federal government

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom left the state Tuesday to join international leaders at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Antalya, Turkey.

Newsom framed his attendance as an opportunity to tell the world that California’s climate leadership is delivering results as he criticized President Trump as a “no-show” for declining to send a delegation on behalf of the United States.

“While Donald Trump sells out America’s economic security to his fossil fuel donors, California isn’t backing down from the climate fight,” Newsom said in a statement. “Trump is temporary. California’s partnerships around the world are not.”

Trump’s absence on the international stage has created an opening for California governors to contrast their climate policies with the federal government’s attempts to reverse the nation’s progress.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017 sharply condemned the president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. On a 10-day trip to the Vatican, Brussels, Oslo and a U.N. Climate Conference in Bonn, Germany, later that year, Brown was labeled America’s “anti-Trump” as he warned that humanity was on the chopping block unless world leaders took action to reduce global emissions. Brown also hosted his own international climate summit in San Francisco in 2018 to recommit countries to the ideals of the accord that Trump disavowed.

Since taking office, Newsom has appeared at several annual Climate Week events in New York and used his speaking opportunities to blast Trump in traditionally apolitical forums, often garnering international applause.

In 2019, he burst onto the climate scene when he told foreign leaders he was “absolutely humiliated” by Trump’s efforts to walk back the nation’s climate policies as the state and the federal government were locked in a battle over vehicle emission standards.

Newsom’s voyage to Turkey follows a trip to Brazil last year to attend the U.N. conference, where he similarly cast California as a proxy for the Trump administration.

As he considers a run for president in 2028, Newsom is framing his remarks in Antalya, a tourist city on the Mediterranean coast, around his work to reduce greenhouse gases, encourage the use of zero-emission and electric vehicles and increase his state’s reliance on clean energy.

Newsom is expected to meet with other world leaders and sign pacts to address climate change together.

The governor’s envoy in Turkey includes First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and his top climate confidants: Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, and Lauren Sanchez, chair of the California Air Resources Board, among others.

WASHINGTON — Over the past decade, President Trump has steadily expanded executive power, pushing the limits of his authority and evading traditional constraints. But a Democratic takeover of Congress on Tuesday could set up one final constitutional test for the Trump era, challenging the legislative branch to reclaim its role as a check on an increasingly powerful White House.

A blue wave could give Democrats control of both chambers of Congress, handing them not only investigative and subpoena powers in the House, but also, through the Senate, the authority to confirm presidential appointments, pursue impeachments trials, and control legislation and federal spending.

That would historically be enough to bring a president to heel. Yet the Trump administration’s broad assertion of executive privilege and politicization of the Justice Department could make oversight from a Democratic Congress sluggish — if not impossible — over Trump’s final two years.

The Office of Legal Counsel has claimed that even Trump’s communications with private advisors could be shielded by privilege. Independent watchdogs across the federal government, which have traditionally supported congressional oversight, have been systematically removed. And a Justice Department that historically pursued congressional criminal referrals regardless of their political implications is poised to ignore them under current leadership.

A combative administration will pose a challenge to Democratic congressional leaders, who may face internal party calls to pursue a third impeachment of the president over any number of scandals, and will likely shape debate over the coming presidential campaign season.

“Our system of checks and balances and the requirements of super majorities makes it difficult for the legislature to hold the executive fully accountable,” said Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard and a lawyer to Trump during his first Senate impeachment trial.

“This is a good thing,” he added, “leaving ultimate accountability to the voters, who are the ultimate check in a democracy.”

Norm Eisen, who served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial, acknowledged the Trump administration is likely to aggressively resist Democratic probes.

“To be sure, those in the government may resist,” Eisen said, “but the incredible scale of corruption over the past 20 months has also implicated a wide variety of those in the private sector. They will cooperate because the consequences for not doing so are too great.”

Democratic control will also challenge the expansive vision of presidential power that Trump and his closest aides have successfully advanced since the 2024 campaign.

Project 2025 — a conservative effort pioneered by Trump allies that ultimately joined the administration — embraced a sweeping theory of unitary power, under which the president would exercise near-total control over the executive branch, including the Justice Department.

A conservative Supreme Court, featuring three Trump appointees, has endorsed key elements of that theory, affirming broad presidential authority to remove executive officials and granting presidents absolute immunity for exercising their core constitutional powers, along with presumptive immunity for other official acts.

Practical limits on the oversight powers of a Democratic Congress already has some leaders thinking of other, coercive means of using congressional power to exact accountability.

A cabinet fleeing for the campaign trail, or for the safety of the private sector, may create a series of openings that will be difficult for Trump to fill with a Democratic majority in the Senate, said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College and author of “The New Imperial Presidency.”

“Trump doesn’t have a huge legislative agenda, but there are some things he wants,” Rudalevige said. “Those can be held up. And relatedly, Democrats could embrace the power of the purse, since the budget is the one bill that needs to pass.”

Already, several Democratic House members are debating whether to demand the resignation of Pete Hegseth, Trump’s embattled defense secretary, as a condition of further appropriations funding for the department in its pursuit of war with Iran, the Hill first reported last month.

Democrats may find it difficult to hold the administration accountable for past actions, much of which are already being litigated in federal courts, said Peter Kastor, history department chair at Washington University in St. Louis. The larger question, he said, is how the two parties could govern together — particularly if Trump defies congressional authority, such as by impounding funds appropriated by lawmakers.

“I think it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to take any action to punish the administration for its actions until now, much as Democrats may want this,” Kastor said, suggesting the greatest wild card may lie not in Democratic strategy, but in the actions of a Republican minority.

“The big question is not whether they will desert Trump,” he added, “but rather what role they would see for themselves as a minority caught in the middle of a grand political battle.”

In an interview with the New York Post, Trump suggested he is expecting a wave, stating he will “become Mr. Veto” if Democrats sweep control.

But a president who long viewed concession as weakness may now have to pivot.

“At some point, we’ll probably make deals,” he added.

Oct. 30, 2026 8:59 PM PT

A federal judge in California on Friday barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots.

The order issued by U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in the Northern District of California was in response to a suit filed earlier Friday by labor unions seeking to bar the Justice Department from intimidating election workers.

Notably, the emergency order was issued without the Department of Justice weighing in on the case.

“Election Day is around the corner,” wrote Thompson, who was nominated by former President Biden. “Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

It also bars the Justice Department from demanding local election officials segregate or not count ballots that the federal government deems may have been cast by ineligible voters.

“This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve,” April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement Friday night.

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has warned that “any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy.”

On Thursday, the Associated Press obtained subpoenas issued to election officials in Los Angeles County. The subpoenas request any documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining the allegations about noncitizen voters. They also seek any information about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted. At least three L.A. County election officials have been asked to appear before a grand jury the day after the election.

It is unclear whether the Justice Department intends to bring criminal charges against anyone. The department does not typically subpoena people whom it regards as targets of a criminal investigation to appear before a grand jury.

Outside groups win access to the disputed list

In another Friday ruling, another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to share the disputed list of names with lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. They want to examine who is on the list and assess its impact on eligible voters.

It will be the first time that a nongovernmental organization will have the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the list of some 20,000 names. The federal government promptly appealed the decision on Friday evening.

The Democratic candidate for California governor, Xavier Becerra, is an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project.

The two groups sued the Homeland Security Department in early October to prevent it from using federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. The lawsuit cited examples in other states where the federal government’s data have been proven to mistakenly include thousands of citizens. It argued that the data-matching methods risk disenfranchising or deterring citizens from voting. On top of that, plaintiffs argued, the lists could disproportionately target naturalized citizens who are legally entitled to vote.

The Justice Department argues that there is just as much to lose if the ballots aren’t separated.

“Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the vote of an American citizen,” Kiersten V. Pels, a spokesperson for the department, wrote in an email. “The Department makes no apology for protecting those votes.”

In a separate but related 9th Circuit Court decision on Friday, a panel of judges ruled that federal investigations into illegal voting by noncitizens will remain on hold in nine states until after election day.

The judges, all nominated by Democratic presidents, found that the aggressive and public investigations led some citizens to decide not to engage in election-related activities out of fear of being wrongly targeted.

The judges said the investigations, which are looking into alleged illegal voting in past elections, can resume after the midterms wrap up Tuesday.

Riddle, Mulvihill and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writer Swenson reported from New York; Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

Oct. 28, 2026 9:44 AM PT

MINNEAPOLIS — The parents of intensive care nurse Alex Pretti said the federal government is shielding the immigration enforcement officers involved in their son’s killing, and no one from the government has reached out with any substantive information for nine months.

Michael and Susan Pretti on Tuesday called for the Department of Justice to hold accountable those who shot their 37-year-old son during President Trump’s ramp up in deportations targeting Minnesota. Federal prosecutors disclosed in recent court filings they had stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the January killings of Pretti and Renee Good by federal officers.

“The federal government went on TV and lied about Alex,” said Susan Pretti, his mother. “They tried to slander his memory to cover up their crime. Not only was it wrong, it was shameful.”

Within moments of his Jan. 24 death, Trump administration officials sought to portray Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse at a veterans hospital, as an armed disruptor intent on doing harm to federal agents when he brought his own gun to a Minneapolis street where officers clashed with protesters. Kristi Noem, the then-Homeland Security secretary, painted the Veterans Administration hospital nurse as a domestic terrorist who violently resisted federal agents. Court records show he had no criminal record.

Video shot by bystanders that day showed Pretti only had a mobile phone in his hand. No footage has since emerged showing him brandishing a weapon or attacking federal agents in the moments before he was killed.

The Prettis spoke Tuesday at a news conference organized by an attorney representing the family, calling their treatment by the Trump administration “cruelty.” They said they decided to speak out after being “stonewalled” by U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota, U.S. Atty. Dan Rosen.

“At every turn, they have ignored us, misled us, and shielded Alex’s killers,” said Michael Pretti, his father. “We are a family who love this country. We trust in the institutions of this country. We believe in the rule of law — and that people should be held accountable through that law.”

After months of reaching out to Rosen’s office, the federal prosecutor agreed to meet with them in July. But the family and their attorney, Steve Schleicher, said that meeting raised more questions than answers, with Rosen refusing to provide even basic information about the status of the federal investigation into Pretti’s death.

A spokesman for Rosen’s office had no comment when reached by the Associated Press on Tuesday. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Pretti family’s remarks.

Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings of Pretti and Good. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.

The state is still seeking the cellphones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.

Pretti’s parents recounted how they first learned of his death when they were called by a reporter for the Associated Press.

“We learned about his death from the media as we saw him being shot repeatedly in the back after helping a woman from his community, a fellow Minnesotan, who had been shoved to the ground viciously,” Michael Pretti said. “No one from the federal government called us on that horrible day, but they did go on TV to tell lies about Alex. No one from the federal government has called us since.”

He said the videos of his son’s killing haunt his family every day.

“I think it haunts many Americans to see a U.S. citizen who was peaceful and in his community shot multiple times on the back, in the back, while on the ground,” the father said, calling his family heartbroken.

“We wish we didn’t have to be here,” he said. “We wish Alex was alive. We wish we were simply in Minneapolis to visit with Alex. For he and I to chat about cars, hiking, biking or anything that came to our mind. This administration has taken that away from us forever.”

Biesecker and Vancleave write for the Associated Press. Biesecker reported from Pittsburgh.

A federal judge on Tuesday seemed skeptical of a Trump administration request to immediately block California officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the administration questions, but said he would not issue a ruling until Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter questioned how the administration had derived its list of suspect voters, worried about disenfranchising eligible voters, said the demands would represent a “monumental change” to California elections and suggested federal prosecutors bringing the case had other means of holding illegal voters accountable.

But just one day after a federal appeals court rejected the same request, Carter said at the conclusion of a 3½-hour hearing in Los Angeles that he needed more time to rule — except on one related issue.

“This court believes it would be wise — that it would be wise — that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately,” he said — a clear reference to federal authorities threatening elections officials with criminal penalties if they count any of the flagged ballots.

After the hearing, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, said he had made it “abundantly clear that American voters are being disenfranchised in real time,” and that the administration will wait to see what Carter says Wednesday but was likely to appeal the matter back up to the appellate court.

He also denied threatening state officials, despite the Justice Department having sent formal letters to election officials statewide last week warning them of criminal punishments, and Essayli reiterated that position Tuesday.

Carter’s hearing came after Monday’s decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the reverse of what’s normal — because Justice Department attorneys had tried to go over Carter’s head after he didn’t acquiesce to a deadline they’d set for him to rule on their request for a temporary restraining order against the state last week.

However, when the three-judge appellate panel — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 Monday that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case given Carter hadn’t yet had the chance, the case returned to Carter’s courtroom.

And there, Carter — an appointee of President Clinton — seemed loath to rush to judgment, despite the Trump administration’s claims of urgency. He said the administration’s method for arriving at its list of potential noncitizen voters was unclear and that he would like to develop the record further, including by bringing in an expert for the court.

“What are these systems? What are the algorithms? How was this derived?” he said.

He also seemed unmoved by the Justice Department’s argument that the ballots must be segregated immediately to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted, and more focused on whether noncitizens who illegally vote can be identified and held accountable while avoiding disenfranchising legitimate voters in the process.

For those who do vote illegally, “you’ve got a remedy, for goodness sakes,” he told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”

The Justice Department sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter gave Weber and Logan 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters, whom McCotter described as “likely noncitizens.”

During the hearing, Essayli argued on behalf of the Trump administration that its demands on California and L.A. County were not onerous, could be complied with easily and did not call for ballots to go uncounted. Essayli said the federal government was in court “on a very narrow request for an injunction to separate ballots of those suspected of being noncitizens” only until the state can prove their citizenship.

He argued that the “reliability and credibility” of the federal government process for flagging the 20,000 voters is unquestionable — while also telling Carter, “We’re never going to stand here and tell you that everything is 100%.” He said every vote counts, as some elections “are decided by a handful of votes,” and that the federal government is simply asking California not to break existing federal law barring noncitizens from voting.

“We’re not telling California what they have to do. We’re telling them what they can’t do, which is just count these ballots without doing more to ensure whether they’re citizens or not,” Essayli said.

Essayli — who has aggressively sparred with California officials on social media for weeks — also argued to the court that the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since first asking the state to segregate the ballots, and that he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials have been on the issue.

Attorneys for Weber and the state said the Trump administration’s demand on the state “distorts several legal doctrines beyond recognition” and is clearly illegal, particularly during an ongoing election. They said the administration has provided no evidence that the 20,000 voters aren’t citizens, and has used “data and methods known to be unreliable.”

Michael Cohen, a deputy attorney general for the state, said the Trump administration questions California law that allows voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, while ignoring the fact that standard was set not by the state but by Congress.

Anne Bellows, another deputy attorney general, said California has an established framework for running elections, and the Trump administration is trying to “sweep it off the table and replace it with a new, unclear procedure in which the federal government can issue a list and require California to change the way a subset of its voters’ ballots are received, and whether or not they are tabulated,” which she said was illegal and a “recipe for disenfranchisement” of thousands of legitimate voters.

“The stakes here are enormous,” she said.

Attorneys for Logan said the Trump administration has made its demands “without any credible argument” as to how it is legal, that the “proposed remedy” it is demanding from the state is “vague and unworkable,” and that if it wants to question California’s existing processes, “the proper audience for that argument” is Congress — not the federal court.

Several attorneys for voting and civil rights groups also argued against the Trump administration during the hearing, including by arguing that its reliance on third-party data sets — including from Lexis Nexis — was not a trustworthy way of identifying whether voters are citizens.

The litigation is just one part of a much wider battle by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections nationwide, and particularly in California, including on the notion that state elections have insufficient guardrails to prevent noncitizens from voting. Elections experts say such fraud occurs, but is exceedingly rare.

While the 9th Circuit panel’s unsigned ruling Monday rejected the Trump administration’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, both judges in the majority — Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — wrote independently to make clear that they would have rejected the case on its merits too.

They said it ran afoul of federal law barring interventions in voting in the immediate lead-up to elections, and the U.S. Constitution, which reserves control of elections for the states and oversight for Congress, not the executive branch.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, also wrote independently in dissent — arguing the federal government must “have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections.”

Carter previously rejected an administration lawsuit demanding California’s unredacted voter rolls as “unprecedented and illegal” — a decision similar to those made by dozens of other federal judges in other states. Federal prosecutors recently charged 28 lawful permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote. Some of those charged expressed confusion, said they had no recollection of registering or had never voted.

There are more than 23 million registered voters in California.

Last week, Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials in counties across California demanding they sequester any flagged ballots in their jurisdictions, and warning them that they could face criminal penalties if they don’t. State officials denounced the letters as a legally baseless intimidation tactic.

Federal judges also have slapped back executive orders in which President Trump demanded new nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements, and blocked a Trump administration plan to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots for the first time.

Beyond the courts, Democrats and voting rights groups have been strategizing for months on how to prevent the Trump administration from interfering in the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. The Trump administration has said it is merely trying to enforce the law and ensure that noncitizens do not illegally vote and negate the ballots of U.S. citizen voters.

The federal government has stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers, state officials said in recent court filings.

Minnesota officials sued President Trump’s administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings during Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis earlier this year. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.

The state is still seeking the cell phones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.

State prosecutors announced in July that the federal government had begun turning over evidence in the cases, including police body camera video and hard drives containing statements. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said at the time that the state expected to receive “all the evidence.”

But Minnesota investigators said in October court filings that the transfer of evidence stopped soon after the July announcement. Moriarty said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota told her on Sept. 10 that evidence sharing would be on pause indefinitely “in light of challenges with D.C.,” according to the documents.

State prosecutors have again asked a judge to order federal agencies to hand over the evidence, arguing they “have identified no legal authority or rational basis justifying their obstruction of state criminal investigations.”

In a reply filed Tuesday, attorneys for the Justice Department argued it’s within their discretion to decline to share information with state authorities. They cited the department’s rules for responding to record requests, known as the Touhy regulations, which apply only when formal legal proceedings are underway. The attorneys said there was no active court case when Minnesota made its requests.

Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said in a legal declaration that federal authorities still have Good’s clothing, the cell phone of the officer who killed her and interview recordings that state authorities have never been able to view.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, while she was leaving a Minneapolis protest on Jan. 7. Bystander video shows Good in the driver’s seat of an SUV, repeatedly honking the horn, when masked immigration officers order her to step out of the vehicle. She starts to pull forward, and an officer standing in front of the car fires at her windshield. The officer, now standing about an arm’s length from the open window on the driver’s side, fires twice more, according to an analysis of the videos by The Associated Press and others.

Federal officials at the time said the officer acted in self-defense.

Good’s death and that of Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse who was killed weeks later by a federal officer in Minneapolis, ignited nationwide protests against the Republican president’s immigration enforcement efforts.

No criminal charges have been filed in connection with the fatal shootings.

Evans said the federal government also has not shared a recorded statement from an officer who shot Pretti, the firearms used by the officers, their phones, projectiles and casings, and a gun taken from Pretti before he was shot.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration on Thursday sued California over its handling of voter fraud claims, asking a federal court to immediately bar the state from counting ballots from about 20,000 voters statewide — many in Los Angeles County — whom the administration alleges are “likely noncitizens.”

The lawsuit is highly unusual, particularly given that California voters have already begun voting in the Nov. 3 midterms via mail ballots, experts said.

It’s also highly inappropriate and based on questionable federal data that have proved wildly inaccurate in other states, state officials said.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “Courts have made clear the federal government has no role in running state elections. We will defend free and fair elections in the Golden State and call out every authoritarian attempt to undermine our democracy.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, in his own statement, defended the lawsuit.

“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” he said. “If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government.”

The lawsuit states that “as part of an investigation into unlawful voting,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted a “multiagency and multilevel review” of state voter and federal citizenship data and determined with “high confidence” that around 20,000 “likely noncitizens” are registered to vote in the state.

It then forwarded those names to Homeland Security Investigations, which conducted its own investigation and concluded the same, the lawsuit says.

“This means that, consistent with state law, nearly 20,000 noncitizens in California have been sent a vote-by-mail ballot to participate in the federal election (or will receive one), with many addresses listed in Los Angeles County,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit comes two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, giving them 48 hours to set aside the same ballots in order to investigate those voters’ citizenship status.

McCotter had said the Trump administration would be forced to file for emergency relief in the courts if Weber and Logan did not comply.

The lawsuit comes about three months after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote his own letter to Weber, alleging that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizens registered to vote in California.

The lawsuit makes no mention of that prior estimate, or why Homeland Security’s initial estimate was so much larger than its current estimate. It does say that USCIS identifying with “high confidence” that a voter is a likely noncitizen “means that the match between voter information on the voting roll and USCIS’ internal records is strong and consistent based on multiple identifiers that support a strong identity link.”

It also said, “The Federal Government notified California months ago that numerous noncitizens may be registered to vote in California. Despite knowing that California must send vote-by-mail ballots to every registered voter, the State made no serious attempt to work with the Federal Government to determine whether noncitizens are registered to vote.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for more information as to how the 190,000 figure dropped to 20,000.

In a letter back to McCotter, Weber noted both figures and accused the Trump administration of pushing forward to disenfranchise voters at the last minute before the midterms based on shoddy data work and no certainty that those voters are ineligible.

“Nowhere has the federal government clarified the basis for suspecting — not even confirming with any level of certainty — the listed individuals are non-citizens. And as one court recently noted, the federal government’s citizenship records are ‘known to be unreliable,’” Weber wrote, referring to a case brought against the Justice Department by the organization Common Cause. “To give just one example, in a similar incident in the State of Nevada, DHS initially alleged that Nevada’s voter roll included nearly 16,000 potential non-citizens. However, after working with the State of Nevada, DHS officials failed to establish that a single non-citizen was on the voter rolls.”

Weber called it “remarkable” that the Justice Department would demand that her office “review and confirm the citizenship status of each of the approximately 20,000 individuals on the list on the eve of an election and within a mere 48 hours” despite providing no clear evidence that those individuals are wrongly registered.

“This is an emergency of the DOJ’s creation,” Weber wrote. “California’s election administration will continue to be governed by applicable federal and state law, not by unsubstantiated claims and outrageous demands.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted about the lawsuit on X, noting the 48-window given to Weber and Logan had lapsed and writing, “Time is up for California.”

“This is not political or controversial,” he wrote. “We will not allow California to dilute the votes of American citizens.”

The Trump administration’s lawsuit says that while the U.S. “actively investigates and prosecutes incidents of unlawful voting,” it “is not practicable or feasible for the United States to investigate before the 2026 election concludes thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of individuals that two federal investigative offices identified on the California voter roster as likely being sent vote-by-mail ballots.”

Because of that, it argues, “California is thus knowingly imposing an obstacle on the United States’ ability to enforce [federal election law] by facilitating unlawful voting rather than working with the Federal Government to prevent it,” and the state is therefore legally barred from sending mail ballots to the 20,000 voters Homeland Security has flagged.

It asks the federal court in the Central District of California to declare the state’s actions — including providing and counting ballots for those 20,000 people — to be barred by law and in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and to issue an injunction barring the state from counting those ballots in federal elections “until those individuals’ citizenship status can be verified.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to use immigration data to reach conclusions about California voter rolls and intervene in California’s election is already being challenged in a separate federal case in the district of Washington, D.C., brought by attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo.

The UCLA attorneys filed their own emergency petition Thursday to preclude the Justice Department from moving forward with such actions against California, citing the letters McCotter sent to Weber and Logan.

A judge in that case ordered the parties to meet and file a status report with the court by Friday as to when each side would be able to brief the court on the issue.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

BOULDER CITY, Nev. — Janelle Sorenson loves the clear night skies in Boulder City, less than an hour’s drive from the bright lights of the Las Vegas Strip. It’s a small, quiet town, and she thinks an artificial intelligence data center would ruin the community and scar the desert landscape.

So over the summer, she joined with other residents to successfully oppose plans for one of the giant computing warehouses that have popped up around the country.

But their victory was short-lived. The developers withdrew their application and instead sought adjacent land owned by the federal government — and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management signed off.

“Not only did we not get to decide anything or have a say,” Sorenson said, “we were just really kept in the dark.”

The Townsite data center was the first in the country to be approved on federal public land, though construction is stalled after a judge ruled that the government couldn’t use an old environmental review from when the project was intended to be a solar farm.

Tech companies are eager for vast tracts to build data centers that can be as large as 70 football fields, and Townsite could set a precedent for similar projects on federal property with more than a dozen others in the planning stages. President Trump has been a steadfast supporter of the AI industry, which he views as a source of economic growth and part of a global competition with China.

However, data centers have been unpopular in many communities as voters worry about higher electricity bills, declining water supplies and other effects. In Nevada, where 80% of the land is owned by the federal government, Townsite and other projects have become a dominant issue in the battleground state’s closely watched governor’s race.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, one of his party’s most vulnerable incumbents, doesn’t outright oppose building data centers on public lands, as long as they have community support. He recently signed an agreement with Trump’s Republican administration to streamline infrastructure projects, which could include data centers on federal lands.

Democratic nominee Aaron Ford, the state attorney general, has pledged to oppose data centers on public lands, saying affordable housing should be the priority.

Both say the projects, whether on public or private land, must follow state rules, such as requiring data centers to cover their own energy costs and protecting water supplies, or they would lose eligibility for state tax abatements.

Voters across the political spectrum unite against data centers

Sorenson, the Boulder City resident, considers herself a liberal, but she said her conservative neighbors are on the same page as she is.

“We’re all aligned on this,” she said.

Autumn McGrath-Shook, who lives in the same town, said she recently left the GOP and registered with the Green Party over data centers, though she still identifies as conservative. Worried about the environmental impact on wildlife, she joined forces with “these crazy libs” to oppose the project.

Data centers have quickly become a “catalyzing issue” in the midterms, catching many politicians flat-footed, said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Some state leaders who were previously supportive of data centers have rushed to respond. For example, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott paused data center approvals until audits are completed, and Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro signed an executive order removing data center proposals from a fast-track permitting process and requiring them to receive local approval before seeking state approval.

In August, Ford announced his plan to pause new tax abatements for data centers while an audit is conducted to see whether the projects have fulfilled promises about producing tax revenue and economic benefits.

In September, Lombardo, who has said data centers provide enormous economic opportunity for Nevada, signed an executive order placing more guardrails on them and requiring them to pay more taxes to support schools.

The two have successfully “muddied the waters” on their data center positions, Damore said.

Lombardo criticized Ford for co-sponsoring 2015 legislation that created the state’s tax abatement program for the facilities, a measure that received bipartisan support. Ford criticized Lombardo for giving more than $200 million in tax breaks to data centers, which is connected to the legislation that Ford co-sponsored.

Ford told the Associated Press that he would use “every tool” at his disposal to prevent data centers from skirting state guardrails, including withholding tax abatements and pursuing litigation.

Lombardo, whose campaign declined to make him available for an interview, has a similar pitch. His office said he would not hesitate to confront the federal government to advocate for Nevadans.

But that’s not good enough for McGrath-Shook, who is on the fence in the governor’s race. She thinks Ford is soft on crime, but she views Lombardo as more pro-data centers.

“I would much rather vote for Lombardo than Aaron Ford in a normal world,” she said. “But with the looming data centers, it really changes the landscape — and literally.”

Data centers on public lands are the latest effort in AI race

Last year, Trump signed an executive order to accelerate permitting for AI data centers, and his administration has rolled back the National Environmental Policy Act, saying the bedrock law needlessly delays federal approval for energy and infrastructure projects.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry wants to be a part of the conversation about responsible development on federal lands.

“The good-faith actors in this space are going to be approaching that development responsibly,” he said, “ensuring that it’s going to do no harm on important federal lands.”

But environmentalists are concerned about data centers developing on federal lands to skirt environmental protections and laws and circumvent permitting processes. They’re generally opposed to using public lands for the projects in the first place.

“We believe that public lands are reserved for public good and should be protected and kept in trust for future generations,” said Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe Chapter. “And the idea of using public lands for data center construction totally flies in the face of that set of values.”

She said Congress should pass legislation with new standards for environmental reviews and public engagement that could slow development.

“Short of some type of legislation to that effect,” Tanager said, “we’re staring down the barrel of having many data centers move forward on public lands over the next few years.”

Hill writes for the Associated Press.