Politics & Government

The internet had scathing reactions Friday to Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino's comments about a 5-year-old in Minnesota who was taken into ICE custody after agents targeted his father.

Bovino was speaking at a press conference in Minneapolis and confirmed that Liam Conejo Ramos was in his family's driveway when he returned home from school with his father and that both of them were taken away in a vehicle and sent to an ICE facility in Texas. Bovino attempted to argue that ICE has treated children well following public scrutiny over the agency's actions.

"The child is in the least restrictive setting with a family member. I don't think it gets any better than that," Bovino said.

Social media users had sharp responses to Bovino's comments:

"Does he think that being the size of a child makes him an expert on children?" Navy veteran Molly Rogers wrote on Bluesky.

"They are experts at dealing with the unarmed, that's true enough," Joan, an ADHD coach and Canadian, wrote on Bluesky.

"Dealing with children…is a chilling statement," writer and filmmaker Nicole Quinn wrote on Bluesky.

"All I can see is his soulless, dead eyes. The child should be at home with his mother and not in a restrictive setting, for Christ's sake," user Chidi wrote on X.

"If that's the situation, Commander Bovino, please allow the press and congressional members to visit and inspect this Texas camp along with other ICE facilities run by the Trump administration..." user DeSota Wilson wrote on X.

A hearing room for the House Oversight Committee erupted into laughter Wednesday after the committee chair, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), blanked on a question asked by a Democratic committee member.

Wednesday’s hearing saw the committee fiercely debate whether to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Challenging the measure was Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who pressed Comer on whether the committee had already been informed that the Clintons were willing to testify on the record.

“It's my understanding that you guys have received correspondence by phone, email and a written letter from the attorneys from the Clintons offering to [testify] on the record, with you, with the staff... is that correct?” Stansbury asked.

“I didn't... I wasn't paying attention to your question,” Comer admitted, sparking an eruption of laughter in the room, including from Stansbury, who moved to ask her question again, albeit more slowly.

“Okay – we're pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt, and the claim is that you have made reasonable accommodations and that [the Clintons] have not been responsive,” Stansbury repeated.

“But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee – including yourself – including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone, by email to meet with you, on the record, to give sworn statements. Is that correct?”

Comer’s first reaction was to speak of how the Clintons had been given “five months” to appear before Congress before being pressed by Stansbury again: “yes or no,” she asked.

“You all are trying to create a false narrative!” Comer fired back. “You've had five months, you should have gotten to the Clintons before the contempt vote!”

Stansbury asked once more for Comer to answer her question, but was met with silence as Comer’s aides could be seen speaking with him quietly.

“Just to be clear for the public, his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question,” Stansbury alleged.

Comer fired back at Stansbury once more.

“No, the staff said they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying because you blabbered for three minutes!” Comer said.