POLITICS

ORLANDO, Fla. — The next U.S. census is four years away, but two lawsuits playing out this year could affect how it will be done and who will be counted.

Allies of President Trump are behind the federal lawsuits challenging various aspects of the once-a-decade count by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is used to determine congressional representation and how much federal aid flows to the states.

The challenges align with parts of Trump’s agenda even as the Republican administration must defend the agency in court.

A Democratic law firm is representing efforts to intervene in both cases because of concerns over whether the U.S. Justice Department will defend the bureau vigorously. There have been no indications so far that government attorneys are doing otherwise, and department lawyers have asked that one of the cases be dismissed.

As the challenges work their way through the courts, the Census Bureau is pushing ahead with its planning for the 2030 count and intends to conduct practice runs in six locations this year.

The legal challenges

America First Legal, co-founded by Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, is leading one of the lawsuits, filed in Florida. It contests methods the bureau has used to protect participants’ privacy and to ensure that people in group-living facilities such as dorms and nursing homes will be counted.

The lawsuit’s intent is to prevent those methods from being used in the 2030 census and to have 2020 figures revised.

“This case is about stopping illegal methods that undermine equal representation and ensuring the next census complies with the Constitution,” Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, said in a statement.

The other lawsuit was filed in federal court in Louisiana by four Republican state attorneys general and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which opposes illegal immigration and supports reduced legal immigration. The lawsuit seeks to exclude people who are in the United States illegally from being counted in the numbers for redrawing congressional districts.

In both cases, outside groups represented by the Democratic-aligned Elias Law Group have sought to intervene over concerns that the Justice Department would reach friendly settlements with the challengers.

In the Florida case, a judge allowed a retirees’ association and two university students to join the defense as intervenors. Justice Department lawyers have asked that the case be dismissed.

In the Louisiana lawsuit, government lawyers said three League of Women Voters chapters and Santa Clara County in California had not shown any proof that department attorneys would do anything other than robustly defend the Census Bureau. A judge has yet to rule on their request to join the case.

A spokesman for the Elias Law Group, Blake McCarren, referred in an email to its motion to dismiss the Florida case, warning of “a needlessly chaotic and disruptive effect upon the electoral process” if the conservative legal group were to prevail and all 50 states had to redraw their political districts.

Aligning with Trump’s agenda

The goals of the lawsuits, particularly the Louisiana case, align with core parts of Trump’s agenda, although the 2030 census will be conducted under a different president because his second term will end in January 2029.

During his first term, for the 2020 census, Trump tried to prevent those who are in the U.S. illegally from being used in the apportionment numbers, which determine how many congressional representatives and Electoral College votes each state receives. He also sought to have citizenship data collected through administrative records.

A Republican redistricting expert had written that using only the citizen voting-age population, rather than the total population, for the purpose of redrawing congressional and state legislative districts could be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.

Both Trump orders were rescinded when Democratic President Biden arrived at the White House in January 2021, before the 2020 census figures were released by the Census Bureau. The first Trump administration also attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, a move that was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In August, Trump instructed the U.S. Commerce Department to change the way the Census Bureau collects data, seeking to exclude immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Neither officials at the White House nor the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, explained what actions were being taken in response to the president’s social media post.

Congressional Republicans have introduced legislation to exclude noncitizens from the apportionment process. That could shrink the head count in both red and blue states because the states with the most people in the U.S. illegally include California, Texas, Florida and New York, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment says “the whole number of persons in each state” should be counted for the numbers used for apportionment. The numbers also guide the distribution of $2.8 trillion in federal dollars to the states for roads, healthcare and other programs.

Defending the Census Bureau

The Louisiana lawsuit was filed at the end of the Biden administration and put on hold in March at the request of the Commerce Department. Justice Department lawyers representing the Cabinet agency said they needed time to consider the position of the new leadership in the second Trump administration. The state attorneys general in December asked for that hold to be lifted.

So far, in the court record, there is nothing to suggest that those government attorneys have done anything to undermine the Census Bureau’s defense in both cases, despite the intervenors’ concerns.

In the Louisiana case, Justice Department lawyers argued against lifting the hold, saying the Census Bureau was in the middle of planning for the 2030 census: “At this stage of such preparations, lifting the stay is not appropriate.”

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly sued the Pentagon on Monday over attempts to punish him for his warnings about illegal orders, claiming the Trump administration trampled on his constitutional rights to free speech.

Kelly, a former U.S. Navy pilot who represents Arizona, is seeking to block his censure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week. Hegseth announced on Jan. 5 that he censured Kelly over his participation in a video that called on troops to resist unlawful orders.

Hegseth said the censure — by itself simply a formal letter with little practical consequence — was “a necessary process step” to proceedings that could result in a demotion from Kelly’s retired rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay.

Kelly asked the federal court in Washington, D.C., to rule that the censure letter, the proceedings about his rank and any other punishments against him are “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” his lawsuit says. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.”

The Pentagon didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment

The censure stemmed from Kelly’s participation in a video in November with five other Democratic lawmakers — all veterans of the armed services and intelligence community — in which they called on troops to uphold the Constitution and defy “illegal orders.”

The 90-second video was first posted on a social media account belonging to Sen. Elissa Slotkin. Reps. Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan also appeared in the video.

Republican President Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by DEATH” in a social media post days later.

The Pentagon opened an investigation of Kelly in late November, citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment.

Although all six lawmakers served in the military or the intelligence community, Hegseth said Kelly was the only one facing investigation because he is the only one who formally retired from the military and still falls under the Pentagon’s jurisdiction.

Hegseth, the Defense Department, Navy Secretary John Phelan and the Navy are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Kelly said in a statement on Monday that he is “standing up for the rights of the very Americans who fought to defend our freedoms.” He accused Hegseth of trying to suppress dissent by threatening military veterans with depriving them of their rank and pay.

“That’s not the way things work in the United States of America, and I won’t stand for it,” Kelly said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ben Finley contributed to this report.

MEXICO CITY — Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said she had “a very good conversation” with President Trump on Monday and that their two governments will continue working together on security issues without the need for U.S. intervention against drug cartels.

The approximately 15-minute call came after Sheinbaum said Friday she had requested dialogue with the Trump administration at the end of a week in which he had said he was ready to confront drug cartels on the ground and repeated the accusation that cartels were running Mexico.

Trump has repeatedly offered to send the U.S. military after the cartels and Sheinbaum has always declined, but after the U.S. removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump’s comments about Mexico, Cuba and Greenland carried new weight.

“He (Trump) asked me my opinion about what they had done in Venezuela and I told him very clearly that our constitution is very clear, that we do not agree with interventions and that was it,” Sheinbaum said.

Trump “still insisted that if we ask for it, they could help” with military forces, which Sheinbaum said she again rejected. “We told him, so far it’s going very well, it’s not necessary, and furthermore there is Mexico’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and he understood.”

In an interview with Fox News aired last Thursday, Trump said, “We’ve knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by water and we are going to start now hitting land, with regard to the cartels. The cartels are running Mexico. It’s very sad to watch.”

Sheinbaum said Monday the two leaders agreed to continue working together.

Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Secretary Juan Ramón de la Fuente spoke Sunday with his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio asked for “tangible results” and more cooperation to dismantle the cartels, according to a statement from the U.S. State Department.

Sheinbaum said Mexico shared those results, including a significant drop in homicides, falling U.S. fentanyl seizures and fentanyl overdose deaths.

Experts still see U.S. intervention in Mexico as unlikely because Mexico is doing what the U.S. asks and is a critical economic partner, but expect Trump to continue using such rhetoric to maintain pressure on Mexico to do more.

Sheinbaum said the two leaders did not speak about Cuba, which Trump threatened Sunday. Mexico is an important ally of the island nation, including selling it oil that it will need even more desperately now that the Trump administration says it will not allow any more oil shipments from Venezuela to Cuba.

SACRAMENTO — The most outstanding thing about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s final State of the State address last week was that he actually gave it.

Every California governor since Earl Warren back in World War II had annually paraded into the ornate 1800s-decor Assembly chamber to address a joint session of the Legislature in what was always the most festive occasion of the year in the state Capitol.

The house was packed with giddy lawmakers on their best behavior, state elected officials, Supreme Court justices, reporters, movers and shakers.

Newsom reluctantly followed custom his first two years as governor, but then brushed it all off for five — mainly because of a lifelong struggle with dyslexia, which makes it very difficult for him to read a speech off teleprompters.

“He hates giving speeches,” a top aide once told me. “It’s anxiety-producing for him.”

The governor had a good excuse in 2021: Tight seating in the crowded Assembly chamber would have risked spreading the COVID-19 virus. Instead, he strangely opted for center field in empty Dodger Stadium.

The next year, he delivered his speech before lawmakers in a sterile state auditorium, where he could practice his delivery for days beforehand in private. The year after that, he skipped the address entirely. In 2024, he went on a four-city road trip to promote his legislative agenda. And late last year, he merely sent a written message to the Legislature.

The question arose whether Newson was capable of delivering a traditional State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress if he ever did achieve his presidential ambition.

He answered that a few days ago by flawlessly delivering an hour-long State of the State speech, displaying some wit and plenty of charisma and rhetorical skill while expressing passion for California and repulsion against President Trump.

The ceremony resembled a mini-State of the Union as the beaming governor was escorted down the Assembly’s center aisle to the Speaker’s rostrum, shaking hands with delighted legislators crowding into camera range.

Newsom returned to the customary State of the State format because he realized this was his last opportunity as a lame-duck governor who’s termed out after this year. He wanted to show some farewell respect for the legislative institution, a gubernatorial insider told me.

Of course, it also was a relatively high-profile gift speaking slot that could catch some national attention.

And he wanted to do it in early January — as all previous governors had — because, he believed, it would attract more attention now than later. Soon the race to replace him will shift into high gear, he theorized, and he could be crowded out of public focus by the gubernatorial candidates.

That theory doesn’t add up.

This is not an attention-grabbing field of gubernatorial wannabes, to put it politely. Conversely, Newsom is an early front-runner for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Regardless, it’s Trump who will continue to draw most of the political attention, not the scarcely known group running for governor.

Whatever his purpose, the speech paid off for Newsom. It got lots of news media coverage. And he continually was interrupted with loud applause by Democrats — what you’d expect when they dominate the Legislature with a supermajority.

But it required a lot of pre-speech work. Newsom spent more than a week in practice, reading his script off teleprompters, off and on, and devouring its content, the insider says.

As he began the live address, Newsom ad-libbed a reference to his long absence from the State of the State ritual and struggles with dyslexia.

“I’m not shy or, you know, embarrassed about my [below average] 960 SAT score,” the governor said, grinning, “but I am a little bit about my inability to read the written text. And so it’s always been something that I have to work through and I’m confronting.”

His performance — the delivery, at least — matched, if not exceeded, all previous governors I’ve watched give State of the States.

Newsom used the speech to continue the anti-Trump barrage that has boosted his national standing among Democratic activists.

“The president believes that might makes right, that the courts are simply speed bumps, not stop signs,” Newsom asserted. “Secret police, businesses raided, windows smashed, citizens detained, citizens being shot, masked men snatching people in broad daylight….

“In California, we are not silent. We are not hunkering down. We are not retreating. We are a beacon.”

Newsom defended California against Republican attacks — and common mindsets throughout much of America — that the Golden State is a socialist hellhole of high taxes, unaffordable living and rampant crime. It’s an albatross he’ll need to fight off running for president.

“The declinists — you know who you are — the pundits and critics suffering from ‘California derangement syndrome,’ look at this state and try to tear down our progress,” he said,

“It’s time to update your talking points. California remains the most blessed and often the most cursed place on Earth — profound natural beauty and prosperity, profound natural disasters, testing our spirits and resources.”

Afterward, Newsom was criticized by Republicans and chided in the news media for not mentioning that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office had forecast an $18-billion state budget deficit for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

Newsom brushed that off with a stroke of the pen the next day. He submitted a significantly lower deficit projection — just $3 billion — in a $349-billion budget proposal he sent the Legislature. He credited a revenue surge based on stock market profits, fueled largely by artificial intelligence investments.

Gee, what could go wrong?

Breaking with gubernatorial tradition, Newsom did not show up to personally brief reporters on his budget proposal, a task he has mastered in the past.

This time, Newsom had been too busy practicing his State of the State address to bone up on a budget presentation.

That’s OK. The State of the State was a needed feel-good tonic for both the Legislature and Newsom.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota, affordability stir up California gubernatorial forums
CA vs. Trump: Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s freeze of $10 billion in child-care funds
The L.A. Times Special: Citizens are finally getting it: No one’s safe from Trump’s deportation ambitions

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Ralph Nader — legendary consumer advocate, accused spoiler in the 2000 presidential campaign — is not, to state it mildly, terribly popular among Democrats, who still hold the election of George W. Bush against him.

So the idea, announced Monday, that he is seeking to recruit a slate of liberal stalwarts to mount a primary challenge against President Obama in 2012 is likely to elicit a response — at least among some in the party — ranging somewhere between eye-rolling and teeth-gnashing.

Nader seems not terribly concerned. His response to the 2000 controversy (a tie in Florida, hanging chads, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision stopping the recount and putting Bush in the White House) was to run for president again in 2004 and 2008.

Still, Nader insists the purpose of his latest electoral effort is not to deny Obama the Democratic nomination, or undermine his chances in the general election against whomever the Republicans put up against the president.

“Just the opposite,” Nader said, speaking via telephone from Washington shortly after the recruitment effort was made public. “If [Obama’s] smart, he’ll welcome it, because nothing’s worse than an incumbent president slipping in the polls, being constantly on the defensive, being accused by supporters of having no backbone and running an unenthusiastically received campaign. That’s a prescription for defeat.

“He’s got a lack of enthusiasm with his base,” Nader continued. “If he goes through a one-year presidential campaign with mind-numbing repetition, responding to crazed Republican positions, he is not going to activate his base. He will be put on the defensive, just the way he is now.”

To launch their insurgency effort, Nader and his allies released a scathing “Dear Colleague” letter sent to more than 150 potential sympathizers, accusing Obama of turning his back on his liberal base and its progressive agenda.

A partial bill of particulars, from a summary press release, includes “his decision to bail out Wall Street’s most profitable firms while failing to push for effective prosecution of the criminal behavior that triggered the recession, escalating the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan while simultaneously engaging in a unilateral war in Libya, his decision to extend the Bush era tax cuts, and his acquiescence to Republican extortion during the recent debt ceiling negotiations.”

Signatories include a number of luminaries of the left (and some familiar Obama critics), among them academic Cornel West, writer Gore Vidal, actor Peter Coyote and singer Michelle Shocked.

Nader said details of a potential primary challenge, such as the names and number of candidates and where they would be fielded, remain to be worked out. He acknowledged that some fast-approaching filing deadlines mean organizers “will have to move quickly.”

As for his own plans, Nader did not rule out another independent run for president in the fall of 2012, though he called the prospect “very unlikely.”

“I don’t have an ax to grind here,” Nader said. “I’m not maneuvering for anything. I’m not a registered Democrat. I just want, as a citizen, to have a rigorous debate on all the matters we’ve worked on for decades: consumers affairs, environmental protection, new taxes, new ideas, new excitement.”

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s reelection effort, said the campaign had no comment.

WASHINGTON – Republicans have tapped Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan to deliver the party’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, party officials said Friday.

The choice of Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, is meant to signal the party’s commitment to deficit reduction, the officials said. Ryan will deliver the GOP response from the Budget Committee’s hearing room.

“Paul Ryan is uniquely qualified to address the state of our economy and the fiscal challenges that face our country,” Speaker of the House John Boehner said in a statement. “We’re broke, and decisive action is needed to help our economy get back to creating jobs and end the spending binge in Washington that threatens our children’s future. I’m pleased that Paul will be outlining a common-sense vision for moving our country forward.”

For Obama’s first two addresses to a joint session of Congress, Republicans chose governors to deliver the response – first Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, and in 2010, Virginia’s Bob McDonnell. The tradition of the opposition party delivering a formal response dates back to 1966.

Ryan, 40, has represented Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District since 1999. He was a member of Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission, but voted against the panel’s final recommendations.

Obama is scheduled to travel to Wisconsin on Wednesday in a post-speech barnstorming trip.

mmemoli@tribune.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama took historic steps to thaw the hostile, Cold War-era relationship with the island nation of Cuba, 120 miles south of Miami. President Trump did his best to put everything back on ice.

Now the Biden administration says it will lift some of Trump’s restrictions on business and travel between the U.S. and Cuba, and renew diplomatic talks.

But President Biden’s initial actions will disappoint advocates longing for the more robust relationship that was emerging in the Obama years.

Although he promised during the campaign to aggressively reverse Trump’s Cuba policy, Biden’s plans will have to roll out more slowly than some of his advisors had hoped.

He faces stiff resistance in Congress from members opposed to détente with Cuba, including from one of the Senate’s most powerful Democrats. At the same time, Cuba’s behavior has become more controversial with repression of dissidents and support for Venezuela. And Trump left numerous obstacles, such as formally declaring Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, which takes time and a bundle of red tape to reverse.

“There was never going to be Obama Redux,” said Cuba expert John Kavulich, head of an economic institute that for decades has focused on Cuba.

The Biden government will remove harsh Trump restrictions that most directly harmed civilian Cubans, administration officials said. First of those are the limits on the amount of remittances that Cuban Americans can send to their relatives on the island. The administration will also restore some of the wiring services, including Western Union, that are used to transmit the money and that the previous government blocked. The money is a lifeline for many Cubans.

Biden’s team also intends to allow more travel between the countries, people familiar with the plans said. U.S.-origin flights to various Cuban cities were opened under Obama, along with a large cruise ship itinerary. But those mostly shut down under Trump. Obama’s reasoning was that the exposure of Cubans to more Westerners would plant the seeds of democratization; Trump’s people argued that a lot of the dollars spent by tourists and other visitors ended up in the hands of the Cuban military.

Biden’s first steps will be taken as initial gestures, while more difficult matters are debated.

“Politically he is going to keep it limited for now,” said John Caulfield, former head of the U.S. mission in Havana and specialist in U.S.-Cuba policy. Caulfield said Biden needs to see how much political will there is in Havana.

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has said he welcomes dialogue with Washington, but without preconditions.

Biden may also rebuild the staff at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana, which sank to a skeleton crew under Trump, and resume issuing visas to Cuban nationals.

Since Biden assumed office, his aides have become more circumspect about the plans for Cuba, repeating publicly that the policy is “under review.”

However, Juan Gonzalez, an Obama administration alum who is now head of Western Hemisphere affairs for Biden’s National Security Council, last week confirmed broad strokes of the new policy.

Biden’s “commitment on Cuba is to lift the limitations on remittances and make possible the travel of Americans to the island,” he said in Spanish to Spanish-language news channel Univision.

The previous administration “only penalized Cuban Americans and the Cuban people in the middle of a pandemic” by making it difficult for them to receive money from relatives and “did nothing to try to advance a democratic future in Cuba,” Gonzalez said.

Two other people who have participated in talks about Cuba with members of the administration confirmed the steps. The State Department declined comment.

Obama’s opening with Cuba, announced in 2014, came in his second term, when he no longer had to worry about reelection and after the critical and traditionally Republican Florida vote in the 2012 contest had moved into his camp.

He reestablished the U.S. Embassy in Havana, made the first trip there of an American president in 90 years, and oversaw the revival of numerous bilateral operations, like the interdiction of drug traffickers.

Biden, by contrast, must confront the issue early in his first term, when not only are Florida Republicans including Sen. Marco Rubio arrayed against him, but Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a hawk on Cuba, is ascending to the powerful chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Nine days before leaving office, Trump’s Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo embedded extra obstacles that would trip up the Biden administration in its efforts to return to rapprochement with Cuba. Pompeo and Trump put Cuba on the list of state “sponsors of terrorism” with only three other countries: Iran, North Korea and Syria.

Most experts say the designation is purely political. Normally this designation comes after an extensive review by the State Department and then consultation with Congress. That did not happen.

Politically it puts Biden in the tricky position of having to affirmatively recertify that Cuba is not sponsoring terrorism, and Havana’s support for Colombia’s leftist guerrillas and Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro will complicate that. Cuba and Venezuela exchange intelligence officers, doctors, oil and possibly weapons.

While there is wide confidence among lawmakers and academics that Biden will fulfill some of his Cuba campaign promises, there is also concern the administration will stumble if it begins to demand Cuba take reciprocal steps, such as freeing dissidents from jail, to “earn” U.S. concessions. It’s a tactic that has never worked.

“There will be a temptation to demand reciprocity and concessions from the Cubans in return,” said Peter Kornbluh, coauthor of “Back Channel to Cuba,” a book recounting Obama’s secret negotiations. “The history of negotiations with Cuba demonstrates that the quid pro quo approach is a non-starter, and a recipe for policy failure.”

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) has lobbied both Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken on reestablishing full ties with Cuba, making similar warnings.

Richard Feinberg, a veteran of the Clinton White House and now an international political economy professor at UC San Diego, also cautioned against “overdemanding,” saying the Biden team is “overestimating U.S. leverage worldwide.”

“The administration is looking for positive developments on the island to wrap their announcements around,” Feinberg said. Earlier this month, Diaz-Canel, struggling with a moribund economy, vastly expanded the list of small businesses that Cubans may operate, the most important step Havana has taken in allowing a form of private enterprise.

The most ardent Cuba advocates in Congress and elsewhere are reviving a campaign to end the 59-year-old U.S. embargo on Cuba, initiated by President Kennedy to isolate the island’s communist leadership. Obama, along with experts, historians and activists, long declared the embargo a failure — it never unseated revolutionary leader Fidel Castro or his successors — and it remains the sorest point Cubans cite in the troubled relationship with the United States.

It can only be lifted by Congress, where Rubio or like-minded Republicans would work to block such action.

“Our nation’s embargo on Cuba is an artifact from the 1960s,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said as he introduced a bill this month to repeal the sanctions. “To continue this outdated, harmful policy of isolation would be a failure of American leadership.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power. We aren’t just defending the status quo; we are securing the California Dream for the next generation. Let’s finish what we started – together.”

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record would likely have served him well had he decided to run in a state where President Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they are not running for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering a run, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again due to term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to Bonta’s political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s state legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the State Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Los Angeles Times reporter Dakota Smith contributed to this article.

SACRAMENTO — Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles) spent $332,552–more than any of the Assembly’s 79 other members–on his office expenses during the 1988 legislative session, according to figures released by the Assembly.

Friedman’s total was 19% higher than the Assembly average of $279,192 for the 12 months ending last Nov. 30. It was $10,270 ahead of the $322,282 accounted for by the second-ranking spender, former Assemblyman Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear).

“I have no problem with anyone examining the way every penny was spent because it was spent prudently,” Friedman said. “There’s no excessive salaries. There’s no frivolous expenditures. . . . “

Among the reasons cited by Friedman for his top ranking are the cost of renting his Sherman Oaks office, the cost of mailing newsletters to his Westside and San Fernando Valley constituents and a bookkeeping delay that caused some 1987 expenses to be paid in 1988.

43rd District

Friedman’s 43rd District includes Beverly Hills, part of West Hollywood, Bel-Air, Brentwood and part of Westwood in West Los Angeles and Studio City, Encino and Sherman Oaks in the San Fernando Valley.

The figures, released last Friday, are compiled annually and released by the Assembly Rules Committee. The totals include staff salaries, travel, cars, district office expenses, newsletters, postage, telephones, furniture, equipment, supplies, subscriptions and photocopying.

The totals do not include staff and other costs connected with committee assignments. Some Assembly members who head committees have additional staff and expenses connected to their extra duties. Friedman, who is not a committee chairman, is a two-term lawmaker who easily won reelection last November.

In reviewing his expenses, Friedman said his office rent is higher than rents in other parts of the state. He paid $20,833 a year for his Ventura Boulevard office, compared to the average annual local office rent of $15,863 for the Assembly’s 80 members.

“There ought to be an allowance for the prevailing rent in a particular district,” Friedman said. “The fact is that it costs more to rent an office space in Sherman Oaks than it does in Norwalk.”

Other Costs

Also included in the expenses is the cost of newsletters–$63,490 for Friedman. Karin Caves, a spokeswoman for Friedman, said $15,800 in newsletter costs incurred in late 1987 were not paid by the state controller until 1988.

In addition, Caves said Friedman’s newsletter budget was higher than that of most other members because it was pegged to the number of registered voters per household. Friedman, with 103,568 households, is among the Assembly members with the most registered voters, she said.

But that expense has ended. Mass mailings by elected officials at public expense, including newsletters, were prohibited last June when voters adopted Proposition 73, which is being challenged in the courts.

The totals for the four other Westside Assembly members, all Democrats, were: Tom Hayden of Santa Monica, $295,477; Mike Roos of Los Angeles, $294,401; Gwen Moore of Los Angeles, $291,687; and Burt Margolin of Los Angeles, $277,030.

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Sunday the Department of Justice has served the central bank with subpoenas and threatened it with a criminal indictment over his testimony about the Fed’s building renovations.

The move represents a major escalation in President Trump’s battle with the Fed, an independent agency he has repeatedly attacked for not cutting its key interest rate as quickly as he prefers.

The subpoena relates to Powell’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June, he said, regarding the Fed’s $2.5-billion renovation of two office buildings, a project that Trump criticized as excessive.

Until now Powell had maintained a restrained approach to Trump’s criticisms and personal insults, which he has mostly ignored. But after Sunday’s actions, Powell issued a video statement in which he bluntly characterized the threats of criminal charges as “pretexts” to undermine the Fed’s independence when it comes to setting interest rates.

“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation,” Powell said.

The central bank had attempted to placate the administration by dialing back some policies, such as efforts to consider the effect of climate change on the banking system, that Trump and his economic advisors clearly opposed.

In his testimony in June, Powell disputed some of the criticisms that had been levied against the Fed’s renovation of two historic office buildings, which have ballooned in cost.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Sunday.

The Justice Department said in a statement Sunday that it can’t comment on any particular case, but added that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi “has instructed her US Attorneys to prioritize investigating any abuse of tax payer dollars.”

A spokesperson for U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office didn’t immediately respond Sunday to a text message and phone call seeking comment.

With the subpoenas, Powell becomes the latest perceived adversary of the president to face a criminal investigation by the Trump administration’s Justice Department. Trump has urged prosecutions of his political opponents, obliterating institutional guardrails for a Justice Department that for generations has taken care to make investigative and prosecutorial decisions independent of the White House.

The potential indictment has already drawn concern from one Republican senator, who said he’ll oppose any future nominee to the central bank, including any replacement for Powell, until “this legal matter is fully resolved.”

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisors within the Trump administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none,” said Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sits on the Banking Committee that oversees Fed nominations. “It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Eric Tucker, Michael Kunzelman and Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump said Sunday that he is “inclined” to keep ExxonMobil out of Venezuela after its top executive voiced skepticism about oil investment efforts in the country after the U.S. toppling of President Nicolás Maduro.

“I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump said to reporters on Air Force One as he departed West Palm Beach, Fla. “They’re playing too cute.”

During a meeting Friday with oil executives, Trump tried to assuage the concerns of the companies and said they would be dealing directly with the U.S., rather than the Venezuelan government.

Some weren’t convinced.

“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s uninvestable,” said Darren Woods, chief executive of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company.

An ExxonMobil spokesperson did not immediately respond Sunday to a request for comment.

Trump signed an executive order Friday that seeks to ensure that Venezuelan oil revenue remains protected from being used in judicial proceedings.

The order, made public Saturday, says that if the funds were to be seized for such use, it could “undermine critical U.S. efforts to ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela.” Venezuela has a history of state asset seizures, ongoing U.S. sanctions and decades of political uncertainty.

Getting U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure is a top priority of the Trump administration after Maduro’s capture.

The White House is framing the effort to “run” Venezuela in economic terms, and Trump has seized tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, has said the U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 million to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan crude, and plans to control sales worldwide indefinitely.

Kim and Nikhinson write for the Associated Press. Kim reported from West Palm Beach, Fla., and Nikhinson reported from aboard Air Force One.

More than 60 largely peaceful protests took place this weekend against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, including several in Southern California.

But while many protests were without incident, they were not short on anger and moments of tension. Organizers called the gatherings the “ICE Out for Good” weekend of action in response to the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis.

In Huntington Beach, Ron Duplantis, 72, carried a diagram to represent the three shots fired at Good, including one through her windshield and two others that appeared to go through her side window.

“Those last two shots,” he said, “make it clear to me that this is murder.”

Participants in the “ICE Out” protest hold signs Sunday in Huntington Beach.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Huntington Beach has seen past clashes between Trump supporters and anti-racism activists, but as of mid-afternoon, Sunday’s protest was tense at times, but free of violence. About 300 people — and two dozen counterprotesters — stood outside City Hall, with protesters carrying anti-ICE signs, ringing cowbells and chanting “ICE out of O.C.”

As cars sped past them on Main Street, many motorists honked in a show of solidarity, while some rolled down their windows to shout their support for ICE, MAGA and President Trump.

“The reason why I’m here is democracy,” said Mary Artesani, a 69-year-old Costa Mesa resident carrying a sign that read “RESIST.” “They have to remember he won’t be in office forever.”

Participants in the “ICE Out” protest in Huntington Beach hold signs as a car with a MAGA hat in the windshield passes.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The Trump administration has largely stood behind the ICE agent, identified as Jonathan Ross, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem saying he acted in self-defense. Democratic officials and many members of the public have said the videos of the shooting circulating on social media appear to contradict at least some of the administration’s assertions.

“I’m outraged a woman was murdered by our government and our government lied to our faces about it,” said protester Tony Zarkades, 60, who has lived in the Huntington Beach area for nearly 30 years. A former officer in the Marines, Zarkades said he is thinking of moving to Orange to escape the presence of so many Trump supporters in Huntington Beach.

Large protests against ICE occurred in the Bay Area as well as Sacramento and other California cities over the weekend. In Oakland, hundreds demonstrated peacefully on Sunday, although the night before, protesters assembled at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and left graffiti, according to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In Los Angeles on Saturday night, protesters marched through the downtown area to City Hall and past the
Edward Roybal Federal Building, with the L.A. Police Department issuing a dispersal order at about 6:30 p.m., according to City News Service.

While many of the protests focused on what happened to Good in Minnesota, they also recognized Keith Porter Jr., a man killed by an off-dutyICE agent in Northridge on New Year’s Eve.

In Huntington Beach, the coastal community has long had a reputation as a Southern California stronghold for Republicans, though its politics have recently been shifting. Orange County has a painful legacy of political extremism, including neo-Nazism. In 2021, a “White Lives Matter” rally in the area ended in 12 arrests.

On Sunday, a small group of about 30 counterprotesters waved Trump and MAGA flags on a corner opposite from the anti-ICE rally.

Counterprotester Victoria Cooper, 72, holds signs and shouts at participants of the “ICE Out” protest in Huntington Beach.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

“We’re here to support our country and president and support ICE,” said Kelly Johnson, who gave his age as “old enough to be your sugar daddy.”

Wearing an “ICE Immigration: Making America Safe Again” T-shirt, Kelly said the protesters were “paid agitators” who had been lied to by the media.

“Look at the other angles of the [shooting] videos,” he said. “She ran over the officer.”

Standing with him was Jesse Huizar, 66, who said he identifies as a “Latino for Trump” and was here to “support the blue.”

The Chino resident said he came to the U.S. from Mexico when he was 5, but that he has no fear of ICE because he “came here legally.”

Huizar said Good’s death was sad, but that she “if she had complied, if she got out of her car and followed orders, she’d be alive right now.”

But their voices were largely overpowered by those of the anti-ICE protesters. One of the event’s organizers, 52-year-old Huntington Beach resident Denise G., who declined to give her last name, said they’ve been gathering in front of City Hall every Sunday since March, but that this was by far one of the largest turnouts they have seen.

She felt “devastated, angry, and more determined than ever” when she saw the video of Good’s shooting, she said.

Counterprotester Kelly Johnson stands across from the “ICE Out” demonstration.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

“It could be any one of us,” she said. “The people not out here today need to understand this could be their family member, their spouse, their children. The time is now. All hands on deck.”

Nearby, 27-year-old Yvonne Gonzales had gathered with about 10 of her friends. They said they were motivated to come because they were outraged by the shooting.

“I wish I was surprised by it,” Gonzales said, “but we’ve seen so much violence from ICE.”

She suspected that race was a factor in the outpouring of support, noting that Good was a white woman while many others who have been injured or killed by immigration enforcement actions have been people of color, but that it was still “great to see this turnout and visibility.”

A few feet away, 41-year-old Christie Martinez stood with her children, Elliott, 9, and Kane, 6. She teared up thinking about the shooting and the recent ICE actions in California, including the killing of Porter.

“It’s sad and sickening,” said Martinez, who lives in Westminster. “It makes me really sad how people are targeted because of their skin color.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s photo portrait display at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery has had references to his two impeachments removed, the latest apparent change at the collection of museums as he asserts his influence over how official presentations document U.S. history.

The wall text, which summarized Trump’s first presidency and noted his 2024 comeback victory, was part of the museum’s “American Presidents” exhibition. The description had been placed alongside a photograph of Trump taken during his first term. Now, a different photo appears without any accompanying text block, though the text was available online. Trump was the only president whose display in the gallery, as seen Sunday, did not include any extended text.

The White House did not say whether it sought any changes. Nor did a Smithsonian statement in response to Associated Press questions. But Trump ordered in August that Smithsonian officials review all exhibits before the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4. The Republican administration said the effort would “ensure alignment with the president’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.”

Trump’s original “portrait label,” as the Smithsonian calls it, notes Trump’s Supreme Court nominations and his administration’s development of COVID-19 vaccines. That section concludes: “Impeached twice, on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection after supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, he was acquitted by the Senate in both trials.”

The text continues: “After losing to Joe Biden in 2020, Trump mounted a historic comeback in the 2024 election. He is the only president aside from Grover Cleveland (1837–1908) to have won a nonconsecutive second term.”

Asked about the display, White House spokesman Davis Ingle celebrated the new photograph, which shows Trump, brow furrowed, leaning over his Oval Office desk. Ingle said it ensures that Trump’s “unmatched aura … will be felt throughout the halls of the National Portrait Gallery.”

The portrait was taken by White House photographer Daniel Torok, who is credited in the display that includes medallions noting Trump is the 45th and 47th president. Similar numerical medallions appear alongside other presidents’ painted portraits that also include the more extended biographical summaries such as what had been part of Trump’s display.

Sitting presidents are represented by photographs until their official paintings are commissioned and completed.

Ingle did not answer questions about whether Trump or a White House aide, on his behalf, asked for anything related to the portrait label.

The gallery said in a statement that it had previously rotated two photographs of Trump from its collection before putting up Torok’s work.

“The museum is beginning its planned update of the America’s Presidents gallery which will undergo a larger refresh this Spring,” the gallery statement said. “For some new exhibitions and displays, the museum has been exploring quotes or tombstone labels, which provide only general information, such as the artist’s name.”

For now, references to Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton being impeached in 1868 and 1998, respectively, remain as part of their portrait labels, as does President Richard Nixon’s 1974 resignation as a result of the Watergate scandal.

And, the gallery statement noted, “The history of Presidential impeachments continues to be represented in our museums, including the National Museum of American History.”

Trump has made clear his intentions to shape how the federal government documents U.S. history and culture. He has offered an especially harsh assessment of how the Smithsonian and other museums have featured chattel slavery as a seminal variable in the nation’s development but also taken steps to reshape how he and his contemporary rivals are depicted.

In the months before his order for a Smithsonian review, he fired the head archivist of the National Archives and said he was firing the National Portrait Gallery’s director, Kim Sajet, as part of his overhaul. Sajet maintained the backing of the Smithsonian’s governing board, but she ultimately resigned.

At the White House, Trump has designed a notably partisan and subjective “Presidential Walk of Fame” featuring gilded photographs of himself and his predecessors — with the exception of Biden, who is represented by an autopen — along with plaques describing their presidencies.

The White House said at the time that Trump was a primary author of the plaques. Trump’s two plaques praise the 45th and 47th president as a historically successful figure while those under Biden’s autopen stand-in describe the 46th president as “by far, the worst President in American History” who “brought our Nation to the brink of destruction.”

Barrow and Johnson write for the Associated Press and reported from Atlanta and Washington, respectively.

Recently, as the political battle over congressional redistricting brought California into the national spotlight, Facebook users were shown a curious series of ads.

The ads, from a straightforward-looking news site called the California Courier, often felt a lot like campaign commercials, linking to articles hammering Democrats in the state, including Gov. Gavin Newsom. Few punched in the other direction, toward Republicans. One said, “California Democrats just rewrote their gerrymandering plan so voters will see their partisan map on the ballot this November.” Another called Proposition 50, which passed in November, “a scheme critics say is meant to undermine voter-approved protections and entrench one party rule in California.”

A reader who clicked through to the Courier’s website would find stories that largely align with a conservative view of the news, like a video of a child “riding a scooter through San Fran’s drug-ravaged streets,” or an anonymous piece that cites “confidential sources” cautioning against a “left-wing educator” running for a position with an Orange County school district.

What a reader would not find is any disclosure of the Courier’s ownership or funding, including what appear to be ties to a network of conservative organizations in California that, according to one researcher, scaled up a series of right-leaning news sites in three other states just ahead of the 2024 election.

The Courier has money to spend. According to a review of the ad library maintained by Facebook’s owner, Meta, the outlet has spent more than $80,000 since 2021 promoting its stories on social issues and politics, potentially reaching tens of thousands of users on the platform each week.

Critics say the California outlet is part of a growing, nationwide ecosystem of innocuous-looking, cheaply produced news publications that publish and advertise biased articles in an attempt to surreptitiously influence elections. They worry the practice could mislead voters and corrode trust in nonpartisan news providers.

“I think we are in an era where people are consuming so much content online without knowing the source of it,” said Max Read, who has studied the network apparently behind the Courier at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a nonprofit that works to counter political polarization. “And for well-funded organizations to contribute to that by disguising what they’re doing online just helps exacerbate that problem of people not trusting what they come across.”

At a glance, the Courier does not necessarily look right-leaning. A handful of stories seem like straight news echoing press releases, such as one announcing new affordable housing units. But even those that seem relatively neutral may have a right-leaning spin, like one describing speeding fines tied to income as a potential “woke penalty loophole.”

The outlet also shares a name with a 67-year-old California-based publication serving the Armenian diaspora. One of that Courier’s founders won acclaim from his peers for his tenure as dean of the University of Maryland’s journalism school.

When the Markup and CalMatters contacted the publisher of the Armenian Courier, he said he was unaware of the other site. He told a reporter he was opening it for the first time.

“I’m definitely not conservative,” said Harut Sassounian, who owns the Courier, where his regular editorials appear online and formerly in print. “The two publications have nothing in common. Neither politically nor ethnically nor anything like that.”

Although it lacks the pedigree of the Armenian publication, the right-leaning Courier has shown it is well-immersed in today’s social media. A video it made suggesting Newsom flip-flopped in his view of President Biden’s mental acuity generated thousands of reactions.

The publication also shares some of the murky citation practices of contemporary social media. Almost all of the stories on the site are unattributed, or simply attributed to “the California Courier.”

A few, however, include author names. One of the named writers describes himself on social media as a “content creator” for the Lincoln Media Foundation, a conservative group, and links to Courier articles. Another shares a name with a Republican strategist based in Orange County, and a third lists a resume with conservative organizations in a short bio.

The Lincoln Media Foundation is tied to the Lincoln Club, a group based in Orange County that bills itself as “the oldest and largest conservative major donor organization in the state of California.” The club funnels anonymously donated money to conservative candidates and causes.

The Lincoln Media Foundation’s Facebook page recently said it was “proud to present” a new documentary purporting to reveal “the untold truth about the Pacific Palisades fire,” the natural disaster that tore through the state last year and increased political pressure on Newsom.

One hour later, the Courier’s Facebook page promoted it as well, not mentioning the Lincoln Media Foundation but describing the documentary as “much anticipated.”

Neither the Lincoln Club, Lincoln Media, the California Courier or the Courier writers responded to multiple requests for comment about the origins of the site, either through email phone, or social media messages.

That silence, and the lack of information about ownership on the Courier’s website, come despite the outlet’s chief goal, as outlined on its Facebook page.

“California Courier offers statewide and local news,” the page’s description reads. “Our mission is transparency.”

The Lincoln Club has previously been linked to “local” websites around the country, spreading stories with a distinctly conservative tint.

In 2024, Read’s Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which tracks disinformation and extremism online, found a handful of such sites that noted deep in their privacy policies that they were projects from Lincoln Media. Those outlets had names like the Angeleno and the Keystone Courier, and stretched from California to Pennsylvania, although a resulting report didn’t name the Courier.

Many of the sites used Facebook and other social media tools to press a conservative agenda, the report found. Meta has rules against “coordinated inauthentic behavior” but it’s not clear whether Lincoln Media’s websites would cross that line.

‘Pink slime’ news

Researchers have taken to calling sites like those operated by Lincoln Media “pink slime” news, a name coined after a meat-industry additive. These sites don’t produce outright false news, like others, but they do not meet basic journalistic standards. That often means low-quality content and failing to disclose associations with outside organizations.

The sites generally aren’t designed to generate revenue, but to sway public opinion. The majority, according to researchers, lean toward a conservative agenda, and if the site’s stories gain traction on social media, they can travel widely. “If they place an ad well or if they just get the right pickup from the right influencer, these things don’t really have a limit on how far they can go,” Read said.

While it’s not clear how many sites the Lincoln Club might fund, it isn’t the only group that has used the strategy.

In 2020, the New York Times reported on Metric Media, a group that created nearly 1,300 sites around the country with names like Maine Business Daily and the Ann Arbor Times. At a glance, these could pass for simple local news operations. But the Times report found they took money from public relations firms and Republican operatives to produce stories beneficial to those groups, a massive journalistic red flag.

Ethical or not, the strategy can be effective for lending credibility to a particular viewpoint. Kevin DeLuca, an assistant professor of political science at Yale University who has researched pink slime websites, conducted an experiment that showed subjects both real unbiased news sites and others produced by Metric Media.

Some subjects in the study were given a tip sheet that asked them to examine the sites closely, looking at whether they included information like credible mission pages and other details. But even with the tip sheet, the study subjects said in interviews that they didn’t strongly prefer the truly local over the manufactured sites.

DeLuca says these sites are now in place around the United States, and news consumers have little idea when they’re running into them. The problem may only get worse with the spread of generative AI, since that technology further reduces the cost of creating such sites.

Researchers who study these sites say it’s never been easier to produce them. Local news, for one, has faced a years-long financial crisis that’s wiped many once-robust operations off the map.

While it can’t be said whether any one publication uses AI-generated content, the wide availability of tools like ChatGPT, capable of producing at least a semblance of a passable news story, have also made it easier to build up such sites.

“It’s going to make these pink slime sites even harder for people to know that what they’re reading is not from a human source and not really local investigative journalism.” DeLuca said.

Sassounian, for his part, doesn’t think there’s any risk the two California Couriers would ever be confused with each other. He took over the paper in the 1980s, and his columns, which he describes as “hard-hitting editorials that defend the rights of the Armenian people worldwide,” have been translated into languages around the world.

“It’s not pleasant to have our name used by someone else,” Sassounian said. “I prefer that they don’t, but I don’t know what I can do about it.”

Colin Lecher writes for CalMatters.

MINNEAPOLIS — Already shaken by the fatal shooting of a woman by an immigration officer, Minnesota’s Twin Cities on Sunday braced for what many expect will be a new normal over the next few weeks as the Department of Homeland Security carries out what it called its largest enforcement operation ever.

In one Minneapolis neighborhood filled with single-family homes, protesters confronted federal agents and attempted to disrupt their operations by blowing car horns and whistles and banging on drums.

There was some pushing and several people were hit with chemical spray just before agents banged down the door of one home Sunday. They later took one person away in handcuffs.

“We’re seeing a lot of immigration enforcement across Minneapolis and across the state, federal agents just swarming around our neighborhoods,” said Jason Chavez, a Minneapolis City Council member. “They’ve definitely been out here.”

Chavez, the son of Mexican immigrants who represents an area with a growing immigrant population, said he is closely monitoring and gathering information from chat groups about where residents are seeing agents operating.

While the enforcement activity continues, two of the state’s leading Democrats said Sunday that the investigation into the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good shouldn’t be overseen solely by the federal government.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and U.S. Sen. Tina Smith said in separate interviews that state authorities should be included in the investigation because the federal government has already made clear what it believes happened.

“How can we trust the federal government to do an objective, unbiased investigation, without prejudice, when at the beginning of that investigation they have already announced exactly what they saw — what they think happened,” Smith said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Trump administration has defended the officer who shot Good in her car, saying he was protecting himself and fellow agents and that Good had “weaponized” her vehicle.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during an interview with CNN dismissed complaints from Minnesota officials about local agencies being denied any participation in the investigation.

“We do work with locals when they work with us,” she said, criticizing the Minneapolis mayor and others for not assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

Frey and Noem each pointed fingers at the other for their rhetoric after Good’s killing, and each pushed their own firm conclusions about what video of the incident shows. The mayor stood by his assertions that videos show “a federal agent recklessly abusing power that ended up in somebody dying.”

“Let’s have the investigation in the hands of someone that isn’t biased,” Frey said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The killing of Good on Wednesday by an ICE officer and the shooting of two people by federal agents in Portland, Ore., led to dozens of protests across the country over the weekend, including thousands of people who rallied in Minneapolis.

Santana, Householder and Vancleave write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Thomas Strong in Washington, Bill Barrow in Atlanta and John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, contributed to this report.

A few months into President Trump’s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — a conservative appointee of President Reagan — issued a scathing opinion denouncing what he found to be the Trump administration’s unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador, despite a previous court order barring it.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” Wilkinson wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Two months later, U.S. District Judge William G. Young, also a Reagan appointee, ripped into the Trump administration from the bench for its unprecedented decision to terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants based on their perceived nexus to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Young ruled the cuts were “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore illegal. But he also said there was a “darker aspect” to the case that he had an “unflinching obligation” to call out — that the administration’s actions amounted to “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”

“I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young said, explaining a decision the Supreme Court later reversed. “Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

In the year since an aggrieved and combative Trump returned to the White House, his administration has strained the American legal system by testing and rejecting laws and other long-standing policies and defending those actions by arguing the president has a broad scope of authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Administration officials and Justice Department attorneys have argued that the executive branch is essentially the president’s to bend to his will. They have argued its employees are his to fire, its funds his to spend and its enforcement powers — to retaliate against his enemies, blast alleged drug-runners out of international waters or detain anyone agents believe looks, sounds and labors like a foreigner — all but unrestrained.

The approach has repeatedly been met by frustrated federal judges issuing repudiations of the administration’s actions, but also grave warnings about a broader threat they see to American jurisprudence and democracy.

When questioning administration attorneys in court, in stern written rulings at the district and appellate levels and in blistering dissents at the Supreme Court — which has often backed the administration, particularly with temporary orders on its emergency docket — federal judges have used remarkably strong language to call out what they see as a startling disregard for the rule of law.

Legal critics, including more than a hundred former federal and state judges, have decried Trump’s attacks on individual judges and law firms, “deeply inappropriate” nominations to the bench, “unlawful” appointments of unconfirmed and inexperienced U.S. attorneys and targeting of his political opponents for prosecution based on weak allegations of years-old mortgage fraud.

In response, Trump and his supporters have articulated their own concerns with the legal system, accusing judges of siding with progressive groups to cement a liberal federal agenda despite the nation voting Trump back into office. Trump has labeled judges “lunatics” and called for at least one’s impeachment, which drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

After District Judge Brian E. Murphy temporarily blocked the administration from deporting eight men to South Sudan — a nation to which they had no connection, and which has a record of human rights abuses — Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, called the order “a lawless act of defiance” that ignored a recent Supreme Court ruling.

After District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison despite Boasberg having previously ordered the planes turned back to the U.S., government attorneys said it portended a “circus” that threatened the separation of powers.

While more measured than the nation’s coarse political rhetoric, the legal exchanges have nonetheless been stunning by judicial standards — a sign of boiling anger among judges, rising indignation among administration officials and a wide gulf between them as to the limits of their respective legal powers.

“These judges, these Democrat activist judges, are the ones who are 100% at fault,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Republican lawyer and Trump ally who advocates for sweeping executive authority. “They are taking the country to the cliff.”

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison.

(Valerie Plesch / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The judges “see — and have articulated — an unprecedented threat to democracy,” said UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “They really are sounding the alarm.”

“What the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism from radical left-wing judges,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “If this trend continues it threatens to undermine the rule-of-law for all future presidencies.”

“Regardless of which side you’re on on these issues, the lasting impact is that people mistrust the courts and, quite frankly, do not understand the role that a strong, independent judiciary plays in the rule of law, in our democracy and in our economy,” said John A. Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. “That is very, very troubling to anybody who looks at this with a shred of objectivity.”

California in the fight

Last month, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office’s 50th lawsuit against the Trump administration — an average of about one lawsuit per week since Trump’s inauguration.

The litigation has challenged a range of Trump administration policies, including his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of many immigrants; his unilateral imposition of stiff tariffs around the world; the administration’s attempt to slash trillions of dollars in federal funding from states, and its deployment of National Guard troops to American cities.

The battles have produced some of the year’s most eye-popping legal exchanges.

In June, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, after days of protest over immigration enforcement.

An attorney for the administration had argued that federal law gave Trump such authority in instances of domestic “rebellion” or when the president is unable to execute the nation’s laws with regular forces, and said the court had no authority to question Trump’s decisions.

But Breyer wasn’t buying it, ruling Trump’s authority was “of course limited.”

“I mean, that’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said from the bench. “This country was founded in response to a monarchy. And the Constitution is a document of limitations — frequent limitations — and enunciation of rights.”

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops to Los Angeles.

(Santiago Mejia / San Francisco Chronicle)

Francesca Gessner, Bonta’s acting chief deputy, said she took Breyer’s remarks as his way of telling Trump and his administration that “we don’t have kings in America” — which she said was “really remarkable to watch” in an American courtroom.

“I remember just sitting there thinking, wow, he’s right,” Gessner said.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently paused Breyer’s order, allowing the troops to remain in Trump’s control.

In early October, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, finding that the conditions on the ground didn’t warrant such militarization. The next day, both Oregon and California asked her to expand that ruling to include California National Guard troops, after the Trump administration sent them to Portland in lieu of Oregon’s troops.

Before issuing a second restraining order barring deployments of any National Guard troops in Oregon, a frustrated Immergut laid into the Justice Department attorney defending the administration. “You’re an officer of the court,” she said. “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland?”

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration in a similar case out of Chicago, finding the administration lacked any legal justification for Guard deployments there. Trump subsequently announced he was pulling troops out of Chicago, Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities, with California and other states that had resisted claiming a major victory.

Bonta said he’s been pleased to see judges pushing back against the president’s power grabs, including by using sharp language that makes their alarm clear.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut, shown at her 2018 confirmation hearing, barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

“Generally, courts and judges are tempered and restrained,” Bonta said. “The statements that you’re seeing from them are carefully chosen to be commensurate with the extreme nature of the moment — the actions of the Trump administration that are so unlawful.”

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, and other Trump administration officials defended their actions to The Times, including by citing wins before the Supreme Court.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Justice Department “has spent the past year righting the wrongs of the previous administration” and “working tirelessly to successfully advance President Trump’s agenda and keep Americans safe.”

Sauer said it has won rulings “on key priorities of this administration, including stopping nationwide injunctions from lower courts, defending ICE’s ability to carry out law enforcement duties, and removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country,” and that those decisions “respect the role” of the courts, Trump’s “constitutional authority” and the “rule of law.”

‘Imperial executive’ or ‘imperial judiciary’?

Just after taking office, Trump said he was ending birthright citizenship. California and others sued, and several lower court judges blocked the order with nationwide or “universal” injunctions — with one calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court challenging the ability of district court judges to issue such sweeping injunctions. In June, the high court largely sided with the administration, ruling 6 to 3 that many such injunctions likely exceed the lower courts’ authority.

Trump’s policy remains on hold based on other litigation. But the case laid bare a stark divide on the high court.

In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that universal injunctions were not used in early English and U.S. history, and that while the president has a “duty to follow the law,” the judiciary “does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the president.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

In a dissent joined by fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that enforcement of Trump’s order against even a single U.S.-born child would be an “assault on our constitutional order,” and that Barrett’s opinion was “not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.”

Jackson, in her own dissent, wrote that the majority opinion created “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

As a result, the president’s allies will fare well, the “wealthy and the well connected” will be able to hire lawyers and go to court to defend their rights, and the poor will have no such relief, Jackson wrote — creating a tiered system of justice “eerily echoing history’s horrors.”

In a footnote, she cited “The Dual State” by Jewish lawyer and writer Ernst Fraenkel, about Adolf Hitler creating a similar system in Germany.

Barrett accused Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the executive. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson questioned why the majority saw a “power grab” by the courts instead of by “a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.”

What’s ahead?

Legal observers across the political spectrum said they see danger in the tumult.

“I never have been so afraid, or imagined being so afraid, for the future of democracy as I am right now,” Chemerinsky said.

He said Trump is “continually violating the Constitution and laws” in unprecedented ways to increase his own power and diminish the power of the other branches of government, and neither Republicans in Congress nor Trump’s cabinet are doing anything to stop him.

While the Supreme Court has also showed great deference to Trump, Chemerinsky said he is hoping it will begin reaffirming legal boundaries for him.

“Is the court just going to be a rubber stamp for Trump, or, at least in some areas, is it going to be a check?” he said.

Davis said Trump has faced “unprecedented, unrelenting lawfare from his Democrat opponents” for years, but now has “a broad electoral mandate to lead” and must be allowed to exercise his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

“These Democrat activist judges need to get the hell out of his way, because if they don’t, the federal judiciary is gonna lose its legitimacy,” Davis said. “And once it loses its legitimacy, it loses everything.”

Bonta said the Constitution is being “stress tested,” but he thinks it’s been “a good year for the rule of law” overall, thanks to lower court judges standing up to the administration’s excesses. “They have courage. They are doing their job.”

Day, of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump “believes he is putting the country on the right path” and wants judges to get out of his way, while many Democrats feel “we’re going entirely in the wrong direction and that the Supreme Court is against them and bowing to the wishes of the executive.”

His advice to both, he said, is to keep faith in the nation’s legal system — which “is not very efficient, but was designed to work in the long run.”

WASHINGTON — The killing of a Minnesota woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer is reverberating across Capitol Hill where Democrats, and certain Republicans, are vowing an assertive response as President Trump’s aggressive deportation operations spark protests nationwide.

Lawmakers are demanding a range of actions, including a full investigation into Renee Nicole Good’s shooting death, policy changes over law enforcement raids, the defunding of ICE operations and the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in what is fast becoming an inflection point.

“The situation that took place in Minnesota is a complete and total disgrace,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said as details emerged. “And in the next few days, we will be having conversations about a strong and forceful and appropriate response by House Democrats.”

Yet there is almost no consensus among the political parties in the aftermath of the death of Good, who was behind the wheel of an SUV after dropping off her 6-year-old at school when she was shot and killed by an ICE officer.

The killing immediately drew dueling narratives. Trump and Noem said the ICE officer acted in self-defense, while Democratic officials said the Trump administration was lying and they urged the public to view the viral videos of the shooting for themselves. The videos appear to contradict at least some aspects of the Trump administration’s assertions.

Vice President JD Vance blamed Good, calling it “a tragedy of her own making,” and said the ICE officer may have been “sensitive” from having been injured during an unrelated altercation last year.

But Good’s killing, at least the fifth known death since the administration launched its mass deportation campaign, could change the political dynamic.

“The videos I’ve seen from Minneapolis yesterday are deeply disturbing,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a statement last week.

“As we mourn this loss of life, we need a thorough and objective investigation into how and why this happened,” she said. As part of the investigation, Murkowski said she is calling for policy changes, saying the situation “was devastating, and cannot happen again.”

Homeland Security funding up for debate

The push in Congress for more oversight and accountability of the administration’s immigration operations comes as lawmakers are in the midst of the annual appropriations process to fund agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to prevent another federal government shutdown when money expires at the end of January.

As anti-ICE demonstrations erupt in the aftermath of Good’s death, as seen in many U.S. cities this weekend, Democrats have pledged to use any available legislative lever to apply pressure on the administration to change the conduct of ICE officers.

“We’ve been warning about this for an entire year,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.).

The ICE officer “needs to be held accountable,” Frost said, “but not just them, but ICE as a whole, the president and this entire administration.”

Congressional Democrats saw Good’s killing as a sign of the need for aggressive action to restrain the administration’s tactics.

Several Democrats joined calls to impeach Noem, who has been under fire from both parties for her lack of transparency at the department, though that step is highly unlikely with Republicans in control of Congress.

Other Democrats want to restrict the funding for her department, whose budget was vastly increased as part of Republicans’ sweeping tax and spending bill passed last summer.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that handles Homeland Security funding, plans to introduce legislation to rein in the agency with constraints on federal agents’ authority, including a requirement that the Border Patrol stick to the border and that Homeland Security enforcement officers be unmasked.

“More Democrats are saying today the thing that a number of us have been saying since April and May: Kristi Noem is dangerous. She should not be in office, and she should be impeached,” said Democratic Rep. Delia C. Ramirez, who represents parts of Chicago where ICE launched an enhanced immigration enforcement action last year that resulted in two deaths.

Immigration debates have long divided Congress and the parties. Democrats splinter between more liberal and stricter attitudes toward newcomers to the United States. Republicans have embraced Trump’s hard-line approach in trying to portray Democrats as radicals.

The Republican administration had launched the enforcement operation in Minnesota in response to an investigation of the nonprofit Feeding Our Future. Prosecutors said the organization was at the center of the country’s largest COVID-19-related fraud scams, when defendants exploited a state-run, federally funded program intended to provide food for children.

Heading into the November midterm election, which Democrats believe will hinge on issues such as affordability and healthcare, national outcry over ICE’s conduct has pressured lawmakers to speak out.

“I’m not completely against deportations, but the way they’re handling it is a real disgrace,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Right now, you’re seeing humans treated like animals,” he said.

Other ICE shootings have rattled lawmakers

In September, a federal immigration enforcement agent in Chicago fatally shot Silverio Villegas Gonzalez during a brief altercation after Gonzalez had dropped off his children at school.

In October, a Customs and Border Protection agent also in Chicago shot Marimar Martinez, a teacher and U.S. citizen, five times during a dispute with officers. The charges the administration had brought against Martinez were dismissed by a federal judge.

To Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), Good’s death “brought back heart-wrenching memories of those two shootings in my district.”

“It looks like the fact that a U.S. citizen, who is a white woman, may be opening the eyes of the American public, certainly of members of Congress, that what’s going on is out of control,” he said, “that this isn’t about apprehending or pursuing the most dangerous immigrants.”

Republicans expressed some concern at the shooting but most stood by the administration’s policy, defended the officer’s actions and largely blamed Good for the altercation.

“Nobody wants to see people get shot,” said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.).

“Let’s do the right thing and just be reasonable. And the reasonable thing is not to obstruct ICE officers and then accelerate while they’re standing in front of your car,” he said. “She made a mistake. I’m sure she didn’t mean for that to happen, nor did he mean for that to happen.”

Brown and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

BRADENTON, Fla. — A Florida man convicted of crimes after grabbing then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lectern and posing for photographs with it during the U.S. Capitol riot is running for county office.

Adam Johnson filed to run as a Republican for an at-large seat on the Manatee County Commission on Tuesday. That was the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, where he was photographed smiling and waving as he carried Pelosi’s lectern, commonly known as the speaker’s podium, after the pro-Trump mob’s attack on the Capitol as people there sought to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s election win.

Johnson told WWSB-TV that it was “not a coincidence” that he filed for office on Jan. 6, saying that “it’s definitely good for getting the buzz out there.” His campaign logo is an outline of the viral photograph of him carrying the lectern.

He’s far from the first person implicated in the Jan. 6 riot to run for office. At least three ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2024 as Republicans. And there are signs that the Republican Party is welcoming back more people who were convicted of Jan. 6 crimes after President Trump pardoned them.

Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting an officer, civil disorder and other crimes before he was pardoned, recently announced he is running for Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vacant U.S. Senate seat in Florida.

Johnson placed the lectern in the center of the Capitol Rotunda, posed for pictures and pretended to make a speech, prosecutors said. He pleaded guilty in 2021 to entering and remaining in a restricted building or ground, a misdemeanor that he equated in the interview to “jaywalking.”

“I think I exercised my 1st Amendment right to speak and protest,” Johnson said.

After driving home on Jan. 6, 2021, Johnson bragged that he “broke the internet” and was “finally famous,” prosecutors said.

Johnson served 75 days in prison followed by one year of supervised release. The judge also ordered Johnson to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 200 hours of community service.

Johnson told U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton at sentencing that posing with Pelosi’s lectern was a “very stupid idea,” but now says he only regrets his action because of the prison sentence.

“I walked into a building, I took a picture with a piece of furniture and I left,” he now says.

Four other Republicans have filed to run so far in the Aug. 18 primary in the deeply Republican county. The incumbent isn’t seeking reelection.

In March, Johnson filed a lawsuit against Manatee County and six of its commissioners, objecting to the county’s decision not to seek attorney’s fees from someone who sued the county and dropped the lawsuit. The county has called Johnson’s claims “completely meritless and unsupported by law.”

Johnson said he objects to what he sees as high property taxes and overdevelopment in the county south of Tampa, and he says current county leaders are wasteful.

“I will be more heavily scrutinized than any other candidate who is running in this race,” Johnson said. “This is a positive and a good takeaway for every single citizen, because for once in our life, we will know our local politicians who are doing things.”

Ever since Donald J. Trump descended from a gold escalator at his eponymous Manhattan tower in 2015, he has sworn that a scorched-earth campaign against “illegal immigrants” would make life safer for Americans and that citizens had nothing to worry about.

Well.

In 2025, Trump’s campaign vow to target “the worst of the worst” was set aside in the name of not just going after all undocumented immigrants and limiting legal migration but even the goal of remigration — the idea that immigrants of any status should return to their home countries. Now, U.S. citizens Keith Porter Jr., shot at a Northridge apartment complex, and Renee Nicole Good, whose shooting sparked large protests in Minneapolis, are dead.

ICE is about to storm American streets and neighborhoods with thousands of new recruits who received just eight weeks of training instead of what used to be five months. The Fourth Amendment bans the government from subjecting Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures” yet we now have a vice president promising that they’re forthcoming across the country.

“I think … we’re [going] to see those deportation numbers ramp up,” JD Vance told Fox News’ Jesse Watters, “as we get more and more people online working for ICE going from door-to-door.”

He repeated his boast the following day during a news conference while adding that the killing of Good — shot while trying to drive away from an agent who stood in front of her SUV during an immigration enforcement operation — was justified, adding that the 37-year-old mother of three was “brainwashed” and “radicalized in a very, very sad way.”

The beginning of 2026 now shows even those in the United States legally are targets for for the too often Keystone Kops-like, eager beaver, trigger happy federal immigration enforcement force I like to call la migra.

This isn’t anything new, of course. Since June, when ICE, Border Patrol and their sister agencies used Los Angeles as a testing ground for what they have inflicted on the rest of the country, the government has treated citizens who dare oppose mass-scale deportations — veterans, Democrats or Republicans, old and young, Latino and not — as an enemy of the “homeland.” Citizens have had their front doors blown out, been hit with pepper balls for praying outside government facilities, been wrongfully charged with assaulting agents, and have seen their identification papers dismissed as fake and thus grounds for detainment.

With the Trump administration’s accelerated recruitment drive for immigration officers and rhetorical bloodlust, don’t be surprised if these masked Bizarro Barney Fifes knock on your door or demand to see your papers. In fact, expect it.

The MAGA excuse for those caught up in la migra‘s crackdown — the way to stay out of trouble is by avoiding it — doesn’t work when the trouble comes to you.

That’s why it seems that the deaths of Porter and Good in the last week, coupled with Vance’s authoritarian promise, seems to be waking up Americans into resisting the deportation Leviathan like never before.

A woman is taken into custody by Border Patrol agents after she was accused of using her vehicle to block their vehicles while they were patrolling in a shopping center in December in Niles, Ill.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Anti-ICE protests are happening across the country this weekend. On social media, conservatives and libertarians who largely stayed silent on Trump throughout 2025 are criticizing him over Good’s death and his administration’s insults against her. Trump’s approval rating has slipped since the start of his presidency, even among supporters — and ICE’s out-of-control conduct is becoming a bigger and bigger factor.

A YouGov poll conducted on the day of Good’s killing found 52% of Americans surveyed don’t like how ICE is operating, while the agency’s approval rating has gone from plus-16% to negative 14% in a year. While the poll unsurprisingly splits on partisan lines — Democrats overwhelmingly oppose ICE, Republicans still think they’re Trump’s Hardy Boys — the independents who delivered the 2024 election to Trump oppose ICE’s actions by a healthy majority.

If he’s losing the middle, he’s losing America.

Unless, of course, Trump goes full banana republic dictator and decides his regime isn’t leaving office — no matter what. And honestly, would you be shocked if this administration tried to make its wet dream a reality?

Every movement needs martyrs, and if the deaths of Porter and Good prove to American citizens and permanent residents once and for all that they’re not safe from ICE, then their deaths weren’t in vain. That’s why the Trump administration and its lackeys are straining so hard to slime Good’s name — because they know the public isn’t having its lies.

Their smears don’t have the same effect they used to, thankfully. Just look at what happened recently with Grok, Elon Musk’s AI creation on X.

You have to take what it digitally blurts out with a grain of salt — Grok once started calling itself “MechaHitler” and spewed anti-semitic conspiracies after an update that Musk swore “improved [it] significantly.”

But consider what Grok did when the billionaire Trump enabler “tweeted” of Good: “She tried to run people over.”

When asked whether it “would have authorized lethal forced based solely on this video evidence” even Musk’s creation, even Grok, replied (while noting that “ICE claims differ”):

“Based on descriptions from multiple sources… it shows the vehicle moving slowly backward and forward without clear evidence of attempting to ram officers. Under objective standards like [the Supreme Court decision] Graham v. Connor, which require an imminent threat for deadly force, I would not authorize lethal force solely on this footage.”

I guess even Grok is capable of calling out Trumpworld’s BS when it “sees” what millions of other people across the U.S. have seen with their own eyes.

Just days after the fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal immigration agent, the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a top focus of California gubernatorial candidates at two forums Saturday in Southern California.

The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, inflamed the nation’s deep political divide and led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and across the country about President Trump’s combative immigration policies.

Former Assembly majority leader Ian Calderon, speaking at a labor forum featuring Democratic candidates in Los Angeles, said that federal agents aren’t above the law.

“You come into our state and you break one of our … laws, you’re going to be criminally charged. That’s it,” he said.

Federal officials said the deadly shooting was an act of self defense.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) noted that the president of the labor union that organized the candidate forum, David Huerta, was injured and arrested during the Trump administration’s raids on undocumented people in Los Angeles in June.

“Ms. Good should be alive today. David, that could have been you, the way they’re conducting themselves,” he said to Huerta, who was moderating the event. “You’re now lucky if all they did was drag you by the hair or throw you in an unmarked van, or deport a 6-year-old U.S. citizen battling stage four cancer.”

Roughly 40 miles south at a separate candidate forum featuring the top two Republicans in the race, GOP candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said politicians who support so-called “sanctuary state” policies should be voted out of office.

“I wish it was the 1960s, 70s, and 80s — we’d take them behind the shed and beat … them,” he said.

“We’re in a church!” an audience member was heard yelling during a livestream of the event.

California Democratic leaders in 2017 passed a landmark “sanctuary state” law that limits cooperation between local and federal immigration officers, a policy that was a reaction to the first Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up deportations.

After the campaign to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom was largely obscured last year by natural disasters, immigration raids and the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts, the 2026 governor’s race is now in the spotlight.

Eight Democratic candidates appeared at a forum sponsored by SEIU United Service Workers West, which represents more than 45,000 janitors, security officers, airport service employees and other workers in California.

Many of the union’s members are immigrants, and a number of the candidates referred to their familial roots as they addressed the audience of about 250 people — with an additional 8,000 watching online.

“As the son of immigrants, thank you for everything you did for your children, your grandchildren, to give them that chance,” former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told two airport workers who asked the candidates questions about cuts to state services for immigrants.

“I will make sure you have the right to access the doctor you and your family need. I will make sure you have a right to have a home that will keep you safe and off the streets. I will make sure that I treat you the way I would treat my parents, because you worked hard the way they did.”

The Democrats broadly agreed on most of the pressing issues facing California, so they tried to differentiate themselves based on their records and their priorities.

Candidates for California’s next governor including Tony Thurmond, speaking at left, participate in the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidate Forum in Los Angeles on Saturday.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

“I firmly believe that your campaign says something about who you will be when you lead. The fact that I don’t take corporate contributions is a point of pride for me, but it’s also my chance to tell you something about who I am and who I will fight for,” said former Rep. Katie Porter.

“Look, we’ve had celebrity governors. We’ve had governors who are kids of other governors, and we’ve had governors who look hot with slicked back hair and barn jackets. You know what? We haven’t had a governor in a skirt. I think it’s just about … time.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, seated next to Porter, deadpanned, “If you vote for me, I’ll wear a skirt, I promise.”

Villaraigosa frequently spoke about his roots in the labor movement, including a farmworker boycott when he was 15 years old.

“I’ve been fighting for immigrants my entire life. I have fought for you the entire time I’ve been in public life,” he said. “I know [you] are doing the work, working in our buildings, working at the airport, working at the stadiums. I’ve talked to you. I’ve worked with you. I’ve fought for you my entire life. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately to this unit.”

The candidates were not asked about a proposed ballot measure to tax the assets of billionaires that one of SEIU-USWW’s sister unions is trying to put on the November ballot. The controversial proposal has divided Democrats and prompted some of the state’s wealthiest residents to move out of the state, or at least threaten to do so.

But several of the candidates talked about closing tax loopholes and making sure the wealthy and businesses pay their fair share of taxes.

“We’re going to hold corporations and billionaires accountable. We’re going to be sure that we are returning power to the workers who know how to grow this economy,” said former state Controller Betty Yee.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond highlighted his proposal to tax billionaires to fund affordable housing, healthcare and education.

“And then I’m going to give you, everyone in this room and California working people, a tax credit so you have more money in your pocket, a couple hundred dollars a month, every month, for the rising cost of gas and groceries,” he said.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer said closing corporate tax loopholes would result in $15 billion to $20 billion in new annual state revenue that he would spend on education and healthcare programs.

“When we look at where we’re going, it’s not about caring, because everyone on this stage cares. It’s not about values. It’s about results,” he said, pointing to his backing of successful ballot measures to close a corporate tax loophole, raise tobacco taxes, and stop oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.

“I have beaten these special interests, every single time with the SEIU,” he said. “We’ve done it. We’ve been winning. We need to keep fighting together. We need to keep winning together.”

Republican gubernatorial candidates were not invited to the labor gathering. But two of the state’s top GOP contenders were among the five candidates who appeared Saturday afternoon at a “Patriots for Freedom” gubernatorial forum at Calvary Chapel WestGrove in Orange County. Immigration, federal enforcement and homelessness were also among the hot topics there.

Days after Bianco met with unhoused people on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles and Newsom touted a 9% decrease in the number of unsheltered homeless people during his final state of the state address, Bianco said that he would make it a “crime” for anyone to utter the word “homeless,” arguing that those on the street are suffering from drug- and alcohol-induced psychosis, not a lack of shelter.

Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton criticized the “attacks on our law enforcement offices, on our ICE agents who are doing their job protecting our country.”

“We are sick of it,” he said at the Garden Grove church while he also questioned the state’s decision to spend billions of dollars for healthcare for low-income undocumented individuals. State Democrats voted last year to halt the enrollment of additional undocumented adults in the state’s Medi-Cal program starting this year.

HOUMA, La. — For nearly 50 years, James Blanchard has made his living in the Gulf of Mexico, pulling shrimp from the sea.

It’s all he ever wanted to do, since he was around 12 years old and accompanied his father, a mailman and part-time shrimper, as he spent weekends trawling the marshy waters off Louisiana. Blanchard loved the adventure and splendid isolation.

He made a good living, even as the industry collapsed around him. He and his wife, Cheri, bought a comfortable home in a tidy subdivision here in the heart of Bayou Country. They helped put three kids through college.

But eventually Blanchard began to contemplate his forced retirement, selling his 63-foot boat and hanging up his wall of big green fishing nets once he turns 65 in February.

“The amount of shrimp was not a problem,” said Blanchard, a fourth-generation shrimper who routinely hauls in north of 30,000 flash-frozen pounds on a two-week trip. “It’s making a profit, because the prices were so low.”

Then came President Trump, his tariffs and famously itchy trigger finger.

Blanchard is a lifelong Republican, but wasn’t initially a big Trump fan.

In April, Trump slapped a 10% fee on shrimp imports, which grew to 50% for India, America’s largest overseas source of shrimp. Further levies were imposed on Ecuador, Vietnam and Indonesia, which are other major U.S. suppliers.

Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

Tariffs may slow economic growth, discombobulate markets and boost inflation. Trump’s single-handed approach to tax-and-trade policy has landed him before the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by summer on a major test case of presidential power.

Blanchard snacks on a bag of dried shrimp.

But for Blanchard, those tariffs have been a lifeline. He’s seen a significant uptick in prices, from as low as 87 cents a pound for wild-caught shrimp to $1.50 or more. That’s nowhere near the $4.50 a pound, adjusted for inflation, that U.S shrimpers earned back in the roaring 1980s, when shrimp was less common in home kitchens and something of a luxury item.

It’s enough, however, for Blanchard to shelve his retirement plans and for that — and Trump — he’s appreciative.

“Writing all the bills in the world is great,” he said of efforts by congressional lawmakers to prop up the country’s dwindling shrimp fishermen. “But it don’t get nothing done.”

Trump, Blanchard said, has delivered.

::

Shrimp is America’s most popular seafood, but that hasn’t buoyed the U.S. shrimp industry.

Wild-caught domestic shrimp make up less than 10% of the market. It’s not a matter of quality, or overfishing. A flood of imports — farmed on a mass scale, lightly regulated by developing countries and thus cheaper to produce — has decimated the market for American shrimpers.

In the Gulf and South Atlantic, warm water shrimp landings — the term the industry uses — had an average annual value of more than $460 million between 1975 and 2022, according to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group. (Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)

A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

Over the last two years, the value of the commercial shrimp fishery has fallen to $269 million in 2023 and $256 million in 2024.

As the country’s leading shrimp producer, Louisiana has been particularly hard hit. “It’s getting to the point that we are on our knees,” Acy Cooper, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Assn., recently told New Orleans television station WVUE.

In the 1980s, there were more than 6,000 licensed shrimpers working in Louisiana. Today, there are fewer than 1,500.

Blanchard can see the ripple effects in Houma — in the shuttered businesses, the depleted job market and the high incidence of drug overdoses.

Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

“It’s affected everybody,” he said. “It’s not only the boats, the infrastructure, the packing plants. It’s the hardware stores. The fuel docks. The grocery stores.”

Two of the Blanchardses’ three children have moved away, seeking opportunity elsewhere. One daughter is a university law professor. Their son works in logistics for a trucking company in Georgia. Their other daughter, who lives near the couple, applies her advanced degree in school psychology as a stay-at-home mother of five.

(Cheri Blanchard, 64 and retired from the state labor department, keeps the books for her husband.)

It turns out the federal government is at least partly responsible for the shrinking of the domestic shrimp industry. In recent years, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized overseas shrimp farming to the tune of at least $195 million in development aid.

Seated at their dining room table, near a Christmas tree and other remnants of the holidays, Blanchard read from a set of scribbled notes — a Bible close at hand — as he and his wife decried the lax safety standards, labor abuses and environmental degradation associated with overseas shrimp farming.

James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump’s policies. His personality is another thing.

The fact their taxes help support those practices is particularly galling.

“A slap in the face,” Blanchard called it.

::

Donald Trump grew slowly on the Blanchards.

The two are lifelong Republicans, but they voted for Trump in 2016 only because they considered him less bad than Hillary Clinton.

Once he took office, they were pleasantly surprised.

They had more money in their pockets. Inflation wasn’t an issue. Washington seemed less heavy-handed and intrusive. By the time Trump ran for reelection, the couple were fully on board and they happily voted for him again in 2024.

Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard’s kitchen.

Still, there are things that irk Blanchard. He doesn’t much care for Trump’s brash persona and can’t stand all the childish name-calling. For a long time, he couldn’t bear listening to Trump’s speeches.

“You didn’t ever really listen to many of Obama’s speeches,” Cheri interjected, and James allowed as how that was true.

“I liked his personality,” Blanchard said of the former Democratic president. “I liked his character. But I didn’t like his policies.”

It’s the opposite with Trump.

Unlike most politicians, Blanchard said, when Trump says he’ll do something he generally follows through.

Such as tightening border security.

“I have no issue at all with immigrants,” he said, as his wife nodded alongside. “I have an issue with illegal immigrants.” (She echoed Trump in blaming Renee Good for her death last week at the hands of an ICE agent.)

“I have sympathy for them as families,” Blanchard went on, but crossing the border doesn’t make someone a U.S. citizen. “If I go down the highway 70 miles an hour in that 30-mile-an-hour zone, guess what? I’m getting a ticket. … Or if I get in that car and I’m drinking, guess what? They’re bringing me to jail. So what’s the difference?”

Between the two there isn’t much — apart from Trump’s “trolling,” as Cheri called it — they find fault with.

Blanchard hailed the lightning-strike capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as another example of Trump doing and meaning exactly what he says.

“When Biden was in office, they had a $25-million bounty on [Maduro’s] head,” Blanchard said. “But apparently it was done knowing that it was never going to be enforced.”

More empty talk, he suggested.

Just like all those years of unfulfilled promises from politicians vowing to rein in foreign competition and revive America’s suffering shrimping industry.

James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

Trump and his tariffs have given Blanchard back his livelihood and for that alone he’s grateful.

There’s maintenance and repair work to be done on his boat — named Waymaker, to honor the Lord — before Blanchard musters his two-man crew and sets out from Bayou Little Caillou.

He can hardly wait.

WASHINGTON — After President Trump ordered strikes that led to the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, celebrations erupted in Venezuelan communities across the U.S.

But for many of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants facing possible deportation, their relief and joy were cut by the fear about what comes next from an administration that has zeroed in on Venezuelans as a target.

“Many of us asked ourselves, ‘What’s going to happen with us now?’” said A.G., a 39-year-old in Tennessee who asked to be identified by her initials because she lacks legal status. Even so, Maduro’s ouster gave her a lot of hope for her mother country.

Venezuelans began fleeing in droves in 2014 as economic collapse led to widespread food and medicine shortages, as well as political repression. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans are now living outside the country — including 1.2 million in the U.S.

Venezuelans migrants walk toward Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 2019.

(Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)

A.G. and her now-18-year-old son arrived at the southern border in 2019. Since then, she said, they have built a good life — they own a transport company with delivery trucks, pay taxes and follow the law.

Maduro’s fall left her with mixed feelings.

“He’s obviously a dictator, many people have died because of him and he refused to give up power, but the reason that they entered Venezuela, for me what President Trump did was illegal,” she said. “Innocent people died because of the bombs. I’m asking God that it all be for good reason.”

Dozens of Venezuelans and others were killed in the U.S. invasion — more than 100, a government official said — including civilians.

The Trump administration is framing its Venezuela operation as an opportunity for Venezuelans like A.G. “Now, they can return to the country they love and rebuild its future,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

Katie Blankenship, a Miami-based attorney with Sanctuary of the South who has represented many Venezuelans facing deportation, sees a less promising future.

“We’re going to see increased targeting of Venezuelans to force them to leave the U.S. into a political and socioeconomic environment that’s likely only more destabilized and subject to more abuse,” she said.

The Venezuelan community in the U.S. swelled, in part, because the Biden administration expanded pathways for them to enter the country.

Volunteer help a Venezuelan immigrant at the storage units from a volunteer-run program that distributes donations to recently arrived Venezuelan immigrants in need, in Miami, Fla., in 2023.

(Eva Marie Uzcategui / Los Angeles Times)

One of those programs allowed more than 117,000 Venezuelans to purchase flights directly to the U.S. and stay for two years if they had a U.S.-based financial sponsor and passed a background check. Other Venezuelans entered legally at land ports of entry after scheduling interviews with border officers.

By the end of the Biden administration, more than 600,000 Venezuelans had protection from deportation under Temporary Protected Status, a program used by both Republican and Democratic administrations for immigrants who cannot return home because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly referred to Venezuelan immigrants as criminals, singling them out more than any other nationality — in 64% of speeches, an Axios analysis showed. He has said repeatedly, without evidence that Venezuela emptied its prisons and mental institutions to flood the U.S. with immigrants.

One of Trump’s first acts as president was to designate the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Within two months, he invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport 252 Venezuelan men accused of being Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned and tortured despite many having no criminal histories in the U.S. or Latin America.

Later, the Trump administration stripped away protections for Venezuelans with financial sponsors and TPS, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling the latter “contrary to the national interest.”

In a September Federal Register Notice, Noem said that TPS for Venezuelans undercut the administration’s foreign policy objectives because one result of allowing Venezuelans in the U.S. was “relieving pressure on Maduro’s regime to enact domestic reforms and facilitate safe return conditions.” In other words, if Venezuelans returned home, that would pressure the government to enact reforms.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, along with U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, left, and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, right, participates in a news conference near Camp 57 at Angola prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary and America’s largest maximum-security prison farm, to announce the opening of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that will house immigrants convicted of crimes in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, on Sept. 3, 2025.

(Matthew Hilton / AFP via Getty Images)

The administration has offered contrasting assessments of conditions in Venezuela. Noem wrote that although certain adverse conditions continue, “there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime.”

Throughout the year, though, the State Department continued to reissue an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately.

Conditions for Venezuelans in the U.S. grew more complicated after a man from Afghanistan was accused of shooting two National Guard members in November; in response, the administration froze the immigration cases of people from 39 countries, including Venezuela, that the administration considers “high-risk.” That means anyone who applied for asylum, a visa, a green card or any other benefit remains in limbo indefinitely.

After a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in September, the Justice Department appealed. In a support brief filed in December, the Justice Department cited escalating tensions with Venezuela.

David Smilde, a Tulane University sociologist and expert on Venezuelan politics, said that invading Venezuela could justify renewed use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The law says the president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act not only in times of “declared war,” but also when a foreign government threatens or carries out an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against the U.S.

“Now it will be difficult, I think, for the court to say, ‘No, you can’t use this,’” Smilde said.

With U.S. officials promising improved conditions in Venezuela and encouraging citizens to return, Smilde said, they could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport undocumented immigrants who don’t leave willingly.

“There’s several layers to this,” he said, “and none of it looks very good for Venezuelan immigrants.”

This couple from Venezuela shared their story of why they left their three children back in their home country and spoke of the the experiences of their travel to the United States at the Parkside Community Church in Sacramento on June 16, 2023.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Jose, a 28-year-old Venezuelan living east of Los Angeles, fled Venezuela in 2015 after being imprisoned and beaten for criticizing the government. He lived in Colombia and Peru before illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2022, and now has a pending asylum application. Jose asked to be identified by his middle name out of fear of retaliation by the U.S. government.

The news this week that an ICE agent had shot and killed a woman in Minnesota heightened his anxiety.

“You come here because supposedly this is a country with freedom of expression, and there is more safety, but with this government, now you’re afraid you’ll get killed,” he said. “And that was a U.S. citizen. Imagine what they could do to me?”

People visit a memorial for Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Jose qualifies for a work permit based on his pending asylum, but his application for one is frozen because of the executive order following the National Guard shooting.

The news of Maduro’s arrest was bittersweet, Jose said, because his mother and grandmother didn’t live to witness that day. He said his mother died last year of kidney failure due to lack of medical care, leaving him as the primary breadwinner for his two young sisters who remain in Venezuela with their father, who is disabled.

Still, he said he’s happy with what Trump has done in Venezuela.

“People are saying he’s stealing our petroleum,” he said, “but for 25 years, Cuba, China and Iran have been stealing the petroleum and it didn’t improve our lives.”

Many Venezuelans were encouraged by news that Venezuela would release a “significant number” of political prisoners as a peace gesture.

For Jose, that’s not enough. Venezuela’s government ordered police to search for anyone involved in promoting or supporting the attack by U.S. forces, leading to detentions of journalists and civilians.

“Venezuela remains the same,” he said. “The same disgrace, the same poverty and the same government repression.”

A.G. said she was heartened to hear Noem say Sunday on Fox News that every Venezeulan who had TPS “has the opportunity to apply for refugee status and that evaluation will go forward.” But the administration quickly backtracked and said that was not the case.

Instead, Noem and other administration officials have doubled down on the notion that Venezuelans without permanent lawful status should leave. Noem told Fox News that there are no plans to pause deportation flights despite the political uncertainty in Venezuela.

Tragesser, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, said the agency’s posture hasn’t changed.

“USCIS encourages all Venezuelans unlawfully in the U.S. to use the CBP Home app for help with a safe and orderly return to their country,” he said.