Tom Homan says deportation process should move “quickly” after ICE detained and removed Milo Yiannopoulos, The Hill reports

White House border adviser Tom Homan said federal immigration enforcement authorities should move quickly on removals after officials detained and swiftly deported Milo Yiannopoulos last week, The Hill reported on Sunday. Speaking in response to the detention and deportation, Homan said authorities “get them out quick,” according to the outlet.

The Hill said the Department of Homeland Security previously stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained the British national after he overstayed his visa. The report describes the case as an example of the administration’s approach to speeding up enforcement actions once DHS identifies an immigration violation.

Homan’s remarks came as immigration enforcement, detention, and removal procedures continue to draw scrutiny in Congress and the courts, including disputes over how quickly cases are handled, what due process protections apply in expedited processes, and what federal agencies must do to ensure removals comply with immigration law.

The Hill’s account did not provide additional court filings or agency documents in the packet supplied for this drafting, and no White House or Federal Register action related to this specific deportation was confirmed in the available record. As a result, the details of the timeline for custody and removal, and the legal authority used in this case beyond the reported overstays basis, should be treated as reported facts pending verification through official case records.

Beyond the individual case, Homan’s “get them out quick” framing underscores the practical emphasis the administration places on operational speed for enforcement actions, including how quickly ICE and partner components can act after identifying a person who is unlawfully present. Supporters of rapid removals say it reduces detention backlogs and limits prolonged uncertainty for both the public and the immigration system.

Civil-liberties and advocacy groups have previously argued that enforcement speed can raise concerns about notice, review, and the ability to contest removal, while the government typically points to statutory authority for detention and removal and to its obligation to enforce immigration laws. In this case, the specifics of any challenge or process steps were not included in the supplied packet.

The next step for anyone seeking full procedural detail would be to review the underlying DHS and ICE records for the individual case, including any immigration judge or administrative proceedings and the removal order basis, if publicly accessible. Absent those records in the available material, the case should be understood primarily through the statements and descriptions reported by The Hill and DHS’s stated overstays rationale referenced by the outlet.