22-year-old to lead DHS office: Trump picks ex-gardener Thomas Fugate to head prevention team; MAGA ties and little experience in security

Thomas Fugate (Image credits: X @justicemalala)
Thomas Fugate, a 22-year-old with a background in gardening and grocery store work, has been appointed by US President
Donald Trump
to head the center for prevention programs and partnerships (CP3) at the department of homeland Security (DHS).
Just five years ago, Fugate was working as a neighborhood gardener. As recently as August 2023, he held a job at a grocery store. A 2023 graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio, Fugate has experienced a swift rise through Republican political circles.
Fugate's LinkedIn page shows limited experience in the national security or policy field. In 2020, he listed himself as a self-employed 'landscape business owner.'
He also worked as a 'cross functional team member' at an H-E-B supermarket in Austin, Texas.
After completing his degree in politics and law, Fugate joined Trump's 2024 presidential campaign as an 'advance team member.' He has also interned at the conservative Heritage foundation and with Texas state representatives Terry Wilson and Steve Allison.
In February, he was reportedly hired as a special assistant in an immigration office at DHS.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Esse novo alarme com câmera é quase gratuito em Petrópolis (consulte o preço)
Alarmes
Undo
Following the resignation of the previous CP3 director, Fugate was named as the acting head of the center.
'Tom Fugate has performed well in his current role as a confidential assistant in our immigration & border security suboffice,' a DHS official told The Daily Beast.
'Due to his success, he has been temporarily given additional leadership responsibilities in the center for prevention programs and partnerships office (CP3).
This is a credit to his work ethic and success on the job.'
Earlier posts from his X account show a different tone, one of interest in global aid, LEGO, Star Wars, and international development. In past tweets, he encouraged Texas lawmakers to support the international affairs
budget
and aid for the global poor.
Fugate later shifted toward a MAGA-aligned political image, rebranding himself with the 'thomas4texas' Instagram handle and announcing his entry into public service. His online profiles reflect a carefully constructed persona, including a LinkedIn photo in front of the DHS seal, hinting at confidence and ambition.
His rapid promotion has sparked questions about experience and readiness, but DHS officials have stood by the decision, citing his work ethic and current performance.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

15 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

Indian Express

43 minutes ago

• Indian Express

After striking Iran without broad consultation, Trump faces criticism from US Congress

US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites without full congressional consultation has widened existing rifts on Capitol Hill, raising sharp criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans. As per The Associated Press (AP), the Trump administration briefed top Republican leaders—including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune—prior to the operation. In contrast, Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries were only informed after the military strikes had begun. Speaking to CNN, Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said: 'Bad enough that we weren't informed… But unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak… on one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' This uneven communication has deepened partisan tensions. Critics argue that the strikes may have bypassed constitutional requirements by not seeking congressional approval. Senator Mark Warner and others voiced concern, as per CNN, that the action lacked a clear legal basis and was executed without regard for intelligence community input. Senator Tim Kaine is calling for a Senate war powers vote, aiming to reassert Congress's constitutional role in authorising military action. Speaking to CBS, he said: 'Congress should be consulted… We were not.' According to NBC News, Senator Mark Kelly said: 'The president can act when there's a clear and imminent threat… That wasn't the case here.' Some Democrats even called the action grounds for impeachment, while Republican lawmakers like Senator Lindsey Graham defended the strike: 'Congress can declare war or cut off funding. We can't be the commander-in-chief.' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene voiced opposition to prolonged involvement in the Middle East, as per CNN. Representative Thomas Massie, a longtime non-interventionist, plans to push for a House vote limiting Trump's military authority. Speaking to CBS, he said: 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Trump lashed out at Massie on social media, labeling him a 'pathetic LOSER.' Iranian officials have warned of retaliatory attacks following the US strikes, and concerns are growing about the safety of US personnel and regional stability. Iran could disrupt vital commercial shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a global chokepoint for oil transit. US Vice President JD Vance, speaking to NBC, said: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' Vance also responded to criticism by the Congress, saying Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' Congress is now gearing up for a showdown over presidential war powers. Lawmakers are expected to debate—and potentially vote on—measures limiting Trump's ability to launch further military operations without legislative approval. (With inputs from AP, CNN, Reuters, NBC News)

United News of India

an hour ago

• United News of India

US law enforcement warns of terrorist attacks risk after strikes on Iran

Washington, June 23 (UNI) The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) warned of increased risks of terrorist attacks in the next two months related to the US Air Force strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. "The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland," the department said in a bulletin. It noted that, according to US law enforcement, many terrorist attacks in the United States were motivated by anti-Semitism. "The ongoing Israel-Iran conflict could contribute to US-based individuals plotting additional attacks," the document says. The DHS also warned of growing risks of cyber threats. "The ongoing Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States. Low-level cyber attacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks," the bulletin says. The alert is in effect for two months, until September 22, it says. UNI SPUTNIK ARN