Footage circulating online shows the costumed protester, whose name was not disclosed, addressing council members at the Levi’s Stadium-adjacent meeting on Jan. 27. He called the officials “cowards” and warned that “hundreds of masked men” could descend on the city if local authorities failed to push back against ICE operations.

The man’s dramatic entrance and repeated swearing drew attention on a livestream of the meeting, as he implored the council to “reaffirm” that Santa Clara would not provide city resources to support federal immigration enforcement during the Feb. 8 NFL championship between the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots.

He referenced recent killings by federal agents in Minneapolis earlier this month, framing the concern as part of a broader pattern of violence by ICE and federal law enforcement.

Santa Clara Police Chief Cory Morgan declined to comment on ICE’s presence, saying the department would not “confirm, deny, or speculate about” the actions of federal agencies.

The appearance comes amid heightened national scrutiny of ICE following fatal shootings during enforcement operations in Minnesota, which left two people dead and several others detained.

Corey Lewandowski, a Department of Homeland Security adviser, had previously indicated that ICE would be present at the Super Bowl, though details of their role remain unclear.

'Some heroes wear capes'

Online reactions to the Batman-clad speaker were divided. 

Some dismissed the intervention as a publicity stunt, while others praised the theatrics as a bold call to accountability. One viewer wrote, “Some heroes do wear capes,” while another added, “You guys might be laughing, but he got his message out.”

The man’s intervention underscores growing tensions between federal enforcement agencies and local authorities over the use of city resources and the scope of ICE operations in major public events.

Santa Clara officials, meanwhile, have not publicly indicated any plans to curtail ICE’s involvement, highlighting the delicate balance local governments face between public safety, federal authority, and political pressure.

As the Super Bowl approaches, the presence of federal officers in and around Levi’s Stadium is likely to remain a point of controversy, amplified by protests, public commentary, and now a masked man in Batman attire demanding accountability.

Celebrities have now begun using their platforms to demand accountability, urge political action and warn that aggressive enforcement tactics are undermining democratic norms.

Here are some of the celebrities who have condemned the actions;

Katy Perry urges Americans to pressure lawmakers

Singer Katy Perry called on her followers to contact US senators and oppose further funding for ICE. Her message came as demonstrations spread across Minnesota, with activists demanding transparency over the killings.

Pedro Pascal calls the killings a threat to democracy

“The Last of Us” actor Pedro Pascal was among the most vocal critics. He shared drawings of the victims online alongside the phrase: “Pretti Good reason for a national strike.” Pascal wrote that truth is the dividing line between democracy and authoritarianism, saying Americans deserve to know what happened.

Olivia Rodrigo

Olivia Rodrigo also posted on her Instagram Stories, writing, “ICE’s actions are unconscionable but we are not powerless. Our actions matter. I stand with Minnesota.”

Jamie Lee Curtis and Edward Norton

Actress Jamie Lee Curtis reposted the same image, while actor Edward Norton also called for a broader public response.

Billie Eilish challenges celebrity silence

Singer Billie Eilish described Pretti as “a real American hero” and urged other public figures to speak out. “Hey my fellow celebrities u gonna speak up? or,” she posted, calling attention to what she sees as widespread silence.

Other celebrities who have condemned ICE’s actions or shared messages of protest include:

Ariana Grande, Olivia Rodrigo, Sabrina Carpenter, Natalie Portman, Florence Pugh, Mark Ruffalo, Zoey Deutch, who wore an “ICE OUT” pin.

NBA players’ union: “We can no longer remain silent  

The National Basketball Players Association issued a statement saying athletes must stand with protesters demanding justice. “Now more than ever, we must defend the right to freedom of speech,” the union said. The American Immigration Council reports a 75% rise in detentions, with a record 73,000 people held nationwide as of mid-January.

According to ICE’s data , 56 people died in ICE custody between 2009 and 2017, during the Obama administration. From 2017 to 2020, under the first Trump administration, the number was 52. Between 2021 and 2024, during the Biden administration, ICE reported 26 deaths.

What emerges from ICE records and independent investigations is a pattern of medical vulnerability. Many of those who died had chronic illnesses, mental health conditions , or were recovering from trauma linked to migration and detention.

Causes of death listed by ICE include heart attacks, suicide, COVID-19 complications, dehydration, and other untreated or poorly managed medical conditions. Reviews cited by NPR and the American Immigration Lawyers Association have repeatedly found delays in care, ignored complaints, and failures to transfer detainees to hospitals in time.

What is obvious is how little this pattern changes with political leadership. Every administration has pledged improvements to detention standards, yet deaths continue to occur.

Immigration lawyers argue that detention itself is the central risk factor. Facilities are not designed to provide long-term or complex medical care, yet they routinely hold people with serious health needs.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other advocacy groups continue to push for alternatives to detention, particularly for asylum seekers and medically vulnerable individuals. They point to evidence that community-based supervision is not only safer but also more cost-effective and humane.

The record shows that deaths in ICE custody are not isolated incidents tied to a single president or policy shift. They are a recurring outcome of a detention system with longstanding medical failures and weak accountability.

The most pressing question now is no longer how the numbers compare across administrations, but why preventable deaths continue to happen in the first place..

What they said

“The State Department will use its long-standing authority to deem ineligible potential immigrants who would become a public charge on the United States and exploit the generosity of the American people,” said Tommy Pigott, Principal Deputy Spokesperson at the State Department. He added: “Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassesses immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits.” David Bier, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, criticised the decision, saying: “This administration has proven itself to have the most anti-legal immigration agenda in American history,” and added, “This action will ban nearly half of all legal immigrants to the United States, turning away about 315,000 legal immigrants over the next year alone.” Trump previously said he would “permanently pause” migration from all “Third World Countries.”

In January 2025, Trump signed a sweeping executive order (“Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements”) instructing the U.S. to withdraw immediately from the Paris Climate Agreement and rescind all U.S. pledges under UN climate accords. In practice, this meant cancelling tens of millions in promised climate finance. By March 2025, the administration also pulled U.S. funding out of multilateral “Just Energy Transition” partnerships with emerging economies (e.g. South Africa, Vietnam, Indonesia). Analysts note this created a funding gap – South Africa, for example, lost about $56 million in grants and $1 billion in planned investments as its total international climate pledge fell from $13.8B to $12.8B. These moves undermined Global South clean-energy projects (even large renewables like South Africa’s Selemela solar plant) and forced poorer countries to seek new funding sources.

Trade and tariff measures

Trump dramatically expanded U.S. trade barriers in 2025. Using Section 232 authority , he hiked tariffs on steel, aluminium and copper imports to 50 % (and 25% on foreign autos). In April 2025, he also invoked emergency powers to impose a 10% “reciprocal” tariff on all imports not already covered by other sanctions. Critically, in July 2025, he signed an order suspending the longstanding “de minimis” duty exemption (which had let packages under $800 enter the U.S. duty-free). After August 2025, nearly all low‑value shipments (including small shipments of goods from China, Africa, or Latin America) began incurring duties. Economists warn these sweeping tariffs hurt exporters in the Global South (tariff conflicts even flared with neighbours like Canada and Mexico, raising costs on developing‑country goods and disrupting trade.

Cuts to foreign aid and development assistance

On Day 1 of his second term (Jan. 20, 2025), Trump ordered a 90‑day “realignment” of all U.S. foreign aid. In practice, this effectively dismantled USAID : many aid programs were merged into the State Dept or terminated, and the independent USAID agency was slated for elimination. By mid‑2025, the administration’s rescission budget proposal sought to claw back over $8 billion from foreign assistance (targeting global health, humanitarian, and development programs). The cuts hit Global South recipients hard: Africa alone had received roughly $12 billion in U.S. aid in FY2024. Loss of U.S. funding has forced many countries (e.g. in sub‑Saharan Africa and South Asia) to scramble for substitutes; public health campaigns, vaccine programs, and infrastructure projects previously backed by USAID are now under threat.

Migration and immigration restrictions

Trump tightened immigration rules affecting many in the Global South. In January 2025, he issued an order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program indefinitely, halting refugee resettlement from regions like Africa, Asia and Latin America. Later in 2025 (via proclamations in June and December), he expanded travel bans on foreign nationals from numerous developing countries. For example, a Dec. 16, 2025, proclamation extended full entry bans to countries including Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, Laos and Sierra Leone, and imposed new restrictions on citizens from Angola, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and others. These measures blocked many migrants and visitors from the Global South. Also in 2025, Reuters reported that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to remove Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from Venezuelan migrants.

Military and diplomatic initiatives in the Global South

Trump also pursued new security ties in Latin America. In December 2025, the administration announced it would designate Peru as a major Non‑NATO Ally . This special status grants Peru expanded privileges (easier purchase of U.S. military equipment and joint training programs) intended to strengthen counternarcotics cooperation. More broadly, a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine was unveiled in the 2025 National Security Strategy, declaring that “the American people – not foreign nations nor globalist institutions – will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere”. In practice, this has meant deeper U.S. military engagement in the Caribbean and Latin America (e.g. U.S. access to bases in the Dominican Republic, new Caribbean radar installations) to counter perceived threats. These moves signalled a reassertion of U.S. influence over Western Hemisphere nations.

Several immigrants told local media that after being denied entry, they were later offered access to the same clinics through backdoor arrangements. In some cases, clinic staff allegedly shared private contact details, offering HIV medication, chronic drugs, baby immunisations and prenatal care in exchange for cash payments.

“As immigrants, we feel vulnerable, because clinic staff and Operation Dudula members are now taking advantage of our desperate need for chronic medication to make money. They should be stopped,” an immigrant is quoted by the Citizen .

Patients described being charged between R200 and R300 (approx. US$10 – 16) for antiretroviral drugs that are meant to be free. Others said they were allowed into clinics but deliberately left unattended, making them vulnerable to extortion by intermediaries who claimed to have connections inside.

South Africa’s health department says it is not aware of organised extortion but has condemned any such actions as illegal. “If this is true, it is un law ful, and we condemn it with the strongest terms it deserves. We request anyone with evidence to share it with the department or law enforcement agencies so they can swiftly investigate,” said Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the national health department.

Authorities have charged an Afghan national in connection with Wednesday’s shooting, which has escalated political tensions around national security and migration.

In response, Trump confirmed a newly announced “pause” on immigration from what he called “third-world countries,” saying the administration would conduct a broader review of U.S. entry policies following the attack.

The shooting has sparked widespread grief and renewed debate over security, immigration , and the protection of service members stationed in the capital.

The agreement, made known through media inquiries and documents seen by Human Rights Watch (HRW), allowed Eswatini to accept up to 160 deportees in exchange for support meant to strengthen its “border and migration management capacity.”

So far, Eswatini has taken in 15 deportees, five in July and ten in October.

The deportees originate from countries such as Jamaica, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Yemen.US authorities have labelled some as “depraved monsters,” a characterisation that has raised concerns in the region — especially in neighbouring South Africa , which fears the individuals could cross its porous borders.

Rights groups, lawyers, and civil society organisations in Eswatini have strongly criticised the government for a lack of transparency in striking the agreement, possible violations of domestic and international law and ignoring public safety and human rights implications.

Legal challenges have already been filed in court questioning the legality of the government’s decision to accept the deportees.

Eswatini’s acting government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli insists the state has been transparent, saying the US has been covering the “welfare and repatriation costs” of the deportees, along with other expenses tied to their temporary stay.

The government maintains that it had the authority to enter the agreement and that decisions about accepting further deportees will depend on ongoing discussions with the US and available capacity within Eswatini's institutions.

The $5.1 million was deposited into the account of Eswatini’s National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) — but the agency cannot spend it yet.

He confirmed the measure would take immediate effect but stressed that single-entry visas would not be affected. 

"What I'm saying today is about a multiple-entry visa. That means a single-entry visa remains possible. There's stronger scrutiny, but I'm not going to speculate about any future actions," he added.

The move marks a tightening of EU travel restrictions on Russian citizens amid continuing tensions over the war in Ukraine . 

On Thursday, the Commission said it could not prevent Russians from obtaining single-entry visas, as decisions on those applications rest with individual member states.

Multiple-entry Schengen visas allow holders to travel freely between countries in the Schengen zone, while single-entry visas limit travellers to one entry.

Moscow had not issued an official response at the time of publication.

“Citizens have stopped coming to Portugal and have started going to other countries,” he said, citing a decline in arrivals from Brazil , India, Angola, Pakistan, Nepal, and other key migrant communities.

While the government argues the law is necessary to regulate and control migration, Macedo stressed that Portugal cannot afford to close its doors.

“Portugal needs immigrants,” he insisted. “To meet the goals of the Portugal 2030 plan and the Recovery and Resilience Program (RRP), more immigrants are needed, from Brazil or anywhere else,” he told Viory.

Portugal, which faces an ageing population and labour shortages across sectors such as construction, agriculture, hospitality, and care services, has long relied on immigration to sustain its workforce. 

Macedo acknowledged the government’s desire for clearer rules but argued that overly rigid restrictions will “complicate the Portuguese economy ,” undermining growth at a time when labour demand remains high.

What they said

"Burkina Faso is not a land of deportation," Traore said, calling the request from the U.S. unworthy and indecent. Noting that Burkina Faso recently decided to lift visa fees for all Africans, he said the country's hospitality "should not be seen as an opportunity for a third country to get rid of certain populations that it considers undesirable."

The three countries with the highest deportation figures were Mexico (87,300), Guatemala (66,440), and Honduras (45,920).

Data sourced from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) , highlights ongoing migration and deportation patterns, with Central America continuing to be the region most affected.

Other countries with significant numbers include:

Notably, South American nations such as Colombia, Ecuador, Peru (4,300), and Venezuela (3,260) also appeared in the statistics, reflecting broader migration pressures from political and economic instability in the region.

Smaller figures were reported for the Dominican Republic (2,990) and Nicaragua (3,870), but together, they contribute to the larger trend of deportations across the Americas.

The U.S. has faced increasing challenges managing migration at its southern border, with policy debates intensifying as the numbers grow.

The 2024 deportation figures mark one of the highest in recent years, underscoring a continuing trend that will likely influence immigration policy discussions in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.