Lawmaker Faces Scrutiny for Refusal to Stand During Presidential Address Honoring Victims
A Democratic lawmaker has drawn significant public criticism for his decision to remain seated during President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress, particularly at a moment when the President was honoring the families of children who had been victims of rape and murder, allegedly at the hands of undocumented immigrants.
Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar admitted to staying seated during President Trump’s speech last March. Among those recognized was the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, a young girl whose alleged murder by two undocumented immigrants in Texas in June 2024 has become a focal point in the immigration debate. Thanedar was not alone in his stance; several other Democratic lawmakers also remained seated during the introduction of these grieving families.
The controversy escalated publicly when Thanedar was directly questioned by Fox News host Sean Hannity. Hannity pressed the Congressman, asking, “Did you stand? Did you give honor to that family who lost so much?”
Thanedar explained his refusal to stand, stating it was a silent protest against President Trump. “I did not stand because the president, I was just sick of the president,” Thanedar said. Hannity countered sharply, accusing the Congressman of political maneuvering: “You sat on your ass and you wouldn’t stand for families that lost children – a 12-year-old girl raped and murdered – and you couldn’t stand for them because you were playing politics.” Thanedar retorted, “I would not stand for this president. He was lying.”
The Congressman further accused President Trump of exploiting a tragedy for political gain. Following the speech, the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, Alexis, publicly condemned the actions of the Democrats who remained seated. Speaking to Hannity at the time, Nungaray expressed her dismay: “I found it very cowardly that a lot of the Democrats didn’t stand, didn’t clap, didn’t do anything to support anything that Donald Trump was trying to do as president to make this country better.” She added, “It’s just very disgraceful to us as US citizens that those are the people we have here in Congress.”
Representative Thanedar’s Stance on Immigration Enforcement
Representative Thanedar has established himself as a vocal critic of current immigration enforcement policies. He has actively pursued legislative action aimed at dismantling the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
Thanedar plans to introduce the “Abolish ICE Act,” a piece of legislation designed to dissolve the agency and revoke its enforcement authority. At a news conference, Thanedar articulated his position: “We must reform ICE, but it looks at this stage, folks, that ICE is beyond reform. ICE is totally out of control.”
Calls for Accountability and Alternatives to ICE
Beyond legislative proposals, Thanedar has also called for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing that she should “face the consequences.” He contended that immigration enforcement was effectively managed prior to the creation of ICE in 2003. “We can do this without ICE,” Thanedar asserted. “We do not need the murders. We do not need this paramilitary organization’s members on our streets terrorizing US citizens, terrorizing moms [and] terrorizing our children.”
These calls come amidst a period of heightened national tension surrounding immigration enforcement, particularly following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good during a confrontation with immigration agents in Minneapolis. This incident has ignited protests and intensified criticism of federal law enforcement from Democrats across the country. A subsequent shooting involving an ICE officer in Minneapolis further inflamed the debate.
Other Democratic lawmakers have echoed the sentiment to curb the agency’s power. Representative Ilhan Omar, whose district encompasses the area where Good was killed, has described ICE as an “occupying force” operating in a “lawless” manner. Representative Ro Khanna joined the chorus, stating, “We should not be giving money for an increase in the ICE budget. We should be fighting this.”
Public Opinion on ICE and Representative Thanedar’s Past Controversies
Recent polling indicates a divided public on the issue of abolishing ICE. An Economist/YouGov survey revealed that 46 percent of respondents support abolishing the agency, while 43 percent oppose it.
While Representative Thanedar has been a prominent critic of the President, he has also faced his own share of controversies. One such incident involved allegations of abandoning over 100 dogs after a pharmaceutical testing lab connected to his former company declared bankruptcy in 2010. Thanedar has consistently and forcefully denied these claims, stating, “These attacks are completely false and have been repeatedly litigated.” He has maintained that all animals were rehomed and that “no animal was hurt or died under my watch,” adding that the facility was under bank control after his departure from the company, and he had no knowledge of the animals’ subsequent care.
