fair

California and a coalition of other states sued the Trump administration Monday over its efforts to roll back fair housing rules that bar certain types of discrimination by landlords, including against LGBTQ+ people.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule change threatening funding for states that offer housing protections for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized individuals who are not explicitly covered by federal law is illegal, undermines state efforts to combat discrimination and would push vulnerable people onto the streets.

“In effect, the Trump administration is attempting to roll back civil rights enforcement in housing at the federal level, and pressure states to weaken their own protections as well,” Bonta said during a news conference Monday. “That’s not just bad policy, it’s unlawful.”

Representatives from HUD and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal Fair Housing Act explicitly bans discrimination based on seven traits: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Under rules set forth during the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years interpreted the law as banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many states, including California, also have adopted laws explicitly banning discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized groups not mentioned in the federal law, with California also banning discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income and veteran or military status.

In September, HUD issued new guidance threatening to decertify state housing agencies — stripping their federal funding and ability to investigate discrimination claims — if they provide anti-discrimination protections other than those spelled out in the Fair Housing Act. The guidance also barred state agencies from using federal funds to “promote gender ideology,” “fund or promote elective abortions” or promote illegal immigration, according to the lawsuit.

The guidance followed that of HUD Secretary Scott Turner, a former NFL player and Trump loyalist, who announced last year that HUD would no longer adhere to a 2016 Obama-era rule protecting transgender people from housing discrimination, which Turner said “tied housing programs, shelters and other facilities funded by HUD to far-left gender ideology.”

“We, at this agency, are carrying out the mission laid out by President Trump on January 20th [2025] when he signed an executive order to restore biological truth to the federal government,” Turner said in a statement, referring to Trump’s order calling on federal agencies across the government to rescind protections for transgender Americans.

“This means recognizing there are only two sexes: male and female,” Turner said. “It means getting government out of the way of what the Lord established from the beginning when he created man in His own image.”

Among other things, the administration said rules barring discrimination against transgender people allowed “biological men to enter shelters intended for women impacted by trauma, domestic abuse and violence.”

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups condemned the move, noting that transgender Americans face heightened discrimination in a slate of areas — including housing — and need protections. They also contended that HUD’s new policies violate a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision barring employment discrimination based on gender or gender identity.

Bonta said the Fair Housing Act “set a floor, not a ceiling, for protections against discrimination,” which means that states “have the authority to go further and protect more people,” as California has endeavored to do.

He said HUD has supported the state’s anti-discrimination work for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, which provides funding to state and local agencies to investigate and enforce laws against housing discrimination. HUD’s new guidance “threatens to undermine that system” by demanding an end to state protections not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for military veterans, immigrants as well as women receiving abortions and other reproductive healthcare, he said.

“Families across California are already struggling to find homes they can afford, and the last thing they need is for the federal government to make it harder,” Bonta said. “At its core, this lawsuit is about protecting a fundamental civil right: the right to rent, buy, or live in housing without discrimination.”

Bonta said California interprets the Fair Housing Act’s ban on sex discrimination as protecting LGBTQ+ people, but the Trump administration doesn’t agree — making the state’s more explicit protections important.

He said about $3 million in federal funding is currently at stake for California, with millions more at stake in other states.

Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul, who is helping lead the lawsuit and spoke alongside Bonta Monday, said states with robust antidiscrimination laws “will not go backwards and we will not give in to threats” from the Trump administration.

“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing pattern by this administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination, and to tear down the hard fought progress we have made for civil rights,” Raoul said. “It is also just the latest page in the president’s illegal playbook to use funding and programs created by Congress to try to strong arm states into adopting Trump’s preferred policies.”

The states allege that HUD’s targeting of state antidiscrimination policies comes after it downsized its own workforce and significantly reduced its ability to investigate housing discrimination complaints and enforce fair housing laws. They say the new guidance violates multiple federal laws, including laws that govern federal spending and rule changes, and are asking the federal court to immediately invalidate the guidance as unlawful.

Bonta and Raoul are joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Caracas, February 25, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan rice producers have staged demonstrations in recent days, demanding responses from authorities to secure fair prices for their harvests.

Campesino organizations from Barinas, Cojedes, Guárico, and Portuguesa states have held meetings with their respective governors and local representatives of the Agriculture Ministry to denounce pressure from agribusiness conglomerates imposing lower prices for their crops.

Victor Martínez, a rice producer and representative from a rural association in Portuguesa state, told Venezuelanalysis that there is an urgent need to establish appropriate crop prices with harvesting set to begin in the coming days.

“We are calling on the Venezuelan government, from Acting President Delcy Rodríguez to Agriculture Minister Julio León Heredia, to intervene and help set fair prices for rice that take into account our production costs,” he explained. “We cannot have the agroindustrial conglomerates imposing prices unilaterally.”

According to Martínez, rural producers sold rice crops at $0.50-0.55 per kilogram last year, and presently the Iancarina group, the biggest agribusiness firm in Portuguesa state, is offering $0.32-0.38 per kilo. Iancarina holds significant market shares nationwide in corn flour and rice distribution with its “Mary” brand and has ties to the US-based transnational commodities marketer GSI Food.

“These prices would mean the extinction of rice production, jeopardizing thousands of jobs in the countryside,” Martínez continued. “We urge authorities to establish dialogue mechanisms that take our production costs into account.”

The rice growers additionally denounced that corporations have recently imported rice to drive down crop prices and that Venezuelan producers cannot compete with international prices due to “exorbitant production costs.” AgroPatria, a state-owned company that supplied agricultural inputs to campesinos, was turned over to private group AgroLlano in 2020.

Martínez stated that $0.70 per kilo of rice is the price Portuguesa producers have set as a target in negotiations.

“There are too many hurdles to produce right now, from very expensive inputs to a lack of access to credit,” he went on to add. “The same agroindustry corporations offer financing but with draconian conditions and our profit margins vanish.”

According to Martínez, current financing agreements see companies supply inputs and then collect as much as 60 percent of the crop as payment. 

“Agribusiness oligopolies say that they are better off just importing rice, which carries no risk for them. But no country can survive without agriculture.” He concluded with a call for halting imports and extending state support to campesino producers.

In recent days, rural collectives in different states have shared their production costs and come up with different proposals for Venezuelan authorities. They are likewise weighing the possibility of staging a rally in Caracas to demand the intervention of the Agriculture Ministry. Venezuelan government officials have yet to comment on the controversy.

In recent years, with the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government moved to liberalize agricultural policies, transferring former state competencies to the private sector, including provisioning of seed and fertilizer inputs and access to tractors. Fuel subsidies have likewise been phased out, with small-scale producers denouncing it as a major factor driving up production costs.

Campesino collectives have repeatedly drawn attention to a growing agribusiness influence both in the supply of inputs and the commercialization of harvests. Food conglomerates have used their control of silos and retail channels as well as imports during harvest season, to drive up profit margins by imposing lower prices on producers.

Apart from rice, farmers have condemned similar coercive practices with sugar and coffee. Standoffs have traditionally led to mediation from state authorities and a temporary agreement on prices. However, campesinos have repeatedly alerted that agribusiness firms stop honoring established prices or delay payments to take advantage of the Venezuelan currency devaluation.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.