As reported by Breitbart, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt forcefully pushed back against a CBS News suggestion that President Donald Trump should limit deportations to illegal immigrants convicted only of violent crimes.
During the exchange, a CBS reporter pressed Leavitt on whether the administration would prioritize deporting individuals convicted of violent offenses, implying that those guilty of so-called “non-violent” crimes might warrant leniency. Leavitt rejected that framing, arguing that immigration law does not distinguish between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” violations based on media-defined categories.
The debate underscores a growing divide between the administration and establishment media over how to define public safety and the rule of law. While corporate outlets often focus narrowly on violent crimes, federal law makes clear that unlawful entry and unlawful presence themselves are violations. Moreover, many offenses categorized as “non-violent” by legal technicality still carry devastating consequences for American communities.
Drug trafficking, distribution of child pornography, burglary, fraud, DUI, embezzlement, solicitation of a minor, and human smuggling are all categorized as “non-violent crimes.” Yet few Americans would consider these offenses harmless. Families torn apart by addiction, victims of financial ruin, and children exploited through trafficking or pornography understand that “non-violent” does not mean victimless.
Leavitt emphasized that President Trump’s administration remains committed to enforcing immigration law as written. The position reflects a broader conservative conviction that government’s first responsibility is to protect its own citizens and uphold the integrity of national borders. From a biblical worldview, civil government is ordained to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent (Romans 13), not to excuse lawbreaking based on shifting political narratives.
The exchange also highlights how terminology shapes public perception. By suggesting deportation should apply only to violent criminals, critics implicitly redefine justice around emotional optics rather than statutory clarity. But supporters of broad enforcement argue that selective application of the law undermines equal justice and incentivizes further illegal entry.
Under President Trump, the administration has consistently argued that sovereignty and border security are foundational to national stability. Weak enforcement, they contend, strains public resources, burdens local communities, and diminishes accountability.
Leavitt’s rebuke signals that the White House is unlikely to narrow its deportation priorities to satisfy media narratives. Instead, the administration appears committed to a comprehensive approach—one that treats immigration violations and associated criminal conduct with seriousness, regardless of whether pundits label them “violent” or “non-violent.”
At stake is more than a policy dispute. The debate touches on competing visions of justice: one rooted in strict adherence to law and ordered liberty, the other shaped by selective moral urgency. For many Americans concerned about border security, the distinction matters profoundly.
