Mathew Rodriguez is a Puerto Rican writer and author based in Brooklyn.
The night before we were set to fly out of John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, I approached my partner with a confession: For the first time that I can remember, I was afraid of flying with a Latino last name.
It was a new sort of affront I had to steel myself against. Air travel is filled with moments — buying basic economy tickets, being herded through winding security lines like cattle, squishing your limbs into a compact seat — that smoosh you until you feel subhuman, usually along class lines.
In the days leading up to our flight to Las Vegas, however, I saw the indignities of the airport mount as President Donald Trump deployed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into America’s terminals, turning an already-debasing necessity into something more chilling.
Certainly, that’s how I felt after my experience. At JFK, an ICE agent was taking the customary Transportation Security Administration role of checking IDs at security. Everything, though, seemed to be running as normal. When I handed over my passport, however, he asked me a question I hadn’t heard him ask anyone else in front of me — most of whom presented as white: “Do you have a second form of photo ID?”
I can’t be sure what motivated the agent to ask me, and apparently no one else near me, this question, but his request of me was difficult to separate from ICE’s role not only as brutal enforcers of Trump’s deportation regime, but also its use as his personal police force. If one thing has been consistent in ICE’s ever-expanding mission, it’s that the agency is being used by the administration to instill fear.
Later, it was impossible not to think about what my brief, eventually harmless encounter with the agent might portend. Shortly after Trump deployed ICE agents to airports, his former chief strategist Steve Bannon may have tipped the administration’s hand. Bannon speculated on his “War Room”podcast that the immigration force’s presence at TSA security checkpoints was a “test run” ahead of the November midterms.
Maybe, Bannon seemed to suggest, it was a rehearsal, meant to test how far the administration can stretch our tolerance for agents as part of the landscape of our daily lives without pushback.
If ICE’s invasion of American cities as part of Trump’s broad-based crackdown on immigration and dissent alike was a sledgehammer, what I experienced was more akin to a scalpel. It represents an agency that is understanding the criticisms against its methods and looking for new, more sophisticated ways to terrorize people.
If we can accept the reality that Trump’s personal army is requiring more documentation from us just to board an Airbus, how long until we are forced to tolerate them in our voting booths and beyond?
Training Us to Terror
It was hard not to feel that surgical instillation of terror during my airport visit.
The heightened scrutiny of airport security already makes me feel like a criminal, one who doesn’t even know he committed a crime. In the days leading up to my flight, I prepared for that same kind of interaction, amplified by the presence of someone with a gun and near-unlimited state power. I knew I’d have to get much closer to an ICE agent than I ever had before.
Instagram videos of JFK suggested lines might be long, but when we arrived on Thursday morning, the terminal was mostly empty and the estimated wait time in my reserve line was only about 15 minutes.
It ended up taking twice as long. As we got closer to the security checkpoint, I realized what the holdup was: A TSA agent was standing behind two ICE agents, training them on how to do her job. As she stood there — working without getting paid, unlike the heavily armed agent sitting in front of her — she walked them through the steps.
I got a closer look at one of the ICE agents. He was white and bald, wearing military fatigues and a tactical vest that announced his employment with ICE.
People in front of me walked through without incident, performing the usual routine: passport, boarding pass, then on to remove their belts and unsheathe their laptops.
When I stepped up to the podium, I wondered if I was about to interact with someone who would be suspicious of me merely for my name and skin color.
I let out an involuntary smile — perhaps as a subconscious signal that I am friendly and low-risk. The ICE agent asked for my passport, which I handed over, as usual, and waited while a machine took my picture. I anticipated moving on quickly.
That’s when he asked me for another form of ID. At that moment, I started to feel my face turn hot, as if I were being accused of something. A U.S. passport is considered one of the most powerful forms of identification in the world. Why did he need a second document?
Though I had already started to grab the wallet in my coat pocket, he followed up with, “You know, like a driver’s license?” I handed over the plastic driver’s license — not a REAL ID, which is why I brought my passport — and waited for his verdict.
He looked back and forth between my documents and the monitor and then OKed me to walk forward.
My partner, who is white, walked through behind me without incident.
Later, as I was sitting in my seat toward the plane’s rear, I began to gain a greater perspective on what I had just undergone. That interaction — the kind that I had worried about for a few hours before waking up and schlepping to the airport — was designed to happen to people like me. It represented a moment of friction, designed to jolt me at first, but then get me used to the fact that people with weapons will now ask more of me just to do the same thing I had done a few weeks before, when I flew to Puerto Rico without any ICE agents at the TSA checkpoint.
Free passage would be harder, the stakes of any interaction would be higher. The fear that I was feeling in that moment had been designed, as if in a lab, to train me to accept a violent overreach that would’ve seemed absurd mere weeks ago.
It’s easy to see how this creep might affect people — Latinos and other immigrants who have citizenship — at their polling places. It will bring a little terror. And then instill a little normalcy.
IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.
What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.
This is not hyperbole.
Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation.
Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.”
The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy.
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
IT’S BEEN A DEVASTATING year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
I’M BEN MUESSIG, The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. It’s been a devastating year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.
We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.
In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.
That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?
We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?
Latest Stories
Voices
The Regime Survives, Trump Has to Deal, and Iranians Are the Biggest Losers
Short of a full-scale invasion, it looks like Trump will need to deal with the Iranian regime.
DNC Resolution to Reject AIPAC Funding Puts Democratic Leaders in the Hot Seat
The symbolic resolution could force Democrats to take a stand on the millions the increasingly toxic AIPAC spends on Democratic primaries.
Midterms 2026
Sunrise Movement Pushes Anti-War Candidates, Endorsing Melat Kiros in Denver
The group’s increasing anti-war push shows how progressives are leveraging an unpopular war in the midterms.
Facts Only
Mathew Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican writer, traveled through JFK Airport in New York City.
An ICE agent was performing TSA ID checks at the security checkpoint.
The ICE agent asked Rodriguez for a second form of photo ID after reviewing his passport.
Rodriguez observed that the agent did not ask other passengers, most of whom appeared white, for additional ID.
The incident occurred during a period when ICE agents were deployed to airports under the Trump administration.
A TSA agent was training ICE agents on ID verification procedures at the checkpoint.
The ICE agent wore military fatigues and a tactical vest identifying his affiliation.
Rodriguez's partner, who is white, passed through security without additional scrutiny.
Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist, suggested ICE's airport presence was a "test run" for broader deployment.
The article references broader concerns about ICE's role in enforcing Trump's immigration policies.
The Intercept critiques media coverage of Trump's actions as understating their authoritarian implications.
The publication positions itself as independent and calls for support to counter threats to press freedom.
Executive Summary
Mathew Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican writer based in Brooklyn, recounts an experience at JFK Airport where an ICE agent asked him for a second form of photo ID while checking his passport, a request not made to other passengers, most of whom appeared white. This occurred amid a broader deployment of ICE agents at U.S. airports under the Trump administration, which Rodriguez interprets as part of a strategy to instill fear and normalize heightened scrutiny, particularly for Latinos and immigrants. The article frames this as part of a pattern of authoritarian overreach, citing concerns about ICE's expanding role in daily life, including potential implications for voting rights. The piece also critiques media coverage of Trump's actions as insufficiently alarmist, arguing that his administration's moves represent a systemic threat to democracy. The Intercept, the publication, positions itself as an independent voice resisting this trend, emphasizing the need for press freedom and public support to counter authoritarianism.
The narrative blends personal anecdote with broader political analysis, suggesting that Rodriguez's experience is emblematic of a deliberate escalation in state surveillance and intimidation. While the article does not provide statistical evidence of widespread discrimination at airports, it presents the encounter as part of a documented shift in ICE's operations under Trump, including its presence at TSA checkpoints. The piece also references comments by Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist, who described ICE's airport presence as a "test run" ahead of the midterms, implying a strategic effort to normalize their role in public spaces. The tone is urgent, framing these developments as part of a broader erosion of democratic norms, with calls for resistance and heightened vigilance.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that Rodriguez's experience at JFK is a microcosm of a deliberate, systemic effort by the Trump administration to normalize authoritarian overreach, using ICE as a tool to intimidate marginalized communities. The article effectively steelmans this by grounding the personal anecdote in broader political context—ICE's expanded role, Bannon's comments, and the framing of these actions as part of a "test run" for further encroachments on civil liberties. The piece also critiques media complacency, arguing that Trump's actions are not being treated with the urgency they warrant.
Pattern scan: The narrative employs emotional exploitation (ARC-0012 Fear Appeals) by framing the encounter as part of a chilling escalation of state power, designed to instill fear in Latino and immigrant communities. There is also an element of distortion (ARC-0024 Ambiguity) in the lack of broader data to support the claim that this is a widespread practice, though the personal anecdote is presented as emblematic. The article's urgency and call to action align with patterns of moral panic (ARC-0015 Weaponized Anger), though it stops short of outright hyperbole.
Root cause: The paradigm driving this narrative is the belief that Trump's administration is systematically eroding democratic norms, with ICE serving as a visible symbol of that erosion. The unstated assumption is that such tactics are part of a coordinated strategy to suppress dissent and marginalize vulnerable populations, echoing historical patterns of state-sponsored intimidation.
Implications: For human agency, the narrative suggests that even routine interactions—like airport security—are becoming politicized, with marginalized groups bearing the cost of heightened scrutiny. The second-order consequence is the normalization of fear, where people may self-censor or avoid certain activities (e.g., voting) to avoid confrontation. The beneficiaries, per the article, are those in power who seek to consolidate control, while the costs are borne by communities already targeted by immigration enforcement.
Bridge questions: What evidence exists that ICE's airport presence has led to systemic discrimination beyond anecdotal accounts? How might the media better balance urgency with factual precision in covering such developments? What countermeasures could protect civil liberties without undermining legitimate security concerns?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve amplifying isolated incidents to paint a picture of systemic oppression, leveraging fear to mobilize opposition to the administration. The actual content aligns with this pattern to some degree, as it uses a single encounter to illustrate broader trends. However, the article does not fabricate facts or engage in outright manipulation; it presents a genuine concern about the expansion of ICE's role. The call for support for independent journalism also aligns with democratic values, mitigating concerns about bad-faith actors. The content is more cautionary than manipulative, though it does employ rhetorical strategies to heighten urgency.
Sentinel — Human
The article shows signs of a human-written piece with irregular sentence length variance, idiosyncratic emphasis and personal voice, and accurate historical references. The stylometric signals suggest some level of human error, but overall the article appears to be likely human.