Former acting ICE Director and current border security advocate Tom Homan issued a sharp rebuke to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., following her pointed comments about him at a recent town hall meeting in Queens. Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Homan warned that the “tables have now turned,” implying that the New York congresswoman’s actions could have legal consequences.
Homan’s remarks were a direct response to Ocasio-Cortez’s defiant tone during her town hall, where she criticized the Trump-era deportation policies and stated she was “not afraid” of Homan. The congresswoman defended her office’s hosting of a “Know Your Rights” webinar earlier this year, which aimed to inform migrants about their legal rights during encounters with immigration enforcement officers. The event reportedly advised attendees on how to ask for warrants, differentiate between administrative and judicial warrants, and record interactions with ICE agents.
But Homan sees these efforts in a much different light. “She’s educating the worst of the worst on how to evade law enforcement,” he said. “But the tables have now turned. She’s educating people how to get prosecuted, because you have a final order.” He stressed that failing to comply with a lawful removal order issued by a federal judge constitutes a crime, specifically under Title 8, United States Code 1253. “It is illegal to not comply with that order,” he continued. “You can’t hinder your own removal that was ordered by a federal judge.”
The implication is that Ocasio-Cortez, by advising constituents on how to respond to ICE actions, may be enabling obstruction of federal law enforcement. Homan did not shy away from suggesting that the legality of her office’s actions deserves scrutiny, hinting at potential future legal challenges.
Ocasio-Cortez, however, has stood firm in her defense of the community outreach efforts, which she says are intended to empower vulnerable individuals and protect civil rights. At the town hall, she told attendees she was proud to stand up against what she described as fear tactics and government overreach. “We are not afraid,” she declared, emphasizing her commitment to immigrant communities and her opposition to what she calls the “dehumanizing” policies implemented during the Trump administration.
The confrontation underscores a broader ideological divide over immigration enforcement in the United States. While Homan and other immigration hardliners argue that strict compliance with deportation orders is essential for maintaining the rule of law, progressives like Ocasio-Cortez see civil resistance and legal education as tools to protect people from potential abuses of power.
Homan’s comments add fuel to the already heated political climate surrounding immigration policy. By suggesting that AOC’s efforts are not only misguided but potentially criminal, he’s escalating the rhetoric and placing her at the center of a legal and moral debate about how far elected officials can go in advising undocumented immigrants.
This clash also comes amid renewed calls from conservatives for a return to stricter immigration enforcement under a potential second Trump administration. Homan, who remains a vocal supporter of Trump’s policies, has repeatedly called for mass deportations and harsher penalties for immigration violations.
Whether Homan’s veiled threat of prosecution has legal merit remains to be seen. Legal experts are divided on whether advising immigrants about their rights—such as the right to remain silent or to ask for a judicial warrant—can be construed as obstruction. However, the growing tension between federal immigration enforcement and local officials who oppose it shows no sign of cooling.
In the meantime, the verbal battle between Homan and Ocasio-Cortez is likely to continue, especially as immigration remains a top-tier issue heading into the 2024 election cycle. Both figures are symbols of their respective camps—one advocating uncompromising enforcement, the other resisting it in the name of civil liberties. Their latest exchange is less about personal animosity and more a reflection of the deep divisions shaping American immigration policy today.
