KTBB News, Weather, Talk

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration likes to promote its immigration enforcement agenda through numbers, with ambitious goals to deport 1 million people, report zero releases at the U.S.-Mexico border and arrest thousands of alleged gang members.

For all the boasting, the administration has been releasing less reliable, carefully vetted data than its predecessors on a signature policy that has become one of the most contentious of Trump’s second term.

The gap in information and a loss of figures from an office that has tracked immigration data back to the 1800s have left researchers, advocates, lawyers and journalists without important statistics to hold the Republican administration to account.

“They aren’t publishing the data,” said Mike Howell, who heads the conservative Oversight Project, an advocacy group pushing for more deportations. Instead, Howell said, the Department of Homeland Security has put out numbers in news releases “that purport to be statistics with no statistical backup and the numbers have jumped all over the place.”

With mass deportations a priority, new restrictions and increased enforcement have led to a surge in immigration arrests, detentions and deportations.

But finding the metrics that once measured those changes can be hard. It is an extension of earlier administration moves to limit the flow of government information by scrubbing or removing federal datasets or by the firing last year of the top official overseeing jobs data.

Important data is no longer publicly available

The Office of Homeland Security Statistics is responsible for publishing figures from Homeland Security agencies, including removals and the nationalities of those deported, to provide a comprehensive picture of immigration trends at the border and inside the United States.

Originally known as the Office of Immigration Statistics, it tracked such data since 1872. In its current form, created under the Biden administration, it also started publishing monthly reports that allowed researchers to track developments almost in real time.

But key enforcement metrics on its website have not been updated since early last year. A note on the page where the monthly reports were says it “is delayed while it is under review.”

“It’s the most timely data. It’s the most reliable data,” Austin Kocher, research professor at Syracuse University who closely follows immigration data trends, said about the monthly reports. “It has the most omniscient view of immigration enforcement across the entire agency.”

An interactive dashboard launched by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in December 2023 once let users examine whom the agency was arresting, their nationalities, criminal histories and removal numbers. ICE called it a “new era in transparency.”

Though intended for quarterly updates, the latest data is from January 2025. The agency’s annual report, typically released in December, had not been published as of mid-March.

Other agencies also publish data that touches on immigration, and parts of it do continue to roll out, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics detailing border encounters or data from the Department of Justice’s immigration courts.

But experts say other data has slowed.

The State Department’s most recent visa issuance data is from August. Key statistics from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have not been updated since October.

The now-missing data had helped researchers study the effects of different policies. Lawyers could cite the figures to support their litigation. Journalists saw in them a powerful tool to hold the government to account on public claims or to report on important trends.

“We’re all a little bit in the dark about exactly how immigration enforcement is operating at a time when it’s taking new and unprecedented forms,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.

DHS did not respond to detailed questions about why it was no longer releasing specific data.

“This is the most transparent Administration in history, we release new data multiple times a week and upon reporter request,” the department said in a statement.

Researchers contend with a patchwork of numbers

Figures the administration has released are inconsistent and unverifiable.

In a Jan. 20 news release, DHS said it had deported more than 675,000 people since Trump returned to the White House. A day later, in a second release, the department put the figure at 622,000. In congressional testimony March 4, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the figure was 700,000.

But ICE, an agency within DHS, also releases figures on how many people it has removed from the country, part of a large data release mandated by Congress. An Associated Press analysis of the figures put that number at roughly 400,000 over Trump’s first year.

DHS has said 2.2 million people who were in the U.S. illegally have gone home on their own, but the department has given no explanation for the count. Experts have questioned the source of that figure, saying this was not something that DHS historically has tracked.

The department did not respond to questions about where that data came from.

With key sources of data halted, researchers, advocates and others have had to rely on information the administration is obliged to report or that has come to light through legal action.

The publication of ICE detention figures — how many people are detained, for how long and whether they have committed a crime — is required by Congress and is generally released every two weeks. But the figures’ release has faced some delays and its data gets overwritten with every new publication, complicating the work of people who need access to it.

The University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project, a research initiative, successfully sued through the Freedom of Information Act to access data about ICE arrests including nationalities, conviction status and whether arrests occurred at jails or in the community.

Graeme Blair, co-director of the project, said every administration has struggled with transparency in immigration enforcement, and given the Trump administration’s ambitious enforcement goals, the team wanted to secure and verify information that the government might not publicly release.

“Given the scale of what they were talking about doing, it seemed really important to be able to understand, to be able to double check those numbers,” he said.

But there are limitations, he said. The data obtained through the lawsuit only runs through Oct. 15. It does not cover recent operations such as the Minneapolis enforcement surge, when federal immigration officers fatally shot two protesters, leading to widespread demonstrations and scrutiny of enforcement tactics.

The absence of data is one of the few issues that has drawn bipartisan criticism.

“We deserve to know the numbers, just like we deserve to know who’s in our country and who needs to leave,” Howell said.

LONE STAR, Texas (KETK)– Officials have responded to the scene of an oil spill that happened in the Ellison Creek Reservoir on Friday night in Lone Star.

Brianna McClain, the Mayor of Lone Star, said the city is aware of the leak. Morris County Judge Doug Reeder said the the oil well company involved with the leak has been identified and that there’s no ongoing leak or spill as of Saturday morning.

Reeder added that some areas of the lake may pose a threat to the public until they finish cleaning up the the spilled oil. Texas Game Wardens are currently inspecting the lake and are taking water and soil samples to further investigate.

“Please be advised that some areas of the lake may pose a risk at this time. Proceed with caution until more information is gathered,” Reeder said.

The public is also being advised to avoid Mayor’s Cove and the City’s boat ramp on the south end of the reservoir, since that area has been closed until further notice, according to Reeder.

“The safety of our residents, lake users and local wildlife is extremely important to us,” McClain said. “We will continue to monitor the situation closely and provide updates as more information becomes available.”

DALLAS (AP) – Jet fuel prices are rising as the war in the Middle East disrupts global oil supplies, putting cost pressure on airlines as the busy summer travel season approaches.

Experts say it’s not a question of if airfares will go up, but when, for how long and by how much. The impact may be felt most on long-haul international routes, which burn significantly more fuel than shorter flights.

Some airlines outside of the U.S. have announced fare increases or fuel surcharges in an effort to offset the growing expense. In the U.S., United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby recently warned that airfare increases will “probably start quick” as increasing fuel costs work their way through the industry.

Why are jet fuel prices rising?

The war is constraining oil exports and prompting major producers like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq to scale back output as shipments face growing obstacles.

Iran has attacked commercial ships across the Persian Gulf and targeted oil infrastructure in Gulf Arab nations following U.S. and Israeli strikes. The attacks have effectively halted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage that carries about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.

The volatile crude oil prices causing retail gasoline prices to swing up sharply have had the same effect on the price of jet fuel. The average price in the U.S. reached $3.99 per gallon on Friday, up from $2.50 the day before the war started two weeks ago, according to the Argus U.S. Jet Fuel Index. The index tracks the average price airlines pay for jet fuel across major U.S. airports.

Figures from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics show that U.S. airlines paid about $2.36 per gallon for fuel in January, the most recent data available.

What does it mean for airlines?

Some airlines are partially protected from sudden price spikes through fuel hedging, a strategy that allows them to lock in fuel prices months or even years in advance. But not all airlines hedge, and those that do are usually only protected for a portion of their fuel needs, meaning prolonged price surges may cause more carriers to raise fares.

“No one hedges anymore, and even if you do, hedging the crack spread is really hard to do,” Kirby said at a Harvard event last week. The crack spread is the difference between the price of crude oil and the price of products produced from it, like gasoline.

Another factor for airlines: Air space closures have required rerouting flights around parts of the Middle East, which can mean longer routes, additional fuel burn and higher operating costs.

What does it mean for travelers?

Travelers may feel the impact in several ways.

Airlines can add or increase fuel surcharges, an extra fee common among carriers outside of the U.S. that’s added on top of the base ticket price.

Major U.S. carriers, however, don’t charge a separate fuel surcharge. Instead, they build fuel costs into the overall ticket price, meaning any increase is more likely to show up as a higher base fare for travelers, according to Tyler Hosford, security director at global risk management firm International SOS.

Airlines also may adjust what they charge for premium add-ons — such as seat upgrades, extra legroom seats, checked bags or priority boarding — as another way to offset higher operating costs. For consumers, that means even if the base fare doesn’t rise immediately, the total cost of a trip could still increase once additional fees and upgrades are factored in.

If higher fuel prices persist, airlines may also adjust schedules or reduce certain routes, said Christopher Anderson, a professor at Cornell University’s business school whose research includes operations and information management in the hospitality and airline industries.

How high could airfares climb?

It’s difficult to predict exactly how much ticket prices could increase as a result of costlier oil and fuel. Industry analysts say the impact of higher jet fuel costs can vary based on the route, airline and travel demand.

Fuel typically accounts for 20% to 25% of an airline’s operating costs, making it the second-largest expense after labor, according to Rob Britton, an adjunct marketing professor at Georgetown University and retired American Airlines executive. A sharp rise in fuel prices therefore can have a major impact on airlines’ budgets.

Which airlines have announced price hikes?

So far, most fare increases and fuel surcharges are coming from airlines based in the Asia-Pacific region, but experts expect more airlines — especially those without fuel hedging — to follow if high jet fuel prices persist.

Hong Kong’s flag carrier, Cathay Pacific, said it would increase its fuel surcharge starting Wednesday.

“The price of jet fuel has approximately doubled since March amid the latest developments in the Middle East,” the airline said in a statement Thursday.

Other airlines with price increases or new surcharges include:

— Air France-KLM said roundtrip economy fares on long-haul flights could rise by about 50 euros (about $57).

— Air India introduced fuel surcharges Thursday on certain routes. After March 18, the carrier says the surcharge will increase by up to $50 for all tickets to Europe, North America and Australia.

— Hong Kong Airlines increased fuel surcharges across several routes as of Thursday.

— FlySafair in South Africa announced a temporary fuel surcharge

What can travelers do to keep costs down?

Experts say travelers planning summer trips may be able to limit the impact of rising airfares by booking earlier rather than waiting for last-minute deals.

Locking in ticket prices sooner — especially with flexible booking options that allow changes — can help secure lower prices before airlines adjust rates further.

Hosford, the security director at International SOS, suggests travelers stay flexible with travel dates, check fares at nearby airports and set alerts for price drops. He also recommends using frequent flyer miles or credit card points to book flights instead of holding out for a “perfect deal.”

“If you were going to spend cash on the flight but now you’re not, then that’s a good redemption deal,” he said.

If Texas wants to continue to be a leader in oil, the Permian Basin needs more energy.

That’s the warning influential trade groups representing oil companies have been telling state lawmakers and regulators for years.

A dearth of power plants and transmission lines connecting the region to the rest of the state’s grid means there isn’t enough electricity to power field operations, such as compressors and oil pumps.

In 2023, lawmakers offered a solution that spelled out a dramatic expansion of electricity transmission infrastructure in the Permian Basin, the state’s biggest oil field.

“Texas’ thriving production is driving the state’s success,” the Texas Oil and Gas Association, a statewide trade group whose membership makes up roughly 90% of the state’s crude oil and natural gas market, wrote to regulators charged with designing that plan. “And a reliable electricity supply is crucial to sustaining this industry.”

The industry’s advocacy has been successful. Costing upward of $13 billion, the Permian Basin Reliability Plan is now at the final stages of administrative review and public input before construction can begin, which could be as soon as next year, some observers say.

But the most recent blueprints of the plan — which include building the state’s biggest transmission line through the Texas Hill Country — have spurred opposition from a coalition of landowner and conservative groups and a handful of lawmakers who are asking regulators to pump the brakes.

Groups opposing the state’s plan worry that construction along beloved landscapes and rivers will damage the environment and usher in higher costs for ratepayers. A solution, they said, would be for regulators to revisit their plans.

“We understand the Permian Basin needs reliability,” said Jada Jo Smith, president of the Hill Country Preservation Coalition, a group composed of landowners and conservationists. “We’re not saying we don’t understand it needs to happen, we’re just saying do it the right way. The process needs to be carefully thought out.”

Industry leaders said oil companies can’t afford to wait. Oil and gas production has skyrocketed in Texas, a milestone that industry leaders said has also become a bottleneck. The West Texas oil fields lack adequate infrastructure to import large volumes of electricity to maintain momentum.

“To be very blunt, in order for Texas to continue to be the beacon for economic growth it must develop these projects in a timely fashion,” said Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. “And the greatest risk of failure for the Permian Basin Reliability Plan is for these necessary projects to falter under any sort of delay.”

In 2024, the Texas Oil and Gas Association said its members had a blockbuster year, a milestone accompanied by a looming risk: electricity.

The available infrastructure was, the Petroleum Association told the Public Utility Commission in a letter, “years behind the electrical needs of the industry.”

Over the next two years, the utility commission, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s main grid manager, and the oil and gas industry debated whether construction should be split into two phases or built all at once.

Fulfilling the wishes of the oil and gas industry and the industrial sector, the utility commission partially approved ERCOT’s proposal to build or improve 260 transmission lines across Texas by 2038. That plan includes three major transmission lines, otherwise called import paths, one of which would transport electricity from east to west. These lines, called 765 kV lines, can carry more electricity than any other line that currently exists in Texas. It will cost nearly $14 billion, a cost that ratepayers are expected to cover.

“One thing our members have recognized is the need for these transmission projects to move without delay,” said Shepherd, the Petroleum Association’s president. “For years, the demand for this infrastructure has far outpaced construction and while we have long said we are agnostic about the voltage, routes, or other considerations, we are deeply concerned about delays, given that these projects have been needed for the better part of the last decade.”

State Rep. Charlie Geren, the Fort Worth Republican who wrote the bill, agreed, telling the utility commission in a 2024 letter not to phase out the project.

“I want to make it clear that it is my legislative intent that HB 5066 be fully implemented and should not be held up or delayed by the discussion of higher voltage lines for the state,” Geren wrote.

Geren did not respond to an interview request.

Regulators at the utility commission have greenlit most of the 260 proposed projects. But the utility commission has yet to fully approve 33 of the biggest, most controversial proposals of the expansion package. The six companies that proposed the projects still require the final stamp of approval, which includes public input.

Multiple groups — conservative policy analysts and grassroots movements — have already begun urging the utility commission to reconsider a proposed path through the Devil’s River in the Texas Hill Country. And now they’re getting a boost from state lawmakers.

The groups argue that the project is moving too fast and costs too much, and hope their advocacy will result in proposals for other routes and additional studies.

Brent Bennett, a policy director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, said another factor driving up the demand is data centers. He said the evidence of that demand comes from studies relying on speculation, as many of the projects have not been built or connected to the state’s grid, but rather state they intend to.

“I think eventually, if the demand comes, we’re going to need them,” Bennett said of the transmission lines. “But how soon do we have to build them? And can we do this in a more phased, less disruptive manner?”

Residents have already begun organizing to try to stop the project in the Hill Country, where a network of rivers cuts through rolling hills and grassland in Central Texas. The region has a storied camping culture spanning generations. Now it’s the site of gatherings in protests and town halls. The project, residents of the area argue, could devastate the landscape.

“We just started thinking, ‘Gosh, this is going to be devastating for these areas that they’re proposing,’” said Smith, of the conservation group whose coalition consists of 48,000 people, including 17 other organizations. “All of these areas, their livelihood depends on rivers in the summer and hunting in the winter, and these proposed routes really threaten that.”

Some lawmakers — including those who previously supported the legislation — agree. At least five of them, whose districts are in areas where the transmission line would pass through, wrote a letter to the utility commission in January, asking regulators to reevaluate their plans. Two of them — state Reps. West Virdell, R-Kerrville, and Don McLaughlin, R-Laredo — had not been elected when the bill was passed. State Rep. Eddie Morales, D-Eagle Pass, and Sens. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, and Pete Flores, R-Llano, voted for the bill.

“We have each heard from hundreds of constituents, along with business organizations, local officials, and conservation groups, expressing significant concerns about the potential impacts of this project,” the letter said. “Given the magnitude of this project, we believe additional time is necessary to fully evaluate the most responsible path and consider new transmission route links that will avoid pristine river basins, minimize land fragmentation, reduce ecological harm, protect sensitive water resources, and ensure meaningful public engagement.”

In a statement to The Texas Tribune, Morales said at the time, new transmission lines were vital for lawmakers to address. Morales represents the Devils River State Natural Area located in Val Verde County.

“This line will be built, and Texas will benefit from it,” he said. “However, I am urging the PUC to recognize the importance of preserving this pristine landscape and reject the possibility of a proposed line to cut through this region.”

The other lawmakers did not respond to an interview request.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas told the Tribune it has received four applications for 765 kV projects. Additional details on those projects and applications are available on the agency’s website. Residents can protest the projects or apply to intervene in the proceedings. The utility commission has 180 days from the date the applications are filed to approve, modify, or deny them. The process involves legal proceedings before the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

“The PUCT’s Office of Public Engagement has attended public meetings, conducted informational briefings with state legislators to inform the public of these proceedings, and fielded over 135 calls from consumers,” a spokesperson for the utility commission said. “The (transmission service providers) responsible for each project conduct the majority of public outreach and have been hosting multiple open houses for each project in their service areas.”

___

Disclosure: Ben Shepperd, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Oil & Gas Association and Texas Public Policy Foundation have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

___

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency proposed Friday to weaken air pollution limits on a chemical used to sterilize medical equipment, a move that would reverse a Biden administration finding of high cancer risks at manufacturing facilities that use ethylene oxide to clean medical devices like catheters and syringes.

The EPA said it is concerned that the current Biden-era standards “actively threaten” manufacturers’ abilities to sterilize equipment and “jeopardize one of America’s only options for a secure domestic supply chain of essential medical equipment.”

Ethylene oxide plays a crucial role in sterilizing lifesaving medical devices, including pacemakers and syringes, but long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other types of cancer among people who work at medical sterilization facilities or live nearby.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the proposed rule shows the agency’s commitment to protecting people’s health while maintaining a stable domestic medical supply chain.

“The Trump EPA is committed to ensuring life-saving medical devices remain available for the critical care of America’s children, elderly and all patients without unnecessary exposure to communities,” he said in a statement.

The proposal is the latest in a series of moves by the EPA under President Donald Trump to relax pollution limits and lower costs for industry. In February alone, the agency weakened restrictions on mercury from coal-burning power plants and repealed a scientific finding that served as the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

An EPA rule finalized in 2024 was intended to reduce ethylene oxide emissions by about 90% by targeting nearly 90 commercial sterilization facilities across the country. The Biden-era rule also required companies to test for the antimicrobial chemical in the air and ensure their pollution controls are functioning properly.

The American Lung Association called the proposed rule change unacceptable.

“The science shows that both short-term and long-term exposure to ethylene oxide is dangerous for health,” said Laura Kate Bender, the association’s vice president. “People who live near many commercial sterilization facilities are much more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes. No one should have to live with elevated cancer risk because of air pollution in their community.”

Environmental justice advocates noted that many ethylene oxide facilities are located in minority communities where Black and Brown people have been exposed to the cancer-causing chemical.

Ethylene oxide, also known as EtO, is a gas used to sterilize roughly half of all medical devices and is also used to ensure the safety of certain spices and other food products. It is used to clean everything from catheters to syringes, pacemakers and plastic surgical gowns. Brief exposure isn’t considered a danger, but breathing it long term elevates the risk of breast cancer and lymphoma, the EPA said.

The EPA first classified ethylene oxide as a human carcinogen in 2016.

In 2022, the EPA laid out the risks faced by residents who live near medical sterilization facilities. In Laredo, Texas, for example, residents and activists fought to clean up a sterilization facility run by Missouri-based Midwest Sterilization Corp. It was one of 23 sterilizers in the United States that the EPA said posed a risk for people nearby.

Sterigenics, a major sterilization company, shuttered a medical sterilization plant in a Chicago suburb after monitoring found emissions spikes in nearby neighborhoods. They eventually settled numerous lawsuits.

Scott Whitaker, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, said medical sterilizers provide a vital service and many devices can’t be sterilized by any other method.

“We appreciate the EPA’s efforts in listening to and understanding the importance of supplying safe, sterile medical technology without interruption while protecting employees and communities near sterilization facilities,” he said in an email.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who has raised concerns about emissions at a Sterigenics plant southeast of Los Angeles, said Friday that “the EPA is moving in the wrong direction and putting more Americans’ health on the line.”

___

Associated Press writer Dorany Pineda in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

DALLAS (AP) — A federal jury on Friday convicted eight people on terrorism charges over a shooting at a Texas immigration facility that federal prosecutors tied to antifa, the decentralized far-left movement that has become a target of the Trump administration.

One person was also found guilty of attempted murder after prosecutors say he opened fire last summer outside the Prairieland Detention Center outside of Fort Worth, wounding a police officer. The Justice Department called the violence an attack plotted by antifa operatives but attorneys for the accused denied that characterization, saying there were no antifa associations and that it was merely a demonstration with fireworks before gunshots broke out.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, an appointee of President Donald Trump, presided over the nearly three-week trial in Fort Worth. It was closely followed by legal experts and critics who called the proceedings a test of the lengths the government can go to punish protesters.

FBI Director Kash Patel had said the case was the first time charges of providing material support to terrorists had targeted people accused of being antifa members.

“Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
Protesters denied having antifa ties

Defense attorneys told jurors that there was no plan for violence on July 4 outside the facility in Alvarado.

There were nine defendants on trial in all, eight of whom faced the charge of providing material support to terrorists, among other charges. The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was charged with corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. He was found guilty of both.

Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said he can’t believe jurors “came to this conclusion.” Weinbel said he has deployed as a member of the Army several times in the defense of the U.S. and he’d hoped what he sacrificed “meant something.”

“But I feel like it turned its back on justice with this. … The U.S. lost today with this verdict,” Weinbel said.

Prosecutor Shawn Smith told jurors during closing arguments that the group’s actions — including bringing firearms, first aid kids and wearing body armor — were all signals of the group having a nefarious intent. He said they practiced “antifa tactics,” and were “obsessed with operational security.”

Attorneys for the defendants have said there was no planned ambush and that protesters who brought firearms only did so for their own protection.
First-of-its-kind case tests First Amendment rights

The terrorism charges followed Trump’s order last fall to designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Those charges did not require a tie to any organization, and there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations. That’s in part because organizations operating within the United States are protected by broad First Amendment rights.

Critics of the Justice Department’s case have said the outcome could have wide-reaching effects on protests.

“That opposition is something that the government wants to squash so a case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” said Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive legal group.
Trial focused on shots fired outside detention center

Attorneys for the defendants have said most protesters began leaving when two guards from the center came outside. That was before any shots were fired.

Prosecutors said Benjamin Song, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist, yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking one police officer who had just pulled up to the center.

Though it was Song who opened fire, prosecutors charged several other protesters with attempted murder of an officer and discharging a firearm as well but they were found not guilty. The prosecution had argued that from the group’s planning, it was foreseeable to those others that a shooting could happen.

The officer who was shot, Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, testified that when responding to the scene he saw a person clad in all-black with their face covered and carrying a rifle. He told jurors he was shot with a round that went into his shoulder and out of his neck.

Song’s attorney, Phillip Hayes, told jurors during closing arguments that there wasn’t a call to arms before Gross arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. Hayes suggested that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet is what hit the officer.

Leading up to the trial, several people pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists after being accused of supporting antifa. They face up to 15 years in prison at sentencing.

Some of them testified for the prosecution, including Seth Sikes, who said he went to detention center because he wanted to bring some joy to those held inside.

“I felt like I was doing the right thing,” he said.

___

Associated Press reporter Jim Vertuno contributed from Austin, Texas.

EL PASO (AP) – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is terminating the contractor running its largest detention facility and replacing it with a more experienced firm that will work to improve medical care and other services, the agency said Friday.

The contractor switch at Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, comes as it faces scrutiny over living conditions that detainees have described as inhumane since its hasty construction and opening last year.

With an average of nearly 3,000 detainees in six long tent encampments, evidence has mounted to support claims of overcrowding, medical neglect, malnutrition and emotional distress. An outbreak of measles also recently hit the camp, which several Democratic members of Congress have called for closing.

Detainees say they struggle to obtain medication and health care, have lost significant amounts of weight because of a lack of food, and live in fear of security guards known to use force. At least 130 calls to 911 were made in the camp’s first five months, which included two deaths, several suicide attempts, fights and medical emergencies, The Associated Press reported last week.

Acquisition Logistics, LLC, the ousted prime contractor, had been awarded a deal last year worth up to $1.3 billion to build and manage the camp at U.S. Army base Fort Bliss. It had no prior experience running an ICE detention facility, had never won a federal contract worth more than $16 million and lacked a functioning website.

ICE has selected Amentum Services, Inc., which has worked as a subcontractor at Camp East Montana, as the new prime contractor, according to a federal notice published Wednesday and an agency spokesperson who did not provide their name. The Washington Post reported the switch of contractors on Wednesday.

The spokesperson did not say what prompted the termination of Acquisition Logistics’ contract, which records show had been set to run until Sept. 30, 2027, and has caused the government to commit nearly $600 million so far.

ICE has said it recently completed an inspection of conditions at Camp East Montana, but the findings have not been made public. Acquisition Logistics and its president and CEO Ken Wagner didn’t immediately return messages seeking comment.

ICE said Amentum, known for its work with the military and intelligence agencies, was best suited to take over and improve operations.

“Amentum’s size, maturity and pedigree make them the right partner at the right time,” the spokesperson said. “We will work closely with them in their implementation of higher standards of medical care, more thorough case processing and intake procedures, and delivery of performance requirements according to well-defined accountability measures.”

Rep. Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat whose district includes the camp, expressed relief Friday that Acquisition Logistics had been replaced. She reiterated her calls for the facility to be shut down and for the contractors involved to be investigated for “the fraud they’ve perpetrated on the American taxpayer.”

“Whether the new contractor is an improvement remains to be seen, and I remain deeply concerned about the chronic substandard conditions that exist at Camp East Montana,” said Escobar, who has toured the facility seven times.

Based in Chantilly, Virginia, Amentum’s parent company describes itself as a “global advanced engineering and technology solutions provider” serving U.S. government agencies and other customers. The company has provided services for ICE and other Department of Homeland Security divisions in the past.

The notice published in a contracting database said ICE was negotiating a no-bid contract with Amentum to run Camp East Montana, including providing secure housing, medical care and transportation. It indicated the contract would last 180 days, and it’s unclear what would happen to Camp East Montana after that period.

“The contractor must demonstrate the capacity for rapid operational transition and sustained adherence to all regulatory and performance requirements, thereby safeguarding public safety and supporting national enforcement priorities,” the notice said.

Citing the “proprietary nature” of the camp’s infrastructure, the notice said no vendor other than Amentum could provide uninterrupted services there.

The facility is intended for short-term stays before detainees are shipped out, and the average stay has been nine days, according to ICE data. But some detainees have been kept for weeks or months while they challenge their detention or experience logistical problems related to their pending deportations.

The switch comes as ICE plans to operate warehouses across the country to hold far more detainees at single locations than Camp East Montana, with plans calling for some sites to have up to 8,500. Escobar called on ICE not to open the warehouses, including one planned near El Paso, that she said would “serve only as tools for the administration’s inhumanity.”