President Donald Trump has fired Michele Beckwith, who was acting US attorney in Sacramento since January. What could be seen as a major shift in DC leadership. Her endorsement of the policy to investigate followed soon after a heated public debate over U.S. immigration enforcement strategies in her home district. On July 15, Beckwith received an email at 4:31 PM notifying her of her dismissal, less than six hours after a phone call with Border Patrol’s El Centro unit leader, Gregory Bovino.
In their conversation two days prior to her termination, Beckwith emphasized that federal agents could not indiscriminately detain individuals in her district, located north of Bakersfield. This directive was a result of a federal court order released in April that she thought would be honored. Bovino got word about a planned immigration raid in Sacramento. He came looking for advice about how to prepare for future attacks on his men.
Beckwith remained defiant in her convictions, despite the recent US Supreme Court decision. That ruling gives federal partners, particularly immigration agents, a greenlight to racially profile people based on their race, language or occupation. She had long since made clear to Bovino through letters the necessity of strict adherence with court mandates and constitutional standards.
After her firing, Beckwith discovered that her work laptop and cellphone had both been deactivated. She then filed an appeal for her firing. Still, after her firing, Beckwith was defiant in her commitment to enforce the law. She announced, “We need to rise up and demand that the law be enforced.”
Civic activist Ronn Bovino soon shot back at Beckwith’s email. She argued that Beckwith’s proposal regarding the Border Patrol to not blindly follow the constitution all the time represented an anti-law enforcement bias.
“The former acting US attorney’s email suggesting that the United States Border Patrol does not ALWAYS abide by the constitution revealed a bias against law enforcement.” – Gregory Bovino
Beckwith’s firing brings renewed attention to the rift over immigration enforcement priorities among federal law enforcement agencies. Troublingly, this incident illustrates the changing policy direction of the Trump administration. It ignited a broader debate about the appropriate balance of power between federal regulatory agencies and federal court decisions.