federal

NEW ORLEANS — About 250 federal border agents are expected to launch a months-long immigration crackdown Monday in southeast Louisiana and into Mississippi.

The operation dubbed “Swamp Sweep,” which aims to arrest 5,000 people, is centered in liberal New Orleans and is the latest federal immigration enforcement operation to target a Democratic-run city as President Trump’s administration pursues its mass deportation agenda.

Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, who has led aggressive operations in Chicago, Los Angeles and Charlotte, N.C., is expected to lead the campaign.

Many in the greater New Orleans area, particularly in Latino communities, have been on edge since the planned operations were reported this month. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said he welcomes the federal agents.

Here’s what to know:

Border Patrol tactics criticized

Bovino has become the Trump administration’s go-to operative for leading large-scale, high-profile immigration enforcement campaigns. During his operation in Chicago, federal agents rappelled from a helicopter into an apartment complex and fired pepper balls and tear gas at protesters.

Federal agents arrested more than 3,200 immigrants during a surge in the Chicago area in recent months, but have not provided many details. Court documents on roughly 600 recent arrests showed that only a few of those arrested had criminal records representing a “high public safety risk,” according to federal government data.

The Border Patrol, which does not typically operate in dense urban areas or in situations with protesters, has been accused of heavy-handed tactics, prompting several lawsuits. A federal judge in Chicago this month accused Bovino of lying and rebuked him for deploying chemical irritants against protesters.

Bovino has doubled down on the efficacy of his agency’s operations.

“We’re finding and arresting illegal aliens, making these communities safer for the Americans who live there,” he said in a post on X.

Louisiana’s strict enforcement laws

The Department of Justice has accused New Orleans of undermining federal immigration enforcement and included it on a list of 18 so-called sanctuary cities. The city’s jail, which has been under long-standing oversight from a federal judge, does not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under most circumstances, and its Police Department views immigration enforcement as a civil matter outside its jurisdiction.

Louisiana’s Republican-dominated Legislature, however, has passed laws to compel New Orleans agencies to align with the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration stance.

One such law makes it a crime to “knowingly” do something intended to “hinder, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with or thwart” federal immigration enforcement efforts. Anyone who violates the law could face fines and up to a year of jail time.

Additionally, lawmakers expanded the crime of malfeasance in office, which is punishable by up to 10 years in jail, for government officials who refuse to comply with requests from agencies like ICE. It also prohibits police and judges from releasing from their custody anyone who “illegally entered” the U.S. “or unlawfully remained” here without providing advance notice to ICE.

New Orleans braces

In and around New Orleans, some immigration lawyers say they have been inundated with calls from people trying to prepare for the upcoming operation. One attorney, Miguel Elias, says his firm is conducting many consultations virtually or by telephone because people are too afraid to come in person.

He likens the steps many in the immigrant community are taking to what people do to prepare for a hurricane — hunker down or evacuate. Families are stocking up on groceries and making arrangements for friends to take their children to school to limit how frequently they leave the house, he said.

In the days leading up to Border Patrol’s planned operations, businesses have posted signs barring federal agents from entry and grassroots advocacy groups have offered rights-related training and workshops on documenting the planned crackdown.

New Orleans is famous for its blend of cultures, but only around 6.7% of its population of nearly 400,000 is foreign-born, rising to almost 10% in neighboring metro areas. That’s still well below the national average of 14.3%, according to U.S. census data.

The Latino population ballooned during rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and now makes up around 14% of the city , according to figures compiled by the New Orleans-based Data Center.

The Pew Research Center estimates 110,000 immigrants who lack permanent legal status were living in Louisiana as of 2023, constituting approximately 2.4% of the state’s population. Most of them are from Honduras.

Amanda Toups, who owns the New Orleans Cajun restaurant Toups Meatery and runs a nonprofit to help feed neighbors in need, said she expects the federal operations will hurt the city’s tourism-dependent economy, which supports the rest of Louisiana.

“If you’re scaring off even 5% of tourism, that’s devastating,” she said. “You’re brown and walking around in town somewhere and you could get tackled by ICE and you’re an American citizen? Does that make you want to travel to New Orleans?”

Brook, Santana and Cline write for the Associated Press and reported from New Orleans, Washington and Baton Rouge, La., respectively.

Nov. 29 (UPI) — The federal government is ending its anti-Semitism investigation at Northwestern University in exchange for a $75 million fine in an agreement that restores $790 million in federal funding for research.

The Chicago-area private university must abide by federal anti-discrimination laws regarding admissions and hiring and initiate mandatory anti-Semitism training for students, staff and faculty as part of the deal, the Chicago Sun Times reported.

University officials also must enact and maintain policies that clearly regulate protests and other “expressive activities,” review its policies regarding international admissions and end its Deering Meadow agreement that enabled “peaceful” protests at the university’s 2-acre park.

“This is not an agreement the university enters into lightly, but one that was made based on institutional values,” interim President Henry Bienen said, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the settlement a win for civil rights.

“Today’s settlement marks another victory for the Trump administration’s fight to ensure that American educational institutions protect Jewish students and put merit first,” Bondi said in a statement.

“Institutions that accept federal funds are obligated to follow civil rights law,” Bondi added. “We are grateful to Northwestern for negotiating this historic deal.”

Bienen said university officials had several “hard lines” that they refused to cross when negotiating the settlement.

“We would not relinquish any control over whom we hire, whom we admit as students, what our faculty would teach or how our faculty would teach,” he said.

University officials said they will review their international admissions criteria and develop training to better socialize international students so that they understand the campus norms regarding open debate and inquiry.

Northwestern’s board of trustees also will create a committee to ensure the university complies with the agreement with the federal government.

The university must pay its $75 million fine in increments over the next three years, which is the second-highest amount being paid by a college or university to settle accusations of discrimination and anti-Semitism amid pro-Palestinian campus protests.

Columbia University in New York City earlier agreed to pay a $200 million fine to settle claims made against it by federal investigators.

The $790 million in federal research funding that had been suspended should be restored by the end of December, according to Bienen.

Northwestern University has agreed to pay $75 million to the U.S. government in a deal with the Trump administration to end a series of investigations and restore hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding.

President Trump’s administration had cut off $790 million in grants in a standoff that contributed to university layoffs and the resignation in September of Northwestern President Michael Schill. The administration said the school had not done enough to fight antisemitism.

Under the agreement announced Friday night, Northwestern will make the payment to the U.S. Treasury over the next three years. Among other commitments it also requires the university to revoke the so-called Deering Meadow agreement, which it signed in April 2024 in exchange for pro-Palestinian protesters ending their tent encampment on campus.

During negotiations with the Trump administration, interim university President Henry Bienen said Northwestern refused to cede control over hiring, admissions or its curriculum. “I would not have signed this agreement without provisions ensuring that is the case,” he said.

The agreement also calls for Northwestern to continue compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, develop training materials to “socialize international students” with the norms of a campus dedicated to open debate, and uphold a commitment to Title IX by “providing safe and fair opportunities for women, including single-sex housing for any woman, defined on the basis of sex, who requests such accommodations and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the deal cements policy changes that will protect people on campus from harassment and discrimination.

“The reforms reflect bold leadership at Northwestern and they are a road map for institutional leaders around the country that will help rebuild public trust in our colleges and universities,” McMahon said.

Trump has leveraged government control of federal research money to push for ideological changes at elite colleges he claims are overrun by “woke” ideology.

The fine agreed to by Northwestern is the second-largest behind Columbia, which agreed in July to pay the government $200 million to resolve a series of investigations and restore its funding. Brown and Cornell also reached agreements with the government to restore funding after antisemitism investigations.

Harvard, the administration’s primary target, remains in negotiations with the federal government over its demands for changes to campus policies and governance. The Ivy League school sued over the administration’s cuts to its grant money and won a court victory in September when a federal judge ordered the government to restore federal funding, saying the Trump administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen.”

This fall, the White House tried a different approach on higher education, offering preferential treatment for federal funds to several institutions in exchange for adopting policies in line with Trump’s agenda. The administration received a wave of initial rejections from some universities’ leadership, including USC’s, citing concerns that Trump’s higher education compact would suffocate academic freedom.

Nov. 20 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Thursday ended its case against a woman who was shot after allegedly ramming a Customs and Border Protection vehicle in October.

Marimar Martinez, 30, and Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz, 21, were charged with assault for following and allegedly ramming a Chevrolet Tahoe driven by CBP agent Charles Exum on Oct. 4, the Chicago Sun Times reported.

U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois Andrew Boutros filed court papers to end the prosecution on Thursday without citing a reason, though.

U.S. District of Northern Illinois Judge Georgia Alexakis granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case against both defendants early Thursday evening, KTEN reported.

“Border Patrol law enforcement officers were ambushed by domestic terrorists that rammed federal agents with their vehicles,” the Department of Homeland Security said Thursday in a prepared statement, as reported by NBC News.

Martinez “was armed with a semi-automatic weapon and has a history of doxing federal agents,” the DHS added.

Her attorney agreed she had a firearm in her vehicle but argued that she was not brandishing it.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty, but evidence revealed Exum bragged in messages to others about shooting five times and causing seven wounds.

During a recent hearing, a defense attorney asked Exum why he apparently bragged about shooting Martinez while using the Signal messaging app.

He said he is a firearms instructor and “I take pride in my shooting skills.”

Exum was participating in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Midway Blitz” when Martinez and Ruiz allegedly boxed in the vehicle he was driving and then struck it.

The defendants said Exum struck them with the vehicle he was driving and then shot Martinez.

Nov. 18 (UPI) — A federal court ordered Texas on Tuesday to throw out its redrawn Republican-friendly congressional maps for the 2026 election after finding it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.

The 2-1 order by the three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas is a significant setback for Republicans after they pushed through an unusual redistricting of Texas’ congressional seats to insulate their slim House majority ahead of next year’s midterms.

President Donald Trump openly urged Texas state lawmakers to adopt the new congressional map in order to help the party’s prospects in Washington. Democratic lawmakers responded by fleeing the state in what was ultimately an unsuccessful attempt to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass the new maps.

State Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat who led the quorum break, welcomed the court’s ruling in a post on X.

“Texas House Dems stood up to Abbott & Trump,” he wrote. “We broke quorum & we fought in the courts! We did not back down.”

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He criticized what he called partisan gerrymandering in Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and New York. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats, and the now-scrapped redistricting was expected to give the party an edge by diluting Democratic strongholds.

But U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, instead focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

In his ruling, Brown cited a July letter from U.S. Department of Justice officials to Paxton and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, directing the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown wrote that the letter was difficult to assess because it contained “so many factual, legal and typographical errors.” But Brown pointed out that Abbott cited the letter as the reason he added congressional redistricting to the legislature’s special session earlier this year.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Federal immigration authorities will expand their enforcement action in North Carolina to Raleigh as soon as Tuesday, the mayor of the state’s capital city said, while Customs and Border Protection agents continue operating in Charlotte following a weekend that saw arrests of more than 130 people in that city.

Mayor Janet Cowell said Monday that she didn’t know how large the operation would be or how long agents would be present. Immigration authorities haven’t spoken about it. The Democrat said in a statement that crime was lower in Raleigh this year compared to last and that public safety was a priority for her and the city council.

“I ask Raleigh to remember our values and maintain peace and respect through any upcoming challenges,” Cowell said in a statement.

U.S. immigration agents arrested more than 130 people over the weekend in a sweep through Charlotte, North Carolina’s largest city, a federal official said Monday.

The movements in North Carolina come after the Trump administration launched immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles and Chicago. Both of those are deep blue cities in deep blue states run by nationally prominent officials who make no secret of their anger at the White House. The political reasoning there seemed obvious.

But why North Carolina and why was Charlotte the first target there?

Sure the mayor is a Democrat, as is the governor, but neither is known for wading into national political battles. In a state where divided government has become the norm, Gov. Josh Stein in particular has tried hard to get along with the GOP-controlled state legislature. The state’s two U.S. senators are both Republican and President Trump won the state in the last three presidential elections.

The Department of Homeland Security has said it is focusing on North Carolina because of so-called sanctuary policies, which limit cooperation between local authorities and immigration agents.

But maybe focusing on a place where politics is less outwardly bloody was part of the equation, some observers say.

The White House “can have enough opposition (to its crackdown), but it’s a weaker version” than what it faced in places like Chicago, said Rick Su, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law who studies local government, immigration and federalism.

“They’re not interested in just deporting people. They’re interested in the show,” he said.

The crackdown

The Trump administration has made Charlotte, a Democratic city of about 950,000 people, its latest focus for an immigration enforcement surge it says will combat crime — despite local opposition and declining crime rates. Residents reported encounters with immigration agents near churches, apartment complexes and stores.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that Border Patrol officers had arrested “over 130 illegal aliens who have all broken” immigration laws. The agency said the records of those arrested included gang membership, aggravated assault, shoplifting and other crimes, but it did not say how many cases had resulted in convictions, how many people had been facing charges or any other details.

The crackdown set off fierce objections from area leaders.

“We’ve seen masked, heavily armed agents in paramilitary garb driving unmarked cars, targeting American citizens based on their skin color,” Stein said in a video statement late Sunday. “This is not making us safer. It’s stoking fear and dividing our community.”

Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles said Monday she was “deeply concerned” about videos she’s seen of the crackdown but also said she appreciates protesters’ peacefulness.

“To everyone in Charlotte who is feeling anxious or fearful: You are not alone. Your city stands with you,” she said in a statement.

The debate over crime and immigration

Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County have both found themselves part of America’s debates over crime and immigration, two of the most important issues to the White House.

The most prominent was the fatal stabbing this summer of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light-rail train, an attack captured on video. While the suspect was from the U.S., the Trump administration repeatedly highlighted that he had been arrested previously more than a dozen times.

Charlotte, which had a Republican mayor as recently as 2009, is now a city dominated by Democrats, with a growing population brought by a booming economy. The racially diverse city includes more than 150,000 foreign-born residents, officials say.

Lyles easily won a fifth term as mayor earlier this month, defeating her Republican rival by 45 percentage points even as GOP critics blasted city and state leaders for what they call rising incidents of crime. Following the Nov. 4 election, Democrats are poised to hold 10 of the other 11 seats on the city council.

While the Department of Homeland Security has said it is focusing on the state because of sanctuary policies, North Carolina county jails have long honored “detainers,” or requests from federal officials to hold an arrested immigrant for a limited time so agents can take custody of them. Nevertheless, some common, noncooperation policies have existed in a handful of places, including Charlotte, where the police do not help with immigration enforcement.

In Mecklenburg County, the jail did not honor detainer requests for several years, until after state law effectively made it mandatory starting last year.

DHS said about 1,400 detainers across North Carolina had not been honored since October 2020, putting the public at risk.

For years, Mecklenburg Sheriff Garry McFadden pushed back against efforts by the Republican-controlled state legislature to force him and a handful of sheriffs from other urban counties to accept U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.

Republicans ultimately overrode a veto by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper late last year to enact the bill into law.

While McFadden has said his office is complying with the law’s requirement, he continued a public feud with ICE leaders in early 2025 that led to a new state law toughening those rules. Stein vetoed that measure, but the veto was overridden.

Republican House Speaker Destin Hall said in a Monday post on X that immigration agents are in Charlotte because of McFadden’s past inaction: “They’re stepping in to clean up his mess and restore safety to the city.”

Last month, McFadden said he’d had a productive meeting with an ICE representative.

“I made it clear that I do not want to stop ICE from doing their job, but I do want them to do it safely, responsibly, and with proper coordination by notifying our agency ahead of time,” McFadden said in a statement.

But such talk doesn’t calm the political waters.

“Democrats at all levels are choosing to protect criminal illegals over North Carolina citizens,” state GOP Chairman Jason Simmons said Monday.

Verduzco, Sullivan and Robertson write for the Associated Press. Sullivan reported from Minneapolis and Robertson from Raleigh, N.C. AP writers Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., and Rebecca Santana in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Federal officials confirmed that a surge of immigration enforcement in North Carolina’s largest city had begun as agents were seen making arrests in multiple locations Saturday.

“We are surging DHS law enforcement to Charlotte to ensure Americans are safe and public safety threats are removed,” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

Local officials including Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles criticized such actions, saying in a statement they “are causing unnecessary fear and uncertainty.”

“We want people in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to know we stand with all residents who simply want to go about their lives,” said the statement, which was also signed by County Commissioner Mark Jerrell and Stephanie Sneed of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg education board.

The federal government hadn’t previously announced the push until Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden confirmed this week that two federal officials had told him that Customs and Border Protection agents would be arriving soon.

Paola Garcia, a spokesperson with Camino, a bilingual nonprofit serving families in Charlotte, said she and her colleagues have observed an increase in Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents pulling people over since Friday.

“Basically what we’re seeing is that there have been lots of people being pulled over,” Garcia said. “I even saw a few people being pulled over on the way to work yesterday, and then just from community members seeing an increase in ICE and Border Patrol agents in the city of Charlotte.”

Willy Aceituno, a Honduran-born U.S. citizen, was on his way to work when he saw Border Patrol agents chasing people.

“I saw a lot of Latinos running. I wondered why they were running. The thing is, there were a lot of Border Patrol agents chasing them,” he said.

Aceituno, a 46-year-old Charlotte resident, said he himself was stopped — twice — by Border Patrol agents. On the second encounter, he said, they forced him out of his vehicle after breaking the car window and threw him to the ground.

“I told them, ’I’m an American citizen,’ ” he told the Associated Press. “They wanted to know where I was born, or they didn’t believe I was an American citizen.”

After being forcibly taken into a Border Patrol vehicle, Aceituno said, he was allowed to go free after showing documents that proved his citizenship. He said he had to walk back some distance to his car. He later filed a police report over the broken glass.

In east Charlotte, two workers were hanging Christmas lights in Rheba Hamilton’s front yard Saturday morning when two Customs and Border Patrol agents walked up. One agent tried to speak to the workers in Spanish, she said. They didn’t respond, and the agents left in a gray minivan without making arrests.

“This is real disconcerting, but the main thing is we’ve got two human beings in my yard trying to make a living. They’ve broken no laws, and that’s what concerns me,” Hamilton, who recorded the encounter on her cellphone, told the Associated Press.

“It’s an abuse of all of our laws. It is unlike anything I have ever imagined I would see in my lifetime,” the 73-year-old said.

Amid reports that Charlotte could be the next city facing an immigration crackdown, she had suggested the work be postponed, but the contractor decided to go ahead.

“Half an hour later he’s in our yard, he’s working, and Border Patrol rolls up,” she said. “They’re here because they were looking for easy pickings. There was nobody here with TV cameras, nobody here protesting, there’s just two guys working in a yard and an old white lady with white hair sitting on her porch drinking her coffee.”

Local organizations sought to prepare for the push, trying to inform immigrants of their rights and considering peaceful protests. JD Mazuera Arias, who won election to the Charlotte City Council in September, was one of about a dozen people standing watch Saturday outside a Latin American bakery in his district in east Charlotte.

A nearby bakery was closed amid word of the possible immigration crackdown, he said. The government action was hurting people’s livelihoods and the city’s economy, he said.

“This is Customs and Border Patrol. We are not a border city, nor are we a border state. So why are they here?” he asked. “This is a gross violation of constitutional rights for not only immigrants, but for U.S. citizens.”

The Trump administration has defended its federal enforcement operations in Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities as necessary for fighting crime and enforcing immigration laws.

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat in a state with a Republican-majority Legislature, said Friday that the “vast majority” of those detained in these operations have no criminal convictions, and some are American citizens.

He urged people to record any “inappropriate behavior” they see and notify local law enforcement.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department had emphasized ahead of time that it isn’t involved in federal immigration enforcement.

Verduzco writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Maryclaire Dale in Chicago and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom flew around the country last year campaigning for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his chief of staff Dana Williamson — known as one of California’s toughest political insiders — was not only helping to helm the ship in Sacramento, but under criminal investigation by federal law enforcement.

The resulting criminal case, which splashed into public view with Williamson’s arrest Wednesday, does not implicate Newsom in any wrongdoing. Williamson’s alleged misdeeds occurred in private work prior to her joining his staff, and his office said it placed her on leave in November 2024 after she informed him she was under investigation.

Nonetheless, the bombshell allegations struck at the center of the political power circle surrounding Newsom, rattling one of the nation’s most prominent and important hubs of Democratic state power at a time when President Trump and his Republican administration wield power in Washington.

Williamson was charged with bank and tax fraud for allegedly siphoning campaign and COVID-19 recovery funds into her and an associate’s pockets and claiming personal luxuries as business expenses on tax forms. According to the indictment, the campaign funds were drawn from a dormant state account of another top California Democrat: gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra.

Two other well-connected aides in state politics were also charged — and struck plea deals confirming the scheme — while a third, with deep ties to one of the most well-connected circles of political and business consultants in the country, appeared in charging documents as an uncharged co-conspirator.

Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento, told The Times on Wednesday that federal authorities had approached Williamson more than a year ago, seeking help with some kind of probe of the governor himself.

“She told them she had no information to provide them, and then we wind up today with these charges,” Scott said. The nature of that alleged probe is unclear.

Newsom’s office on Thursday said it was “not aware of any federal investigation involving the governor.”

Lauren Horwood, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento, said she could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation involving Newsom, in accordance with Justice Department policy. None of the charging documents released in the cases against the three aides mention Newsom.

A loquacious liberal foil to Trump and likely 2028 presidential contender, Newsom has been in Brazil since Sunday and on Wednesday left for a planned trip into the Amazon with a small delegation after attending the United Nations climate summit known as COP30. He left the conference before news of Williamson’s arrest, and could not be reached directly by The Times for comment.

In his absence, Newsom’s representatives have tried to draw a connection between the federal case and the contentious relationship between California and the Trump administration, though offered no evidence that the investigation was influenced by the White House.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” a Newsom spokesperson said Wednesday.

“Under the Trump administration, the DOJ routinely targets the state, which has resulted in us suing the federal administration 46 times,” a Newsom spokesperson said Thursday.

Trump and his administration have been accused of using their power — and control over the Justice Department — to go after his political enemies. Charges reportedly deemed weak and unfounded by career prosecutors have been brought forward anyway against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, while Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is being investigated for years-old occupancy claims in mortgage documents. All have denied wrongdoing.

The case against Williamson and the other California aides, however, is something different — originating years ago under the Biden administration.

“Today’s charges are the result of three years of relentless investigative work, in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said Wednesday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, rejected the notion that the case was in any way driven by the Trump administration or politically motivated.

“What an absurd claim to make when public reporting has already noted that this investigation began under the Biden DOJ,” Jackson said. “The Trump administration is restoring integrity and accountability to the Justice Department.”

Prosecutors also have plea deals with two of the primary suspects in the case, in which they corroborate some of the allegations.

According to the 23-count indictment, unsealed Wednesday morning, Williamson conspired with Sean McCluskie — a former top aid to Becerra — and lobbyist Greg Campbell to bill Becerra’s dormant state campaign account for bogus consulting services. The three allegedly used shell companies to funnel money out of the campaign fund starting in 2022.

Federal authorities alleged the bulk of the payments were made to McCluskie’s wife, who did not actually provide consulting services, and deposited into an account accessed by McCluskie. Becerra, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, said Wednesday’s charges alleging “impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” and that he was cooperating with authorities.

In addition, Williamson was charged with falsifying documents for a COVID-era small business loan, and with claiming luxury goods and services — including a $15,353 Chanel purse, $21,000 in private jet travel and a $150,000 birthday trip to Mexico, complete with an $11,000 yacht trip — as business expenses on her tax returns, federal prosecutors said.

Williamson appeared in federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday afternoon, and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Williamson’s attorney said he has been in “regular communication” with federal prosecutors about the case for some time, and had asked to meet with prosecutors to “present our side” before any charges were brought, but that request “was not honored.”

Instead, officials “chose grandstanding instead of the normal process” and arrested Williamson at home Wednesday, despite her being seriously ill and in need of a liver transplant, Scott said. Williamson could not be reached for comment directly.

Williamson previously worked as a Cabinet secretary to former Gov. Jerry Brown, who also could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The case against Williamson is bolstered by acknowledgments of guilt from at least two others.

McCluskie — a former chief deputy attorney general of California when Becerra was attorney general — pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and is cooperating with authorities, court filings show. He could not be reached for comment.

Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to defraud and commit offenses against the U.S. government. Campbell’s attorney Todd Pickles said his client “takes full accountability for his actions and is cooperating fully with the legal process.”

The case also involves another longtime California political insider: Alexis Podesta, a former secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency who Newsom appointed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund board of directors in January 2020. A spokesperson for the board confirmed Podesta remained a member as of Thursday morning.

Bill Portanova, Podesta’s attorney, confirmed to The Times that Podesta is the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 2” in charging documents — including McCluskie’s plea agreement, which alleges she funneled the campaign funds to him.

Portanova said Podesta inherited responsibilities for handling the Becerra account from Williamson when Williamson left to become Newsom’s chief of staff. Podesta did not perceive anything “unusual about the accounts, how they were set up or who had set them up,” so continued making payments as previously arranged, Portanova said.

However, “when confronted with the information that it was improper payments,” Portanova said, she immediately stopped the payments, and “has been fully cooperative with the federal authorities at every stage of these proceedings.”

He said she is not charged, and “should not be charged” moving forward. He otherwise declined to comment, as “investigations are ongoing.”

Podesta had close ties to some of the most influential Democratic political consultants in California, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.

In September 2020 — about eight months after Newsom had appointed Podesta to the insurance board for workers’ compensation — Politico reported on a new “influence superteam” of Democratic political consultants forming in California.

The project, it said, would be called the Collaborative. Among its “architects” were Williamson and Campbell, as well as Jim DeBoo, another former Newsom chief of staff. Its managing director, the outlet reported, would be Podesta.

Among its enlisted consultants, it said, would be Sean Clegg of Bearstar Strategies, another senior advisor to Newsom, and Shannon Murphy, of M Strategic Communications, who has ties to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

DeBoo, Clegg and Murphy have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“Bearstar participated in a joint marketing press release with the Collaborative and worked on one campaign with the Collaborative’s members in 2022. Bearstar and its partners had no interest, stake or other involvement with this entity,” David Beltran, a representative of Bearstar, said in a statement Thursday.

Murphy also released a statement about the enterprise: “Five years ago, our firm participated in a joint-marketing effort. We had zero ownership or role in the business entity that was created and had no knowledge of its finances or operations until yesterday’s news stories.”

DeBoo did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Members of the Collaborative advise some of the largest companies in not just the country, but the world.

The Collaborative’s website was recently scaled down to a simple landing page, but it previously touted itself there as “the hub for the most talented public affairs, campaign, crisis management, communications and lobbying firms in California,” providing clients “the ability to choose one or several firms that work together — rather than compete — to provide their clients with the best possible outcomes.”

The website led with what it called a proverb: “If you call one wolf, you invite the pack.”

Chicago police officers responded to a call of gunshots fired at federal agents Saturday amid immigration enforcement operations that drew protesters into the streets, the department said.

There were no reports of anyone hit by gunfire, according to police, and the federal Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on the social platform X that the shots were fired by a man in a black Jeep who was targeting the agents.

The suspect and the vehicle have not been located, according to DHS.

Tensions are high as federal enforcement has grown increasingly aggressive some two months into an immigration operation in Chicago dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” Some residents have protested, at times following and confronting heavily armed agents.

A federal judge issued an extensive injunction this week restricting agents’ use of force after saying a top Border Patrol official repeatedly lied about threats posed by protesters.

Saturday’s Border Patrol operation in Little Village, a largely Mexican neighborhood, attracted protesters who blew whistles, honked car horns and yelled at agents to leave. Some confronted police officers they viewed as helping the federal agents.

One police vehicle had its taillight smashed and windshield damaged. DHS said some protesters threw a paint can and bricks at agents’ vehicles.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Raza writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Cornell University has agreed to pay $60 million and accept the Trump administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws in order to restore federal funding and end investigations into the Ivy League school.

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff announced the agreement on Friday, saying it upholds the university’s academic freedom while restoring more than $250 million in research funding that the government withheld amid investigations into alleged civil rights violations.

The university agreed to pay $30 million directly to the U.S. government along with another $30 million toward research that will support U.S. farmers.

Kotlikoff said the agreement revives the campus’ partnership with the federal government “while affirming the university’s commitment to the principles of academic freedom, independence, and institutional autonomy that, from our founding, have been integral to our excellence.”

The six-page agreement is similar to one signed by the University of Virginia last month. It’s shorter and less prescriptive than others signed by Columbia University and Brown University.

It requires Cornell to comply with the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws on issues involving antisemitism, racial discrimination and transgender issues. A Justice Department memo that orders colleges to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender-friendly policies will be used as a training resource for faculty and staff at Cornell.

The campus must also provide a wealth of admissions data that the government has separately sought from campuses to ensure race is no longer being considered as a factor in admissions decisions. President Trump has suggested some campuses are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in admissions.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a “transformative commitment” that puts a focus on “merit, rigor, and truth-seeking.”

“These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” McMahon said on X.

Cornell’s president must personally certify compliance with the agreement each quarter. The deal is effective through the end of 2028.

It appears to split the difference on a contentious issue colleges have grappled with as they negotiate an exit from federal scrutiny: payments made directly to the government. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million directly to the government, while Brown University reached an agreement to pay $50 million to state workforce organizations. Virginia’s deal included no payment at all.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring federal authorities from using force against protesters, journalists and others in Chicago as the Trump administration conducts an immigration crackdown in the city.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued her ruling Thursday, in a case brought against the Trump administration in early October alleging that federal agents in Chicago have responded to protests and negative media coverage “with a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians.”

The ruling explicitly states that the federal agents are prohibited from using crowd control weapons such as batons, rubber or plastic bullets, flash-bang grenades and tear gas against civilians unless there is “a threat of imminent harm to a law enforcement officer.”

In a bench ruling, reported on by The New York Times, Ellis said government officials, including Gregory Bovino, a top Border Patrol official leading the operation in Chicago, lied repeatedly about the tactics they employed against protesters.

The ruling comes amid growing criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration authorities executing Operation Midway Blitz, which began on Sept. 9, targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Videos circulating online, however, show masked agents hauling a woman, later identified as U.S. citizen Dayanne Figueroa, from her vehicle, which they crashed into, and forcibly detaining a teacher from a daycare in front of school children. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said they detained the woman without a warrant, calling the actions of the immigration agents “domestic terrorism.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson earlier Thursday said during a press conference the daycare employee’s arrest “shocked the conscience of every single Chicagoan.”

In her bench ruling Thursday, Ellis, a President Barack Obama appointee, rejected the government’s description of Chicago as a violent- and riot-riddled city, saying, “That simply is untrue, and the government’s own evidence in this case belies that assertion.”

With pointed remarks at Bovino, she said the federal agent “admitted that he lied” about being hit in the head with a rock in October, which was his reasoning for deploying tear gas canisters.

“Video evidence ultimately disproved this,” she said, CNN reported.

Lawyers with Lovey & Lovey who brought the case before the court described it as protecting the right to protest.

Steve Art, a partner at the firm, called Ellis’ preliminary injunction in a press conference a “powerful ruling.”

“For weeks, the Trump administration has deployed Gregory Bovino and his gang of thugs to terrorize our community. They have tear gassed dozens of residential neighborhoods, they have abused the elderly, they have abused pregnant women, they have abused young children. On our streets, they have used weapons of war,” he said.

“We want to be clear every person who is associated with or who has enabled the Trump administration’s violence in Chicago should be ashamed of themselves.”

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has one day to fully distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell ordered the program funding after earlier requiring the Trump administration to access available money to at least partially fund SNAP benefits amid the federal government shutdown.

McConnell required the Trump administration to apprise the court on Wednesday of efforts to fund the program formerly known as “food stamps.”

“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said during an emergency hearing on Thursday, as reported by CNN.

“Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” he added.

He said the Trump administration has not done enough to access an estimated $4.65 billion in contingency funds to partially fund the SNAP benefits that cost about $9 billion per month to help 42 million recipients put food on their tables.

If SNAP is not funded fully, “people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said on Thursday, according to CNBC.

“That’s what irreparable harm here means,” he continued. “Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history.”

He called it a “problem that could have and should have been avoided.”

McConnell ordered the Trump administration to provide the full amount of November SNAP benefits to respective states by Friday, which would enable them to distribute benefits to their residents within a few days.

The federal judge also referenced a Truth Social post made by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

In that post, the president said SNAP benefits only would be funded “when the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The social media post served as evidence that the Trump administration would ignore McConnell’s prior order requiring it to access as much funding as possible to distribute SNAP benefits.

He criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to access contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits instead of allowing them to be suspended as of Saturday.

“Even when Nov. 1 came, [the] USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds,” McConnell said.

“USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to the beneficiary for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.”

McConnell is presiding over one of two federal cases filed by up to 25 states seeking to continue federal funding of SNAP benefits despite the record 37-day federal government shutdown that started on Oct. 1.

New York is party to both suits, and state Attorney General Letitia James welcomed McConnell’s ruling on Thursday.

“A judge in Rhode Island just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans,” James said in a prepared statement.

“I am relieved that people will get the food they need,” she added, “but it is outrageous that it took a lawsuit to make the federal government feed its own people.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

A federal grand jury subpoena has been served on the Los Angeles Fire Department for firefighters’ text messages and other communications about smoke or hot spots in the area of the Jan. 1 Lachman brushfire, which reignited six days later into the massive Palisades fire, according to an internal department memo.

The Times reported last week that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to pack up their hoses and leave the burn area the day after the Lachman fire, even though they complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks were hot to the touch. In the memo, the department notified its employees of the subpoena, which it said was issued by the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

“The subpoena seeks any and all communications, including text messages, related to reports of fire, smoke, or hotspots received between” 10 p.m. on New Year’s Eve and 10 a.m. on Jan. 7, said the memo, which was dated Tuesday.

A spokesperson with the U.S. attorney’s office declined to confirm that a subpoena was issued and otherwise did not comment. The memo did not include a copy of the subpoena.

The memo said the subpoena was issued in connection with an “ongoing criminal investigation” conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Last month, an ATF investigation led to the arrest of former Pacific Palisades resident Jonathan Rinderknecht, who was charged with deliberately setting the Jan. 1 fire shortly after midnight near a trailhead.

It is unclear from the memo whether the subpoena is directly related to the case against Rinderknecht, who has pleaded not guilty.

During the Rinderknecht investigation, ATF agents concluded that the fire smoldered and burned for days underground “within the root structure of dense vegetation,” until heavy winds caused it to spark the Palisades inferno, according to an affidavit attached to the criminal complaint against Rinderknecht.

The Palisades fire, the most destructive in the city’s history, killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes, businesses and other structures.

Last week, The Times cited text messages among firefighters in reporting that crews mopping up the Lachman fire had warned the battalion chief that remnants of the blaze were still smoldering.

The battalion chief listed as being on duty the day firefighters were ordered to leave the Lachman fire, Mario Garcia, has not responded to requests for comment.

In one text message, a firefighter who was at the scene on Jan. 2 wrote that the battalion chief had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of the visible signs of smoking terrain, which crews feared could start a new fire if left unprotected.

“And the rest is history,” the firefighter wrote in recent weeks.

A second firefighter was told that tree stumps were still hot at the location when the crew packed up and left, according to the texts. And a third firefighter said this month that crew members were upset when told to pack up and leave but that they could not ignore orders, according to the texts. The third firefighter also wrote that he and his colleagues knew immediately that the Palisades fire was a rekindle of the Jan. 1 blaze.

The Fire Department has not answered questions about the firefighter accounts in the text messages but has previously said that officials did everything they could to ensure that the Lachman fire was fully extinguished. The department has not provided dispatch records of all firefighting and mop-up activity before Jan. 7.

After The Times published the story, Mayor Karen Bass directed interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva to launch an investigation into the matter, while critics of her administration have asked for an independent inquiry.

Nov. 5 (UPI) — A federal judge was expected to rule Wednesday after he called the conditions at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in a Chicago suburb “disgusting” after hearing more than 6 hours of testimony.

U.S District Judge Robert W. Gettleman on Tuesday reviewed the conditions at the facility in Broadview, Ill., that ICE is using as part of Operation Midway Blitz. He’s ruling on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois last week over detainee access to lawyers and allegedly inhumane conditions there.

Gettleman told the court that what he heard qualifies for court intervention. He said he will issue a final ruling on Wednesday, and that it will not be “impossible to comply with.”

“I think everybody can admit that we don’t want to treat people the way that I heard people are being treated today,” Gettleman said after hearing testimony from five detainees being held at the facility, calling their descriptions of the facility “disgusting” and “unconstitutional.”

“It’s a disturbing record,” Gettleman said. “People sleeping shoulder to shoulder, next to overflowing toilets and human waste — that’s unacceptable.”

The Justice Department argued in a response to the ACLU’s lawsuit that people at the facility are “adequately provided with food, clothing, shelter and medical care before they are transferred to another detention facility.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Justice Department attorney Jana Brady suggested that the five detainees may not properly recall their experience at the facility, and questioned whether they understood what was going on there in the first place.

Brady also noted, however, that authorities were working to improve conditions at the facility, which was operating beyond its normal capacity. She said there was “a learning curve” as operations continue.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU alleged that agents at the Broadview facility have treated detainees “abhorrently, depriving them of sleep, privacy, menstrual products and the ability to shower,” as well as denied entry and communication with attorneys, members of Congress, and religious and faith leaders.

The MacArthur Justice Center and Roger Baldwin Foundation, of the ACLU, called Broadview a “black hole, and federal officials are acting with impunity inside its walls.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Gettleman heard from detainees who said they had to step over bodies at night while people slept on the floor; would wake people up when going to the bathroom because they were sleeping next to the toilet; received just a thin foil blanket or a sweater despite freezing temperatures overnight; and observed poor sanitation, clogged toilets, and blood, human fluids and insects in the sinks and the floor.

One detainee told the judge that female detainees at one point used garbage bags to unclog a toilet and that, when they asked for a broom to clean, guards refused.

The facility is a two-story building in an industrial area of the Village of Broadview, about 12 miles west of downtown Chicago, which has long been used by immigration authorities, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

In June, the Department of Homeland Security changed its policy to allow detainees to be held there for as long as 72 hours, up from the 12 hours that previously had been the limit.

After hearing from witnesses that detainees have been held there for as long as 12 days, and that the building does not have beds, blankets or pillows, Gettleman said the building has “become a prison” and may be “unconstitutional.”

The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday afternoon said in a post on X that Broadview is not a detention center, but rather a processing center, and that it is processing “the worst of the worst, including pedophiles, gang members and rapists.”

“All detainees are provided with three meals a day, water and have access to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” the department said in the post. “No one is denied access to proper medical care.”

“Any claims there are subprime conditions at the Broadview ICE facility are FALSE,” it added.

Noting that the facility is a key part of the department’s immigration enforcement effort in Chicago, Brady said that a temporary restraining order requiring the department to improve the facility, “as it is currently written, would effectively halt the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in Illinois.”

WASHINGTON — Hurling a sandwich at a federal agent was an act of protest for Washington, D.C., resident Sean Charles Dunn. A jury must decide if it was also a federal crime.

“No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people because you’re mad,” Assistant U.S. Atty. John Parron told jurors Tuesday at the start of Dunn’s trial on a misdemeanor assault charge.

Dunn doesn’t dispute that he threw his submarine-style sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. It was an “exclamation point” for Dunn as he expressed his opposition to President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the nation’s capital, defense attorney Julia Gatto said during the trial’s opening statements.

“It was a harmless gesture at the end of him exercising his right to speak out,” Gatto said. “He is overwhelmingly not guilty.”

A bystander’s cellphone video of the confrontation went viral on social media, turning Dunn into a symbol of resistance against Trump’s months-long federal takeover. Murals depicting him mid-throw popped up in the city virtually overnight.

“He did it. He threw the sandwich,” Gatto told jurors. “And now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has turned that moment — a thrown sandwich — into a criminal case, a federal criminal case charging a federal offense.”

A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count, part of a pattern of pushback against the Justice Department’s prosecution of surge-related criminal cases. After the rare rebuke from the grand jury, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office charged Dunn instead with a misdemeanor.

Customs and Border Protection Agent Gregory Lairmore, the government’s first witness, said the sandwich “exploded” when it struck his chest hard enough that he could feel it through his ballistic vest.

“You could smell the onions and the mustard,” he recalled.

Lairmore and other agents were standing in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night” when Dunn approached and shouted profanities at them, calling them “fascists” and “racists” and chanting “shame.”

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Lairmore testified that he and the other agents tried to de-escalate the situation.

“He was red-faced. Enraged. Calling me and my colleagues all kinds of names,” he said. “I didn’t respond. That’s his constitutional right to express his opinion.”

After throwing the sandwich, Dunn ran away but was apprehended about a block away.

Later, Lairmore’s colleagues jokingly gave him gifts making light of the incident, including a subway sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch that said “felony footlong.” Defense attorney Sabrina Schroff pointed to those as proof that the agents recognize this case is “overblown” and “worthy of a joke.”

Parron told jurors that everybody is entitled to their views about Trump’s federal surge. But “respectfully, that’s not what this case is about,” the prosecutor said. “You just can’t do what the defendant did here. He crossed a line.”

Dunn was a Justice Department employee who worked as an international affairs specialist in its criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Dunn was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said.

Dunn’s lawyers have argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House show Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech. They urged U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the case, calling it a vindictive and selective prosecution. Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, didn’t rule on that request before the trial started Monday.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Signs of a potential end to the government shutdown intensified Tuesday with behind-the-scenes talks, as the federal closure was on track to become the longest ever disrupting the lives of millions of Americans.

Senators from both parties, Republicans and Democrats, are quietly negotiating the contours of an emerging deal. With a nod from their leadership, the senators seek a way to reopen the government, put the normal federal funding process back on track and devise some sort of resolution to the crisis of expiring health insurance subsidies that are spiking premium costs from coast to coast.

“Enough is enough,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, as he opened the deadlocked chamber.

On day 35 of the federal government shutdown, the record for the longest will be broken after midnight. With SNAP benefits interrupted for millions of Americans depending on federal food aid, hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or working without pay and contracts being delayed, many on and off Capitol Hill say it’s time for it to end. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy predicted there could be chaos in the skies next week if the shutdown drags on and air traffic controllers miss another paycheck. Labor unions put pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.

Election Day is seen as a turning point

Tuesday’s elections provide an inflection point, with off-year governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, along with the mayor’s race in New York that will show voter attitudes, a moment of political assessment many hope will turn the tide. Another test vote Tuesday in the Senate failed, as Democrats rejected a temporary government funding bill.

“We’re not asking for anything radical,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Lowering people’s healthcare costs is the definition of common sense.”

Unlike the earlier shutdown during President Trump’s first term, when he fought Congress in 2018-19 for funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall, the president has been largely absent from this shutdown debate.

Trump threatens to halt SNAP food aid

But on Tuesday, Trump issued a fresh threat, warning he would halt SNAP food aid unless Democrats agree to reopen the government.

SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” Trump said on social media. That seemed to defy court orders to release the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program contingency funds.

His top spokeswoman, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said later that the administration continues to pay out SNAP funding in line with court orders.

With House Speaker Mike Johnson having sent lawmakers home in September, most attention is on the Senate. There, the leadership has outsourced negotiations to a loose group of centrist dealmakers from both parties have been quietly charting a way to end the standoff.

“We pray that today is that day,” said Johnson, R-La., holding his daily process on the empty side of the Capitol.

Contours of a potential deal

Central to any endgame will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House, and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington where Republicans have full control of the government.

First of all, senators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process can be put back on track.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, along with several Democrats, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Chris Coons of Delaware, are among those working behind the scenes.

“The pace of talks have increased,” said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has been involved in conversations.

Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills where there is already widespread bipartisan agreement to fund various aspects of governments, like agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

“I certainly think that that three-bill package is primed to do a lot of good things for the American people,” said Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala, who has also been in talks.

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

White House won’t engage on health care until government reopens

The White House says its position remains unchanged and that Democrats must vote to fund the government until talks over health care can begin. White House officials are in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats, according to a senior White House official. The official was granted anonymity to discuss administration strategy.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of Americans are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of federal subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Republicans, with control of the House and Senate, are reluctant to fund the health care program, also known as Obamacare. But Thune has promised Democrats a vote on their preferred proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government.

That’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

“Trump is a schoolyard bully,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, in an op-ed. “Anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates.”

Moreover, Democrats, and some Republicans, are also pushing for guardrails to prevent the Trump administration’s practice of unilaterally slashing funds for programs that Congress had already approved, by law, the way billionaire Elon Musk did earlier this year at the Department of Government Efficiency.

With the Senate, which is split 53-47, having tried and failed more than a dozen times to advance the House-passed bill over the filibuster, that measure is out of date. It would have funded government to Nov. 21.

Trump has demanded senators nuke the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires a 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation, which preserves minority rights in the chamber. GOP senators panned that demand.

Both Thune and Johnson have acknowledged they will need a new temporary measure. They are eyeing one that skips past the Christmas holiday season, avoiding what often has been a year-end crunch, and instead develop an agreement that would keep government running into the near year, likely January.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Seung Min Kim and Matt Brown contributed to this story.

United States Republican President Donald Trump says he will restrict federal funds for New York City if Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the city’s mayoral elections, to be held on Tuesday.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Monday that “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required”, if Mamdani wins the race.

Polls show Mamdani leading against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, who is the Republican nominee.

According to the latest RealClearPolitics polls on Monday, Mamdani led with 45.8 percent, maintaining a 14.7-point advantage over Cuomo’s 31.1 percent and a 28.5-point lead over Sliwa’s 17.3 percent.

On the final day of campaigning on Monday, the mayoral candidates raced across New York City’s five boroughs after months of back-and-forth barbs, social media hits and saucy debates.

As the closely-watched election day edged closer, Mamdani led a sunrise walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, flanked by hundreds of supporters, before kicking off the day with a speech at City Hall.

Cuomo, on his part, denounced socialism in the Bronx, visited seniors in Chinatown, and popped off an X post calling Mamdani a “poser”.

And Republican candidate Sliwa greeted supporters in the Coney Island neighbourhood of Brooklyn in his signature red hat, as he spoke at a subway station where a woman was killed on a train last year.

Mamdani and Cuomo’s duelling campaigns have reflected their positions in the New York race: the son of another former New York governor, steeped in the liberal Democratic political establishment, versus a young and little-known assemblyman who would be the city’s first Muslim, first person born in Africa and the first person of South Asian descent to lead New York City.

The mayoral race, which has captured outsized global attention, has seen a record 735,317 early votes cast over the past nine days, more than four times the total for the 2021 election, according to the New York City Board of Elections.

‘Our time is now’

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York state assemblyman, has galvanised New Yorkers with an optimistic, multilingual campaign that promised free buses, rent freezes and universal childcare, partially paid for by taxing the city’s wealthiest residents.

He reiterated that Trump had signalled his support for Cuomo in a 60 Minutes interview. In recent weeks, Cuomo has appealed to conservatives as a way to up his polling numbers.

“If [Cuomo is] elected as mayor, our city will descend deeper into the darkness that has forced too many of our neighbours to flee, and made it impossible for working people to live lives of dignity,” Mamdani said.

In his City Hall speech on Monday, Mamdani seemed to embrace the seismic shift that his campaign has represented for New York’s politics.

“There were few in this city who dared to imagine that we could win, and what it would mean for a city that has – for too long – served only the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of those who work through sunrises and sunsets,” Mamdani said.

Moments later, the crowd broke out in cheers of, “Our time is now!”

Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 after an independent state probe found he had engaged in a pattern of sexually harassing women, took aim at Mamdani’s democratic socialist promises in his final hours of campaigning, likening them to left-wing governments in Latin America.

“Socialism didn’t work in Venezuela. Socialism didn’t work in Cuba. Socialism is not going to work in New York City,” Cuomo said. Mamdani, however, is a self-described “democratic socialist”.

New York’s most prominent billionaires, including hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, have supported Cuomo’s campaign, with Ackman doling out a total of $750,000 through donation vehicles known as super PACs, CNBC reported last week.

WASHINGTON — Throwing a sandwich at a federal agent turned Sean Charles Dunn into a symbol of resistance against President Trump’s law-enforcement surge in the nation’s capital. This week, federal prosecutors are trying to persuade a jury of fellow Washington, D.C., residents that Dunn simply broke the law.

That could be a tough sell for the government in a city that has chafed against Trump’s federal takeover, which is entering its third month. A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count before U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office opted to charge him instead with a misdemeanor.

Securing a trial conviction could prove to be equally challenging for Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, where murals glorifying Dunn’s sandwich toss popped up virtually overnight.

Before jury selection started Monday, the judge presiding over Dunn’s trial seemed to acknowledge how unusual it is for a case like this to be heard in federal court. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, said he expects the trial to last no more than two days “because it’s the simplest case in the world.”

A video that went viral on social media captured Dunn hurling his subway-style sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. That same weekend, Trump announced his deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with police patrols in Washington.

When Dunn approached a group of CBP agents who were in front of the club, which was hosting a “Latin Night,” he called them “fascists” and “racists” and chanted “shame” toward them. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at an agent’s chest.

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Dunn ran away but was apprehended. He was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said. They noted that Dunn had offered to surrender to police before the raid.

Dunn worked as an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Before trial, Dunn’s lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the case for what they allege is a vindictive and selective prosecution. They argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House prove Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech.

Julia Gatto, one of Dunn’s lawyers, questioned why Trump’s Justice Department is prosecuting Dunn after the Republican president issued pardons and ordered the dismissal of assault cases stemming from a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“It’s an obvious answer,” Gatto said during a hearing last Thursday. “The answer is they have different politics. And that’s selective prosecution.”

Prosecutors countered that Dunn’s political expressions don’t make him immune from prosecution for assaulting the agent.

“The defendant is being prosecuted for the obvious reason that he was recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range,” they wrote.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.