标签： North America

As diplomatic preparations wrap up in Washington D.C., U.S. President Donald Trump is set to host Chinese President Xi Jinping for a landmark three-day state visit this week, a gathering that carries global implications as the world’s two largest powers negotiate critical agreements and longstanding points of tension. This trip marks Xi’s first formal state visit to the United States since 2015, and his third in-person meeting with Trump over the past 12 months, underscoring the urgency of the talks on the agenda.

The visit will open with a rare ceremonial greeting: Trump will personally welcome Xi at Andrews Air Force Base, followed by a military flyover and an official state dinner at the White House, a level of pageantry that foreign policy experts have described as unprecedented. Xi will be joined by First Lady Peng Liyuan, who is scheduled to tour the Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art alongside U.S. First Lady Melania Trump on Thursday, alongside attending official social events during the summit.

The most pressing topic on the agenda is the upcoming expiration of the 2025 U.S.-China trade truce, set to end in November. The agreement, reached when the two leaders met in South Korea in October 2025, paused a planned round of steep U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, while China rolled back restrictions on rare earth exports—materials critical to advanced U.S. manufacturing. Analysts and trade observers widely expect the two leaders to make an announcement regarding an extension of the truce during the summit, though preliminary talks held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last Tuesday failed to produce meaningful progress, multiple anonymous sources confirmed to the BBC. U.S. negotiators resumed bilateral talks with their Chinese counterparts in Washington on Wednesday, immediately following Xi’s arrival, with talks focused on non-tariff barriers and agricultural export access. The U.S. still carries a $91 billion trade deficit with China, per latest U.S. Census Bureau data, and Chinese rare earth exports to the U.S. have fallen despite the 2025 truce, creating lingering frictions ahead of the summit.

Artificial intelligence has also rapidly climbed the priority list for the meeting, according to China policy experts. The U.S. and China are locked in a widely documented global AI race, but growing bipartisan and public pressure has mounted on the Trump administration to agree to guardrails for AI development, following a string of high-profile AI-related security incidents. Senator Bernie Sanders publicly called this week on X (formerly Twitter) for Trump and Xi to immediately negotiate a treaty to pause advanced AI development and ban superintelligent systems, a call echoed by former White House senior adviser Steve Bannon and multiple congressional Republicans. However, President Trump has thus far resisted strict regulation, framing AI as a core driver of U.S. economic growth and a critical battleground in great power competition. “Whoever wins AI, wins,” Trump has repeatedly stated, prioritizing outpacing China’s AI development over sweeping restrictions. Still, experts including David Firestein of the Bush China Foundation say the two leaders are expected to explore limited avenues for collaborative governance of the emerging technology. Ahead of the summit, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent held what he called “very successful” preliminary talks with his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng on both trade and AI issues. In a sign of AI’s centrality to the summit, leading tech industry figures including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, and X CEO Elon Musk are all confirmed guests at Thursday’s White House state dinner.

The third core sticking point on the agenda is Taiwan, a longstanding flashpoint in U.S.-China relations. The U.S. Congress has already approved a multibillion-dollar arms sales package to self-governing Taiwan, which is currently awaiting Trump’s signature. The president has delayed signing the measure to date, framing it as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Beijing. China has long maintained that Taiwan is part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve reunification, and Firestein says Beijing will push for Trump to extend the delay or cancel the arms sale entirely.

Both leaders face domestic economic pressures heading into the meeting: Xi is navigating slowing growth at home, and is eager to discuss deepening bilateral trade ties to support Chinese economic activity. For Trump, any move toward closer trade relations carries political risks, as hardline factions within his own administration and base hold deep suspicions of Chinese economic and geopolitical goals. Just last month, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a public letter to Ford Motor Company urging the automaker to cut all commercial ties with China, citing national security risks and the protection of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Despite widespread expectations that major breakthroughs on any of the core issues are unlikely this week, Trump has repeatedly framed personal, high-level engagement with Xi as a critical step toward reducing bilateral confrontation. “Trump has made a decision that no matter what, we need to not have a confrontational relationship with China,” explained Stephen Orlins, president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. “He believes that the more he and President Xi meet, the less confrontational that relationship will be, and he is right,” Orlins added.

A tense public confrontation unfolded between former President Donald Trump and CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, marking a new escalation in the longtime tensions between the Trump administration and the major cable news network. The clash came after CNN was officially stripped of its press access to the White House grounds, a move that had already drawn sharp criticism from press freedom advocates across the political spectrum. As Collins approached Trump to ask questions during the high-profile international gathering, the former president directly addressed her, stating forcefully that the outlet did not belong at the event. The exchange immediately drew global media attention, reigniting debates about the relationship between sitting U.S. executive branch leadership and independent press, as well as the implications for journalistic access in political spaces. The confrontation underscored the deep divisions between the Trump White House and major mainstream media outlets, which had frequently clashed over coverage of the administration’s policies and actions throughout its tenure.

During a Tuesday address to global leaders assembled at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, former U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a rambling, factually contested speech that included open genocidal threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran, drawing sharp condemnation from policy experts, activists, and legal scholars across the international community.

In the speech, Trump, who launched an illegal offensive against Iran nearly seven months prior, issued an ultimatum to Iranian leadership, threatening to completely “annihilate” the nation if they refused to accept a U.S.-drafted peace deal. “I have a big decision to make,” Trump told the assembled assembly. “Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”

Continuing his provocative remarks, Trump added, “Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” He went on to predict a deal would be struck after the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, claiming Iranian leaders were waiting to see the election’s outcome while incorrectly noting that he was not on the ballot, having already won the presidency in a landslide. This threat of national annihilation marks a continuation of hostile rhetoric Trump has employed against Iran since his first term in office, but the open brazenness of the threat delivered from the UN podium sparked widespread shock among observers.

Maryam Jamshidi, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School, highlighted the unprecedented severity of the moment in a post on X. “It’s one thing to make genocidal threats against a nation on social media. It’s another thing to do it from the podium of the UN. That’s what Donald Trump just did. He used his speech at the UN to threaten Iran with annihilation.” Jamshidi called on UN Secretary-General António Guterres and all UN member states to formally condemn Trump’s threat.

Independent journalist Taylor Noakes echoed criticism of global inaction, arguing that the most troubling aspect of the incident was the silence from other Western democratic leaders. “What’s particularly sad about this (aside from the fact he’ll likely never be prosecuted for war crimes) is how so many leaders of other liberal democracies have stood by and done nothing while the Americans make a mockery of the UN as an instrument for global order,” Noakes said.

VoteVets, a Democratic-aligned veterans advocacy organization, accused Trump of openly contemplating war crimes on the global stage, labeling his threat “deranged and dangerous.” Award-winning journalist Mehdi Hasan called the incident a new low for global governance, noting, “For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a UN member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at.”

Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former senior advisor to independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, described the remarks as “dangerously unhinged.” “Such rhetoric is not merely reckless, it is a criminal threat of genocide against an entire nation,” Duss said. “US lawmakers and US partners around the world should condemn Trump’s remarks and take all due steps to bring an end to the war on Iran.”

Beyond the threats against Iran, Trump’s speech was filled with multiple verifiably false claims and unsubstantiated assertions, including a baseless boast that the U.S. had destroyed 97% of illicit drug shipments traveling across international oceans via a campaign of strikes on suspected cartel vessels. Reporting from *The New York Times*, which draws on data from U.S. Southern Command and current Trump administration officials, confirms that at least 234 people have been killed in no fewer than 70 strikes on suspected smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. To date, the Trump administration has not released credible evidence to back its claims that all targeted vessels were engaged in drug trafficking.

Regional leaders and family members of those killed in the strikes argue that many of the victims were civilian fishermen with no ties to organized narcotrafficking. Legal experts have further concluded that the strikes violate core tenets of international law, regardless of the status of the vessels targeted.

Other false claims included the unsubstantiated assertion that the Iranian government had killed 72,000 people in 2026, a false claim that a U.S. invasion of Venezuela and abduction of sitting President Nicolas Maduro left the U.S. in control of more than 60% of global oil reserves, a false statement that his administration had ended the ongoing war in Gaza, and an inaccurate claim that he had successfully negotiated an end to eight separate global conflicts during his prior tenure.

Craig Mokhiber, a former senior United Nations official who resigned in protest of the world body’s failure to stop Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, called the speech a wake-up call for global leaders. “Donald Trump’s maniacal rant before the UN General Assembly today, complete with ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, an almost unbroken line of absurd, demonstrable lies, open criminality, and deranged, murderous threats, should awaken even the most cowardly and complicit among world leaders that their attempts at appeasement of Trump and the tyrannical axis that he leads can only result in further aggression, economic terrorism, murder, and genocide,” Mokhiber said.

He added, “The world must unite to counter the threat and to defend peace, human rights, and the rule of law, which are, after all, declared purposes of the UN.”

A high-stakes legal battle over press freedom is set for a key procedural milestone this Wednesday, as a federal judge in Washington D.C. will decide whether to temporarily suspend former President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on three major U.S. media outlets from accessing the White House complex.

Last week, Trump administration officials revoked the press passes of reporters from CNN, Politico and MS NOW, barring the outlets from on-site White House access over allegations that the organizations have repeatedly spread what the president calls “fake news.” Immediately following the revocation of their credentials, the three outlets launched a joint lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the ban is a blatant violation of U.S. constitutional law.

As the court prepares to hear arguments this week, the U.S. Justice Department has submitted formal court documents defending the administration’s decision, claiming the three outlets have “trafficked in verifiable falsehoods” through their reporting, and that some of their coverage has posed active threats to U.S. national security. The department’s filing outlines that White House officials issued a formal list of problematic reporting incidents to the outlets before implementing the ban. Cited in the filing are stories covering unpublicized construction projects on White House grounds, including work on a new security bunker and a planned private ballroom, as well as a report on an ongoing internal investigation into White House information leaks.

In its defense of the administration’s policy, the Justice Department emphasized that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right” for press organizations. Legal representatives for the three media outlets have pushed back forcefully, arguing that the ban directly violates protections guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from infringing on the freedom of the press.

In their joint statement announcing the lawsuit, the outlets condemned the administration’s actions as an unprecedented attack on independent journalism. “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the statement read. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The ban has already triggered widespread pushback across the U.S. journalism industry: major national television networks have withdrawn from the White House press pool, the long-standing collaborative arrangement that shares video and still footage of the president with all participating outlets, in a coordinated show of protest against the administration’s move. Within days of the networks’ withdrawal, the White House launched its own standalone streaming platform, branded “Trump TV,” which operates a 24-hour continuous feed of clips and content featuring the president.

Wednesday’s ruling will address the media outlets’ request for a temporary injunction that would lift the ban while the full legal case proceeds through the court system, setting off what is widely expected to become a landmark constitutional battle over the boundaries of press freedom and executive authority.

It was an unconventional diplomatic encounter held in a windowless, unremarkable basement meeting room down a dim corridor at the United Nations headquarters — far from the polished grandeur of the White House Oval Office. As a reporter crouched between a bank of press cameras, hoping to catch U.S. President Donald Trump’s attention for a question, I watched the former (and seeking re-election) president lean into a rare moment of measured cordiality. As anyone who has covered Trump knows, he can flip between sharp acerbity and genuine warmth at will, and on this occasion, he chose warmth.

Seated beside the most powerful leader in the world was Andy Burnham, who had only stepped into the role of UK Prime Minister months earlier after serving as a city mayor. Burnham had publicly stated ahead of the meeting that he was looking forward to the discussion, but even with that confident framing, a flicker of nervousness would have been understandable. Reporters in the room noted that he did appear slightly on edge when the press pool entered the space, but any tension was quickly defused by a steady stream of compliments from the U.S. president.

The original schedule called for journalists to join the two leaders just minutes after their first greeting, to open the meeting to press. Instead, the press pool was held outside while the pair held closed-door private talks first — an unexpected change that ended up working in reporters’ favor, leaving both leaders with more prepared comments about their discussions than they would have shared otherwise.

Burnham went into the encounter well aware that unscripted, live on-camera meetings with Trump are famously unpredictable: they can veer off into unplanned controversy at any moment, akin to riding a rollercoaster without a safety harness. Once the press was inside, I managed to get myself into Trump’s line of sight, and waited until Burnham finished his opening remarks to call out my question. I asked the U.S. president whether, despite their well-documented political differences, he believed Burnham was a leader the U.S. could work with.

Trump’s response was immediately warm. “I do, I think he’s a natural business person. We’ve had a lot of discussions even before this meeting. We’ve spoken to each other numerous times on the phone. Yeah, I think so, I think so. He gets it. He understands what he has to do.”

The open goodwill was clear, and it likely eased any pre-meeting jitters the Downing Street team had been feeling. The meeting was entirely in Trump’s hands: he controls the length of these public question sessions, which have sometimes stretched well past 30 minutes. This time, the neutral, low-key setting at the UN seemed to tone down the sense of high-stakes spectacle.

Even as the conversation turned to potentially divisive issues, the bonhomie held. A question about immigration, a longstanding point of policy friction between the two leaders’ positions, passed without incident. So did discussion of the Burnham government’s recent announcement — made by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who was in attendance at the meeting — of new sanctions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a decision that drew fierce anger from the Israeli government.

But when the conversation turned to the future of the Chagos Islands, Trump could not hide his blunt disapproval of the previous UK government’s decision to cede sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, while retaining a long-term lease for the critical British military base on Diego Garcia. He called the deal “terrible”, adding that he believed the new prime minister would revisit the agreement. Burnham simply replied “yep” to the president’s comment.

After the joint press availability, I spoke one-on-one with Prime Minister Burnham on behalf of all major broadcasters. Burnham framed the first meeting as “very encouraging”, noting that the pair “had established a good connection” to build on. When I pressed him on whether the Chagos Islands deal would be revised, he pointed out that the agreement had been finalized by the previous government, which he “inherited” upon taking office. “We’ve got to find a resolution, and so work will continue now…to see where that resolution might lead,” he said. That response strongly suggests the deal is set for renegotiation.

Few global leaders manage to avoid public flashpoints with the Trump administration, so future disagreements between the two leaders are almost inevitable. Burnham may even choose to take public stances that create friction in time, and issues like the Chagos deal could easily become a point of contention down the line. But for the moment, the first face-to-face meeting has left Burnham with a working relationship with Trump that he can build on. After the unpredictable, high-stakes encounter with Trump, the rest of Burnham’s UN meetings followed the traditional, predictable rhythm of standard diplomacy — a far cry from the wild ride he had just navigated successfully.

To stay updated on the inner workings of UK politics at Westminster and beyond, sign up for the *Politics Essential* newsletter.

On the opening day of the 2026 United Nations General Assembly in New York, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a high-stakes address that blended bellicose rhetoric toward Iran, domestic political campaigning, and bold pledges to reshape global order, capping a day of busy high-level diplomacy that offered tentative hints of progress on Iranian peace talks.

Addressing a standing-room-only crowd of global diplomats and leaders, Trump opened his speech by touting what he framed as transformative domestic achievements across economic growth, border security, immigration control, and reductions in violent crime. Political observers widely noted the remarks appeared tailored more to galvanize American voters ahead of November’s pivotal midterm elections than to win over the international audience assembled in Manhattan.

The core of Trump’s address centered on the ongoing conflict between the U.S.-led coalition and Iran, which began with joint U.S.-Israeli military action in February 2026. The war has sent global oil prices soaring and dragged down the president’s domestic approval ratings in recent months. In a remark that marked a dramatic escalation of coercive diplomacy, Trump revealed he was facing an imminent “big decision” between pursuing a negotiated peace deal with Tehran or launching a new, devastating strike that would “annihilate” the Islamic Republic.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?” Trump asked the assembly. “Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell?”

The president framed the current conflict as a necessary step to block Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, arguing it validated his doctrine of “peace through strength” — relying on ultimatums and overwhelming military pressure rather than compromise and traditional diplomacy. He added that he expected a long-elusive peace deal with Iran to be finalized shortly after November’s midterm elections, pointing to what he described as productive behind-the-scenes talks held on the sidelines of the General Assembly.

Hours after his speech, the White House confirmed that U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff had held a three-hour “very productive” meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, facilitated by Qatari mediators. Iranian state media confirmed the talks, noting that Tehran’s core conditions for any final deal include an immediate end to all military operations across Iranian territory and a halt to what it describes as ongoing U.S. acts of aggression. Leaving the UN compound after the negotiations, Witkoff gave reporters a thumbs-up to signal progress, later posting on X that the first round of discussions had been completed successfully.

“They successfully completed a round of discussions that we hope will prove constructive and promising,” Witkoff wrote. “The mediators will continue their work.” Only one member of Iran’s official delegation was present in the assembly chamber to hear Trump’s opening address.

Beyond Iran, Trump used his speech to lay out his broader foreign and domestic policy vision, pushing back hard against the framing of global cooperation laid out earlier in the day by outgoing UN Secretary-General António Guterres. In his farewell address to the General Assembly, Guterres warned that global fault lines were rapidly widening amid intensifying geopolitical rivalries, ongoing wars, the climate crisis, and unregulated AI development, stressing that all world nations are inherently interdependent. He also urged major global powers to acknowledge the limits of their influence, saying “that their power isn’t so super.”

Trump rejected that framing outright, attacking the United Nations as beholden to a “far-left agenda of globalist bureaucrats who nobody ever elected.” He firmly rejected the concept of a global government, reaffirming his commitment to absolute American national sovereignty and the dominance of U.S. military power.

On other key global conflicts, Trump reiterated his pledge to broker a lasting peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, where fighting has continued to intensify with both sides launching sustained cross-border missile and drone strikes. “We’re working very closely with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, and we will get that one done,” he said. “It’s going to happen, I think, more quickly than people understand.” The U.S. State Department later confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in New York on Wednesday to advance those talks.

On artificial intelligence, Trump pushed back against growing global alarmism around the technology, vowing the U.S. would maintain its global lead over China and reject what he called a “globalist scheme” to exert centralized control over AI innovation. He also announced a rebranding of the technology, arguing that the term “artificial” misrepresents its transformative potential. “The use of the word artificial makes it sound fake,” he said. “It’s not fake, it’s actually amazing. But we have to be careful.”

On the sidelines of the assembly, Trump signed a new bilateral agreement with Danish and Greenlandic leaders to expand U.S. military access to Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory located in the North Atlantic. The deal explicitly reaffirms Greenland’s sovereign status while granting U.S. forces broad access to the island’s airspace and territory, strengthening American strategic positioning in the Arctic.

Trump’s day of diplomacy also included a packed schedule of bilateral meetings with more than a dozen world leaders, including a first face-to-face encounter with new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and a gathering with leaders from multiple Gulf and Arab states focused on Middle East security. When addressing tensions in the Western Hemisphere, Trump issued a stark warning that the U.S. would not tolerate hostile presences in the region, saying “If necessary, we will use our unmatched military might to secure the vital national interests of the United States.”

He launched a sharp attack on Cuba’s communist government, accusing it of cultivating ties to left-wing American groups including the Communist Party USA, Antifa, and the Democratic Socialists of America, labeling Cuba a “failed state.” Immediately after Trump began his remarks on Cuba, the entire Cuban delegation walked out of the assembly chamber in protest.

A high-profile encounter between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and a Venezuelan DoorDash delivery worker in Texas has sparked fierce public debate, legal action, and political pushback after the 28-year-old man was shot during an arrest, with a federal judge now temporarily halting his deportation. Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, the immigrant in question, remains in ICE custody holding an unfired bullet in his back with untreated injuries that have raised alarms over inadequate medical care in detention facilities. The incident, which unfolded on a Sunday afternoon in Austin, has reignited long-simmering tensions over federal immigration enforcement tactics in sanctuary jurisdictions.

According to Garces Perez’s immigration attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, her client was on a routine delivery when an unmarked black vehicle — later confirmed to be tied to ICE — sideswiped his car. Unaware that the vehicle belonged to law enforcement, Garces Perez made a U-turn to escape what he believed was an attack or robbery, only to be hit a second time by the ICE truck before agents exited the vehicle and opened fire. The gunshot fractured his clavicle, leaving him with severe swelling, chronic pain, and unexplained loss of mobility that has yet to be fully diagnosed by medical professionals. He currently wears an arm sling to manage his injury.

Following the shooting, Lincoln-Goldfinch filed an emergency federal lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order to block Garces Perez’s deportation before his case could receive a public court hearing. On Wednesday, Judge Orlando Garcia — a federal district court judge appointed during the Clinton administration — granted the temporary block, scheduling an in-person hearing for Garces Perez on September 30. This ruling means the immigrant cannot be removed from the U.S. before the hearing concludes.

In a social media post following the judge’s ruling, Lincoln-Goldfinch called the order a critical first win, but emphasized that the legal fight is far from over. “For now, we have secured a temporary block on his deportation while his case moves forward,” she wrote. “This is an important step, but our work is not over. Wilber still needs appropriate medical care, and we will continue fighting to protect his rights.”

The attorney has further alleged severe mistreatment of Garces Perez while in ICE detention. She claims that after his initial hospital treatment, he was transferred back to the detention facility while still injured, placed in full restraints — handcuffs, ankle shackles, and a waist chain — and handled roughly by staff. Detention officials later revoked his communication privileges, moved him out of the facility’s infirmary, and confined him to an isolated cell with a non-adjustable hard bed, even as he continued to experience severe pain from his gunshot wound. It was only after he lost all mobility in one arm that he was transported back to the hospital for further care, before being returned to detention once again.

Released police footage from the Austin Police Department, which was not involved in the ICE operation but responded to the scene after the shooting, corroborates that Garces Perez sustained a single gunshot wound to the back. While the footage does not capture the actual shooting, multiple gunshots can be heard on one officer’s dashcam recording, and a separate clip shows officers approaching Garces Perez’s vehicle before cutting away his t-shirt to reveal the entry wound on his back.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, has pushed back aggressively against claims of mistreatment, dismissing widespread public criticism as “false narratives” spread by sanctuary city leaders and media outlets. In a public statement to the BBC, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the agency’s actions and claimed Garces Perez, who entered the U.S. without legal authorization and saw his work permit expire last year, has received top-tier medical care. “Contrary to their claims, this person is an illegal alien who has no legal status to be here and has been given some of the best medical care he’s ever received in his life,” Mullin said. He added that “no amount of smears and false narratives will slow down ICE from doing its job by removing dangerous illegal aliens from our communities and making America safe again.” DHS has also denied claims that Garces Perez was denied pain medication or forced to sleep on the floor, confirming he was placed on a standard bed after returning to detention following hospital treatment.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas declined to comment on the ongoing case when reached by reporters.

This shooting comes just months after another ICE officer fatally shot a man during an operation in Houston, amplifying calls for accountability this time around. Prominent Texas Democrat Congressman Joaquin Castro was among the first public officials to call for Garces Perez’s immediate release from detention, and a coalition of local and state leaders has formally demanded a full independent investigation into the shooting and subsequent handling of the detainee.

Within hours of the shooting, dozens of protesters gathered at the incident location to demonstrate against federal immigration enforcement in Austin. Many carried signs calling for ICE to exit the city, while some waved the national flags of Mexico and Guatemala to show solidarity with immigrant communities. In response to the protests, DHS reiterated Tuesday that the agency has no plans to scale back its operations in Austin.

As the country awaits the September 30 court hearing, the case remains a flashpoint in the ongoing national battle over U.S. immigration policy, law enforcement use of force, and the treatment of immigrants in federal detention.