Wednesday, April 15, 2026

What the Right-Wing AI-Slop Machine Gets Wrong About Frederick Douglass

One hundred and fifty years ago to the day, Frederick Douglass gave his “Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln,” a radical speech that refutes MAGA attempts to co-opt him.



Frederick Douglass is pictured.


Jeffrey C. Isaac
Apr 14, 2026
Common Dreams

Prager U—a producer of right-wing “educational videos” founded by conservative radio host and edutainment entrepreneur Dennis Prager—has recently been in the news regarding its “America at 250” initiative, a collaboration with the Trump White House well described by The New Yorker as “Serving AI Slop for America’s Birthday.” The initiative is one of many administration efforts to conscript this year’s July 4 celebration in its culture war against the left, a war, announced by President Donald Trump back in March 2025 with his Executive Order 14253, cynically named “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

It seems particularly appropriate to reflect on the MAGA effort to promote historical misunderstanding today, the 150th anniversary of one of Frederick Douglass’ most important speeches, “Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln.” For Prager U first made headlines back in September 2021, with the posting of an animated video entitled “Leo & Layla’s History Adventure with Frederick Douglass.” While Prager is a stridently anti-“woke” enterprise, purveying a manifestly whitewashed historical narrative, this video was particularly notable, and outrageous, because it featured Douglass, the ardent Black abolitionist and radical Republican, as a self-righteous extoller of caution and celebrant of American Greatness. Like Trump’s “1776 Commission Report,” published that same year within weeks of the January 6 insurrection, Prager sought to co-opt Douglass (and also Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Martin Luther King, Jr.) rather than to ignore him, all the better to promote its right-wing conception of “patriotic history.” Prager did this in a particularly insidious way.

“Leo” and “Layla” are two white kids innocently watching TV when a newscaster reports on “angry” (obviously BLM) protesters demanding the abolition of the police. Leo, put off by a math teacher who strangely teaches about “systemic injustice,” then asks his older sister: “Why is everyone so angry? Are they burning a car? What does abolish even mean?” Seeking to understand, the siblings enter a time machine, where they are immediately greeted—“welcome to 1852!”—by a dapper Frederick Douglass eager to school the innocent children and restore their abiding reverence for all things American.

Douglass proceeds to explain “abolition” by informing the kids that he was himself once a slave, and when they ask him how he dealt with his unenviable situation, he replies: “It was very hard, and I was often sad. I taught myself to read and write... knowledge is the pathway from slavery to freedom... [and] today I am a free American, fighting for all to be free.” When the children express confusion about how the “founding fathers” could have reconciled slavery with the idea that “all men are created equal,” Douglass reassures them: “Children, our founding fathers knew that slavery was evil and wrong... They wanted it to end, but... made a compromise to achieve something great: the making of the United States.” Noting that abolition would have alienated the Southern plantocracy, he explains that “our founders created a system that would have slavery end gradually.”

Today’s anniversary of Frederick Douglass’s dedication of the Freedmen’s Monument is an occasion to remember that our history is not so easily conscripted; that the struggle for a truly multiracial and egalitarian democracy requires reckoning with racism and not denying its existence.

When the naïve students fret about hypocrisy, Douglass explains further: “Sometimes things are more complicated than they might seem, and complicated problems take time to solve... big problems need to be approached very carefully.” He then delivers the coup de gras: “Have you kids heard of William Lloyd Garrison? He’s an abolitionist like me, and he and I used to be friends, but we aren’t any longer... William refuses all compromises, demands immediate change, and if he doesn’t get what he wants, he likes to set things on fire.” He then explains that he is “trying to work for change inside the American system, and that ”our system is wonderful, and the Constitution is a glorious liberty document. We just need to convince enough Americans to be true to it.“ Douglass then warns the kids to avoid people like Garrison, radicals who ”don’t just want slavery abolished, but the whole American system.“

The video obviously centers on a tendentious reading of Douglass’ famous 1852 speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” that completely ignores the way Douglass brilliantly shifted back and forth in that speech between identification with his white audience and harsh challenge to it:
But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! Here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers.


In his speech Douglass embraced the revolutionary rhetoric of 1776. But he did not say that the American system was “wonderful,” and indeed he committed himself to working with other abolitionists to radically change the system. And while he did break with Garrison, his former mentor, believing that the Constitution—if properly interpreted to support radical abolition, a big “if”—was a “glorious liberty document,” he also clearly believed that its promise had yet to be redeemed, and could only be redeemed through a broad-based and uncompromising abolitionist movement. Far from disparaging Garrison’s radicalism, Douglass actually literally extols it in his closing words: “In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:
God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er
When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore...


Douglass’ 1852 speech, a brilliant reclaiming of the “spirit of ‘76,” was no kind of celebration. It was a subtle but nonetheless powerful disruption of celebration, and an invitation and incitement to radical action. And what Douglass says in it was perfectly consistent with the equally famous and more radical words that he would utter a few years later, in his 1857 speech “On West India Emancipation”:
Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.


These are not the words of a man who believed that “our founders created a system that would have slavery end gradually.” They are the words of a man who believed, to the contrary, that slavery would not end until it was politically and militarily defeated.

Douglass, like his Radical Republican allies, Wendell Phillips, William Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens, vigorously supported the Union in the Civil War precipitated by Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 election and the wave of secessions that followed it. But he did this not to vindicate the greatness of the Constitution or to preserve the existing American system, but to effectuate a radical democratic and in some ways revolutionary transformation of the American system. And the policy of Reconstruction he supported involved nothing less than such a transformation, upending the Southern plantocracy, redistributing property and opportunity to emancipated former slaves, and enforcing Black civil and political rights. He made this clear during the war in a July 4, 1862 speech entitled “The Slaveholders’ Rebellion,” and he made it even clearer in the substantial essay he published after the war, in the December 1866 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, entitled “Reconstruction.”

But perhaps the clearest statement of this theme is to be found in Douglass’ “Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln,” delivered, at the dedication of the much-heralded Freedmen’s Memorial, on April 14, 1876, the eleventh anniversary of Lincoln’s assassination. Historian David Blight opens his magisterial Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 biography, Frederick Douglass, Prophet of Freedom, with Douglass’s delivery of this speech, pointing out that the dedication had been declared a national holiday; that the event was attended by “a distinguished array of guests” that included President Ulysses S. Grant and many members of Congress and the Supreme Court; and that the entire event held a special meaning for the “huge crowd, largely African-American,” who were present not simply to commemorate Lincoln’s role in Emancipation, but to celebrate a Black-financed and produced monument whose dedication featured the most prominent Black man in the country.

As in his more famous 1852 “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” delivered as abolitionist sentiment was picking up steam, Douglass begins this speech in a spirit of civic communion. Invoking “the sentiment of gratitude and appreciation,” he reminds his audience of the history that made the Freedmen’s Memorial possible:
I refer to the past not in malice, for this is no day for malice; but simply to place more distinctly in front the gratifying and glorious change which has come both to our white fellow-citizens and ourselves, and to congratulate all upon the contrast between now and then; the new dispensation of freedom with its thousand blessings to both races, and the old dispensation of slavery with its ten thousand evils to both races—white and black.


Yet he then proceeds to note that “truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.”

In a speech whose overall purpose is the celebration of a vision of multiracial and universal citizenship, a vision that still remained far from realization, Douglass—the fugitive slave who had become both symbol and tribune of liberation—refuses to erase the very divisive question of race and racial identity. He insists that Lincoln “was preëminently the white man’s President,” and proceeds to outline the many ways, over time, that Lincoln had prioritized the Constitution, and the Union, over abolition, and the emancipation of Black Americans:
The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preëminence in this worship at once full and supreme... You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But... in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion... we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.


In his speech, Douglass recounts the many ways that Lincoln was despised, both by defenders of slavery who thought him an abolitionist, and by abolitionists who thought him too willing to compromise with the defenders of slavery. He describes Lincoln’s assassination as an awful crime against a great man and against the freedom that Lincoln’s presidency ultimately symbolized.

And while refusing to ignore Lincoln’s flaws, Douglass insists that “we”—he is referring here to Black Americans like himself—“We were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him... by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln.”

Recalling his joy upon learning of Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation,” his pride at the masses of Black soldiers that Lincoln had eventually mobilized to serve in the Union Army, and his determination to continue the struggle for freedom that Lincoln had advanced through his leadership in the Civil War, Douglass closed his oration with a sober appreciation of the fact that Lincoln’s very limits had perhaps been the very source of his strength. Noting that Lincoln “shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race,” and that this had long made him an uncertain ally and sometimes even an opponent, Douglass concludes:
Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful coöperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen... The honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time...But now behold the change: the judgment of the present hour is, that taking him for all in all, measuring the tremendous magnitude of the work before him, considering the necessary means to ends, and surveying the end from the beginning, infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than Abraham Lincoln.


As Blight observes: “Douglass employed a stunning level of directness for such a ceremony... In the rhetorical twists and turns of this complex speech, Douglass had one overriding target—the declension and betrayal of Reconstruction in the South by the federal government.” Speaking only months before the Declaration’s July 4 centennial anniversary, Douglass well understood how vulnerable was the halting progress achieved by Reconstruction. Indeed, within a year, the infamous Compromise of 1877 was effected, Rutherford B. Hayes was inaugurated president, and federal troops were finally withdrawn from formerly Confederate states, sealing the death of Reconstruction, a wave of racist violence and intimidation, and the resumption of white supremacy.

And so Douglass, on April 16, 1888—almost 12 years to the day of his Freedmen’s Monument speech—delivered another speech in the nation’s capital, describing the indignities and oppressions of the Jim Crow system as a betrayal of the promise of Reconstruction, and declaring that “I Denounce This Emancipation as a Tremendous Fraud.”

We are now living through another tremendous fraud—a Trump administration intent on destroying the rule of law, an independent civil society, and the safeguards that protect free and fair democratic elections, all in the name of an increasingly hollow vision of “American Greatness” resting on what David Blight and James Grossman have rightly called a “brutish assault on history.”

Today’s anniversary of Frederick Douglass’s dedication of the Freedmen’s Monument is an occasion to remember that our history is not so easily conscripted; that the struggle for a truly multiracial and egalitarian democracy requires reckoning with racism and not denying its existence; and that if American greatness means anything, it means the example of figures like Douglass, who persistently fought against both injustice and the celebratory cant typically invoked to reinforce it. And as we prepare ourselves for the ostentatious displays of patriotism that Trump has planned for us this coming July, we can do no better than to recall what Douglass said about an earlier July 4: “To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! Here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers.”

Thanks to Bob Ivie for his helpful comments on this essay.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeffrey C. Isaac
Jeffrey C. Isaac is James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. His books include: "Democracy in Dark Times"(1998); "The Poverty of Progressivism: The Future of American Democracy in a Time of Liberal Decline" (2003), and "Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion" (1994).
Full Bio >


With Help From Trump-GOP Law, At Least 88 Big US Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Income Tax Last Year

The companies avoided more than $26.7 billion in income taxes last year, enough to give free school lunches to every child in America.



Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) is congratulated by his fellow Republicans after signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act during an enrollment ceremony in the Rayburn Room at the US Capitol on July 3, 2025, in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Apr 14, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Dozens of America’s most profitable corporations avoided paying any federal income taxes in 2025, according to an analysis out on Tuesday from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The 88 companies—which include Tesla, Southwest Airlines, Live Nation, Palantir, Citigroup, and many others listed in the S&P 500—brought in a collective $105 billion in pretax income last year.


Top 1% to Get $117 Billion in Trump Tax Cuts This Year as Bottom 95% Pay More


ITEP found that 2025 saw a spike in corporate tax avoidance, enabled in part by new loopholes created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump and by his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the corporate tax rate to 21% from its previous 35%.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is expected to hand the wealthiest 1% of Americans $117 billion in tax cuts this year, while those in the bottom 95% are set to pay more in taxes while facing across-the-board cuts to social safety net programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

It also allowed multimillion- and billion-dollar corporations to find new ways to avoid paying taxes. More than half of the tax-avoiders listed in the report used a provision in the new tax law allowing companies to immediately write off capital investments, reducing their collective taxes by $11.4 billion.

Pharmaceutical and tech companies, meanwhile, were able to take advantage of tax write-offs for research and development, exempting them from approximately another $4.4 billion.

In total, the corporate tax avoidance documented in 2025 by the researchers helped to rob the public coffers of yet another $26.7 billion, enough to give every public school student a free lunch for a year, according to a University of Missouri analysis of the National School Lunch Program.

The researchers said that the full scale of corporate tax avoidance remains unclear, since corporate tax returns are not publicly available. Some companies were also excluded because they are not part of the S&P 500 or have not yet reported their 2025 taxes.

“These findings are not isolated cases—they reflect systemic deficiencies in the corporate tax code,” said Amy Hanauer, the executive director for ITEP. “Without meaningful reform, profitable corporations will continue to pay less than their fair share.”

 

Hungary's new Prime Minister Magyar moves fast to consolidate power and take down the Orban system

Hungary's new Prime Minister Magyar moves fast to consolidate power and take down the Orban system
Elected only a few days ago, the new Hungarian PM has moved fast to take down the Orban system. He announced he would shut down the state TV, force the president to resign and launched a massive clean up operation to reclaim billions of euros of assets stolen by the former government. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook
By Ben Aris in Berlin April 15, 2026

Acting quickly to consolidate his power and remake the political scene, Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar detonated several political bombs in a single day on April 15.

First we gave a televised interview and told the pro-Orban state TV he was shutting it down, calling it a “factory of lies” and “not telling the people the truth” under his predecessor. Magyar went on to meet with Hungarian President Tamas Sulyok, who he told to quit immediately or face forced expulsion. Finally, he said that Budapest would continue to veto the release of a €90bn EU loan for Ukraine until oil flows from via the Druzhba pipeline resume.

Magyar was swept to power with a landslide victory on April 12 that handed him a constitutional majority of two thirds, putting his Tisza party in complete control of the country.

Going into the elections he warned that he would undo many of the reforms made by his predecessor Viktor Orban and sack the placeholders in government from the Fidesz party.

Lifting Hungary's veto on the blocked Ukraine loan is amongst the most urgent business as Kyiv is running out of money and faces macroeconomic collapse without fresh funding soon. Magyar said he will vote through the EU loan once the Druzhba pipeline resumes operations.

Supplies were halted in January after a drone attack damaged the pipeline, which Orban blamed on Ukraine and blocked the release of the funding. Magyar has taken the same line as Orban: “no oil, no money.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on April 14 that the pipeline is now repaired and flows would resume by the end of April, but not at full capacity.

Following a meeting with President Tamas Sulyok, Magyar said Hungary's new parliament would likely meet on May 6 or 7.

"The​President has informed me that he will ​ask me at the inaugural session of ⁠the ​new parliament ​to be Prime Minister ​and form a government, as the leader ​of ⁠the party that got the ⁠most votes," Magyar said.

President out

Magyar took an equally blunt line in a meeting with Hungary's President Tamas Sulyok: he told him to voluntarily leave his office or Tisza would use its super-majority in parliament to force the president out.

Sulyok is widely seen as an Orban ally and as president has the power to veto laws that would stymie the sweeping changes that Magyar has promised to make.

Magyar said in a social media post: “I have arrived at the Sandor Palace to meet the President of Hungary. [Tamas Sulyok] is unworthy of representing the unity of the Hungarian nation. He is unfit to serve as the guardian of legality. He is not fit to serve as a moral authority or a role model. Following the formation of the new government, Tamas Sulyok must leave office immediately.”

Sulyok became President of Hungary in 2024, nominated by Orban’s ruling Fidesz party, which holds a parliamentary majority. Before that, he served as President of the Constitutional Court, a role he held since 2016 after also being elected with Fidesz backing. The Hungarian presidency is largely ceremonial, but it carries influence through signing laws, referring legislation to the Constitutional Court, and symbolic leadership.

Magyar is keen to avoid the problems faced by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk who is pursuing a liberalisation agenda but is being blocked by Polish president Karol Nawrocki, who is aligned with the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party and has tied up a lot of Tusk’s legislation by sending it to the constitutional court for review.

Magyar said in comments after meeting the president: “If he does not leave voluntarily, we will use the mandate given to us by the voters. Through constitutional amendments and the necessary legal changes, we will remove him from office. We will remove him and all the other puppets appointed by the Orban system.”

State TV shut

Magyar did not pull his punches during a live interview with the state TV station M1 for the first time, which was another tool used by the popularist Orban to control the media message and promote his own image in the country.

“What has been happening here since 2010 would have made even Goebbels or North Korean dictators blush. No truthful word has been spoken,” he said in the M1 interview.

“We will suspend this channel's news service. This isn't about me; I'm not seeking revenge. Our people deserve journalism that reflects the truth,” Magyar told the host.

Undoing the corruption

Magyar also announced a wide-reaching programme of renationalisation and confiscation of assets deemed to have been given away “for nothing” to state affiliated companies and Orban’s cronies. As IntelliNews reported, Hungary has been considered the most corrupt country in Europe for several years.

“We will nationalize the assets given to businesspeople and foundations during the Orban era,” said Magyar.

Amongst the most glaring deals, the Mathias Corvinus Collegium Foundation, a think tank close to Orban, was gifted 10% of the state-owned oil giant MOL and pharmaceutical company Gedeon Richter for free. “We will take back these shares,” said Magyar. In 2020, the MCC was also granted government funds and assets with a total value of approximately €1.4bn, Brussels Signal reports.

Magyar went on to ridicule some of M1’s more extreme reporting lines, promoted by Orban administration in an echo of Putin’s style of media manipulation, hyping up traditional family values” or blaming everything on the billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

“According to you, Germany has collapsed, there's no internet there, people aren't even having sex. The Hungarian people were laughing at you,” said Magyar. “It was said on this channel that even my young children won't talk to me, when in fact my children live with me.”

When the host tried to interrupt him, he shot back: “No host in this studio ever dared to interrupt Hungary's most corrupt and most lying prime minister.”

He went on to describe a sweeping programme to undo many of the abuses put in place by Orban.

“We will bring back the EU funds. We will join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, create a national asset recovery authority, and implement other anti-corruption measures.”

“We will make the investigative authorities and judiciary independent,” he said.

“We will also restore academic freedom, returning universities to scholars and research institutes to researchers. We will use EU funds for infrastructure, energy efficiency, and healthcare — not for oligarchs or party loyalists.”

Currently Magyar remains Prime Minister elect but hopes his new government will be sworn in by early May.

Trump breaks silence on Hungary’s election results, Russia adds Budapest to list of unfriendly countries

Trump breaks silence on Hungary’s election results, Russia adds Budapest to list of unfriendly countries
/ Facebook/Viktor OrbanFacebook
By IntelliNews April 15, 2026

After two days of silence following Hungary's historic elections, US President Donald Trump has issued a measured response to the defeat of his ally Viktor Orban, but refrained from openly congratulating his challenger, Peter Magyar. Meanwhile, the Kremlin expressed support for Magyar’s willingness to engage in pragmatic dialogue with Russia, but Budapest was added to the 'unfriendly countries' list.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Trump referred to Orban as "a friend" and praised his approach to immigration. "He was my friend; this was not my choice, but he was a good man. He handled the immigration issue very well. He didn’t allow people to come in and destroy his country, as happened in Italy," Trump said, emphasising Orban's tough stance on immigration.

So far, the US administration has not sent its congratulations to the new Tisza government. Washington heavily backed Orban’s re-election campaign. US Vice President JD Vance was also dispatched to Budapest as a gesture of support for Orbán, underscoring the close alignment between the two political figures, days before the election.

On Fox News, JD Vance expressed confidence that Washington "would certainly be able to work well" with the new leadership, while describing Orbán as a key political partner of the United States in Europe. He said his recent visit to Budapest ahead of the election was intended as a show of support for a leader who had consistently defended US interests in European Union disputes.

Orban was “one of the few European leaders willing to stand up to a European bureaucracy that behaves badly towards the United States”, adding that in some cases he had been the only EU leader to vote in favour of US interests in disputes involving American companies. The vice president acknowledged that pre-election polling had already indicated the possibility of Orban’s defeat but said the visit was justified as a gesture of political support.

He called Orban’s 16-year premiership “transformative,” saying it had fundamentally reshaped Hungary. Despite expressing regret over Orbán’s defeat, he stressed that the United States would maintain strong relations with Hungary and look forward to cooperation with the incoming government.

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov at a press briefing on April 14 said Moscow "positively assesses" the possibility of pragmatic engagement with Hungary, adding that Russia would take its cues from concrete steps taken by the new government. Russia respects the decision of Hungarian voters and seeks to maintain pragmatic relations, but noted that it does not issue formal congratulations to leaders of countries it classifies as "unfriendly".

Hungary was added to that latter category after Peter Magyar defeated pro-Russian leader Viktor Orban in the April 12 elections, RBC-Ukraine noted. Orban was widely seen as Putin’s voice in Europe and repeatedly obstructed European decisions aimed at supporting Ukraine. In the latest election, Orban received full backing from Moscow, which reportedly poured significant resources into boosting the Kremlin-friendly candidate.

Peskov’s comments came after Magyar told international reporters on April 13 that he would not initiate contact with Putin but would accept a phone call if received. The Tisza Party leader also said that, if such a conversation took place, he would urge the Russian president to end the war in Ukraine.

Fielding a question, he described Russia as a security risk for Europe while stressing the need for a pragmatic approach in areas such as energy and economic cooperation. He said a future Hungarian government would aim to diversify energy supplies, although he did not rule out continued imports of Russian energy.

Hungary remains heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas imports, while cooperation with Moscow continues in the expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant, he said.

In related news, Rosatom CEO Alexey Likhachev addressed Magyar’s comments on the Paks 2 nuclear project on April 14, stating the company is ready to justify the project's costs and efficiency. The prime minister-elect, in his first press briefing after the election, called for a review of the contract, citing concerns over overpricing.

Likhachev emphasised that Hungary will benefit from nuclear energy for over 70% of its electricity, boosting energy security and competitiveness. The €12.5bn project, set for completion by 2030-2031, has been developed in collaboration with the IAEA, with all decisions made transparently.

Taking Heart From Hungary to Protect US Elections

Amid Orbán’s takeover of elections, the media, and democratic institutions, the forces of democracy found a way to persevere through public organization and mass outrage. Here’s how we can learn from this during the midterms.


Revellers waving Hungarian flags celebrate the resounding Tisza party win in Hungarian parliamentary elections on April 12, 2026 in Budapest, Hungary.
(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Michael Waldman
Apr 15, 2026
Brennan Center for Justice


This week, autocrat Viktor Orbán conceded defeat in Hungary’s general election. It was a landslide victory for Péter Magyar—and for democracy worldwide.

Over the course of 16 years, Orbán worked to dismantle and undermine democratic institutions. He took control of most news outlets. He rewrote election rules. He replaced judges with loyalists. His government faced numerous corruption scandals, including one surrounding a presidential pardon. He was also a fan favorite of the Trump administration. Our vice president campaigned for him.



‘Hungary Has Chosen Europe’ as Voters End 16 Straight Years of Orbán’s Far-Right Rule


What are the implications of his defeat for democracy in the United States? To be sure, midterm elections often rebuke the party in power, and it’s hard to predict whether this election augurs any November results. But just as Brexit presaged Trump in 2016, worldwide trends are at play. Amid Orbán’s takeover of elections, the media, and democratic institutions, the forces of democracy found a way to persevere through public organization and mass outrage.

In Hungary, one backstop against authoritarian rule has been the European Union. In the United States, perhaps it is the fact that states control elections, largely through a steadfast network of officials across the country who ensure elections are free and fair.

Between now and November, all of us can help make sure election officials know we have their backs.

Today, that network is under immense strain. This week, the Brennan Center released our sixth annual survey of local election officials. It confirmed an alarming pattern: They are worried about the safety and security of the elections they supervise. Half worry about political leaders interfering with how they do their job. Seventy-one percent are actively planning or preparing for potential disruptions. Eighty percent are calling for more funds and support to keep up with election security needs.

These are Republican and Democratic public servants, trying to do their jobs far from the partisan fracas in Washington.

Between FBI raids seizing 2020 election ballots, efforts by the administration to meddle with voting equipment, and federal funding cuts to election security, election officials have many reasons to be alarmed. At the same time, organizations across the country have been working to give election officials the support they need to defend our elections in November.

After the Trump administration gutted the principal federal agency for training election officials and bolstering security, many organizations have jumped in to fill the gap in expertise. The Committee for Safe and Secure Elections, a coalition of current and former election officials and law enforcement, has been offering trainings and tabletop exercises to state and local leaders across the country so they can be prepared for high-stress, legally complex Election Day scenarios and establish lines of communication in case of potential interference.

The Brennan Center has also been working to keep officials informed. We are drafting handbooks for each state that outline relevant laws, suggest scenarios, and help election officials, their counsel, and others who support them to appropriately respond to federal interference

We have also organized a series of courses for hundreds of attorneys who represent election officials to inform them about their rights and responsibilities and to give guidance on how to respond to requests for election data and access to equipment.

There is much more to do. States must step in to fill funding gaps left by the federal government. In the survey, 75% of local election officials said their state or local government has not provided additional resources or funding to address federal cuts. The use of artificial intelligence in elections is also a growing concern that election officials should be informed about.

Between now and November, all of us can help make sure election officials know we have their backs. We can have free and fair, even uneventful, elections this year. We can ensure the perseverance of our democratic institutions. As in Hungary, it will take organization, preparedness, and collaboration.


© 2023 Brennan Center for Justice


Michael Waldman
Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving the systems of democracy and justice.
Full Bio >


IN  BUDAPEST ELECTION NIGHT THE HUNGARIAN MASSES JOYOUSLY SANG WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS



Hungary's right-wing corruption continues — thanks to Trump


Former President Donald Trump (L) and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (R) in August of 2022 (Image: Orbán Viktor / Facebook)

April 15, 2026 
ALTERNET


The humiliating demise of Viktor Orban's authoritarian regime is bracing news for endangered democracies, including our own, but America isn't Hungary. Of the parallels that can be drawn between their despot and ours, the most salient may have been commented on the least -- the overwhelming and unprecedented Mafia-style corruption that enriched the ruling family and entrenched their power.

It was the corruption that motivated Peter Magyar, a lifelong loyal appartchik until two years ago, to break with Orban's Fidesz party and inaugurate the campaign to overthrow the regime. It was the corruption that forced the European Union to act against Budapest by withholding billions in funding and isolating its government. And it was the corruption -- so pervasive in Hungary's media, judiciary and business institutions -- that finally drove otherwise conservative Hungarian voters to reject the crooked outfit that had ruled them for 16 years.

Liberals in Hungary celebrated Magyar's election victory, not necessarily because they agree with the new prime minister on every issue -- they don't -- but because he vowed to clean up Orban's legacy of outrageous theft, to enforce accountability and to strengthen the nation's frayed ties with Europe. Relying on his long experience inside the Fidesz machine, Magyar was able to expose its sleazy deals, including a pardon scandal that embroiled his then-wife, who had served as Orban's justice minister.


Like so much of the criminality perpetrated by Orban and his cronies, that pardon affair echoed a train of remarkably similar offenses in the Trump White House. And as Magyar emphasized throughout his innovative grassroots campaign, the cost of Orban's venality fell on ordinary Hungarians, whose national wealth was siphoned off to enrich the dictatorship's cronies.

According to Akos Hadhazy, a leading voice against corruption as an independent member of Hungary's parliament, the Mafia-style graft perpetrated by the Orban regime has looted more than 2.8 billion euros (over $3.2 billion) annually from public funds. Much of that stolen money came from the EU itself, which played a role in the regime's demise by withholding further funds from suspect projects. Among the reasons to renew ties with Brussels, as Magyar often explained, was to facilitate prosecution of the "Orban Mafia" that stole those EU funds.


The details of the Fidesz government's boodling might almost seem quaint in comparison with the high-tech crypto scams hatched in the Trump White House. Viktor Orban's son-in-law, an entrepreneur named Istvan Tiborcz, became wealthy by forming Elios, a company that won multimillion-euro contracts to upgrade street lighting in cities and towns all over the country. Those contracts were financed by the EU, but as auditors later discovered, the project details were designed to favor Tiborcz's firm and eliminate any competition. In fact, the same officials who oversaw the lighting specifications also wrote the Elios bids.

EU investigators recommended that Hungary void those contracts, claw back the money, and commence legal action against the officials and business executives responsible for the scandal. The crooks in Budapest have been "investigating" that case for the past 11 years.

Meanwhile even more public millions flowed into the accounts of Orban's father, Gyozy, whose real estate development company swelled with government and EU contracts -- and is suspected of serving as a front for Orban himself. This arrangement smacks of the millions in U.S. government funding and related payments that have flowed over the years to the Trump Organization.


Various other Orban cronies -- notably including the chief of his cabinet, Antal Rogan, and his closest friend since childhood, Lorinc Meszaros -- have walked away with enormous fortunes. So brazen was Rogan that the U.S. Treasury sanctioned him in January 2025, during the final weeks of the Biden administration.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control found that Rogan had "orchestrated Hungary's system for distributing public contracts and resources to cronies loyal to himself and the Fidesz political party, (including) schemes designed to control several strategic sectors of the Hungarian economy and to divert proceeds from those sectors to himself and to reward loyalists from his political party."

The Trump administration lifted the U.S. sanctions on Rogan within three months of taking office, as part of its broader abandonment of anticorruption agencies and measures throughout government.


As for Meszaros, he is the richest man in Hungary, sitting atop a fortune estimated at over $3 billion. Having started out as a gas-pipe fitter in 2006, with assets worth less than $42,000, his wealth grew exponentially through state energy and construction deals. When asked how this could have happened, Meszaros modestly attributed his wealth to "God, luck and Viktor Orban."

Americans have long seemed indifferent to the orgy of corruption that has characterized President Donald Trump's career and especially his return to power. Citizens whose news consumption is limited to Fox News, Newsmax and the MAGA media have heard little or nothing about the ways that Trump, his wife and offspring, and their circle of supporters have gorged themselves in one shady deal after another, often at risk to our national security.

Yet somehow, despite a state-controlled Hungarian media universe, Magyar's movement brought the truth about Orban's corruption to the people, who responded with appropriate fury. In this country, Democrats of every persuasion must convey to every American voter that same message about the decadent MAGA movement and its greedy overlord.

Anti-corruption Hungary pulls support for 'scandal plagued' CPAC


NEW YORK, NY - SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 President Donald Trump gestures to emphasize an issue at a press conference held at the Lotte Palace Hotel in the Villard Room. (Shutterstock)
April 14, 2026
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump and CPAC want people to believe they support “America First,” but a recent report reveals that at least the latter received literal funding from the Hungarian government.

But those days are apparently over now that Hungary’s newly elected prime minister, Péter Magyar, has taken the reins. Magyar campaigned on an anti-corruption platform, and has pulled funding from the organization with ties to his corrupt opponent former prime minister Viktor Orbán.

“Scandal-plagued CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp posted in response to Magyar’s comments but didn’t address the payment claims, saying only that he was ‘gratified’ that Magyar ‘has invited us back to have CPAC,’’ reported MS NOW's Ja'han Jones on Tuesday. Upon winning and beginning the transition process, Magyar announced that Hungary had donated to CPAC under Orbán but would no longer.

“It’s easy to see how Orbán’s loss could prove injurious to the MAGA movement in a variety of ways,” Jones reported. “With the downfall of Trump’s favorite authoritarian, the U.S. conservative movement appears to be losing its free rein (and apparently some financing) to use Hungary as an ideological testing ground.”

Indeed, the revelation about Hungary and CPAC only underscores deeper ties between America’s far right and its European counterparts. From Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom and Marine Le Pen in France to Germany’s neo-Nazi AfD party and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Trump has done his past to use his political clout to advance the fortunes of overseas counterparts who are perceived as compatible with his own values and self-interests.

Magyar told CNN that “I believe the state should never have financed them in the first place. It was a crime. Mixing party financing with government spending from the state budget is, in my view, a criminal offense,” he said. "CPAC can come to Budapest. They’re very welcome. But not from Hungarian taxpayers’ money. From Fidesz’s money, or Orbán’s buddies’ money — before we take it back."

This is not the first time CPAC has recently had egg on its face. Last month Trump decided not to attend the organization’s annual event for the first time in a decade, allowing the usually pro-Trump event to air grievances against a president from their own party. According to The Conversation, the event demonstrated the overall fizzling of enthusiasm for the MAGA movement.

“There is a pall over the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement,” The Conversation wrote. “Donald Trump overpromised. His public support has fallen. Some “America First” die-hards now openly criticize him.”

They added, “Amid war, economic challenges, democratic backsliding, the Epstein files and Americans shot dead in the street by government agents, Trump’s support is softening and his vow to bring a ‘golden age of America’ is looking more like a political winter for Trump and his MAGA movement.”


Op-Ed

Orbán’s Defeat in Hungary Signals Far Right’s Weakness, Not the Left’s Strength

Magyar’s win is a significant loss for the far right, but he has not provided a vision for a progressive future.

April 14, 2026

Peter Magyar, who unseated Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, speaks to supporters after polling stations closed during Hungarian parliamentary elections on April 12, 2026, in Budapest, Hungary.Janos Kummer / Getty Images

According to most mainstream media accounts, a “political earthquake” has taken place in Hungary. The European far right’s poster boy and MAGA darling Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was defeated in a landslide on Sunday by political upstart Péter Magyar. The outcome of this election is indeed politically significant, as the ousting of Orbán by Hungarian voters will curtail Donald Trump’s foreign policy efforts to undermine the European Union (EU) by using Hungary as a Trojan horse in Brussels.

The Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that it wants to see a “nationalistic” Europe ruled by far right leaders. Its real interests, however, lie in weakening the EU as part of Washington’s new national security strategy in which the U.S. reasserts itself as a global hegemon. In forging a new world order, the Trump administration wants allies who are obedient subordinates. Trump’s support for Orbán was not based solely on ideological grounds but was also driven by a specific strategy for Europe, one in which the continent was to be subordinated to the interests of U.S. imperialism.

That said, the key question is this: Could the end of Orbán’s 16-year reign also mark the beginning of the end of the far right’s modern political surge? Indeed, the far right has faced other major setbacks across Europe in recent days and Donald Trump’s approval rating in the U.S. has taken a significant hit in recent surveys. The problem with concluding that the defeat of Orbán somehow represents the start of a new political era marked by the decline of right-wing authoritarianism, however, is that while the far right may currently be experiencing setbacks, the left is still struggling to articulate an alternative vision attractive enough to capture the public’s interest.

Moreover, the winner of Hungary’s so-called historic election is a former Orbán loyalist who ran on a pledge to rebuild Hungary’s relationships with the EU and NATO. Magyar also campaigned on an anti-corruption and anti-state-capture platform, which is rather typical of every mainstream politician in central and eastern Europe, but it is highly unlikely that he will shift away from Orbán’s reactionary policies on immigration. In fact, as researchers Eric Maurice and Levente Kocsis have shown, Magyar’s Tisza party’s voting behavior in the European Parliament reveals a strong convergence with Orbán’s own Fidesz party on “politically sensitive issues” such as Ukraine and immigration and “opposing language on rights and equality.” And while Magyar has spoken of wanting to move Hungary closer to the EU, he has avoided taking a clear stance on LGBTQ+ rights. This is hardly a political vision for a progressive future.

Since the early 2010s, far right parties and movements have gained significant political traction throughout Europe. Their success has been driven by a variety of social, economic, political, and cultural factors, just as in the case of the MAGA movement in the United States. Using radical and forthright political rhetoric to take advantage of ordinary people’s concerns and fears over the consequences of neoliberal globalization, as well as the impotence of liberal and socialist parties in articulating a meaningful socioeconomic alternative, far-right leaders have been able to connect with the politically discontent among working- and middle-class voters as well as younger generations. In this context, quasi-fascist demagoguery, once considered a political taboo in postwar Western polities, has emerged as an ideological weapon designed to alter political norms and “transform the morally extraordinary into the ordinary,” as Jason Stanley put it in his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.

A loss for one European far-right party is not necessarily a win for the European and global left.

Viktor Orbán’s first term as prime minister of Hungary was from 1998 to 2002, but it was during his second term, starting in 2010, that he emerged as a strongman leader. Since then, he and his party, Fidesz, promoted the most successful variant of right-wing authoritarianism in the West by dismantling the country’s legal system and suppressing opposition. His government did so by winning four straight elections. This is no small feat and speaks volumes of the power of demagoguery in capitalist societies. Orbán’s political rhetoric relied on the spread of fear and misinformation, proving yet again that democracy erodes from the top. He kept hammering away at the EU’s approach to immigration, which he claimed threatened Hungary’s national sovereignty and cultural identity. But he also differentiated between migrants from other Eastern European countries and those from the Middle East and Africa, as well as between Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants. He described Muslim migration as an “invasion.” This anti-migration position, playing on the racist fears of the population, undoubtedly helped Orbán win successive elections.

But it was Orbánomics, a form of economic nationalism, that motivated Hungarian voters to keep reelecting Orbán and his Fidesz party. Using unorthodox economic policies, Orbán succeeded in reducing unemployment and stimulating growth under favorable economic conditions. He also placed families with children at the center of his economic policy by offering various tax benefits and a long line of subsidies. At the same time, the economy shifted under his reign to a form of crony capitalism that had detrimental effects on economic performance and increased corruption. From 2020 to 2025, the Hungarian economy experienced significant decline and entered a period of “stable stagnation.” Orbánomics had reached the end of the line and Hungarian voters were finally ready to ditch Orbán and his Fidesz for a new government.

The election of Péter Magyar does not appear to represent an ideological shift among Hungarian voters. Magyar is not a liberal, let alone a progressive. Aside from his stance toward the EU, he did not directly challenge Orbán’s policy agenda during his campaign but simply confined himself to talking about corruption and governance. It isn’t even clear that his position on the Ukraine war will be any different from Orbán’s, or that he will stand up to Trump.

That said, the political elite of the EU are surely elated over Magyar’s election. They will most likely show their satisfaction with the electoral outcome in Hungary by releasing frozen funds.

All in all, it is too early to draw conclusions about the consequences of Hungary’s election for the EU and the U.S., as well as for the political fortunes of the global far right. But it is essential to add that a loss for one European far-right party is not necessarily a win for the European and global left.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


C.J. Polychroniou


C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a columnist for Global Policy Journal and a regular contributor to Truthout. He has published scores of books, including Marxist Perspectives on Imperialism: A Theoretical Analysis; Perspectives and Issues in International Political Economy (ed.); and Socialism: Crisis and Renewal (ed.), and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021); Illegitimate Authority: Facing the Challenges of Our Time (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2023); and A Livable Future Is Possible: Confronting the Threats to Our Survival (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2024)
Minnesota Prosecutor Probes ICE Arrest of Saint Paul Resident as Possible Abduction

Officials, said one observer, “are finally starting to call the terror ICE is inflicting on communities what it actually is: kidnapping.”




US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents approach a house before detaining two people on January 13, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)


Julia Conley
Apr 14, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Prosecutors in Minnesota are investigating whether some of the most infamous images of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities earlier this year actually captured a kidnapping, when US citizen ChongLy “Scott” Thao was filmed being taken from his home by federal agents in freezing temperatures, wearing only his underwear with a blanket wrapped around him.

Ramsey Country Attorney John Choi, whose jurisdiction covers Saint Paul, where Thao was arrested in January, said at a press conference Monday that he has requested information from the Department of Homeland Security about the man’s arrest.



Minnesota Sues Trump Admin Over Killings of Good and Pretti, Shooting of Sosa-Celis



‘The Agents Were Lying’: ICE Exposed Yet Again by Video of Minneapolis Shooting

“There are many facts we don’t know yet, but there’s one that we do know. And that is that Mr. Thao is and has been an American citizen. There’s not a dispute over that,” Sheriff Bob Fletcher said at the press conference.

The officials said they are investigating whether the agents could face criminal charges for kidnapping, burglary, and false imprisonment.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrived without a warrant at the home Thao shares with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year-old grandson on January 18 and forced their way in, brandishing their guns at the family as they handcuffed Thao.

They did not allow Thao’s daughter-in-law to get proof of his citizenship. The 56-year-old has been a US citizen for decades after his mother fled Laos in the 1970s.

“We believe there was no legitimate legal reason for the federal agents to enter that home, it was not supported by probable cause,” said Choi.

Without giving him a chance to get dressed, the agents then hauled Thao out of his home into the 14°F temperatures as his neighbors yelled and blew whistles at the officers, demanding his release.



They drove him around for nearly an hour before arriving at a remote area and demanding that he get out of the car and show his ID—which he hadn’t been allowed to bring. They determined he was a US citizen with no criminal record and drove him back home.

Fletcher said federal agents switched the license plates of the vehicle used during the arrest, violating Minnesota law and leaving authorities with no knowledge of the identities of the officers who arrested Thao.

“There’s no dispute that he was taken out of his house, forcibly taken out of his home, and driven around,” said Fletcher at the press conference. “Is that good law enforcement, to take an American citizen out of their home and drive them around aimlessly, trying to determine what they can tell them?’”

One observer said the officials “are finally starting to call the terror ICE is inflicting on communities what it actually is: kidnapping.”

“If regular people did this, they’d be in prison,” they said. “So why aren’t the agents?”

In keeping with the Trump administration’s response to widespread condemnation of its immigration crackdown and the conduct of its federal agents, DHS told The New York Times that Choi’s investigation into the arrest was “a political stunt to demonize ICE law enforcement.”

The agency has claimed the officers were looking for two convicted sex offenders, one of whom has reportedly been in state prison since 2024.

Choi said Monday that there is no evidence the federal agents had a judicial warrant to enter Thao’s home. The arrest took place days before a whistleblower group reported on an ICE memo which claimed that according to the DHS Office of the General Counsel, “the US Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants” in order to enter a home to make an arrest.

Legal experts have said the memo directly contradicts the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.