On Sunday, June 1, 2025, a terrorist attack shocked the Jewish community in the U.S. when Mohamed Sabri Suleiman, a 45-year-old illegal immigrant from Egypt, attacked participants of the “Running for Their Lives” rally on Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado. The demonstration aimed to raise awareness for the Israeli and American hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Suleiman, disguised as a gardener wearing an orange vest and carrying a black container concealing Molotov cocktails, threw improvised explosive devices and sprayed gasoline on the crowd while shouting “Free Palestine” and “Death to Zionists.” Twelve demonstrators were injured in the attack, including elderly individuals and a nearly 90-year-old Holocaust survivor. Eight of the wounded were hospitalized, some with severe burns.
The incident not only exposed the rise of antisemitic violence in the U.S. but also reignited the debate over President Biden’s lenient immigration policy versus the strict approach of the current Trump administration. It also revealed attempts by certain elements on the American left and in the mainstream media to downplay the severity of the act or avoid defining it as a terrorist attack.
Mohamed Sabri Suleiman arrived in the U.S. on August 27, 2022, through Los Angeles International Airport with a B1/B2 tourist visa valid until February 2023. A month after his arrival, he applied for asylum, and in March 2023, during the Biden administration, he received a work permit valid until March 2025. Even after this date, he remained in the U.S. illegally. Reports indicate that Suleiman had tried to enter the U.S. as early as 2005, but his visa request was denied. He lived in Colorado Springs with his wife and five children and worked briefly as an accountant for Veros Health between May and August 2023. His neighbor, Shameka Pruitt, described him as a kind person who never tried to impose his views on others. Still, an FBI investigation revealed a different picture: Suleiman had planned the attack for a year, learned how to make Molotov cocktails from YouTube videos, and waited until his daughter graduated from high school before carrying out the assault.
During his interrogation, he admitted his goal was to “kill all Zionists” out of hatred for Israel and its supporters. He had prior knowledge of the time and location of the protest and prepared 16 Molotov cocktails. Fourteen more were found near the arrest site, along with a gasoline-filled spray container and a vehicle containing flammable materials and documents with the words “Israel,” “Palestine,” and “USAID.” Suleiman initially tried to obtain a firearm, but his illegal status prevented it, so he opted for Molotov cocktails. He accidentally set himself on fire during the attack and appeared in arrest photos with a bandage on his ear. Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty filed an indictment including 16 counts of first-degree attempted murder, hate crimes, assault, and use of explosives, with a potential sentence of up to 384 years in prison.
Suleiman was arrested within six minutes of the initial call to Boulder Police, at 1:32 PM, after officers responded to reports of an “armed man” and “people on fire” on Pearl Street. He was taken to a hospital for evaluation before being incarcerated at the Boulder County Jail. FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, immediately declared the incident a terrorist attack. The Trump administration responded swiftly: President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that the attack was a result of “Biden’s absurd open-border policies” and called for the deportation of “illegal anti-American radicals.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller emphasized the need to end “destructive immigration” and fully reverse Biden’s policies.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem, announced the detention of Suleiman’s wife and five children for expedited deportation and began investigating whether they knew of his plans. However, Suleiman claimed during interrogation that he had kept them in the dark. Following the attack, the DHS boosted the ICE tip line that allows citizens to report suspicious activity by illegal immigrants, as part of the Trump administration’s stricter enforcement strategy.
Terror? Depends Who You Ask
Despite clear evidence of antisemitic and terrorist motivation—chants like “Death to Zionists” and “Free Palestine,” premeditated planning, and use of Molotov cocktails—some figures sought to downplay the severity of the event. Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfern hesitated in the early hours, claiming it was “too early to determine the motive” and stressed that the investigation was dealing with a “complex scene.” This statement, made about three hours after the attack, drew sharp criticism from Trump supporters who viewed it as an attempt to avoid labeling the act as terrorism.
Mainstream media outlets, such as CNN, were criticized for providing minimal coverage and downplaying the severity of the incident. CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem argued that the FBI’s declaration of terrorism was “childish” and insisted on waiting for “clear context” before concluding. She even suggested the motive might not be antisemitic, despite Suleiman’s explicit chants. Left-leaning voices tended to frame the event as a “hate crime” rather than an act of terrorism, emphasizing the need for “patience” in the investigation. In contrast, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, himself Jewish, called the incident “an act of terror” and condemned it firmly. However, he avoided explicitly using the term “terrorist attack,” which added to the confusion.
As stated, the Boulder attack was not just a severe act of violence—it also underscored the social and political tensions surrounding immigration and national security. It revealed the gap between advocates of strict immigration policies, who identify security risks in allowing immigrants from certain countries, and supporters of lenient immigration, who see immigration as a humanitarian value, even at the cost of U.S. citizens’ safety.
Sanctuary Cities for Criminals
The Boulder attack does not stand alone but represents part of a broader trend in which progressive immigration and judicial policies allow dangerous criminals to operate within the United States, sometimes posing a serious threat to public safety. Another prominent case, which occurred in Massachusetts—one of the most progressive states in the U.S.—clearly illustrates these failures. On January 22, 2025, ICE agents in Boston apprehended Juan Alberto Rodzano-Marín, a 39-year-old Honduran national who was unlawfully present in the U.S. and charged with serious crimes. Rodzano-Marín, who had previously been deported three times—in 2007, 2008, and 2009—yet repeatedly returned to the country, was charged in March 2023 with crimes including sexual assault and indecent acts against a person over 14, assault with a dangerous weapon, armed robbery with a mask, and attempted rape. The victims, whose identities were not disclosed, suffered violent and sexual assaults that shocked the local community.
Despite ICE’s detainer request and Rodzano-Marín’s repeated illegal reentries, a Massachusetts court released him on December 4, 2024, based on a 2017 ruling that prohibits local authorities from detaining individuals beyond their scheduled release time solely on the basis of ICE requests, arguing that such detention violates state and federal constitutions. This decision, rooted in progressive ideology, allowed a dangerous criminal like Rodzano-Marín to return to the streets until ICE apprehended him again after a significant effort. Patricia H. Hyde, acting field office director of ICE in Boston, stated that “Ronzano-Marín is a clear threat to the residents of Massachusetts,” criticizing the local policies that released him.
His arrest was part of a broader ICE enforcement operation concluded in May 2025 across Massachusetts, resulting in the arrest of 1,461 illegal immigrants, 790 of whom had serious criminal convictions or charges including murder, rape, drug trafficking, and involvement in transnational gangs like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua.
The operation exposed the scope of criminal activity among illegal immigrants and the resistance of local authorities to federal enforcement. The arrests included individuals involved in grave crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, and narcotics trafficking, highlighting the need for closer cooperation between local and federal agencies. However, Massachusetts’ progressive policies limiting collaboration with ICE led to the release of dangerous criminals, as seen in the Rodzano-Marín case and others. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons criticized the local authorities’ approach, stating: “If sanctuary cities had cooperated, we wouldn’t have had to risk our agents with field arrests.”
Sanctuary policies in Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville restrict cooperation with ICE and encourage immigrants to report crimes without fear of deportation. Watertown Police Chief Justin Hanrahan stated, “We’re not in the business of checking papers. Our job is to enforce local laws, not federal ones.” But such declarations ignore the dangers of returning violent offenders to the community.
Laws such as the 2023 Work and Family Mobility Act, which allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, and the High School Completers law, which grants educational benefits, reinforce the lenient approach. The Attorney General’s Office, led by Andrea Campbell, declared its “commitment to protecting immigrant communities.” Still, this commitment overlooks the risks of reintegrating criminals like Dennis Ernesto Hernandez Ortiz, an MS-13 gang member, into society. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey claimed in January 2025 that “we are not a sanctuary state, but we follow the law.” This statement rings hollow when courts release individuals charged with serious crimes while ignoring ICE requests.
Protecting Murderers and Rapists
On June 6 and 7 of this year, violent riots broke out in Los Angeles following ICE raids on local businesses, part of the Trump administration’s strict immigration enforcement policy. The protests began as demonstrations against the arrest of 121 illegal immigrants. Still, they escalated into violent confrontations, with hundreds of protesters surrounding the federal police building, attacking ICE agents, vandalizing public property, and slashing the tires of government vehicles. At the heart of the chaos, an iconic image was captured of a protester on a motorcycle waving the Mexican flag amid thick smoke in front of a convoy of police cruisers. This image became a symbol of the struggle over immigration enforcement. Still, it also highlighted a glaring absurdity: illegal immigrants, setting fire to the city to avoid deportation to Mexico, choose to wave the flag of the country they refuse to return to.
The raids targeted areas with large immigrant populations and led to the arrest of five gang members, among the total of 121 detainees. One of the main suspects was affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, designated a terrorist organization by the Trump administration and known for violent activity involving the trafficking of hard drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as human trafficking and extortion. The suspect, a 28-year-old from Mexico, had a history of heroin trafficking and two aggravated assaults, including an incident in which he severely injured someone with a knife during an illicit transaction. The MS-13 gang, represented by two other detainees, also stood out. One had previously been convicted of armed robbery and assault with a firearm after participating in a home invasion in Los Angeles, where three people were injured. Another member was sentenced to six years in prison for marijuana trafficking and assault, including a case where he threatened witnesses with a bat.
Two additional detainees, affiliated with the Sureños gang—linked to Mexican cartels—had past involvement in synthetic drug trafficking, including fentanyl. One of them was found to have a makeshift meth lab in his home. Their records also included domestic violence incidents, with one having been convicted of assaulting his ex-partner, requiring extended hospitalization. The fifth arrestee was linked to the Norteños gang and had a history of child abuse, including a case in which he physically harmed his three-year-old son and was found with a large amount of cocaine in his home. Most of the detainees were men between the ages of 25 and 40, mostly from Mexico or Central America, who entered the U.S. in recent years through the unsecured southwestern border, using false identities to hide their criminal pasts.
Local police responded to the riots with tear gas, flashbang grenades, and less-lethal ammunition, declaring the gathering unlawful. Still, the situation escalated when protesters hurled chunks of concrete at officers. The Trump administration deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the city and described the events as a “rebellion” against American sovereignty. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the move, along with Mayor Karen Bass, even though, in effect, they were protecting some of the most violent and dangerous criminals, beyond their status as illegal infiltrators.
Direct Interference in Law Enforcement
The Trump administration’s hardline policy toward illegal immigrants has sparked a dangerous and unprecedented phenomenon: judges and local authorities driven by progressive ideology enabling the release of dangerous offenders, at times in direct violation of the law. Two notable cases from the past year highlight the severity of this trend:
On April 25, Judge Hannah Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin was arrested by the FBI on suspicion of aiding an illegal immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, in evading arrest by ICE agents. The incident, which occurred a week before the arrest, stirred fierce controversy and revealed the growing tension between the Trump administration and the judiciary over immigration enforcement. Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican citizen, had been charged with three misdemeanor counts of assault in a domestic violence case. He had been deported from the U.S. in 2013 and reentered illegally, prompting ICE to issue an administrative arrest warrant on April 17. Six federal agents, including FBI and DEA personnel, arrived at the courthouse to arrest him following his hearing.
According to a federal complaint, Dugan (65) recognized the agents’ presence after a court clerk alerted her. She reportedly reacted angrily, calling the situation “absurd,” and demanded that they leave or present a judicial warrant, despite having a valid administrative warrant. She then referred them to Chief Judge Carl Ashley and returned to the courtroom, where, according to witnesses, she instructed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through the “jury door,” which leads to a non-public area. Agents spotted him in a public hallway and, after a brief foot chase, arrested him outside the courthouse. Dugan was charged with obstruction of justice and harboring a person from arrest, crimes carrying a potential penalty of up to six years in prison and a fine of $350,000. She was released on bail and suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 29, pending a trial scheduled for July.
FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on X, “There is no forgiveness for judges who abuse their position to obstruct enforcement,” and Attorney General Pam Bondi added, “No one is above the law—not even judges.”
Sacrificing the Rule of Law
The second case, which similarly illustrates the dangers of illegal immigration and judicial interference, involves José Luis “Joel” Cano, a former judge from Doña Ana County, New Mexico, who was arrested on April 24 along with his wife, Nancy. The two were charged with concealing evidence related to a federal investigation into Christian Ortega-Lopez, a 23-year-old illegal immigrant from Venezuela suspected of being a member of the Tren de Aragua gang—a transnational criminal organization designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist group. The case, which unfolded in Las Cruces, exposed how even high-ranking individuals, such as a former judge, may use their position to aid criminals, thereby endangering public safety and hindering law enforcement.
Ortega-Lopez entered the U.S. on December 15, 2023, during the Biden administration, via the border crossing near Eagle Pass, Texas, without authorization or screening. He was released from a Border Patrol detention center three days later due to overcrowding, with a notice to appear for deportation proceedings. Instead of complying, he found refuge at a guesthouse—known as “La Casita”—owned by the Cano couple, along with two other illegal Venezuelan immigrants. Ortega-Lopez met Nancy Cano in 2023 after performing maintenance work at their home. When he was evicted from his apartment in April 2024, she offered him housing at La Casita—a decision that ultimately led to the couple’s arrest.
Ortega-Lopez was arrested on February 28, 2025, by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents on suspicion of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition as an illegal immigrant—a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. During a search of the Cano family’s property, four firearms were discovered at the home of their daughter, April, including a Sig Sauer P365 pistol and an AR-15 rifle with a suppressor—both high-powered weapons. Social media posts showing Ortega-Lopez holding these firearms provided key evidence in the case. Some of the guns were registered to April, who had permitted him to use them at a Las Cruces shooting range, raising questions about the family’s judgment in handling an illegal immigrant.
Beyond the weapons charges, Ortega-Lopez is suspected of gang involvement with Tren de Aragua, a notorious criminal group engaged in human trafficking, money laundering, drug smuggling, kidnapping, and extortion. HSI investigators found evidence linking him to the gang, including tattoos, clothing, hand signs, and voice messages and texts on his phones. In February of this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio officially designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, escalating the severity of the accusations against Ortega-Lopez. The two other illegal immigrants living with him were also arrested on similar suspicions, suggesting coordinated group activity.
Joel Cano, who was aware of Ortega-Lopez’s illegal status, admitted to destroying the suspect’s cell phone with a hammer about five weeks before the arrest, fearing it contained incriminating photos or videos. Nancy conducted video calls with Ortega-Lopez after his arrest and discussed deleting his Facebook account, which contained incriminating content, leading to her indictment for conspiracy to obstruct justice. The Cano couple claimed they were unaware of his gang ties, and Joel wrote to the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission that Ortega-Lopez and his companions had presented documents indicating they were not subject to deportation and had scheduled asylum hearings. He added that he would not have allowed them near his grandchildren, aged 15, 8, and 6, if he had sensed any danger.
Ortega-Lopez remains in custody at the Doña Ana County facility, facing charges for illegal weapon possession. Prosecutors argue he is a flight risk and a danger to the community due to his illegal status, gang affiliations, and previous violations of release conditions. The Cano couple were released on $10,000 bail each, with a court order prohibiting them from hosting any tenants without proof of legal status. A similar historic case occurred in 2019 during Trump’s first term, when Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph of Massachusetts was charged with helping an illegal immigrant evade arrest by allowing him to exit through a back courthouse door. The charges were dropped in 2022 under the Biden administration, though she still faces an ethics complaint. These and similar incidents shake the foundations of the legal system and demonstrate how progressive judges are sacrificing the rule of law and the safety of millions on the altar of a radical and dangerous ideology.
In the following chapters, we will examine the roots of the progressive immigration ideology and explore the potentially devastating consequences of prioritizing immigrant rights while ignoring critical security risks.
