Weather

86°F5:20 PM

Politics

1 read

DHS Acknowledges Errors in Controversial Immigrant Arrests Website

KVIA•Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 7:46 PM•CNN Newsource

Government building representing politics and policy news

Want the full story?

Read the complete article at KVIA

AI Summary

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has admitted that its website showcasing what it calls the 'worst of the worst' immigrants contained significant inaccuracies. Launched in December, the site lists approximately 25,000 individuals along with their alleged crimes, but DHS acknowledged that many descriptions were incorrect due to a 'glitch' affecting about 5% of the entries. This revelation raises concerns about the agency's messaging and credibility, especially as it attempts to justify aggressive immigration enforcement. The inaccuracies included misclassifying minor offenses alongside serious crimes, which could mislead the public regarding the nature of the individuals listed. Local officials in various states have criticized DHS for inflating arrest numbers by taking credit for local law enforcement actions.

Key Details: • DHS website launched in December lists around 25,000 individuals. • Agency admitted to inaccuracies affecting about 5% of entries. • Website misclassified minor offenses with serious crimes. • Local officials criticize DHS for inflating arrest numbers. • DHS is working to correct the inaccuracies on the site.

immigration enforcement arrests dhs website-errors

People & Organizations

Immigration and Customs EnforcementDepartment of Homeland SecurityKristi NoemMinneapolisStephen MillerConroe, Texas

Related Articles

King Charles Engages with Trump Amidst U.S.-UK Tensions

King Charles recently met with former President Donald Trump and delivered a significant address to Congress, highlighting the current strained relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. This meeting is particularly noteworthy given the historical ties between the two nations, which are facing unprecedented challenges. The address emphasized the need for unity and collaboration in addressing global issues, despite the existing tensions. This event serves as a reminder of the importance of diplomatic relationships and the impact of leadership on international affairs.

Jerome Powell's Future at the Fed: Will He Stay or Go?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell faces a critical decision as his term ends on May 15. While he could depart, Powell's role on the board of governors lasts until January 2028, prompting speculation about his future amid ongoing investigations. The Justice Department recently closed its criminal probe into Powell, but the Fed's inspector general may continue reviewing the matter. This situation is complicated by political pressures, including threats from former President Trump. Powell's choice could significantly influence the Fed's independence and the upcoming leadership transition, as he may be the first chair since 1948 to remain in a lesser role after his term ends.

El Paso City Council Approves Contract with Federal Lobbyist Forward Global

The El Paso City Council has approved a $200,000 contract with Forward Global to serve as the city's federal lobbyist, with a vote of 7-1. This decision aims to secure a permanent representative in Washington D.C. to advocate for the city and enhance communication regarding federal legislation that could impact El Paso. The council has been pursuing a lobbyist for about a year, and Forward Global was chosen after a competitive procurement process. District 2 representative Josh Acevedo expressed concerns about the expenditure, emphasizing the need for effective representation. The contract allows for a one-year renewal option.

Supreme Court to Review Trump's Immigration Policies Amid Controversial Remarks

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case concerning Donald Trump's plan to end temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians, which could impact around 350,000 individuals currently residing in the U.S. This legal challenge, based on allegations of racial animus, follows Trump's history of derogatory comments about Haitians and aims to determine whether such statements should influence judicial review of presidential directives. The case is significant as it revisits the court's previous stance on Trump's policies, notably the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries, where the justices dismissed claims of bias. The outcome may set a precedent for future immigration and presidential authority cases.