A bombshell Senate report has revealed that the Biden administration forced at least 11 airports across the United States to house illegal migrants, sparking serious national security concerns.
The findings, published by the Senate Commerce Committee, were reported by the New York Post and immediately fueled conservative criticism of Biden-era border policies.
According to the report, airports were pressured to allocate space for migrants despite warnings about safety risks and operational strain.
Conservatives argue that this confirms what they suspected for years: the Biden administration prioritized mass intake of illegal migrants over national security.
Airport officials reportedly felt blindsided, with some discovering after the fact that large groups of migrants were being directed to their facilities.
The Senate report raised alarms about security vulnerabilities caused by turning transportation hubs into makeshift shelters.
Lawmakers stated that the forced housing at airports violated standard aviation-security protocols.
The report also suggested that the Department of Homeland Security failed to fully disclose the risks to airport authorities.
The revelations drew immediate condemnation from President Trump’s administration.
Trump officials argue that Biden’s policies created chaos that airports were never designed to handle.
The Post article made clear that this was not isolated—at least 11 airports were involved.
Conservatives noted that the Biden team denied certain airport-housing claims while quietly expanding the practice.
The Senate report contradicted those denials.
Public outrage grew as details showed airports had to divert personnel and resources from their primary function: air travel security.
Critics called the findings proof that Biden’s border agenda compromised national safety.
Republicans now demand criminal investigations into who authorized the airport directives.
Trump officials say the current administration is committed to restoring strict border control and reversing Biden-era policies.
Airport staff who participated in the Senate inquiry described confusion and lack of federal coordination.
The report is expected to fuel legislative proposals to block future use of airports for migrant housing.
The documents reveal that Summers maintained contact with Epstein until at least July 5, 2019—just one day before Epstein’s arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges. This timing has intensified public criticism, as it demonstrates that Summers continued engaging with Epstein even as Epstein remained under widespread suspicion and scrutiny for his past crimes. Within the released messages, Summers expressed trust in Epstein and even confided in him regarding a romantic pursuit involving a woman he described as his mentee. One November 2018 message shows Epstein calling himself Summers’ “wing man,” suggesting a relationship that was both personal and advisory. These revelations contrasted sharply with Summers’ public stature as an economist and academic leader, prompting his public expression of shame and full acceptance of responsibility for what he described as “misguided” decisions.
Despite the controversy, Summers continues to hold several influential roles in academia and policy circles. He remains a University Professor at Harvard and serves as director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School—roles he will continue fulfilling, according to his spokesperson. Additionally, Summers serves as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a paid columnist for Bloomberg, and a member of the board at OpenAI. His announcement indicated that while he will maintain his teaching obligations and institutional responsibilities, he will step back from public commentary and engagements as part of a broader process of reflection and accountability. This partial withdrawal highlights the fine line public intellectuals walk between professional duties and reputational risk, particularly when tied to figures as controversial as Epstein.
Parallel to the Summers controversy, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is facing a backlash of his own for releasing private prison emails written by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate and a convicted human trafficker. Maxwell’s attorney, Leah Saffian, condemned the publication of the messages as “a gross abuse of power,” emphasizing that the emails had been accessed without authorization by employees at Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas and subsequently leaked. The Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed that multiple employees had been terminated for the unauthorized access. Saffian argued that both the leaking of the emails and Raskin’s decision to make them public constituted severe violations of constitutional protections owed to prisoners, including First Amendment rights and due process guarantees.
The leaked emails revealed Maxwell describing her experience at the Bryan facility in unexpectedly positive terms. She wrote that the conditions were “legions better” than those at her previous facility in Florida, praising the cleanliness, food quality, and staff interactions. Maxwell described the environment as calmer and safer, free from the violence, drug activity, and chaos she claimed characterized her prior incarceration. Some of her comments were laced with sarcasm, such as her mockery of the Florida facility’s kitchen conditions, where she described possums falling from ceilings onto ovens. These emails present a rare glimpse into Maxwell’s personal reflections since her conviction, adding another contentious layer to public interest in her case. Maxwell’s team insists that the publication of the correspondence represents another instance in which her legal and human rights have been compromised during incarceration.
Together, the Summers and Maxwell controversies illustrate a broader landscape of legal, ethical, and political tensions surrounding high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, either directly or indirectly. Summers’ decision to step back from public commitments underscores the professional consequences of maintaining relationships with figures whose reputational and criminal histories carry immense public stigma. Meanwhile, the uproar surrounding Raskin’s publication of Maxwell’s emails highlights ongoing debates over privacy, accountability, and the proper conduct of public officials who handle sensitive information. As both stories unfold, they reflect the enduring and far-reaching influence of Epstein’s legacy, continuing to implicate major political, academic, and institutional actors years after his death, and forcing renewed questions about responsibility, discretion, and the boundaries of ethical conduct in public life.
