They've amassed missiles armed with warheads. Let that sink in and realize what they really are, because it's not a force for immigration enforcement, it's an army simping for Trump. They will be weaponized at a much greater scale in the future certainly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -8 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

Your smarm and pedantry is noted, but:

  1. It was widely reported that ICE was acquiring warheads months ago. As others here pointed out, that (might) not be exactly correct because of confusion about item numbers on invoices. I was unaware there had been updates to that news.

  2. The article isn't "making completely unsubstantiated claims" at all. They're referencing Adam Schiff's report on this activity.

  3. It's quite a LARGE story, actually. This is very clearly Trump's Private army now, and he's creating slush funds all over the place to keep them funded for a time in case official funding gets cut off. This new report details just how many weapons they have amassed, and it's shocking. This is the largest deployed paramilitary force on US soil, they are controlled by Trump, and they have enough Guns and Ammo to take over a small country.

  4. Just because YOU think it's a "non-story" doesn't mean anyway all. In fact, nobody asked you. I certainly don't think we were waiting on baited breath for your personal opinion on it either. Your feelings on it are actually not needed.

Others may not have known, or probably should know this information, and that's why it's posted. Didn't need your opinion or permission on that, champ. ✌️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)
    1. A quick search brings up nothing with ICE and "warheads" so it doesn't appear to be "widely reported". Can you give evidence for your claims?
    2. I didn't say that the article is making unsubstantiated claims. I said that you are. The article is substantiated, it just isn't all that surprising that ICE is spending more on weaponry as they hire more agents.
    3. The story says nothing about slush funds or anything beyond ICE spending more on weaponry.
    4. You are posting in a public forum. That is explicitly asking for conversation and feedback, even if you didn't directly ask me for mine. If you don't want people to respond, don't post.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Does this article also mention Rachel Good or Alex Pretti? No? This article wasn't about that.

    Because it's assumed it was common knowledge. It's not uncommon practice to refer to other referential pieces of information in a description.

    But anyway: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/10/ice-spending-small-arms-weapons-chemical-munitions-increased-700-percent-2025/

    And as someone else in the thread pointed out, there may have been some clarification on this after the reporting: https://www.wired.com/story/no-ice-probably-didnt-buy-guided-missile-warheads/

    Since younfamiliar with the slush funds: https://www.vox.com/politics/479821/trumps-slush-fund-venezuela-oil-gaza-board-of-peace-tariffs https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/politics/trump-shutdown-tariffs-wic-farmers-analysis https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/17/opinion/trump-federal-money-slush-fund.html https://newrepublic.com/post/206790/donald-trump-10-billion-dollars-board-peace-slush-fund

  • source
  • parent