist with immigration enforcement.
Over the course of the 20-minute interview, he defended agents who wore masks during immigration enforcement actions, saying some fear for their safety and the safety of their families, and went over the enforcement removal operations he oversees in the Chicago region.
The ICE field office covers Wisconsin, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri and Kansas.
'There's a lot of hate being spewed at my officers,' Olson said. 'It's a little frustrating.'
A 20-year ICE veteran, Olson said he's never seen so much public doubt about the agency's legitimacy. He emphasized that officers receive extensive training — including basic Spanish courses — and said certified interpreters are available to explain individuals' rights. Allegations of misconduct are handled by ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility and may be escalated to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, he said. Olson said his office oversees a 'multitude of targets' across several states, with a focus on detaining individuals who pose safety risks or have final deportation orders.
He emphasized that immigration detention is not punitive but meant to ensure court appearances, noting that detention space is limited and costly. ICE also coordinates with the Department of Justice and Citizenship and Immigration Services. 'When we're out there, some of the stuff that we're doing is oversimplified, and there's a lot more nuance to it,' he said. 'And there's just a lot bigger things going on in the background.' Chicago Tribune's Alice Yin and Caroline Kubzansky contributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Atlantic

26 minutes ago

• Atlantic

Trump Got This One Right

'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.

Boston Globe

27 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans

The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Graham: Trump ‘had all the authority he needs under the Constitution' for Iran strikes

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a Sunday morning interview pushed back on claims that President Trump acted outside his Constitutional authority by ordering strikes on Iran. 'No, he was within his Article II authority,' Graham said in an interview on NBC News's 'Meet the Press,' when asked if Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by 'acting unilaterally.' 'Congress can declare war or cut off funding,' Graham continued. 'We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander in chiefs.' 'If you don't like what the president does, in terms of war, you can cut off the funding. But declaring war is left of the Congress. We've declared war five times in the history of America. All of these other military operations were lawful.' 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution. They are wrong,' he added, referring to critics who say Trump should have sought congressional approval before ordering strikes on the three Iranian nuclear sites this weekend. Trump announced Saturday the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow site located in a mountainside. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home,' Trump added. 'Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations.