documentation

The parent organization of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s labor union has doubled down on allegations that the union’s top official failed to properly document hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card transactions.

The International Assn. of Fire Fighters, which oversees the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, suspended President Freddy Escobar and two other union officials last month over “serious problems” with missing receipts identified in a wide-ranging audit going back to 2018.

Auditors reexamined their findings after Escobar showed up to UFLAC headquarters last month — news cameras in tow — with a thumb drive and stacks of photocopied receipts that he claimed would clear him.

In a letter last week reviewed by The Times, the IAFF’s auditors concluded that even with the new materials, Escobar failed to properly document more than $212,000 worth of credit card expenses. They said they were not provided full access to UFLAC’s internal expense system for their first report and said Escobar engaged in a “flurry of activity” to reconcile the transactions in recent months. In the months after auditors left UFLAC’s offices in December 2024, Escobar directed his staff by email to look for missing receipts, according to the letter.

“Escobar — with the assistance of UFLAC staff — worked feverishly to reconcile some of his past credit card expenditures,” IAFF General President Edward Kelly and General Secretary Treasurer Frank Líma said in a note this week to the local union’s members.

Of the 1,974 Escobar credit card transactions auditors recently reviewed, totaling $312,985, only 889, or $100,824 worth, were fully documented with receipts and a business purpose, the auditors’ letter said.

The initial audit reviewed 1,957 of those transactions, which amounted to $311,498, and found that only 428, or $45,635, were properly documented.

“Our conclusions set forth in our May 1, 2025 audit report remain the same,” the auditors wrote in the letter. “It appears that Escobar repeatedly failed to comply with his fiduciary duties and obligations, and proper controls were not in place for compliance with state and federal laws and regulations and UFLAC policies on expense reimbursements and expenditure of UFLAC funds due to lack of receipts and documentation of business purpose.”

Neither Escobar nor his attorney immediately provided comment.

The initial audit had also found that two other UFLAC officials — former Secretary Adam Walker and former Treasurer Domingo Albarran Jr. — together made more than $530,000 in credit card transactions with no receipts or partial documentation.

Auditors did not reexamine those findings in the new report.

Under UFLAC policy, receipts are required for all credit card expenditures, along with an explanation of the expense, including the names of those present and the business reason.

Vice Presidents Chuong Ho and Doug Coates also were suspended and accused of breaching their fiduciary duties in “failing to enforce UFLAC policy.”

After the audit, the IAFF appointed a conservator, John Bagala, to take over the union and “restore responsible financial stewardship and guarantee the fulfillment of UFLAC’s legitimate objectives.”

Bagala is a state representative for the IAFF and president of Marin Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 1775, which represents firefighters in Marin County.

In a statement Thursday, IAFF spokesperson Ryan Heffernan said the conservatorship is focused on implementing safeguards to prevent future financial mismanagement.

“During this temporary conservatorship, the IAFF remains focused on meeting members’ critical needs and protecting their hard-earned dues money,” he said.

For 24 years, immigrants lacking documentation who graduated from high school in California have received in-state tuition benefits at public colleges and universities under a law that’s given tens of thousands access to higher education that many couldn’t otherwise afford.

When the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 540 in 2001, it was the second state in the nation — after Texas — to embrace such tuition policies. Bipartisan efforts quickly grew across the country, with more than 20 states adopting similar policies.

But recent court actions by the Trump administration are causing alarm among immigrant students and casting a shadow over the tuition benefit in California, the state with the largest population of people living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

On June 4, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas over its tuition statute for immigrants without authorization, alleging it violated a federal law that prevents people who do not have legal status from receiving public benefits. Texas did not defend its law and instead put its support behind the Trump administration, leaving 57,000 undocumented college students in the state in educational limbo after a federal judge blocked the statute.

Last week, the DOJ launched a similar suit in Kentucky, asking a federal judge to strike down a state practice that it says unlawfully gives undocumented immigrants access to in-state college tuition while American citizens from other states pay higher tuition to attend the same schools.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Atty. Gen. Bondi said of the Texas lawsuit in a statement that signaled a broader fight. “The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.”

Is California next?

Legal experts say that it’s not a matter of “if” but when and how the Trump administration will come for California’s law. The White House is already battling the state over liberal policies, including support of transgender students in school sports; sanctuary cities opposing ongoing federal immigration raids; and diversity, equity and inclusion programs in education.

“We are just waiting to see when it’s California’s turn,” said Kevin R. Johnson, the dean of the UC Davis law school, who specializes in immigration. Johnson predicted the White House was going after “lower-hanging fruit” in more conservative states before California, where Trump will face “firm resistance.”

The potential threat has shaken California’s undocumented students.

“If I no longer qualify for lower tuition, I really don’t know what I would do,” said Osmar Enríquez, who graduated last month with an associate’s degree from Santa Rosa Junior College and will enroll at UC Berkeley in August to embark on an undergraduate degree in media studies.

The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for people like Enríquez can be thousands of dollars at a community college and tens of thousands at CSU and UC campuses. International students pay out-of-state rates. At Santa Rosa Junior College, the average tuition for two semesters for an in-state student is $621. For an out-of-state student, it’s $5,427.

“What I see the Trump administration doing is trying to exclude us,” said Enríquez, who aspires to one day operate a public relations company. “They don’t want us to get educated or to reach positions of power. And with everything going on now, they are just trying to dehumanize us any way they can.”

More than 80,000 undocumented college students in California

Campus and university-level data on undocumented student populations can be difficult to estimate.

Although universities and colleges keep track of how many students without documentation receive tuition exemptions under AB 540, the data also include citizens who qualify for in-state tuition. These students grew up in the state and graduated from a California high school before their families moved elsewhere.

Numbers are also complicated by changes in the California Dream Act Application, which was established for students lacking documentation to apply for state aid but has expanded to allow students who are citizens and have an undocumented parent.

Out of the University of California system’s nearly 296,000 students, it estimates that between 2,000 and 4,000 are undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 total students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, comprises community college students and recent graduates such as Enríquez.

Born in Mexico and brought by his family to the U.S. when he was a 1-year-old, Enríquez said in-state tuition has made his education monumentally more affordable. At his next stop, UC Berkeley, in-state tuition and fees last year amounted to $16,980. Out-of-state and international students had to pay a total of $54,582.

What students say

Several undocumented students from UCLA, Cal State Los Angeles and other schools declined interviews with The Times or requested to be cited without their names, saying they were fearful of identifying themselves publicly as the federal government undertakes a third week of immigration raids across Southern California.

“I just want to go to school. What is wrong with that?” said an undocumented graduate student at Cal State Los Angeles who received his undergraduate degree at a UC campus. The Latin American studies student asked for his name to be withheld because of concern over immigration enforcement agents targeting him.

“I don’t only want to go a school, I want to go to a public university. I want to contribute to my university. I want to become a professor and teach others and support the state of California,” he said. “Why are we so bent on keeping students from getting an education and giving back?”

Sandra, a Cal State Northridge student who asked to be only identified by her first name, had a similar view. An undocumented immigrant whose parents brought her from Mexico to Los Angeles at age two, she said she would not be in college without the in-state tuition law.

“I was not eligible for DACA, so money is thin,” Sandra said, referencing the Obama-era program that gave work authorization to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children but hasn’t taken new applications since 2021. “We save and we squeeze all we can out of fellowships and scholarships to pay in hopes that we use our education to make a difference and make an income later.”

Legal questions

The Trump administration’s challenge to the tuition rules rest on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

“There are questions about exactly what that means,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. “Does that apply to universities that do not use residency as a requirement for the tuition rate but instead use high school graduation in the state?” he said, explaining that state practices differ.

In California, an undocumented immigrant who did not graduate from a high school in the state would typically not qualify for reduced tuition.

The Justice Department has argued in court that giving in-state tuition to immigrants without proper authorization violates the federal law. Some Trump opponents point out that the law does not speak specifically to tuition rates, although courts have interpreted the word “benefit” to include cheaper tuition.

In the recent Texas case, undocumented students, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, have filed a motion in court, asking the judge to allow them to argue in support of upholding reduced tuition rates.

The tuition policies have survived other legal challenges.

Before Trump administration intervened, the Texas law appeared to be legally sound after a federal appeals court ruled in 2023 that the University of North Texas could charge out-of-state students more than it charges in-state undocumented immigrants. In that case, the court said the plaintiffs did not make good case that out-of state students were illegally treated differently than noncitizens. But the court suggested there could be other legal challenges to tuition rates for immigrants lacking documentation.

The California law has also withstood challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld its legality in 2010 after out-of-state students sued. The next year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case.

The California court concluded that undocumented immigrants were not receiving preferential treatment because of their immigration status but because they attended and graduated from California schools. Justices said U.S. citizens who attended and graduated from the state’s schools had the same opportunity.

Still, momentum has built to abolish in-state tuition rates for immigrants without legal documentation.

This year, lawmakers in Florida — which had a rule on the books for more than a decade allowing tuition waivers for undocumented students — eliminated the option. Prior to the federal action against Texas, legislators in the state also tried and failed to follow Florida’s lead. During this year’s legislative sessions, bills were also introduced in Kansas and Minnesota, although they have not passed.

More than a dozen religious leaders from an array of faiths marched to the steps of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday night, flowers in hand, calling for an end to the federal immigration raids they say have torn families apart and resulted in racial profiling.

At the start of the procession in Plaza Olvera, the Rev. Tanya Lopez, senior pastor at Downey Memorial Christian Church, recounted how last week she watched as plainclothes federal agents swarmed a constituent in the parking lot of her church. Despite her attempts to intervene, she said, the man was detained, and she doesn’t know where he is now.

“All of our faith traditions teach us to love our neighbor, to leave the world with less suffering than when we find it, and this is creating trauma that will be unable to be undone for generations,” Lopez said.

Religious leaders from multiple faiths left flowers on the steps of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles in honor of people detained in recent immigration raids.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Federal enforcement actions have played out across Southern California this week as the Trump administration carries out its vows to do mass deportations of immigrants in the country without documentation. Initially, President Trump focused his rhetoric on those who had committed violent crimes. But shortly after he took office, his administration made clear that it considers anyone in the country without authorization to be a criminal.

The raids — which have spanned bus stops, Home Depot parking lots, swap meets, farms and factories — have prompted many immigrants to go into hiding, and in some cases, to self-deport.

The religious leaders marching Wednesday called for a halt to the raids, saying immigrants are integral to the Los Angeles community and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of documentation status.

They carried their message through downtown, marching from Plaza Olvera to the Federal Building, dressed in colorful garb reflecting Jewish, Sikh, Muslim and Catholic traditions, and uniting in song and prayer, in Spanish and English.

They called out to God, Creator, the Holy One, and prayed for healing and justice. They prayed for the hundreds of people who have been detained and deported and the families they’ve left behind.

Father Brendan Busse of Dolores Mission Church looks out over the crowd participating in an interfaith protest Wednesday in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

In the crowd, Talia Guppy held purple flowers to her chest as she sang along. Guppy said she learned that members of her Episcopalian church, St. Stephen’s Hollywood, had been detained during the raid of the Ambiance Apparel factory in downtown L.A. Her church has since moved its services online to accommodate people afraid to venture from their homes.

“We’re out here for them,” she said. “We’re going to keep the hope and keep the faith until we get justice for them.”

At the end of the procession, the marchers approached the steps of the Federal Building. Officers from the Department of Homeland Security poured out of the building and guarded the entrance as clergy leaders lined the steps. Inside, behind semireflective doors, rows of U.S. Marines stood at the ready.

The leaders called for peace and laid flowers on the steps in tribute to those who have been detained.

“We come with flowers, and we will keep coming with flowers as long as our loved ones are held in cages,” said Valarie Kaur, a Sikh leader. She turned her attention to the officers at the doors, who stood stoic, and questioned how they wanted to be remembered by history. Then she placed flowers by their feet.

Sikh leader Valarie Kaur leaves a flower at the feet of federal officers standing guard at the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

In the crowd, protesters held signs with images of the Virgin Mary and Mexican flags. The clergy asked them to be ready to defend their neighbors in the coming days.

Father Brendan Busse, a Jesuit priest at the Dolores Mission Church in Boyle Heights, said he has felt the impact of the raids within his church. Devoted members are no longer in the pews. Others call asking whether it is safe to come to church. The fear is palpable.

“We need to be a safe space for people, not just in our church, but in the whole neighborhood,” he said. “I can’t guarantee to anybody that we are a totally safe space, but to at least give them a sense that in the difficult moment we’re at, that we stand together.”

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

WASHINGTON — For generations, official American documents have been meticulously preserved and protected — from the era of quills and parchment to boxes of paper to the cloud, safeguarding snapshots of the government and the nation for posterity.

Now, the Trump administration has sought to expand the executive branch’s power to shield from public view key administration initiatives. Officials have used apps like Signal that can auto-delete messages containing sensitive information rather than retaining them for record-keeping. And they have shaken up the National Archives leadership.

To historians and archivists, it points to the possibility that President Trump will leave less for the nation’s historical record than nearly any president before him.

Such an eventuality creates a conundrum: How will experts — and even ordinary Americans — piece together what occurred when those charged with setting aside the artifacts properly documenting history refuse to do so?

How to preserve history?

The Trump administration says it’s the “most transparent in history,” citing the president’s fondness for taking questions from reporters nearly every day. But flooding the airwaves, media outlets and the internet with all things Trump isn’t the same as keeping records that document the inner workings of an administration, historians caution.

“He thinks he controls history,” says Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian who served as founding director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda. “He wants to control what Americans ultimately find out about the truth of his administration, and that’s dangerous.”

Trump long refused to release his tax returns despite every other major White House candidate and president having done so since Jimmy Carter. And, today, White House stenographers still record every word Trump utters, but many of their transcriptions are languishing in the White House press office without authorization for release — meaning there’s no official record of what the president says for weeks, if at all.

“You want to have a record because that’s how you ensure accountability,” said Lindsay Chervinsky, executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library in Mount Vernon, Va.

The law mandates maintaining records

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 mandates the preservation, forever, of White House and vice presidential documents and communications. It deems them the property of the U.S. government and directs the National Archives and Records Administration to administer them after a president’s term.

After his first term, rather than turn classified documents over the National Archives, Trump hauled boxes of potentially sensitive documents to his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where they ended up piled in his bedroom, a ballroom and even a bathroom and shower. The FBI raided the property to recover them. The case was later scrapped.

Trudy Huskamp Peterson, who served as acting archivist of the United States from 1993 to 1995, said keeping such records for the public is important because “decision-making always involves conflicting views, and it’s really important to get that internal documentation to see what the arguments were.”

Presidential clashes with archivists predate Trump

President George H.W. Bush’s administration destroyed some informal notes, visitor logs and emails. After President Clinton left office, his former national security advisor, Sandy Berger, pleaded guilty to taking copies of a document about terrorist threats from the National Archives.

President George W. Bush’s administration disabled automatic archiving for some official emails, encouraged some staffers to use private email accounts outside their work addresses and lost 22 million emails that were supposed to have been archived, though they were eventually uncovered in 2009.

Congress updated the Presidential Records Act in 2014 to encompass electronic messaging — including commercial email services known to be used by government employees to conduct official business.

But back then, use of auto-delete apps like Signal was far less common.

“It’s far easier to copy — or forward — a commercial email to a dot-gov address to be preserved, than it is to screenshot a series of messages on an app like Signal,” said Jason R. Baron, a professor at the University of Maryland and former director of litigation at the National Archives.

Relying on ’an honor system’

There were efforts during the first Trump administration to safeguard transparency, including a memo issued through the office of White House counsel Don McGahn in February 2017 that reminded White House personnel of the necessity to preserve and maintain presidential records.

The White House now points to having recently ordered the declassification of bevies of historical files, including records related to the assassinations of Kennedy, his brother Robert and Martin Luther King Jr.

The Trump administration says it also ended a Biden policy that allowed staffers to use Microsoft Teams, where chats weren’t captured by White House systems. The Biden administration had over 800 users on Teams, meaning an unknown number of presidential records might have been lost, the Trump administration now says.

But the White House did not answer questions about the possibly of drafting a new memo on record retention like McGahn’s from 2017.

Chervinsky, author of “The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution,” said Congress, the courts and even the public often don’t have the bandwidth to ensure records retention laws are enforced, meaning, “a lot of it is still, I think, an honor system.”

“There aren’t that many people who are practicing oversight,” she said. “So, a lot of it does require people acting in good faith and using the operating systems that they’re supposed to use, and using the filing systems they’re supposed to use.”

Angered by the role the National Archives played in his documents case, meanwhile, Trump fired the ostensibly independent agency’s head, Archivist of the United States Colleen Shogan, and named Secretary of State Marco Rubio as her acting replacement.

Peterson, the former acting national archivist, said she still believes key information about the Trump administration will eventually emerge, but “I don’t know how soon.”

“Ultimately things come out,” she said. “That’s just the way the world works.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Latino legislators criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget cuts to Medi-Cal Monday afternoon, saying the plan to freeze enrollment and charge premiums for those adult immigrants without documentation already enrolled was a betrayal of California’s promise to protect the vulnerable.

Legislative pushback for the May budget revision, released by Newsom last week, comes after the governor announced an additional $12-billion budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year.

State Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) said the plan to charge adult undocumented immigrants $100 per month for Medi-Cal was a form of redlining, and Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) said she doubted the two-tiered system was constitutional.

“The governor is proposing a troubling precedent — raising prices on one group of Californians based solely on their immigration status. It is illegal for Kaiser to do this. It is illegal for United Healthcare to do this. It is illegal for any doctor, hospital or clinic to charge higher prices to undocumented customers,” Durazo said at a California Latino Legislative Caucus rally outside the state Capitol on Monday.

The influential Latino Legislative Caucus has staunchly opposed cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s expanded version of the federal Medicaid program. The objections come despite California expecting decreased revenue in part due to President Trump’s tariff policies and increases in state spending, including the recent expansion of Medi-Cal coverage to cover all eligible Californians, including immigrants lacking documentation.

State Senator Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), chair of a budget subcommittee on health, said Newsom’s proposal scapegoats immigrants for California’s economic woes. Immigrants, she said, are essential to California’s robust economy, recently ranked as the fourth largest in the world.

“If you were to remove the name from this document — if you were to remove the state, and people would just read this off to you and you closed your eyes — you would think, ‘Oh, that’s a budget proposed by a Republican in, perhaps, Alabama,’” she said.

During his news conference on Wednesday, Newsom encouraged state lawmakers and specially members of the Latino caucus to offer alternatives to balance the state budget if they disagreed with his proposal.

“Good people have different ideas, and I look forward to their ideas,” Newsom said.

On Monday, members of the Latino caucus did not mention any specific measures they would take instead of cutting Medi-Cal access, but pledged to offer budget balancing proposals in the days and weeks to come.