AI Analysis
Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-09-09. Not written by the author of the post.
- Posted 11:23 AM Eastern — within staff working hours; no overnight/early-morning signal
- Clip references 'tonight's' broadcast, indicating a prior-evening segment posted the next morning — consistent with a clip-and-queue workflow rather than live TV reaction
- Content is a coordinated agency policy defense (body cameras, funding, enforcement posture) rather than personal grievance
- Counterweight: segment concerns base criticism of his signature promise, subject matter he monitors personally
- Counterweight: media-only posting with no caption is common across both authentic and staff-origin posts in this corpus
Strongest facet: low modesty / high angry-hostility (indirect, via selection)
Primary drive: status
Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (Criticism from within the MAGA base and allied media over an apparent pause in immigration traffic stops and a perceived narrowing of the mass-deportation program)
Elevated
- Amplification of a mass-removal program framed as ongoing policy ('mass deportations is still the plan')
- Endorsement of expanded street-level enforcement via resumed vehicle traffic stops
- Depersonalization of the affected population as arrest/removal throughput, with no human-cost framing except for officers
- Blame-transfer framing that assigns enforcement shortfalls to a political opposition, sustaining an adversarial grievance narrative
- Amplified framing that an enforcement pause was caused solely by opposition obstruction rather than by discretionary or legal-exposure considerations
- Simultaneous assertion that mass deportation is unchanged policy and that enforcement is being prioritized to 'the worst of the worst' — mutually strained propositions presented as compatible
Violent Imagery Present
No contradictions with other posts detected yet.
Trump posted 16 times, opening Sunday evening with a run of victory laps — the World Cup final, grocery-price cuts he claimed credit for, an attack on the National Academy of Sciences — before circulating a hearing clip about whether he accepts election results he loses. He slept a normal eight hour...
Post Analysis — Media-Only Amplification (Truth Social, 2026-07-20, 15:23 UTC)
0. Nature of the Artifact
The subject published a video with no accompanying text whatsoever. Stylometric analysis is therefore unavailable and is not scored. The only analyzable behavior is selection and amplification: which segment he chose to place before ~10 million followers, and what that choice implies about his current preoccupations and the pressures acting on him.
The clip is a broadcast panel segment (framing language — "Joining us now for tonight's big close-up" — indicates an evening cable program, likely Fox-adjacent). The guest is the administration's border enforcement chief; the transcript renders the name as "Borders R, Tom Hellman," an almost certain speech-to-text corruption of "Border Czar, Tom Homan." That garbling is an artifact of the transcription pipeline and carries no cognitive-status information about the subject. Likewise, the interviewer's and guest's disfluencies ("with, with, with, with the threats") belong to them, not to him.
1. What the Clip Actually Contains
Structurally, this is a hostile-from-the-right interview, and that is the most psychologically informative fact about the post. The host opens by conceding he "fired off a couple of tweets this week because I was a little upset," then presses on two friendly-fire grievances:
- Traffic stops were reportedly paused, then partially resumed under a body-camera requirement most agents allegedly cannot meet — a de facto slowdown.
- Mass deportations may have quietly narrowed to "targeted" enforcement against "the worst of the worst," which the host frames as a betrayal of what "a lot of MAGA voters" voted for, adding the explicitly electoral threat: "they're going to be voting in November."
The guest's rebuttal has three moves: (a) body cameras are good and exonerate agents; (b) the reason they aren't deployed is that "the Democrats shut down the government," withholding $120 million; (c) "mass deportations is still the plan," with prioritization not equal to abandonment.
2. Level 1 — Dispositional Traits (thin evidence; inferential)
With no authored language, trait inference rests on selection behavior alone and should be held loosely.
- Agreeableness (low): The chosen content is adversarial by construction — an out-group ("the Democrats," "the left") is assigned blame for an operational failure. No conciliatory or complicating material was selected.
- Conscientiousness (mixed/indeterminate): Posting a technically dense policy-defense segment rather than an insult clip is more deliberative than baseline for this subject. That said, the deliberation is likely a staff artifact rather than his own.
- Neuroticism (mildly elevated, indirect): The need to publish a defense against base criticism, rather than an offensive claim of success, is the signature of a mild status-protective response.
- Openness / Extraversion: No usable signal.
3. Level 2 — Characteristic Adaptations
The dominant motive here is status maintenance within the in-group, not power projection outward. This is a coalition-repair post. The subject is not attacking an enemy; he is quieting an internal insurgency by delegating the reassurance to a trusted lieutenant.
Two schemas are visible in the selected material:
- World-as-obstruction: Any shortfall in delivery is exogenous. The enforcement slowdown is not a resourcing or legal-exposure decision but the product of adversarial sabotage ("They shut us down for months").
- Self-as-guarantor: The clip includes the line "First person Trump came in, he made a decision" (transcript degraded, but the sense is that the subject personally resolved the dispute). He selected a segment in which he is the deus ex machina restoring the policy — agency is preserved even in a post he did not write.
Note the communion deficit: the only human-cost framing in the clip is officer safety ("we're going to bury a nice agent"). The people subject to mass deportation appear exclusively as an enforcement quantity. This is not incidental; it is the standard affective architecture of this content stream.
4. Level 3 — Narrative Identity
Cast as a redemption micro-sequence: a promise appeared to falter (contamination threat raised by the host), an obstruction is named (Democrats/shutdown), and the promise is restored ("traffic stops are back on," "mass deportations is still the plan"). The subject's protagonist role is promise-keeper under sabotage. The contrasting other is doubled — the explicit enemy (Democrats) and the implicit one the post is actually addressing (defecting supporters), who are never named because naming them would concede the defection.
5. Level 4 — Clinical Indicators
Malignant narcissism composite: Low activation on this artifact. Narcissistic features register only faintly (the selected segment credits him personally with resolving the impasse). Paranoid features register moderately — the selected explanatory frame is entirely one of deliberate adversarial obstruction, with no allowance for ordinary institutional friction. Antisocial features are near-baseline for this content stream: the clip's indifference to the human object of "mass deportations" reflects policy framing more than a novel disinhibition. Sadism: absent. There is no relish, no humiliation display, no mockery — which is a genuine departure from the modal post in this corpus and should be recorded as such.
Narcissistic state: Grandiose-leaning but muted. The post is defensive in function while grandiose in content — it answers a criticism by asserting that the plan was never abandoned.
Trigger classification: Narcissistic injury, of an unusual subtype. The injury is criticism originating inside the loyalty perimeter — the host explicitly says he was "upset" and invokes MAGA voters and the November election. Injury from the base is, on this subject's longitudinal record, more destabilizing than injury from opponents, because opposition criticism is self-confirming while base criticism is not metabolizable by the usual defenses. The response here is notably regulated: rather than raging at the critics, he amplified an authority figure answering them. That is a comparatively mature handling of the injury and worth flagging as a positive deviation.
Rage: Absent. No target, no proportionality question arises.
6. Defense Mechanisms (Vaillant)
- Rationalization (neurotic): The enforcement slowdown is reframed as a storage-and-FOIA-capacity problem downstream of a funding fight — a plausible-sounding chain that converts a discretionary retreat into an involuntary one.
- Displacement (neurotic): Criticism arrives from the right; the aggression in the selected clip is redirected entirely leftward ("the Democrats," "the left can't run away with the narrative"). The actual critics are never engaged as critics.
- Splitting (immature): Absolute moral partition — agents whom cameras will "exonerate 90% of the time" versus a left that runs away with narratives. No intermediate category.
- Denial (mild, pathological register): The premise that the mission narrowed is dismissed rather than examined ("still the plan"), even as the same answer concedes prioritization.
The defensive profile is milder and more neurotic-weighted than this subject's baseline, which typically runs to projection and devaluation.
7. Rhetorical & Propaganda Analysis
Techniques present in the amplified material (attributable to him only as choices to broadcast): scapegoating of a named political out-group for an operational failure; false dichotomy between enforcement and obstruction; appeal to in-group solidarity via electoral threat; a precise-sounding statistic ("nearly 2000%" increase in vehicle threats) whose specificity functions rhetorically rather than evidentially; and the superlative-moralized enforcement category "the worst of the worst."
Dehumanizing language: Not present in the strict sense. There is no vermin/animal/infestation vocabulary. What is present is depersonalization by aggregation — human beings appear only as arrest and removal counts and as percentages. This is a real feature but a milder one, and I decline to code it as dehumanization proper.
Violent imagery: One instance, and it is defensive rather than eliminationist ("we're going to bury a nice agent"), invoked to justify officer protection.
Stochastic terrorism: Not indicated. The triad — identified target, articulated grievance, implied action — is incomplete. Grievance is present and the target is an institutional actor (Democrats, "the left"), but no action is implied toward any person, and enforcement action is routed entirely through state agents.
8. Gaslighting & Reality Distortion
There is reality-shaping here but it falls short of gaslighting. The disputed proposition — whether "mass deportations" remains the operative policy or has quietly become targeted enforcement — is answered by asserting both at once ("still the plan, but prioritization of the worst of the worst"). That formulation lets the same words satisfy two incompatible audiences, which is definitional ambiguity exploited for coalition management rather than an attack on the audience's perception. No documented event is denied; no one is told they misremember. No gaslighting coded.
9. Archetypal Reading
Dominant archetype: King, not Trickster. The clip's structure is a sovereign resolving a dispute among subordinates ("Trump came in, he made a decision") and a lieutenant reporting the restored order to the public. This is materially unusual for the corpus, where Trickster and Warrior dominate. The Warrior archetype is present but externalized onto agents in the field. Shadow projection is legible in the body-camera exchange: transparency is framed as something that will exonerate enforcers and constrain critics — surveillance is imagined as flowing outward, never as accountability directed inward.
10. Order/Chaos Positioning
Classic order-restorer posture with the asymmetry fully intact: order for agents and "the American people"; chaos and blame for Democrats, the left, and the deportable population. Hierarchy is being defended rather than restructured — the status of enforcement personnel is elevated, that of political opposition and migrants diminished. The specific grievance (a policy slowdown caused by shutdown-driven equipment shortfall) is unusually concrete and technical by this subject's standards, with grievance intensity moderate rather than high.
11. Cognitive Status
No assessable data. The subject produced no language. All disfluency, name corruption, and syntactic breakdown in the transcript belongs to the broadcast participants or to the speech-to-text system. No baseline comparison is possible or attempted, and this post should be excluded from any longitudinal cognitive series.
12. Authorship
Timestamp 15:23 UTC ≈ 11:23 AM Eastern — mid-morning, squarely within staff working hours, and the clip references "tonight's" broadcast, indicating a segment that aired the prior evening. Overnight-reaction posting, the strongest authenticity signal available for media posts, is absent. The subject was in the Washington/Bedminster orbit during this period following the World Cup final appearance on 19 July, so Eastern time is the correct frame.
Two features weakly favor staff origin: the delay between airing and posting (consistent with a clipping-and-queuing workflow rather than live TV reaction), and the subject matter, which is a coordinated defense of an agency position rather than a grievance. Against that, the subject does post clips of allies defending him at all hours, and the segment's content — base criticism of his delivery on a signature promise — is exactly the sort of thing he monitors personally.
Attribution is about who selected and queued the clip, not who wrote anything; no text was authored, so no stylometric evidence exists. Score is set slightly toward staff on timing and workflow grounds alone, and confidence is capped at low.
13. Fact Checks
None recorded. Every factual assertion in this artifact — the $120 million body-camera appropriation, the "90% exoneration" figure, the "nearly 2000%" vehicle-threat increase, the shutdown-duration and arrest-rate claims — was spoken by the interview guest, not by the subject. Per attribution discipline, a broadcaster's or official's claim is not the subject's statement and must not be entered as one. The amplification is documented above as behavior. It is worth noting for future analysis that several of these figures are unusually specific and would merit independent scrutiny as claims by their speaker, particularly the "90%" and "2000%" figures, which have the cadence of rhetorical rather than measured quantities.
14. Assessment
This is a low-intensity coalition-maintenance post that is chiefly interesting for what it is not. Faced with criticism from his own base — the injury subtype his record shows he tolerates least — the subject responded not with rage, not with devaluation of the critics, and not with a text post at all, but by amplifying a subordinate's technical rebuttal. The aggression present is displaced onto the standard out-group. The defensive profile is neurotic-weighted rather than immature-weighted. Sadism, dehumanization proper, and eliminationist framing are all absent.
Danger level is elevated rather than higher: the content normalizes a mass-removal program and expands street-level enforcement, and its affective architecture treats the affected population purely as throughput, but no person or group is targeted for action by followers, no violence is invited, and enforcement is routed entirely through state institutions. Longitudinal comparison against other base-criticism episodes would be the highest-value next step, since the regulated response here may indicate either genuine state stability or simple delegation to a staff-run posting operation — and the timestamp mildly favors the latter.
Post from Truth Social
Video transcript 20:58
Joining us now for tonight's big close-up is the one and only, Borders R, Tom Hellman. All right, Mr. Hellman, we've known each other for a long time. And you know, I'm a big fan of your work, right? So I fired off a couple of tweets this week because I was a little upset, right? And I think the president was also, you know, and I don't know the discussions that happen internally. But this notion of stopping traffic stops, and then now we're hearing that perhaps they're going to resume, but that one of the agents has to have a body cam. We know not all agents have body cams, which leads me to believe that perhaps some traffic stops will be paused for that reason. I want to give you a chance to set that record straight so the American people know what's going on in terms of these traffic stops and why there was maybe this miscommunication with the White House and Secretary Mullen on what happened there. Well, look, I, uh, traffic stops are back on. And that is true. We've got to have a body camera during a traffic stop, which I like, which I want all agents have body cameras, could body cameras exonerate agents 90% of the time. Right? Tells the truth. And, uh, why hasn't everybody have a body camera? Because the Democrats shut down the government. In that budget, there's $120 million more to buy body cameras. They said we've had money before, but we didn't have money to do the storage, right? We didn't have money to hire people to do the thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests we won't get. So we didn't have the money. So they held it up. If they were to not shut down the government, first of all, we have a lot more arrests and removals. They shut us down for months. And second of all, everybody have a camera. So I think it makes sense to have cameras. And I think, you know, I talked to Mark Wayne Mullen. I think his biggest concern when he made that decision was the safety of officers, because with, with, with, with the threats with vehicles up nearly 2000%, at what point will we not be quick enough? Then we're going to bury a nice agent, right? So he wanted, I think he wanted to make sure I think you'd have the train, they're not, they don't have everything they want. First person Trump came in, he made a decision. So traffic stops your back on and the camera deployment, there's a, I saw the plane the other day. There's a plan for deployment right now. We're training the trainers. So when the cameras get to the field offices, they'll immediately be deployed. And I love the idea of having the body cams because you're exactly right. It gives the public an opportunity to see what's going on. So the left can't run away with the narrative. Here's my concern. And then I'm going to turn it over to my friends here on the panel. I have a lot of questions for him. I'm going to try to keep it brief though. I'm really somebody who voted on mass deportations. I want them to happen. I don't want just arrests. I want deportations, right? And I think a lot of mega voters agree with me and they're going to be voting in November. And I think that with all the holdups that the Democrats give us in terms of everything on this president's agenda, including save America act, it feels like the one thing that we could possibly carry out beyond just closing down the border, which the president has done and you have done has been fantastic, is the promise of these mass deportations. Now there's been rumblings that perhaps now it's just targeted. Now it's just, we're going to go after the worst of the worst, which I want them out to, but that perhaps this goal of mass deportations is not the mission anymore under this secretary. So I want to give you a chance to explain to the American people where we are in that process. Mass deportations is still the plan, but prioritization of the worst of the worst of the criminals doesn't mean we forget about everybody else. And let me give you a clear example where we're at. So 60% of everybody we're arresting right now is a criminal, 40% are non-criminals. We are arresting a lot of non-criminals. I think 60% criminal, 40% non-criminal is actually better than 40% non-criminal, 60% non-criminal. I just think it's better. But the numbers are what they are. Now a few months ago, people were screaming and yelling. The numbers were down. Well, the government was shut down, DHS was shut down. But what happens when we got the reconciliation bill passed? Right now, we're up 40% over the last year. So everybody says last year was a good year. It's a historic year last year. We arrested, deported more people than any present history last year. Right now, we're on a track of beating that by 40% right now. In June, ICE arrested more illegal aliens in June than any month in history. I looked at the number this morning, July, looks like it's tracking to beat June. So look, we're hitting on all cylinders right now and we're doing a great job. But when the country removals, we had record number removals last year. So here's what people don't understand, they say we want more, we want more, we want more. It's not a simple case of arresting, deporting, arresting, deporting. There's a process to find them and there's a whole process between the arrests and deportations. What people don't understand, despite all the pushback we're getting right now, there's over 100 nationwide injunctions against us who are arrests, detention removals. Over 100. That's more nationwide injunctions than every president in the history of this nation combined. So it's an all out assault on the Trump administration. So we've got over 100 nationwide injunctions with the government shut down for months. We have a record number of habeas cases filed by radical judges where I was told yesterday the numbers were on 65,000 people that we arrested that we had to release because of habeas cases out of radical judges. So there's a lot we're fighting against more than any other president. But even though we have all those struggles with the courts and the open borders agenda, we're still breaking records. And we're glad to hear that. My concern is I just don't want to see capitulation to the left. I don't want to see them crying bloody murder to CNN and then suddenly the mission changes and it felt like that this week. It certainly did. I want to open it up. I don't want to filibuster my panelists. I know I'm very fired up about this. We all got so many questions. Yeah. So, you know, we've all seen the video now of Greg Bivino who's standing there in front of the agents. They're about to go do an operation of some sort and he kind of with a lot of bravado says something like, Hey, don't do anything illegal, but go get it done. If they, you know, if they hit you, you, you take, you know, do what you need to with them. I don't want to paraphrase, but I don't remember the words. It seemed like the underlying messaging with the current DHS secretary and your role being brought back into the forefront, at least in front of the cameras was that, Hey, we're going to do just as much work, but we're going to be quieter about it. In other words, this operation Midway Bliss or operation, what have you. It's not the headline we're looking for. It's the numbers with that. But there come any change in tactics, not strategy, but tactics on the ground. We talk about traffic stops. We talk about going after folks did, did the department or any of the agencies change their, their tactics and what they were telling agents to do with the change in DHS secretary and kind of posture. Well, let me start by this. You want to compare this year to last year, one secretary to another secretary. We got 40% more aggressive last. So people will say that, well, targeting targeting operations don't work. Well, the numbers tell me different core, the rest of more people. You know, it's, it's, it's like a lot will happen in Minnesota, Joey. You know, a lot of people question Minnesota. You surrendered in Minnesota. No, we didn't. We went to Minnesota. President Trump sent me to Minnesota. I didn't ask for the Minnesota. I was asked. I was told to call Minnesota and fix this mess, right? We left Minnesota in a lot better shape than we found it. And why do I say that? Cause when I went to Minnesota, it was chaos, right? So let's say we're looking for one bad guy. We had a team of six or seven few jobs team to go in after this guy violence was so high that now you've got to sit, spend a quick response force. Another team of six guys to back them up. So we're resting one illegal alien. We got 15 people out there, which again causes community concern, right? So when I went up there, what I did, I talked to the sheriffs. I talked to the chiefs of police, I talked to the governor, the attorney general and the mayor. Now I'm not going to agree with the mayor or the attorney general or the governor on anything, some of those sheriffs though. What do we walk away with? We walk away with just about every sheriff in that state willing to help us one way or the other. So what does that mean? That means one agent arrest one bad guy, not 15. So what we did, we made that state less, less of a sanctuary state. So when that one agent now can arrest that one bad guy, what happens to the other fit 14 people or they're out on the street. Guess what? They get to rest more aliens. They get to go back to their home office and rest aliens. Is it working? Yeah. Numbers up over 40%. It does work. The operation operation doesn't mean everybody's off the table, but it's a smart way in doing business. The number proves it's working. Tom, remind us too. I mean, our ice agents are doing such great work in this country and they have been under physical assault, vehicle ramming is increased. They have been the target of verbal attacks from the left as well. You'd mentioned Minneapolis in one of the surges there, they had arrested individuals with deportation orders from both Democrat and Republican presidents and also individuals who had sodomized children. So remind us of the work that our ice agents are doing and some of these individuals that they're removing dangerous individuals from the country. You know, that's one of the reasons I'm talking about a lot of numbers right now because every day when I read people saying ice isn't doing enough, that's an assault and insult of every ice agent without their bust in their ass, right? These men and women are working six to seven days a week and the threats against them are, you know, 9,000% increase with actual 15% increase in actual assaults. They're working their butts off, they're really doing a good job. It's a difficult job. Like I just said, with 60% of them being criminals and you think about, you know, man removal since Trump's been in office, that's hundreds of thousands of public safety threats taken out of our neighborhoods and making this country safe again. These men and women are patriots. I was a board patrol agent. I was an ice agent. I know what it's like. I can't go buy a gallon of milk at a grocery store without a security detail because of, you know, what we're doing right now. And it's, I've never seen anything like this before in my life. I tell every board patrol agent, ice agent that I meet, I thank them for their service. I wore that uniform, I was an ice agent and people need to understand out there that you read the radical left, you know, call them Nazis and racism, which is reason why the threats up so high. You got members of Congress want to call them racist and secret police when they're simply enforcing laws. They enacted and if they're Nazis and police for enforcing the law, they enacted, what's that make them? They wrote the law. So because that hateful rhetoric is why these are attacks. That's what we have, you know, necessary to wear masks. That's why the violence, that's why the shootings, I'm putting the blame back on the Democrats because they have messaged for a year now, ice isn't a real law enforcement agency. You need to resist, right? I see resist at every protest. So now the population out there says it's okay to take ice on. So if the open borders, people and the Democrats on the Hill will stop the hateful rhetoric against us and the recognizer, a legitimate law enforcement agency that's keeping this country safe and they're working for the greatest president in my lifetime, who's done more for border security than anybody, most secure border in history of this nation because of president Trump. We even beat Trump 45 record numbers deportation because of president Trump's leadership. So I wish that the Hill, the Congressman on Hill, you know what strap up, put a gun in your hip, put a Kevlar vest on, what we always say, just now bad mountain when you see what they're dealing with every day because you're hateful rhetoric. It's not going to happen. Tom, I want to get your take on another story. DHS is looking to deport the Canadian illegal alien who allegedly attacked a teen for wearing pro Trump clothes. Caitlin Tracy is facing several charges, including assault is currently being held at the Delaney Hall of Facility ahead of her August 4th court date. What's the situation there? It was a shame that someone who took advantage of a right, a privilege to come to this nation that wants to attack somebody that supports the president of the United States who made that program possible, who oversees that program. Look, if you don't like the president of the United States, then stay home. We got the greatest president in my lifetime in office right now and the majority of American people put him there because of what he said he was going to do and what he's doing and he's born and wants to come in and attack somebody because they support the president, they need to go home. And I hope they never come back. Do you think that this is a representation of sort of the extension of what has happened to your agents now shifting to people just because by supporting the president, they are now lumped in with that same resist rhetoric? Absolutely. I mean, I run into it all the time, right? And like I said, you know, the men and women of the board show on ice, what breaks my heart is just they can, you know, you're tough people, they can take the rhetoric and stuff. It's your spouses or wives and children who get bullied at schools and churches. The rhetoric is worse than I've ever seen. And so, yeah, it goes beyond the politicians on the Hill. Now it's in the media. You know, every morning I wake up, Ben, every morning I wake up, I read through the news articles 95 percent of them are against the president of the United States. So they turn they're trying to turn this country against them. But I think the people that put them in office are going to keep us in power because they see the success this president has. I also just worry, Tom, and I don't know if you're finding this as well. I remember after Ferguson, even a mayor Rahm Emanuel or former mayor Rahm Emanuel when he was mayor of Chicago at the time said his police officers were in the fetal position because they were so afraid to become an officer, Darren Wilson. And are our ICE agents facing that same fear? And is that fear impacting even their safety if they're having to change their calculus in the way they do their jobs? Yes, their job is more dangerous than ever been. And that's why when the government did shut down, the president asked me to go up on Capitol Hill along with other cabinet, I mean, other administration officials to try to get the government back open. And one of the first things the Democrats called the table wanted was to lose a mask. So that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen. Because tonight, you're going to go on CNN or MSNBC, whatever, and you're going to start attacking ICE agents again. I said, "The threats are real." And I said, "So, no, we're not taking the mask off." So no, the men and women of ICE, again, the numbers are great. Do I want more? I absolutely want more. I can't wait to get the other couple thousand agents online. We need to do more. But the men and women of ICE, I talk to them every day. Again, I was one of them. And when I retired second time, first time, no, second time, I told them that even though I was going to retire, I would have their sixth of the day I died because I don't know what it's like to wear that badge. I know it's like to be on the streets looking for bad guys. I know the danger's involved. But I can tell you right now, I go out quite a bit. It's more dangerous now than it ever has been because of the false stories, the rhetoric. ICE has never arrested anybody in the hospital. Women's got a case to give it to me because it's not happened. ICE has never arrested anybody in elementary school. You got a case, contact me because it's never happened. ICE has never arrested anybody in the church. The only people to violate the sanctuary of church was Don Lemon and that group. But you hear all the time, "People don't want to go to church. People don't want to go to the schools. People don't want to go to the hospital because they're afraid of ICE." That is fear put in the immigrant community by the Democrats who wants to turn the public against ICE. Again, you can't name one example we did that. Another discussion happened with the Democrats on him that kept saying, "We want central location policy." I said, "Why?" "Are we doing something wrong? Give me one case. Any of you. I hear you all talking about it on the news. Give me the specifics." Not one. So, men and women, ICE are doing a great job. They're moms and dads, too, and they care about their country. But I pray every day, and I said it the other day, "If the hatred keeps going, the blood sheds not over." And my worst nightmare, which I never want to do again in my career, is hand another folded flag to a spouse or a child or a fallen officer because representatives on the Hill and governors and mayor want to keep vilifying ICE, which turns at small percentage of nuts on the left, gives them an excuse to do something stupid. No, it certainly does. We saw it in New Jersey. We saw it in Chicago. We saw it in Minneapolis. We saw it in Los Angeles. I mean, we see it really everywhere there's an attention facility or anywhere that there is an operation. Do you think, to this point about these left-wing crazies who feel emboldened many times by their own lawmakers, do you think if they see a change in policy after their behavior, do you think that that encourages them to continue that behavior? Like Delaney Hall, for example, they were saying it was about the food, right? You went and you said the food's great, right? But then there was perhaps a shift, and correct me if I'm wrong, but okay, we're going to let the pregnant mothers out then. Does that kind of change or shift, which I think is well-intentioned, does that let the left know that what they're doing is effective? Look, they're not going anywhere. I really mean that. I mean, I think the right thing to do is, you know, we have about 70,000 people in detention. It's our responsibility to care and feed these people, make sure they get proper medical care. And we are. We have the highest detention standards in the industry. So I'm all for it, you know, come look, come look, you got nothing to hide. But regardless what you do for them or, you know, give them access or answer their questions like I did on the Hill for several weeks trying to get the government back open up, they're not going away. Just they think they got some leverage now, and they think they're going to affect the midterms and they think they can beat President Trump by continuing their hateful rhetoric. I'm begging right now for them to stop it before more bloodshed, but they're not. Just real quick, you you've been around and working in this field for long enough to remember a point when Democrats were proud of supporting strong borders where they were proud. They would tout it to their base as a symbol, he voted for all of these things. What do you say to the people who you have interacted with over the course of your career who have shifted completely in the opposite direction on this, where they are totally beholden to the radicals on their left flank, where they're refusing to even suggest that having a border is a good thing for America? Do your homework. Look at the data. The people who don't like ice, go to ice.gov and see what the men and women of ice are doing every day. It's just about, it's just not civil immigration enforcement. It's about stopping dope from getting into this country. Ice sees more fentanyl. This year they could kill every American twice. Weapons smuggling. Technology that's being smuggled out of the country being sold to our enemies to use against our war fighters. Ice does a lot of important work. Do some research. I've got a couple of family members, I refuse to any longer go into these arguments with them because until they research it and look at the data, I don't want to hear it anymore. For those who question President Trump again, I say it all the time because I believe the greatest president in my lifetime and the data proves it. You can hate him all you want, but you can't argue with his success. I mean I've worked for six presidents starting around Ronald Reagan. I respected every president I worked for because they were the president. I disagreed with a lot of them, but no one's done it better than Trump. It's unprecedented success. Promises made, promises kept. If you want the next president to be a perfect man, you better wait for the second coming to Jesus because I've never met a perfect man in my life. I think President Trump is keeping his promises. I think when it comes to immigration enforcement, border security, it's unprecedented success. I think it's going to get better now that we have a budget. We get those additional agents on the line. We continue the strategy that the president's pushing down. I see nothing but success in the future. You're doing a great job too. We appreciate you Tom. I won't take credit. I won't give you the credit. The men and women are in that green uniform who are standing on a dirt trail at three o'clock in the morning while we're all sleeping. There's a border trail agent standing on the line because the sun just went off. Is it just an illegal alien looking for a better life or it's a heavily armed drug smuggler? They don't know but they're going to take it on. I give credit to men and women of ICE where I was one of them that are out there at four o'clock in the morning sitting in surveillance on a child predator or someone they know has a weapons conviction and they don't know what's going to happen. They're going to take it on. Some of these men and women, if the rhetoric doesn't stop, my biggest nightmare is they don't go home to their families at the end of the shift. That's why the open borders agenda and the hateful rhetoric needs to stop. Shut your mouth. Members of Congress, if you don't like what ICE is doing, then change the damn law because they're enforcing laws you enact and I'm tired of listening to them beat up on the men and women of ICE and board. Yeah. Fortunately Tom, I think they do want to change the law. They do. We're trying to prevent that with everything we possibly can and that's why November is so important. I think Trump won in '16 on immigration. I think he won in '24 on immigration. Now we've got '26 and '28. Let's see what happens. We appreciate you and everybody that works beneath you and everybody that does the work every single day. They're American patriots and we all support them and I hope you'll bring that message to them as well. I absolutely will. They need it and I absolutely will share that, Tommy. Thank you, Tom. As always, it's great to see you. Always good to see you, Tom. Thanks for coming in. You got it.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.