A widely shared story claiming that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) secretly deported an 82-year-old green card holder from Pennsylvania to Guatemala has unraveled under scrutiny from federal agencies, international authorities, and fact-checkers. Initially reported by several major news outlets, the story has since been discredited as false, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) calling it “journalistic malpractice.”
Fake News Story That Spread Quickly
The story first gained traction in mid-July 2025 after The Morning Call, a local newspaper in Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Luis Leon, a legal permanent resident from Chile, had disappeared after visiting a USCIS office in Philadelphia to replace a lost green card. According to early reports, Leon was allegedly detained by ICE, deported to Guatemala, and later presumed dead—only to be found alive in a hospital in Guatemala City.
The narrative was picked up by national and international outlets, including:
The story quickly went viral across social media platforms, where it was cited as evidence of immigration enforcement overreach and a breakdown in due process for legal residents.
No Records or Evidence of Deportation
However, as the story circulated, it faced increasing skepticism—particularly from government officials who said the claims simply didn’t hold up under investigation.
On July 21, DHS released a statement directly refuting the central claims of the story. According to the agency:
There is no record of any ICE arrest of a man named Luis Leon in Philadelphia or anywhere else in the United States.
There is no USCIS appointment logged for Leon on the reported date of June 20, 2025.
DHS confirmed it does not deport South American nationals to Guatemala, as Guatemala only receives Guatemalan nationals under U.S. repatriation agreements.
“ICE never arrested or deported Luis Leon,” the department said. “The story is demonstrably false and appears to have been based on unverified information.” Source: DHS press release
Guatemalan authorities also denied involvement. The Guatemalan Institute of Migration stated they had no record of Leon entering the country through official deportation channels or hospital admittance logs. AP coverage confirmed that Guatemala would not accept deportees from Chile under current agreements.
Adding to the doubts, investigative reporters in Chile found a death record for a man named Luis Leon with the same birth date; registered in Santiago in 2019. If that record is accurate, the subject of the viral story may have been deceased for six years.
Discrepancies and Red Flags
A number of inconsistencies quickly cast doubt on the original reporting:
Claim
Contradiction
Leon was arrested by ICE at a USCIS office in Philadelphia
No ICE or USCIS record of an appointment or detention
He was deported to Guatemala
No deportation record exists; Guatemala denies involvement
His family was told he died in custody
No official notification or documentation provided
He was found alive in a Guatemalan hospital
No hospital record exists; identity not verified
He was a Chilean national
Chilean death records indicate he may have died in 2019
Further complicating matters, no photos or credible identity documents of Leon in Guatemala have been publicly released. No one claiming to be a family member has come forward on the record.
A Cautionary Tale for Modern Media
While early reporting by The Morning Call and others appeared to rely on anonymous sources or unverified family statements, the lack of corroborating documentation or official comment should have raised red flags before national syndication.
In March 2023, Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointed federal judge, was accosted by student protestors and berated by faculty during his visit to Stanford Law School. He was invited to the university to speak at an event hosted by the student chapter of the Federalist Society. The planned talk, titled “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation: COVID, Guns, and Twitter,” aimed to address recent jurisprudence on constitutional rights and federal power. However, his presence was met with loud jeers, people accusing him of being racist and a berating from the Stanford Law School Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion which he would later describe as a struggle session.
His invitation to Stanford, one of the country’s most prestigious law schools, drew swift opposition from some students and faculty who saw his presence as antithetical to the values of equity and inclusion that the institution claims to uphold.
The event was coordinated with the law school’s administration, in keeping with Stanford’s policies on guest speakers. Interestingly, in public remarks following the incident, Duncan noted that he had agreed to attend as a favor for a “prominent Democratic lawyer” who believed students would benefit from hearing directly from a sitting federal judge with views different from their own. Although Duncan did not publicly name the individual, the detail highlighted the original intent of the event: to expose students to a range of judicial perspectives, regardless of political affiliation.
The controversy escalated days before the scheduled event when over 70 students signed an open letter calling for the law school to either disinvite Duncan or move the event to a virtual setting. Protesters cited Duncan’s judicial record, particularly a 2020 ruling in which he refused to use a transgender litigant’s preferred pronouns, as emblematic of what they called “dehumanizing” jurisprudence.
Judge Duncan was confronted by student protestors
On March 9, the day of the event, dozens of students staged a demonstration in the building’s lobby. Protesters, organized in part by groups like IRATE (Identity and Rights Affirmers for Trans Equality) and OutLaw (a student LGBTQ+ group), carried signs with slogans such as “Protect Trans Lives” and “Federalist Society Welcomes Bigotry.” Participants handed out flyers documenting Duncan’s past rulings and urged attendees to reconsider the implications of hosting such a speaker on campus.
The protest was largely peaceful outside the room, but tensions rose significantly once Duncan began speaking.
Events during Judge Duncan’s visit
Inside the lecture hall, which had reached full capacity, Duncan was repeatedly interrupted. According to reports and video recordings, chants and jeers began almost immediately, with some students shouting, “You don’t belong here,” and “Trans rights are human rights.” As the disruption escalated, Duncan attempted to proceed with his remarks but was visibly frustrated. He responded by calling some students “juvenile idiots” and later referred to the scene as “a clown show.”
After several minutes, Tirien Steinbach, the law school’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), stepped to the podium. She attempted to mediate between Duncan and the students but also questioned whether Stanford should have allowed the event in the first place.
“I had to ask myself…is the juice worth the squeeze?” Steinbach said, referencing the cost of hosting a speaker whose views many found offensive. While she affirmed Stanford’s policy on free speech, her remarks were widely interpreted as sympathetic to the protesters.
She continued in a string of claims which were followed by snapping fingers of approval by students:
She claimed Duncan’s “speech is abhorrent, harmful and literally denies the humanity of people.”
She claimed of the Stanford Law students in the room “who are going through the battle of law school together so they can go out into the world and be advocates”.
She asked Duncam directly to” listen through your partisan lens and hyper political lens and just look and see human beings”.
Following continued heckling, Duncan was escorted out of the room by federal marshals without finishing his presentation.
Apologies and resignation of Stanford Law School protest
In the days that followed, Stanford Law faced mounting criticism from legal observers, alumni, and national commentators. On March 11, Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jennifer Martínez issued a formal apology to Judge Duncan, stating the disruption was inconsistent with the school’s free speech commitments. They also affirmed that members of the Stanford community are expected to allow invited speakers to be heard without disruption.
Dean of Stanford Law School, Dean Martínez later announced plans to introduce mandatory training for law students on freedom of speech and civil discourse.
Tirien Steinbach, who became a central figure in the controversy, was placed on administrative leave and ultimately resigned. Her departure followed weeks of scrutiny over her role in the disruption and public debate over the function of DEI officials in managing campus speech.On March 17, Judge Duncan published a personal account in The Wall Street Journal titled “My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School.” In it, he compared his experience to a “show trial” and criticized what he described as Stanford’s failure to discipline student behavior. He defended his combative tone during the event, stating that “the whole thing was a set-up,” and warned that elite law schools are at risk of becoming ideological echo chambers.
Media reactions to Judge Duncan’s visit to Stanford Law School
The incident quickly gained national attention among conservative media outlets and legal commentators. The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the event as “an embarrassment to one of the nation’s premier law schools.” Fox News and the National Review featured extensive commentary criticizing the protesters for what they viewed as an attack on intellectual diversity.
Conservative judges also responded. Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho and Eleventh Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch—both appointed by Republican presidents—announced they would no longer hire clerks from Stanford Law School, joining an existing boycott they had launched against Yale over similar concerns.
“This behavior is not just rude or disruptive. It is un-American,” Ho said at a conference shortly afterward. “We will not hire from schools that permit the shout-down of speakers.”
Legal organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) issued statements condemning the event and called for disciplinary action against the students who participated in the disruption. FIRE later published a survey indicating that 74% of Stanford students felt the school mishandled the situation.Left leaning media painted a different picture of the event. Slate went as far as to describe Duncan’s visit to Stanford as a calculated move to garner support from “GOP senators and Fox News” and citing Duncan’s comment “you are an appalling idiot” while omitting that he was responding to a protester calling him several names while he was leaving the lecture hall.
Here’s another highlight (lowlight) from Stanford, when US Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan told a student, “You are an appalling idiot, you’re an appalling idiot.” (Video obtained by @lawdorknews.) pic.twitter.com/qekHuJLn4o
— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 12, 2023
In the summer of 2020, amidst nationwide protests against purported police brutality and systemic racism following the death of George Floyd, a unique and controversial experiment unfolded in Seattle, Washington. The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), initially known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), represented an attempt to create a “police-free” zone. Spanning several city blocks in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, CHOP became both a symbol of resistance to capitalism and democratic governance and a subject of intense scrutiny.
Origins of CHOP: The Context and Build-Up
The seeds of CHOP were planted during the initial days of protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. Demonstrations spread across the United States, calling for justice and systemic reform. Seattle, known for its history of progressive activism, became a focal point of this movement. Capitol Hill, an area with a rich history of counter-cultural and LGBTQ+ activism, saw sustained protests near the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct.
Confrontations with Police
In the first weeks of June, tensions between protesters and the Seattle Police Department (SPD) escalated dramatically. Protesters accused the SPD of excessive force, citing the use of tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and rubber bullets to disperse crowds. These actions drew widespread criticism, including from Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, who imposed a temporary ban on tear gas.
The most intense clashes occurred near the East Precinct, where nightly confrontations between protesters and police became routine. As tensions escalated, police barricaded the area, but the standoff grew unsustainable.
The Abandonment of the East Precinct
On June 8, 2020, SPD made the controversial decision to abandon the East Precinct, citing safety concerns for officers and protesters. This marked a turning point, as demonstrators quickly took over the area, dismantling barricades and declaring it a police-free zone. The establishment of CHOP followed shortly thereafter.
What Was CHAZ or CHOP?
CHOP encompassed approximately six blocks, including Cal Anderson Park and the area surrounding the East Precinct. Protesters erected barricades to delineate its boundaries and declared it an autonomous zone, free from police presence.
Community Atmosphere
Initially, CHOP had a festive and community-driven atmosphere. Art installations, music performances, and mutual aid efforts thrived within its boundaries. Volunteers distributed free food and water, while organizers held teach-ins and discussions on various topics such as systemic racism, police reform, and community-led governance.
Cal Anderson Park became a central gathering space for speeches, vigils, and debates. The area featured murals supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, including a now-famous street mural spelling out “BLACK LIVES MATTER” in bold letters.
Aspirations of Self-Governance
CHOP was envisioned as a model for community-led solutions, with participants emphasizing non-hierarchical decision-making and mutual aid. However, the absence of formal leadership created challenges in maintaining order and articulating unified goals.
Defund the Police: Protesters called for a 50% reduction in the Seattle Police Department’s budget (although many protestors called for the abolishment of SDP entirely), with the funds reallocated to community services and public health initiatives.
Criminal Justice Reform: They demanded an end to imprisonment as a form of punishment and advocated for community-led approaches to addressing harm.
Support for Black Communities: Specific demands included increased investment in Black-owned businesses, the appointment of Black doctors to treat Black patients, and educational reforms to address racial disparities.
Policy Changes: Protesters sought the banning of armed police responses to mental health crises and the dismantling of the “school-to-prison pipeline”.
Challenges and Violence Within CHOP
Despite its idealistic beginnings, CHOP soon faced significant challenges. The absence of formal governance and law enforcement created vulnerabilities, leading to escalating violence and disorganization.
Incidents of Violence
Fatal Shootings: Between June 20 and June 29, multiple shootings occurred within CHOP, resulting in the deaths of two young men and injuries to others. These incidents underscored the difficulties of maintaining safety in a police-free zone.
Assaults and Property Crimes: Reports of assaults and property crimes within CHOP further fueled criticism from local residents and city officials. Namely, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best stated “Our calls for service have more than tripled. These are responses to emergency calls — rapes, robberies, and all sorts of violent acts that have been occurring in the area that we’re not able to get to.”
Organizational Struggles
The decentralized nature of CHOP posed challenges for decision-making and conflict resolution. Raz Simone, a local activist and musician, became a prominent figure in the zone but faced allegations of authoritarian behavior and distributing weapons. While some within the protest zone viewed Simone as a necessary leader, others criticized his approach as inconsistent with CHOP’s egalitarian ideals.
Democrat Officials Initially Support Protest
CHOP drew criticism from public officials, activists, and the media; however, some elected officials spoke more positively of the protests and occupation of the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Governor Jay Inslee
Washington Governor Jay Inslee commented on Twitter about “very real racial injustices in our society” and claimed “CHOP was largely peaceful” at the time of his June 11 tweet.
I spoke with @MayorJenny and her team about the situation on Capitol Hill. Although unpermitted, and we should remember we are still in a pandemic, the area is largely peaceful. Peaceful protests are fundamentally American, and I am hopeful there will be a peaceful resolution.
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan initially expressed optimism about CHOP, referring to it as a potential “summer of love.” However, as violence and disorder escalated, she faced growing pressure to take action. Durkan also described CHOP as “more like a block party atmosphere, it is not an armed takeover,” on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time.
Durkan eventually ordered the dismantling of CHOP, but her initial support for the zone became a point of contention.
Councilmember Kshama Sawant
City Councilmember Kshama Sawant became one of CHOP’s most vocal supporters. Sawant joined protestors who marched to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s home to make demands and called for defunding the SPD or resign from her position. Critics accused Sawant of exacerbating tensions, particularly after she led protesters to the mayor’s residence, prompting concerns about public safety and civility.
“Instead of working to make true change, Council member Sawant continues to choose political stunts. Tonight she did so without regard for the safety of the Mayor and her family. The Mayor was not even home — she was working at City Hall. Seattle can and should peacefully demonstrate but should not put families and children at risk.”
Dismantling of CHOP
The turning point for CHOP came as incidents of violence escalated within its boundaries. Between June 20 and June 29, several shootings occurred, resulting in the deaths of two individuals—19-year-old Horace Lorenzo Anderson and 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr.—as well as injuries to others. These events highlighted the inability of CHOP participants to maintain order in the absence of law enforcement. The tragic deaths, combined with reports of assaults, property crimes, and deteriorating living conditions, intensified scrutiny of the zone.
Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best expressed deep concerns about the safety of residents and protesters within CHOP, describing the zone as “lawless and brutal.” Her statements added to the growing pressure on city officials to address the situation. Community members, including business owners and residents of Capitol Hill, also voiced frustration, citing disruptions to daily life, decreased access to emergency services, and fears for personal safety.
Mayor Jenny Durkan’s Decision
Although Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan was initially supportive of CHOP as violence escalated and public criticism mounted, her stance shifted. On June 30, Durkan signed an executive order declaring the clearing of CHOP necessary to restore public order. This marked a significant departure from her earlier rhetoric, as the city moved from tolerance to direct intervention.
The executive order authorized the Seattle Police Department (SPD) to clear the protest zone and remove barriers erected by demonstrators. Durkan emphasized the importance of balancing the right to protest with the need to protect public safety, a balance that had clearly tipped in favor of intervention by late June.
The Clearing of CHOP
On the morning of July 1, 2020, SPD officers moved into CHOP with a large police presence. Armed with riot gear, officers dismantled barricades, removed tents and structures, and arrested 44 protestors on various charges ranging from failure to discourse, assault, obstruction, pedestrian interference and malicious mischief. Video footage from the scene showed officers methodically clearing the area while protesters chanted slogans and decried the city’s actions.
City workers have also recovered improvised spike strips—designed to puncture vehicle tires—in the area of the CHOP. pic.twitter.com/x4Des6hPGq
— Seattle Police Department (@SeattlePD) July 1, 2020
The operation, which lasted several hours, brought an end to CHOP’s occupation of the Capitol Hill neighborhood. SPD subsequently reopened the East Precinct, which had been abandoned nearly a month earlier, and reestablished a police presence in the area.
Aftermath and Legacy of CHOP
The dismantling of CHOP left a divided legacy. Supporters viewed it as an inevitable conclusion to an unsustainable experiment, while critics argued it marked a failure to address grievances that gave rise to the zone. For many, the violence and disorganization within CHOP overshadowed its initial goals, reinforcing the challenges of creating lasting change through such unstructured efforts. The operation highlighted the complexities of balancing protest rights with public safety, a tension that continues to shape discussions around social justice and governance.
In February 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf drew national attention and widespread debate after publicly warning her community about an impending U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation. Her announcement, made in her interest of protecting illegal immigrant families, was hailed by some as a bold act of advocacy and condemned by others, including federal officials and Republican lawmakers, as an interference in federal immigration enforcement. This article unpacks the events surrounding Schaaf’s warning, the resulting political fallout, and the broader legal and ethical questions it raised.
The Warning: A Message to Oakland’s Immigrant Community
On February 24, 2018, Mayor Schaaf issued a public statement warning the Oakland community of an imminent ICE operation targeting undocumented immigrants. She explained that she had received credible information from “multiple sources” about the raid, which was expected to occur within 24 hours. Schaaf’s warning came in the form of a press release and social media posts, urging residents to seek legal advice and know their rights.
Schaaf’s statement emphasized her belief in protecting vulnerable communities, stating:
“It is my duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”
The mayor also clarified that her warning was not an outright call for defiance but rather an effort to inform residents so they could prepare appropriately. Schaaf encouraged people to access legal resources and exercise their constitutional rights.
ICE’s Response and Operation Outcomes
The ICE operation Schaaf warned about, referred to as Operation Keep Safe, focused on apprehending undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions or other outstanding deportation orders. ICE later confirmed that the operation targeted more than 1,000 individuals in Northern California. However, following Schaaf’s public warning, ICE was only able to detain 232 individuals.
ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan criticized Schaaf’s actions, claiming they jeopardized the operation and endangered the safety of law enforcement officers. ICE also stated that warning the public about such operations undermines their efforts to enforce federal immigration laws and remove individuals who pose a risk to public safety.
Is Warning About ICE Raids Illegal?
The legality of Schaaf’s actions became a central question in the controversy. According to federal law, while it is not illegal to warn individuals about an impending law enforcement operation, actively interfering with or obstructing such operations can be a crime. ICE emphasized this distinction in a public statement, asserting that misinformation and interference could endanger officers, the community, and even the individuals targeted by the operations.
Critics of Schaaf’s warning argued that by sharing details about the operation, she crossed the line from providing information to potentially obstructing federal enforcement efforts. However, Schaaf maintained that her actions were within her legal rights and aimed solely at protecting her community.
Republican Backlash and the ‘Mayor Libby Schaaf Act’
The proposed legislation would impose fines of up to $5,000 and potential imprisonment for officials who “prevent or attempt to prevent the apprehension” of individuals by ICE. King argued that Schaaf’s actions endangered public safety and set a dangerous precedent for local officials prioritizing political ideology over federal law.
While the bill garnered support from immigration hardliners, it faced criticism from Democrats and immigrant advocacy groups, who saw it as an attempt to intimidate local leaders from protecting immigrant communities.
President Trump’s Reaction
Then-President Donald Trump was among Schaaf’s most vocal critics, condemning her actions as a “disgrace” during a meeting at the White House. Trump claimed that Schaaf’s warning allowed hundreds of criminals to evade capture, stating:
“What the mayor of Oakland did the other day was a disgrace. They had close to 1,000 people ready to be gotten, ready to be taken off the streets … many of them, they say 85 percent of them are criminals and had criminal records. And the mayor of Oakland went out and warned them all, scattered, so instead of taking in a thousand they took in a fraction of that.”
Trump’s remarks highlighted a recurring clash between his administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies and local leaders in sanctuary cities who resisted federal efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.
Schaaf’s Defense: A Stand for Oakland’s Values
In her official statement following the ICE operation, Schaaf defended her actions, reiterating that she believed it was her moral responsibility to warn her community. She also pushed back against accusations that she interfered with federal enforcement, asserting that she shared general information without compromising operational specifics.
Schaaf stated:
“I do not regret sharing this information. It is Oakland’s legal right to be a sanctuary city, and we have not broken any laws. We believe our community is safer when families stay together.”
The mayor framed her decision as consistent with Oakland’s status as a sanctuary city, where local authorities limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented residents.
Broader Implications and the Sanctuary City Debate
The controversy surrounding Schaaf’s warning reignited a broader debate over sanctuary city policies and the role of local governments in immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities argue that fostering trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement is essential for public safety, as it encourages undocumented residents to report crimes and cooperate with investigations without fear of deportation.
However, opponents contend that such policies shield individuals with criminal records from accountability and undermine federal law. Schaaf’s warning became a flashpoint in this national debate, symbolizing the deep divisions over immigration policy and enforcement under the Trump administration.
Mayor Libby Schaaf’s 2018 warning about an impending ICE raid remains one of the most contentious moments in the ongoing conflict between federal immigration authorities and local governments in sanctuary cities. While supporters praised her for standing up for vulnerable communities, critics accused her of jeopardizing public safety and interfering with federal law enforcement.
The legal and political fallout from Schaaf’s actions continues to reverberate, with ongoing debates about the balance between local autonomy and federal authority, the ethical responsibilities of elected officials, and the broader impact of immigration policies on communities across the United States.
In 2013, a TIGTA audit exposed that the IRS used politically biased “BOLO” lists to target conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
Terms like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” triggered delays and invasive questioning, raising serious concerns about the agency’s fairness and political neutrality.
Lois Lerner admitted wrongdoing, apologized, faced hostile Congressional hearings, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, and was placed on administrative leave.
President Obama denounced the targeting, accepted Acting Commissioner Steven Miller’s resignation, and pledged accountability, though many argued his response was insufficient.
Reforms banned political criteria in BOLO lists, increased oversight, changed leadership, and adopted TIGTA recommendations to improve transparency and procedural integrity.
In 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) faced widespread criticism after revelations that it had unfairly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. An audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) uncovered that the IRS used politically biased criteria to flag organizations for additional scrutiny. This discovery sparked outrage, particularly among Republicans and conservative groups, who accused the agency of systemic discrimination. The scandal raised serious concerns about government overreach and impartiality, prompting investigations, resignations, and a series of reforms. This article explores the details of the controversy, the reactions it elicited, and the steps taken to address the fallout.
The Controversy: What Happened?
The IRS controversy came to light after a TIGTA audit revealed that the agency had used inappropriate criteria to screen applications for tax-exempt status. Specifically, the IRS targeted groups with names or themes associated with conservative political ideologies, such as “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” and “9/12.” These groups faced delayed processing, intrusive questions, and extensive documentation requests.
This targeting occurred as organizations applied for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, which allows groups to engage in limited political activity without disclosing their donors. The TIGTA report highlighted systemic issues in the IRS’s handling of these applications, raising concerns about fairness and political impartiality.
Public and Republican Reactions
The revelation sparked outrage among conservative groups and the Republican Party, who accused the IRS of politically motivated discrimination. Republicans viewed the targeting as evidence of systemic bias against conservative values, calling for investigations and accountability.
The public’s reaction was equally strong. Many saw the issue as emblematic of government overreach and demanded swift action. The scandal became a significant talking point in the broader debate about the size and role of government, with critics questioning the IRS’s transparency and accountability.
Understanding BOLO: The Screening Mechanism
The term “BOLO” (Be On the Lookout) was central to the controversy. According to the TIGTA report, BOLO lists were used by the IRS to identify applications for additional scrutiny based on certain criteria. While BOLO lists are not inherently improper, their use in this case was problematic because they explicitly targeted groups based on political affiliations or perceived ideologies.
These lists included terms like “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and references to government debt and taxes. By focusing disproportionately on conservative organizations, the IRS violated its obligation to administer tax laws impartially.
Lois Lerner’s Role in the IRS Scandal
Lois Lerner, the Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit, became a central figure in the 2013 controversy. She publicly acknowledged the targeting during a 2013 event, describing it as “inappropriate” and apologizing for her division’s actions. However, her handling of the situation quickly drew intense scrutiny from Congress and the public.
WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner is sworn in before testifying to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee May 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. The committee is investigating allegations that the IRS targeted conservative non-profit organizations with the words “tea party” and “constitution” in their names for additional scrutiny. Lerner, who headed the division that oversees exempt organizations, plans to assert her constitutional right not to answer questions. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Facing calls to resign, Lerner refused to step down from her position. In response, the IRS placed her on administrative leave. Her refusal to resign further fueled criticism, with many arguing that her decision reflected a lack of accountability. The situation escalated when Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during a Congressional hearing, refusing to answer questions about her involvement in the scandal.
Lerner’s actions and the decision to place her on administrative leave rather than terminating her employment deepened public distrust in the IRS. Her role became emblematic of the broader concerns surrounding the agency’s impartiality and accountability during the controversy.
President Obama’s Response
President Barack Obama condemned the targeting, calling it “intolerable and inexcusable.” His administration pledged to hold those responsible accountable and launched internal reviews. Obama also accepted the resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller as part of an effort to restore public trust in the IRS.
Despite his swift response, critics argued that Obama’s actions were insufficient. Republicans accused the administration of attempting to downplay the severity of the issue and called for further investigations into the matter.
Were Conservative Groups Specifically Targeted by the IRS?
While the IRS initially claimed that the targeting was not politically motivated, subsequent investigations, including one by Vox, confirmed that conservative groups were disproportionately scrutinized. Liberal-leaning organizations applying for the same tax-exempt status did not face similar delays or intrusive questioning.
The TIGTA report and other analyses underscored that the IRS’s actions were not neutral but skewed against conservative groups. This targeting undermined public confidence in the IRS and raised serious concerns about political bias within the agency.
Policy Reforms: The IRS revised its BOLO procedures, ensuring that applications were reviewed based on content rather than organizational names or political affiliations.
Leadership Changes: Several senior officials resigned or were reassigned, including Acting Commissioner Steven Miller and Lois Lerner.
Congressional Oversight: Multiple Congressional hearings were held to investigate the IRS’s actions and propose safeguards against future abuses.
TIGTA Recommendations: The TIGTA report included several recommendations for improving the IRS’s processes, all of which were adopted.
While these actions addressed some of the immediate concerns, the controversy left a lasting impact on the public’s perception of the IRS and its role in enforcing tax laws impartially.
The 2013 IRS tax exemption controversy exposed significant flaws in the agency’s handling of politically sensitive applications. Conservative groups were unfairly targeted, leading to public outrage and political fallout. The scandal highlighted the importance of maintaining impartiality in government institutions and prompted reforms aimed at restoring trust.
While the measures taken addressed some of the systemic issues, the controversy remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of bias and the need for transparency in government operations.
MSNBC aired an opinion segment comparing a rally for former President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden rally during the 2024 election campaign to a Nazi rally held at the same venue in 1939. This sparked significant debate, with critics questioning whether the comparison was warranted or consistent. Did MSNBC explicitly draw such a comparison? Here’s an analysis based on the transcript and additional context about Madison Square Garden’s historical use for political events.
Historical Context Provided by MSNBC
The segment opened by recounting the infamous 1939 rally at Madison Square Garden, where over 20,000 American Nazi supporters gathered under banners displaying swastikas. During that event, speakers promoted anti-Semitic rhetoric, and a Jewish protester was violently attacked by “stormtroopers.” MSNBC juxtaposed this historical moment with Trump’s rally, emphasizing the venue’s symbolic weight.
History professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat argued that Trump’s choice of Madison Square Garden was “not a casual choice,” suggesting it invoked historical parallels. She pointed to Trump’s rhetoric, including phrases like “polluting our blood” and “vermin,” which she claimed mirrored language used by Adolf Hitler.
Comparisons Between Trump and Fascist Leaders
MSNBC’s panelists examined Trump’s rhetoric, comparing it to that of authoritarian leaders. Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, highlighted Trump’s use of dehumanizing terms like “animals” and “cold-blooded killers” to describe his opponents, as well as his frequent appeals to authoritarian ideas. Both Ben-Ghiat and Applebaum argued that Trump’s rallies aim to radicalize voters, mobilizing latent anger and extremism.
The segment also linked Trump’s alleged calls for mass deportations and military obedience to historical fascist tactics, drawing parallels between his rhetoric and authoritarian regimes. While MSNBC did not explicitly equate Trump’s rally with the 1939 Nazi rally, the implication was clear with visual representations of the 1930’s rally then transitioned to Trump’s 2024 rally.
Madison Square Garden’s Political History
Despite MSNBC’s focus on the 1939 Nazi rally, Madison Square Garden has a long history of hosting political events, including several Democratic gatherings that were not subject to similar scrutiny or comparisons.
Democratic National Convention (1924):The convention, held at Madison Square Garden, was deeply divided over issues like immigration and Prohibition, requiring a record 103 ballots to nominate John W. Davis.
Democratic National Convention (1980): President Jimmy Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy addressed the convention held at Madison Square Garden during Carter’s re-election campaign.
Bill Clinton’s Acceptance Speech (1992): Clinton delivered his acceptance speech as the Democratic presidential nominee at Madison Square Garden during the convention.
These events underscore that Madison Square Garden has served as a venue for significant political events across the ideological spectrum. Unlike Trump’s rally, none of these Democratic gatherings drew comparisons to the 1939 Nazi rally, despite their large-scale use of the venue and contentious issues of their time.
Does the Segment Make a Direct Comparison?
While MSNBC did not explicitly state that Trump’s rally was identical to the 1939 Nazi rally, it strongly implied a connection. The focus on historical parallels, rhetoric, and symbolism invited viewers to draw their own conclusions. However, the segment’s omission of Madison Square Garden’s broader political history raises questions about whether the comparison was fair or selective.
MSNBC’s segment implicitly compared Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally to the 1939 Nazi rally through historical and rhetorical parallels. However, the venue has hosted many political events, including rallies and conventions led by prominent Democratic figures, which were not similarly scrutinized.
This raises broader questions about the consistency and fairness of such comparisons. Whether MSNBC’s framing was appropriate or hyperbolic remains a subject of public debate.
