federal government

WASHINGTON — Around 2 a.m., noisy revelers emerging from clubs and bars packed the sidewalks of U Street in Washington, many of them seeking a late-night slice or falafel. A robust but not unusual contingent of city police cruisers lingered around the edges of the crowds. At other late-night hot spots, nearly identical scenes unfolded.

What wasn’t apparent in Friday’s earliest hours: any sort of security lockdown by a multiagency flood of uniformed federal law enforcement officers. That’s what President Trump had promised Thursday, starting at midnight, in the administration’s latest move to impose its will on the nation’s capital.

In short, that law enforcement surge to take control of the District of Columbia’s streets did not appear to unfold on schedule. A two-hour city tour, starting around 1 a.m. Friday, revealed no overt or visible law enforcement presence other than members of the Metropolitan Police Department, the city’s police force.

That might change in the coming evenings as Trump puts into action his long-standing plans to “take over” a capital city he has repeatedly slammed as unsafe, filthy and badly run. According to his declaration last week, the security lockdown will run for seven days, “with the option to extend as needed.” In an online post Saturday, the Republican president said the Democratic-led city would soon be one of the country’s safest and he announced a White House news conference for Monday, though he offered no details.

On Friday night, a White House official said Thursday night’s operations included arrests for possession of two stolen firearms, suspected fentanyl and marijuana. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said more than 120 members of various federal agencies — the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service — were to be on duty Friday night, upping the complement of federal officers involved.

“This is the first step in stopping the violent crime that has been plaguing the streets of Washington, D.C.,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

Mayor Muriel Bowser, who publicly faced off against Trump in 2020 when he called in a massive federal law enforcement response to disperse crowds of protesters denouncing police brutality and racial profiling, has not said a public word since Trump’s declaration. The Metropolitan Police Department has gone similarly silent.

A crackdown came after an assault

The catalyst for this latest round of takeover drama was an assault Aug. 3 during an attempted carjacking on a high-profile member of the White House’s government-slashing team known as the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly headed by Elon Musk.

Police arrested two 15-year-olds and were seeking others. Trump quickly renewed his calls for the federal government to seize control.

“If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media site.

He later told reporters he was considering a range of alternatives, including repealing Washington’s limited “home rule” autonomy and “bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly,” as he did in Los Angeles in response to protests over his administration’s immigration crackdown.

The threats come at a time when Bowser’s government can tout a reduction in the number of homicides and carjackings, both of which surged in 2023. The number of carjackings overall dropped significantly in 2024, from 957 to just under 500, and is on track to decline again this year, with fewer than 200 recorded so far.

The proportion of juveniles arrested on suspicion of carjacking, though, has remained above 50%, and Bowser’s government has taken steps to rein in a recent phenomenon of rowdy teenagers causing disarray and disturbances in public spaces.

Emergency legislation passed by the D.C. Council this summer imposed tighter youth curfew restrictions and empowered Police Chief Pamela Smith to declare temporary juvenile curfew zones for four days at a time. In those areas, a gathering of nine or more people younger than 18 is unlawful after 8 p.m.

Within presidential authority

Trump is within his powers in deploying federal law enforcement assets on D.C. streets. He could deploy the National Guard, although that is not one of the dozen participating agencies listed in his declaration. The first Trump administration called in the National Guard during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and again on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol in a failed attempt to overturn his election defeat.

Further steps, including taking over the Police Department, would require a declaration of emergency. Legal experts believe that would most likely be challenged in court. Such an approach would fit the general pattern of Trump’s second term in office, when he has declared states of emergency on issues ranging from border protection to economic tariffs. In many cases, he moved forward while the courts sorted it out.

Imposing a full federal takeover of Washington would require a congressional repeal of the Home Rule Act of 1973. It’s a step that Trump said his administration’s lawyers are examining.

That law was specific to Washington, not other communities in the United States that have their own home rule powers but generally retain representation in their state legislatures, said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia.

Signed into law by President Nixon, the measure allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor, council and local commissioners. The district had been previously run by federally appointed commissioners and members of Congress, some of whom balked at having to deal with potholes and other details of running a city of 700,000 residents.

So far, Trump’s criticisms of Washington can be felt most directly in the actions of the National Park Service, which controls large pieces of land throughout the capital. In Trump’s current administration, the agency has stepped up its clearing of homeless encampments on Park Service land and recently carried out a series of arrests of people smoking marijuana in public parks.

The agency said last week that a statue of a Confederate military leader that was toppled by protesters in 2020 would be restored and replaced, in line with an executive order.

Khalil and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mike Pesoli, Michael Kunzelman and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — In past Olympic Games held on American soil, sitting presidents have served in passive, ceremonial roles. President Trump may have other plans.

An executive order signed by Trump on Tuesday names him chair of a White House task force on the 2028 Games in Los Angeles, viewed by the president as “a premier opportunity to showcase American exceptionalism,” according to a White House statement. Trump, the administration said, “is taking every opportunity to showcase American greatness on the world stage.”

At the White House, speaking in front of banners adding the presidential seal to the logo for LA28, Trump said he would send the military back to Los Angeles if he so chose in order to protect the Games. In June, Trump sent the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city amid widespread immigration enforcement actions, despite widespread condemnation from Mayor Karen Bass and other local officials.

“We’ll do anything necessary to keep the Olympics safe, including using our National Guard or military, OK?” he said. “I will use the National Guard or the military. This is going to be so safe. If we have to.”

Trump’s executive order establishes a task force led by him and Vice President JD Vance to steer federal coordination for the Games. The task force will work with federal, state and local partners on security and transportation, according to the White House.

Those roles have been fairly standard for the federal government in past U.S.-hosted Olympic Games. But Trump’s news conference could present questions about whether a president with a penchant for showmanship might assume an unusually active role in planning the Olympics, set to take place in the twilight of his final term.

There is ample precedent for military and National Guard forces providing security support during U.S.-hosted Olympic Games. But coming on the heels of the recent military deployment to Los Angeles, Trump’s comments may prove contentious.

French president Emmanuel Macron was a key figure in preparations for last year’s Paris Games, including expressing his vocal support for the ambitious Olympic opening ceremony plan to parade athletes down the Seine River on boats. Many officials were concerned about potential threats along the 3.7-mile stretch, but authorities responded by increasing security measures that included up to 45,000 police officers and 10,000 soldiers.

The task force, to be housed within the Department of Homeland Security, will “assist in the planning and implementation of visa processing and credentialing programs for foreign athletes, coaches, officials, and media personnel,” the executive order said. City officials have expressed concern that the president’s border policies could deter international visitors and complicate visa processing for Olympic teams.

Tensions with L.A.

More concentrated involvement from Trump could spell further strain with Los Angeles city officials, who sought to make nice in the wake of devastating January fires, but have fiercely bucked Trump’s recent immigration offensive. Trump swiped at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass during his remarks on Tuesday, calling her “not very competent” and criticizing the pace of city permitting for fire rebuilding. (Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Known for her coalition-building skills, Bass is not, by nature, a public brawler. In the aftermath of the Palisades fire, she appeared determined to preserve her fragile relationship with the president — and the billions of dollars of federal aid her city was depending on — responding diplomatically even as he publicly attacked her.

But that determined cordiality crumbled when masked immigration agents and military personnel descended on the city. With troops stationed in the city and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal authorities arresting undocumented immigrants at courthouses, car washes and Home Depot parking lots, Bass took on Trump forcefully.

At news conferences and in interviews, she accused the president of waging “an all-out assault on Los Angeles, inciting chaos and fear and using the city as “a test case for an extremist agenda.”

Casey Wasserman, chairman of LA28, attended the White House event, thanking Trump for “leaning in” to planning for an Olympics that was awarded to Los Angeles during his first term.

“You’ve been supportive and helpful every step of the way,” Wasserman said, noting that the Games would amount to hosting seven Super Bowls a day for 30 days. “With the creation of this task force, we’ve unlocked the opportunity to level up our planning and deliver the largest, and yes, greatest Games for our nation, ever.”

Wasserman will also have a delicate political balancing act, managing a Games in a deep-blue city with a famously mercurial Republican president in office.

President Trump holds a full set of medals from the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles during Tuesday’s event at which he announced an executive order regarding federal involvement in the 2028 Los Angeles Games.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

A Hollywood scion and sports and entertainment mogul, Wasserman has long been a prominent Democratic donor known for his close relationship with the Clintons.

But in recent months he has diversified his giving, with hefty donations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership fund. Wasserman has publicly praised Trump’s commitment to the Games and traveled to Mar-a-Lago in January to meet with the incoming president.

Presidents have long played a role in the Games. In 1984, Ronald Reagan formally opened the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, becoming the first American president to do so. Reagan attended several Olympic events, but repeatedly emphasized the federal government’s role was focused on security, according to the White House Historical Assn.

The Olympic Charter requires the host country’s head of state to officially open the Games, but before Reagan, the duty had been fulfilled by local political leaders or vice presidents representing the president.

Ever-tightening security

The federal government has historically provided significant funding when the Games are hosted on U.S. soil, with financial support going toward both security and infrastructure.

Leading up to the 1996 Games in Atlanta, the federal government spent $227 million on security and transportation, playing “very much a junior partner” to the Olympic Committee, then-Vice President Al Gore said at the time. Still, a bombing at the Centennial Olympic Park during the games that summer shook the security establishment.

The 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City were the first Games to be classified as a “National Special Security Event,” the government’s highest security rating for any event that designates the U.S. Secret Service as the lead agency for implementing security. That standard has remained in place for U.S.-held Olympic Games ever since. The Secret Service will also lead security coordination for the 2028 Games.

The federal government was particularly involved in the Salt Lake City games, which were held just months after the 9/11 attacks.

Los Angeles leaders are actively involved in the security planning, and are currently in negotiations with LA28 for the use of the city’s police, traffic officers, and other employees during the Olympics and Paralympics.

Security, trash removal, traffic control, paramedics and more will be needed during the 17-day Olympics and the two-week Paralympics the following month.

Under the 2021 Games agreement between LA28 and the city, LA28 must reimburse Los Angeles for any services that go beyond what the city would provide on a normal day. The two parties must agree by Oct. 1, 2025, on “enhanced services” — additional city services needed for the Games, beyond that normal level — and determine rates, repayment timelines, audit rights and other processes.

Overtime for Los Angeles police officers, and any other major expenses, would be acutely felt by a city government that recently closed a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, in part by slowing police hiring.

Wilner reported from Washington, Wick and Nguyen from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent demand that they turn over the personal information of millions of people receiving federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins informed states earlier this month that they would have to transmit the data to the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to comply with an executive order by President Trump. That order demanded that Trump’s agency appointees receive “full and prompt access” to all data associated with federal programs, so that they might identify and eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Last week, USDA officials informed state SNAP directors that the deadline for submitting the data is Wednesday and that failure to comply “may trigger noncompliance procedures” — including the withholding of funds.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the “unprecedented” demand “violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws” and “further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.”

Bonta’s office noted that states have administered the equivalent of SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — for 60 years. It said that California alone receives “roughly $1 billion a year” to administer the program in the state and that “any delay in that funding could be catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.”

The USDA has demanded data for all current and former SNAP recipients since the start of 2020, including “all household group members names, dates of birth, social security numbers, residential and mailing addresses,” as well as “transactional records from each household” that show the dollar amounts they spent and where. It said it may also collect information about people’s income.

Meanwhile, a Privacy Impact Assessment published by the agency showed that it also is collecting data on people’s education, employment, immigration status and citizenship.

The USDA and other Trump administration officials have said the initiative will save taxpayers money by eliminating “information silos” that allow inefficiencies and fraud to fester in federal programs.

“It is imperative that USDA eliminates bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency and enhances the government’s ability not only to have point-in-time information but also to detect overpayments and fraud,” Rollins wrote in a July 9 letter to the states.

The Trump administration, which is pursuing what Trump has called the biggest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the nation’s history, has requested sensitive data from other federal programs and services — including Medicaid and the IRS — to share with immigration officials.

That has raised alarm among Democrats, who have said that tying such services to immigration enforcement will put people’s health at risk and decrease tax revenue. California sued the Trump administration earlier this month for sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

On Monday, Bonta raised similar alarms about the administration’s demand for SNAP data, questioning what it will do with the information and how families that rely on such assistance will react. His office said it appeared to be “the next step” in the administration’s anti-immigrant campaign.

“President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information — not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services,” Bonta said. “We’re talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences.”

Bonta said the USDA demand for SNAP benefits data is illegal under established law, and that California “will not comply” while it takes the administration to court.

“The president doesn’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,” Bonta said. “While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.”

The new data collection does not follow established processes for the federal government to audit state data without collecting it wholesale. During a recently concluded public comment period, Bonta and other liberal attorneys general submitted a comment arguing that the data demand violates the Privacy Act.

“USDA should rethink this flawed and unlawful proposal and instead work with the States to improve program efficiency and integrity through the robust processes already in place,” they wrote.

Last week, California and other states sued the Trump administration over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen other federally funded benefit programs, including Head Start, short-term and emergency shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, healthcare services and adult education programs.

The states did not include USDA in that lawsuit despite its issuing a similar notice, writing that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.

Bonta announced Monday’s lawsuit along with New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James. Joining them in the lawsuit were Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky.

WASHINGTON — Despite the sun bearing down on him and the sweat beading across his face, President Trump still lingered with reporters lined up outside the White House on Friday. He was leaving on a trip to Scotland, where he would visit his golf courses, and he wanted to talk about how his administration just finished “the best six months ever.”

But over and over, the journalists kept asking Trump about the Jeffrey Epstein case and whether he would pardon the disgraced financier’s imprisoned accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

“People should really focus on how well the country is doing,” Trump insisted. He shut down another question by saying, “I don’t want to talk about that.”

It was another example of how the Epstein saga — and his administration’s disjointed approach to it — has shadowed Trump when he’s otherwise at the height of his influence. He’s enacted a vast legislative agenda, reached trade deals with key countries and tightened his grip across the federal government. Yet he’s struggled to stamp out the embers of a political crisis that could become a full-on conflagration.

Trump faces pressure from his own supporters

The Republican president’s supporters want the government to release secret files about Epstein, who authorities say killed himself in his New York jail cell six years ago while awaiting trial for sex trafficking. They believe him to be the nexus of a dark web of powerful people who abused underage girls. Administration officials who once stoked conspiracy theories now insist there’s nothing more to disclose, a stance that has stirred skepticism because of Trump’s former friendship with Epstein.

Trump has repeatedly denied prior knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and claimed he cut off their relationship long ago. For a president skilled at manipulating the media and controlling the Republican Party, it has been the most challenging test of his ability to shift the conversation in his second term.

“This is a treadmill to nowhere. How do you get off of it?” said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. “I genuinely don’t know the answer to that.”

Trump has demanded his supporters drop the matter and urged Republicans to block Democratic requests for documents on Capitol Hill. But he has also directed the Justice Department to divulge some additional information in hopes of satisfying his supporters.

A White House official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said Trump is trying to stay focused on his agenda while also demonstrating some transparency. After facing countless scandals and investigations, the official said, Trump is on guard against the typical playbook of drip-drip disclosures that have plagued him in the past.

It’s clear Trump sees the Epstein case as a continuation of the “witch hunts” he’s faced over the years, starting with the investigation into Russian interference during his election victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton nearly a decade ago. The sprawling inquiry led to convictions against some top advisors but did not substantiate allegations Trump conspired with Moscow.

Trump’s opponents, he wrote on social media on Thursday, “have gone absolutely CRAZY, and are playing another Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax but, this time, under the guise of what we will call the Jeffrey Epstein SCAM.”

During the Russia investigation, special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors were a straightforward foil for Trump to rail against. Ty Cobb, the lawyer who served as the White House’s point person, said the president “never felt exposed” because “he thought he had a legitimate gripe.”

The situation is different this time now that the Justice Department has been stocked with loyalists. “The people that he has to get mad at are basically his people as opposed to his inquisitors and adversaries,” Cobb said.

It was Trump’s allies who excavated the Epstein debacle

In fact, Trump’s own officials are the most responsible for bringing the Epstein case back to the forefront.

FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, regularly stoked conspiracy theories about Epstein before assuming their current jobs, floating the idea the government had covered up incriminating and compelling information that needed to be brought to light. “Put on your big-boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are,” Patel said in a 2023 podcast.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi played a key role too. She intimated in a Fox News Channel interview in February that an Epstein “client list” was sitting on her desk for review — she would later say she was referring to the Epstein files more generally — and greeted far-right influencers with binders of records from the case that consisted largely of information already in the public domain.

Tensions spiked earlier this month when the FBI and the Justice Department, in an unsigned two-page letter, said that no client list existed, that the evidence was clear Epstein had killed himself and that no additional records from the case would be released to the public. It was a seeming backtrack on the administration’s stated commitment to transparency. Amid a fierce backlash from Trump’s base and influential conservative personalities, Bongino and Bondi squabbled openly in a tense White House meeting.

Since then, the Trump administration has scrambled to appear transparent, including by seeking the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the case — though it’s hardly clear that courts would grant that request or that those records include any eye-catching details anyway. Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche has taken the unusual step of interviewing the imprisoned Maxwell over the course of two days at a courthouse in Tallahassee, Fla., where her lawyer said she would “always testify truthfully.”

All the while, Trump and his allies have resurfaced the Russia investigation as a rallying cry for a political base that has otherwise been frustrated by the Epstein saga.

Trump’s director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who just weeks ago appeared on the outs with Trump over comments on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, seemed to return to the president’s good graces this week following the declassification and release of years-old documents she hoped would discredit long-settled conclusions about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The developments allowed Trump to rehash long-standing grievances against President Obama and his Democratic advisors. Trump’s talk of investigations into perceived adversaries from years ago let him, in effect, go back in time to deflect attention from a very current crisis.

“Whether it’s right or wrong,” Trump said, “it’s time to go after people.”

Megerian and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

There have been numerous legal challenges to President Trump’s immigration sweeps across California that have led to at least 3,000 arrests.

But one lawsuit has the potential to dramatically alter the policy.

The ruling

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sparked widespread protests since early June.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, an appointee of President Biden, temporarily blocked federal agents in the Southland from using racial profiling to carry out immigration arrests after she found sufficient evidence that agents were using race, a person’s job or their location, and their language to form “reasonable suspicion” — the legal standard needed to detain an individual.

Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The order covers Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

The judge also ordered that all those in custody at a downtown detention facility known as B-18 must be given 24-hour access to lawyers and a confidential phone line.

On Monday, the administration asked a federal appeals court to stay the judge’s order blocking the roving patrols, allowing it to resume raids across the seven California counties.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

What experts are saying

Legal experts say it’s hard to say just how successful the federal government will be in getting a stay on the temporary order, given the current political climate.

“This is different from a lot of the other kinds of Trump litigation because the law is so clear in the fact finding by the district court,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “So if you follow basic legal principles, this is a very weak case for the government on appeal, but it’s so hard to predict what will happen because everything is so ideological.”

In the past, legal scholars say, it would be extremely uncommon for an appeals court to weigh in on such an order. But recent events suggest it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Courts have backed Trump’s immigration policies in other cases.

• In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the federal government to deport convicted criminals to “third countries” even if they lack a prior connection to those countries.
• That same month, it also ruled 6 to 3 to limit the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders blocking the president’s policies, which was frequently a check on executive power.
• In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities. California had sued against the deployment.

It’s not an easy case for the government, said Ahilan Arulanantham, professor of practice and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

“I think one thing which makes this case maybe a little bit harder for the government than some of the other shadow docket cases is it really does affect citizens in an important way,” he said. “Obviously the immigration agent doesn’t know in advance when they come up to somebody whether they’re a citizen or a noncitizen or if they’re lawfully present or not.”

What is next?

The Frimpong ruling is now on appeal.

The plaintiffs argued in their complaint that immigration agents cornered brown-skinned people in Home Depot parking lots, at car washes and at bus stops across Southern California in a show of force without establishing reasonable suspicion that they had violated immigration laws. They allege agents didn’t identify themselves, as required under federal law, and made unlawful arrests without warrants.

Government lawyers argued in their motion that “ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion in appropriate circumstances — for instance, if agents are acting on a tip that identifies that ethnicity — even if it would not be relevant in other circumstances,” lawyers stated in their motion.

Attorneys said in the motion that speaking Spanish, being at a particular location or one’s job “can contribute to reasonable suspicion in at least some circumstances.”

Government lawyers said Frimpong’s injunction was a first step to placing immigration enforcement under judicial monitorship and was “indefensible on every level.” They asked the higher court to pause the order while the appeal is heard.

The government is also appealing another injunction imposed by a federal judge in the Eastern District of California after Border Patrol agents stopped and arrested dozens of farmworkers and laborers — including a U.S. citizen — during a days-long operation in the Central Valley in January.

That case is likely to be heard later this year.

California is having a bummer of a political summer.

With the state under daily siege by the Trump administration, Los Angeles occupied by federal troops and our gallivanting governor busy running for president, is it really any surprise?

A recent UC Irvine poll found that residents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe California is headed on the wrong track, a mood consistent with other gauges of Golden State grumpiness.

Why the sad faces?

“We are so divided as a country that people feel like there’s no common purpose and the other guys are out there about to do mayhem to the things that they believe in,” said Jon Gould, dean of UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology. “Number two, there is a substantial portion of people who feel that their economic situation is worse than it was four years ago, two years ago, one year ago.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom also gets some credit, er, blame for the state’s darkened disposition.

A poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found California voters have little faith in their chief executive as he rounds the turn toward his final year in office. (Which may be one reason Newsom would rather spend time laying the groundwork for a 2028 White House bid.)

Only 14% of voters surveyed had “a lot” of trust in Newsom to act in the best interests of the California public, while another 28% trusted him “somewhat.” Fifty-three percent had no trust in the governor, or only “a little.”

Not a strong foundation for a presidential campaign, but Potomac fever is a powerful thing.

The Democratic-run Legislature fared about the same in the Berkeley survey.

Forty-four percent of respondents had either a lot or some degree of trust in Sacramento lawmakers — not a great look, but a number that positively shines compared to attitudes toward California’s tech companies and their leaders as they increasingly try to spread their overweening influence to politics. Only 4% had a lot of trust in the companies acting in the best interest of the California public; nearly six in 10 did not trust them at all. (There was similarly little faith in business groups.)

But it’s not just the state’s leaders and institutions that fail to engender much trust or goodwill.

A survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found residents have also soured on the three branches of the federal government.

Fewer than a third of Californians expressed approval for President Trump and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Just 2 in 10 Californians approved of the job Congress is doing.

Some of that is colored by partisan attitudes. Registered Democrats make up the largest portion of the electorate and, obviously, most aren’t happy with the GOP stranglehold on Washington. But that distrust transcended red and blue loyalties.

Overall, 8 in 10 adults said they do not fully trust the federal government to do what is right. A nearly identical percentage said they trust the government to do what is right only some of the time.

That, too, is part of a long-standing pattern.

“It’s a concern, but it’s not a new concern,” said Mark Baldassare, who directs research for the Public Policy Institute. “It’s been around in some form for decades.”

Back in 1958, when the National Election Study first asked, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time — a level of faith that, today, sounds like it comes from people in another galaxy.

Starting in the 1960s, with the escalation of the Vietnam War, and continuing through the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, that trust has steadily eroded. The last time the Pew Research Center asked the question, in the spring of 2024, just 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationwide said they trusted the federal government just about always or most of the time. That compared to just 11% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

What’s new — and perhaps most troubling — in the recent batch of opinion surveys are growing fears for the state of our democracy.

Nearly two-thirds of those sampled in the Berkeley poll felt that “American democracy is under attack” and another 26% described it as “being tested.” Only 1 in 10 said our democracy is in “no danger.”

America has had some knock-down political fights in recent decades. But it’s only in the Trump era, with his incessant lying about the 2020 election and assault on the rule of law, that the durability of our democracy has become a widespread concern.

Pollsters didn’t even ask that question “10 years ago, 20 years ago, because it was just inconceivable,” said Eric Schickler, who co-directs Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

“Even in moments when people were mad, say after [Hurricane] Katrina, Iraq with Bush, or amid the Lewinsky scandal or various other moments of trouble and conflict you would never have seen… 64% say American democracy is under attack and only 10% saying democracy is not in danger,” Schickler said. “That’s just a pretty stunning number … and I think it suggests something really different is going on now.”

Perhaps this is just a temporary cloud, like the coastal fog that dissipates as summer rolls on?

“In the short to medium term, I’m not optimistic,” Schickler said. “I think that the problems that we have, the challenges, have just been growing over a period of time. Starting before the Trump era, for sure, but then accelerating in recent years. I think we’re heading more toward a politics where there just aren’t limits on what a party in power is going to do or try to accomplish, and the other party is an enemy and that’s a really bad dynamic.”

Oh, well.

There’s always the mountains, beach and desert offering Californians an escape.

The Trump administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to allow immigration agents to resume unfettered raids across Southern California, seeking to overturn a federal judge’s order in Los Angeles that barred “roving patrols” in seven counties.

The order “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced, severely infringing on the President’s Article II authority,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a motion asking for an emergency stay on Monday. “These harms will be compounded the longer that injunction is in place.”

After weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked and heavily armed federal agents, the operations seemingly ceased in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties following a temporary restraining order granted Friday night by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sown terror and sparked widespread protest since June 6.

“It should tell you everything you need to know that the federal government is rushing to appeal an order that instructs them only to follow the Constitution,” said Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “We look forward to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring that communities across Southern California are safe from the federal government’s violence.”

Despite arguments from the Trump administration that its tactics are valid, Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The judge found that preventing detainees from meeting with lawyers violates the right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

“What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening,” she wrote.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem incorrectly referred to Frimpong as a man when responding to the order during a news conference Saturday, saying of the judge’s order: “He’s an idiot.”

“We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we’re going to do. So none of our operations are going to change,” Noem said. “We’re going to appeal it and we’re going to win.”

In addition to blocking roving patrols, the judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open part of its detention facility in Downtown Los Angeles to attorneys and legal aid groups.

“While the district court injunction is a significant victory for immigrants, the whiplash of court orders and appeals breeds uncertainty,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco. “That form of real-world insecurity weakens communities and undermines democratic values in places like LA.”

The Trump administration did not immediately contest the 5th Amendment portion of the ruling. Instead, its attacked the 4th Amendment claim, seeking a stay that would immediately restore the status quo for immigration agents across Southern California while the case is heard by judges from the higher court.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

But some experts say that’s unlikely.

“Their argument [is] the sky’s falling,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “They make very extreme arguments, and that doesn’t necessarily help their case in the 9th Circuit.”

The appeal escalates an already fierce and sprawling legal battle over Trump’s promised mass deportations and the means used to achieve it.

After the president deployed troops to quell anti-ICE protests in June, California sued and won a temporary restraining order that would have stripped the president of command.

The appellate panel swiftly blocked that decision, before overturning it in mid-June, leaving thousands of soldiers in Trump’s hands.

But the Trump appointee who authored the June 19 ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, also bristled at the government’s argument that the president’s actions in the case were “unreviewable.”

“Some of the things they say are unorthodox, arguments we don’t usually hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as executive overreach, they’re saying the judiciary’s efforts to put limits on executive power is judicial overreach.”

Last week, another 9th Circuit judge challenged that June decision, petitioning the court to rehear the issue with a larger “en banc” panel — a move that could nudge the case to the Supreme Court.

“Before [courts] became so politicized, many judges would often defer to the 3-judge panels that first heard appeals, because they trusted their colleagues,” Tobias said. “Increasing politicization of most appeals courts and somewhat decreased collegiality complicate efforts to predict how the Ninth’s judges will vote in this case.”

Meanwhile, California is gathering evidence to bolster its claim that Marines and National Guard forces participating in immigration enforcement run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids using soldiers to enforce civilian laws.

Compared to those questions, the legal issues in the L.A. appeal are simple, experts said.

“What makes this case different is how much it’s based on facts,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It’s much harder for an appellate court to overturn a trial court finding of fact then it is with regard to legal conclusions.”

“I’m going to give you everything you want,” President Trump told disaster-stricken residents and local officials. “I’m going to give you more than any president would have ever given you.”

That was in January, in Los Angeles, in the wake of the catastrophic Palisades and Eaton fires. If Trump could express such magnanimity in California, typically the blue-state butt of his partisan jabs and threats, imagine what he’ll tell red-state Texans on Friday when he visits the flood-ravaged Hill Country, where the usually easy-going Guadalupe River turned mass killer on the Fourth of July.

He’s sure to promise that the federal government will spare no expense. (Note: California is still waiting.) But words are cheap, especially for the truth-challenged Trump. Even as the president, playing Daddy Warbucks, promises money in the moment, he must be held to account for his administration’s continued mindless axing of federal funds and government-wide expertise (a process greenlighted on Tuesday by the ever-accommodating Supreme Court) — and not least in gutting essential agencies that forecast weather, warn of storms and then help Americans recover from disasters.

Trump isn’t to blame for the deaths and destruction in Texas. But raising questions about the effect of his, and the now-disfavored Elon Musk’s, reckless rampage through government offices isn’t “depraved and despicable,” as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt fulminated on Monday. It’s merely holding the government to account, which is, to be sure, a foreign concept to a president accustomed to impunity. (Leavitt’s protestations are particularly rich considering that Trump falsely blamed then-President Biden after Hurricane Helene during last year’s campaign, and initially suggested on Sunday that the Texas tragedy was somehow a “Biden set-up.”)

For a decade now, Trump has exploited Americans’ disdain of government, even when he’s at the head of it. But Americans don’t like government until they need it, and they expect it to keep them safe in the meantime. Because Trump is taking Musk’s chainsaw to federal agencies, with the acquiescence of Congress’ Republican majorities, he should be on the defensive from here on out for every emergency, crisis and tragedy that might have been prevented or at least mitigated by federal action.

Most of Trump’s proposed and attempted cuts have yet to take effect. Some — say, cutbacks in public health and scientific research programs — might not be fully felt for years. Yet even if administration reductions, eliminations and layoffs aren’t culpable this time, in this tragedy, what about the next? Because there will be a next time.

Consider: Climate change is demonstrably turbocharging the number and intensity of severe storms, yet Trump’s budget calls for closing the National Severe Storms Laboratory, which has pioneered forecasting technology for years.

It’s way past time to ignore the familiar post-catastrophe mantra that people inappropriately politicize calamity by raising questions, proposing remedies and, yes, laying blame: Only thoughts and prayers allowed. We’ve heard it in recent days not only from the likes of Leavitt, but also from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and his fellow Republican, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who inserted further cuts to weather forecasting funds as part of the One Big Ugly Bill that Trump signed into law on the Fourth, as Texans dealt with the flood nightmare.

The victims deserve more. We all do.

For months since Trump took office and began his slashing spree on Day 1 with his executive orders, critics and experts have predicted that his actions could boomerang, in particular when it comes to weather-related threats, such as the hurricane season underway.

Just to cite one example: Back in April, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, the senior Democrat on the House committee that oversees the National Weather Service, complained (presciently?), “Chaotic and illegal firings, coercions to resign, reductions in force, and a general obsession with destroying the morale of dedicated public servants have left the National Weather Service’s work force so strained they cannot carry out their duties as they once did.”

So when we have a natural disaster like that in Texas, where survivors lament inadequate warnings, why should Lofgren or anyone else keep quiet and just think and pray? It’s political, but it’s proper as well that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York asked for an investigation of whether staffing shortfalls at the weather service contributed to the Texas flood’s death toll. A Republican, Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, cited Texas’ plight at a Senate hearing on Wednesday to complain that Trump’s federal hiring freeze has also left his state and others short of meteorologists, and without 24/7 coverage when tornadoes ripped through Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas in May.

Early evidence and anecdotes suggest that federal forecasters did their job in warning Texans of flooding hours in advance. But years of penny-pinching and antitax zeal at the local and state levels, especially, meant that the region — known as “flash flood alley” — had no system in place to adequately transmit the warnings to rural residents in the dead of night.

Yet the feds — Trump mainly — still have much to answer for. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the National Weather Service, was among the earliest targets of his misnamed Department of Government Efficiency. Trump said he wants to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency completely.

Months before the storm, a union official representing staff of the weather service, Tom Fahy, told the New York Times that its offices nationwide were “struggling to maintain operations” amid what the agency acknowledged as “severe shortages” of meteorologists and other employees. After the storm, Fahy said that vacancies at the two offices overseeing the Texas Hill Country were roughly double what they were when Trump took office. The longtime “warning coordination meteorologist” for the Hill Country in April announced that he was “sad” to prematurely end his career amid the administration cutbacks and early-retirement offers.

A local media outlet lamented the man’s departure: “The importance of experience” in the job he’d held “cannot be understated.” Abbott is being defensive, as he should be. “Who’s to blame?” the three-term governor snapped at a reporter on Tuesday. “That’s the word choice of losers.” Expect more such vituperation when the Guv greets his friend, the president, on Friday — from both men — should anyone suggest they bear any blame.

Losers? If the word fits…

@Jackiekcalmes
@jackiecalmes.bsky.social
@jkcalmes

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday marked the six-month anniversary of the Eaton and Palisades fires with a call for billions in federal funding to support the state’s wildfire recovery, and offered a blistering critique of the Trump administration’s most recent immigration raids in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles.

So far, the GOP-led U.S. House of Representatives has made no progress on a request from Newsom, made in late February, for $40 billion in additional wildfire funding that would go toward rebuilding schools, churches, homes and hospitals.

Newsom said that fire funding is a nonpartisan issue, and that all U.S. states are “in this together.” He said that other states have outstanding requests for federal aid after their own natural disasters, and that the Republican-controlled House will “absolutely” come through. He urged federal lawmakers to do the same for Texas after last week’s deadly floods.

“South Carolina, I think they should get every penny that they need,” Newsom said. “North Carolina, they should get every penny that they need. … I expect that we will figure out a path, a bipartisan path, to support the people of the United States of America, and those include the 40 million Americans residing in California.”

But once again he found himself in the conflicting position of criticizing Republicans while asking them for disaster aid.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass had been scheduled to appear at the event, held at Pasadena City College, but did not attend after heavily armed federal immigration agents on horseback descended on MacArthur Park.

Newsom said the immigration raids were proof of President Trump’s “polluted heart,” a shift from the weeks after the fires when he tried to strike a more conciliatory tone as he pushed for more federal aid from Congress and the White House.

The federal government’s work in Los Angeles County has included a record-breaking debris removal program run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Newsom said Monday that 9,195 of the 9,873 properties enrolled in the federal government’s debris removal program have been cleared. That figure doesn’t include commercial buildings, which were not included in the Army Corps program, or the nearly 2,000 property owners who chose to hire their own private contractors for debris removal.

Newsom said the clearance was the fastest in California history, surpassing the cleanups that followed the 2018 Camp and Woolsey fires.

The federal government has reimbursed the state and local governments for direct response costs and paid for their own debris cleanup, said Brian Ferguson, a spokesperson for the governor. The federal government has also provided more than $3 billion in individual assistance to homeowners and small-business loans, he said.

Long-term recovery funding, which the federal government typically provides states after disasters, is expected to be determined by Congress after lawmakers return to work in September, Ferguson said.

Reps. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) and Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who represent Altadena and Pacific Palisades in Congress, said they were continuing to push for the supplemental aid package in Congress with “no strings.” Some Republicans have suggested linking aid to policy decisions in California, including changes to water policy or voter identification laws.

Sherman said California’s $40-billion request could get through the House “as a supplemental that also includes the Texas disaster and other disasters.”

Newsom and Trump appeared to put aside their political differences in January when the commander in chief traveled to Los Angeles to survey wildfire damage. After embracing on the tarmac at Los Angeles International Airport, the two sparring partners pledged to work together to rebuild the fire-ravaged communities.

Hours before the in-person meeting, the president had threatened to condition any wildfire funding on California agreeing to adopt more stringent voter identification laws. Trump has continued to point the finger at Newsom since the meeting, calling the governor and local officials “incompetent.”

In his final days in the White House, President Biden pledged that the federal government would cover 100% of disaster assistance costs to California for 180 days, and the Trump administration has “honored that commitment,” Newsom said Monday.

But Newsom hasn’t held back sharp critiques of the president’s leadership on other major topics, including immigration, tariffs, and healthcare funding. After discussing the state’s response to the wildfires, Newsom condemned the federal immigration raids on Monday in MacArthur Park as “a disgrace.”

The timing isn’t a coincidence, Newsom said. He said that an estimated 41% of the state’s construction workforce is working without legal status, and that immigration raids could shake a sector that is “foundational” to the state’s recovery.

“They know what they’re doing,” he said. “And then again, they have no idea what they’re doing. Their ignorance is legendary. And the impacts of this will be felt in the recovery — and that’s on them. Donald Trump owns that. He owns the cruelty, he owns the arrogance.”

An independent commission is urging the California Legislature to establish a new local authority to oversee and coordinate rebuilding after the most destructive fires in Los Angeles County history.

The call for state legislation to create the new rebuilding authority is one of the top proposals of the 20-member Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire-Safe Recovery, which on Friday issued its final recommendations.

Commission members said the new entity would be critical to manage the monumental rebuilding efforts after the January firestorms, which claimed at least 29 lives and destroyed 18,000 homes and other properties.

“The severity of the situation needs extraordinary measures. Business as usual just won’t work,” said Cecilia Estolano, a commission member and former CEO of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency.

The commission said the proposed Resilient Rebuilding Authority would streamline complex recovery efforts and prioritize the return of residents and businesses as neighborhoods are rebuilt in Altadena and Pacific Palisades.

The authority would use tax-increment financing and other funding sources to buy fire-razed lots that property owners want to sell and guide the rebuilding process — selecting developers and coordinating construction at scale. Those displaced by the fires would get first priority for the new homes.

The commission’s members said this would bring a coordinated approach, avoiding a free-for-all in which investors snap up properties and make new homes unaffordable for displaced people. The authority, the report said, is “designed to counterbalance the forces that drive displacement and inequality in the aftermath of disasters.”

“Left to business as usual, you will see this being driven by land speculation,” Estolano said. The aim is “a more balanced rebuilding, rather than one that’s purely determined by the marketplace.”

Under the commission’s recommendation, the Resilient Rebuilding Authority would be led by a board with members appointed by the governor, state lawmakers and local governments, and with citizen advisory boards providing guidance.

The commission also proposed asking voters to approve a ballot measure to create a new Los Angeles County Fire Control District, funded through a property tax, to focus on wildfire prevention, vegetation management and other efforts to reduce fire risks.

The panel said a property tax or fee, which would require voter approval, could either be assessed on properties in a certain area, or could be assessed county-wide, with higher fees in areas facing high fire hazards that require more investments.

The new district would be charged with creating and maintaining “greenspace buffer zones” between homes and open lands, and taking other measures to safeguard fire-vulnerable neighborhoods.

In all, the commission presented more than 50 recommendations, with a focus on rebuilding after the Palisades and Eaton fires in ways that prepare neighborhoods to better withstand intense wildfires worsened by climate change, and that also help address global warming by encouraging construction of all-electric homes.

The panel said L.A. County should fast-track permitting for all-electric homes, and the state should provide incentives to encourage electrification and solar power. The commission’s report says the new authority should “advance resilience and clean energy objectives.”

The Blue Ribbon Commission was formed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and includes representatives of businesses, local government, civic organizations and environmental groups.

“Key strategies like defensible space, solar with battery backup, and all-electric construction don’t just safeguard homes — they cut costs and protect our environment,” Horvath said, adding that the panel’s proposals lay the groundwork for a “climate-smart, fire-safe future.”

The commission, which had presented its initial proposals in May, said in its report that the fires represented one of the costliest climate disasters in U.S. history and a “harbinger of future risks facing the region in terms of extreme drought, weather, heat, and fire.”

The commission said its goal is to “enable communities to rise out of the ashes stronger.”

“Bold, coordinated action is needed to counter the risks of displacement, rising insurance costs, and deepening community vulnerability to future climate events,” the commission’s report says. “By acting decisively, Greater Los Angeles can become a model for climate-resilient, equitable recovery.”

Some of the commission’s other recommendations include changes such as:

• expanding the federal government’s fire debris removal program;
• standardizing soil testing and cleanup;
• ensuring that construction meets “fire-hardened” building standards and that building codes maximize spacing between buildings;
• creating “buffer zones” with appropriate vegetation to reduce fire risks;
• prioritizing additional water storage capacity in neighborhoods, and systems with external sprinklers to douse homes, parks and schools;
• and creating a voluntary program to “shift development from high-risk, constrained, or uninsurable parcels to more suitable sites.”

Some of these steps can be taken by city or county leaders, utilities or other entities.

Matt Petersen, the commission’s chair and chief executive of Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator, which works with startups to promote renewable energy, said the enormous task of rebuilding demands “additional resources and coordination and economies of scale that we think can only come through this authority.”

Similar development authorities have been set up to oversee rebuilding in areas devastated by other major disasters, such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

More than 40 academic experts from UCLA provided support to the commission, advising members on recovery and rebuilding after disasters.

“Without intentional, deliberate leadership by government, and by government that’s accountable to the communities, an unmanaged recovery process will only widen disparities,” said Megan Mullin, faculty director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, who led the university team. “That is seen over and over again through disaster recovery processes.”

Mullin said with strong guidance, government can streamline rebuilding in a way “that makes these communities more fire-safe, more climate-resilient.”

“We cannot ignore the importance of climate change in driving this growing fire hazard that’s looming for the Los Angeles region, and actually throughout the Southwest,” she said. “We can make it as easy as possible for people to rebuild, but to rebuild in a way that will leave them more protected going forward.”

Estolano, the former L.A. redevelopment chief, was displaced from her home in Altadena by the Eaton fire. The home, which she had rented, was damaged by the fire and smoke, and she moved to Los Feliz.

“What I loved most about that community is that it was a mix of incomes. It was a vibrant place with a lot of local commerce,” she said.

She said unless a rebuilding authority is established that can buy properties and hold down land values, that sort of community won’t come back.

“The authority could enable a fair price and give these folks a chance as their first look to return back to what homes will be rebuilt,” she said. “And that will not happen without an authority.”

The commission also called for the city, county and state to work with the new authority to launch a campaign to secure philanthropic contributions to support rebuilding, aiming to raise $200 million over the next 1-2 years, and to help leverage additional financial resources.

WASHINGTON — The go-broke dates for Medicare and Social Security trust funds have moved up as rising health care costs and new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, according to an annual report released Wednesday.

The go-broke date — or the date at which the programs will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — was pushed up to 2033 for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, according to the new report from the programs’ trustees. Last year’s report put the go-broke date at 2036.

Meanwhile, Social Security’s trust funds — which cover old age and disability recipients — will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits.

The trustees say the latest findings show the urgency of needed changes to the programs, which have faced dire financial projections for decades. But making changes to the programs has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare’s troubling math to the next generation.

President Trump and other Republicans have vowed not to make any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, even as they seek to shrink the federal government’s expenditures.

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, sworn into his role in May, said in a statement that “the financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration.”

“Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that needs to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers,” the trustees state in the report.

The trustees are made up of six people — the Treasury Secretary serves as managing trustee, alongside the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the commissioner of Social Security. Two other presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed trustees serve as public representatives, however those roles have been vacant since July 2015.

About 68 million people are enrolled in Medicare, the federal government’s health insurance that covers those 65 and older, as well as people with severe disabilities or illnesses.

Wednesday’s report shows a worsening situation for the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund compared to last year. But the forecasted go-broke date of 2033 is still later than the dates of 2031, 2028 and 2026 predicted just a few years ago.

Once the fund’s reserves become depleted, Medicare would be able to cover only 89% of costs for patients’ hospital visits, hospice care and nursing home stays or home health care that follow hospital visits.

The report said expenses last year for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund came in higher than expected.

Income exceeded expenditures by nearly $29 billion last year for the hospital insurance trust fund, the report stated. Trustees expect that surplus to continue through 2027. Deficits then will follow until the fund becomes depleted in 2033.

The report states that the Social Security Social Security Fairness Act, enacted in January, which repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions of the Social Security Act and increased Social Security benefit levels for some workers, had an impact on the depletion date of SSA’s trust funds.

Romina Boccia, a director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at the libertarian CATO Institute called the repeal of the provisions “a political giveaway masquerading as reform. Instead of tackling Social Security’s structural imbalances, Congress chose to increase benefits for a vocal minority—accelerating trust fund insolvency.”

“It’s a clear sign that populist pressure now outweighs fiscal responsibility and economic sanity on both sides of the aisle,” She said.

Pair that with a Republican reconciliation bill that increases tax giveaways while refusing to rein in even the most dubious Medicaid expansions, and the message is unmistakable: Washington is still in giveaway mode.

AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan said “Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into throughout their working lives.” “More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America’s population ages, the stability of this vital program only becomes more important.”

Social Security benefits were last reformed roughly 40 years ago, when the federal government raised the eligibility age for the program from 65 to 67. The eligibility age has never changed for Medicare, with people eligible for the medical coverage when they turn 65.

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the popular public benefit program said in a statement that “there are two options for action: Bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn’t support increasing Social Security’s revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts.”

Congressional Budget Office reporting has stated that the biggest drivers of debt rising in relation to GDP are increasing interest costs and spending for Medicare and Social Security. An aging population drives those numbers.

Several legislative proposals have been put forward to address Social Security’s impending insolvency.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Amanda Seitz and Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal.

The funding provisions “reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,” Tigar wrote.

He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, “it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.”

The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president’s executive orders.

The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities.

But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must “immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts” that promote DEI or gender ideology.

President Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to “align government funding and enforcement strategies” with his policies.

Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who has led an effort in the Trump administration to cut jobs and programs across the federal government, stood by President Trump’s side on Friday in the Oval Office, officially for the last time as a government employee. But neither man was clear whether Musk’s active hand in government is truly over.

Their display of unity comes after Musk, the entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, issued a series of criticisms of Trump’s policies, both directly and through his companies, and as reports emerge that the billionaire fought fierce battles with the president’s aides and has relied on potent drugs while serving as Trump’s confidante.

“Nobody like him,” Trump said of Musk at the White House event. “He had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame, because he’s an incredible patriot.”

“Many of the DOGE people, Elon, are staying behind. So they’re not leaving. And Elon’s really not leaving,” Trump added. “He’s going to be back and forth, I think, I have a feeling. It’s his baby.”

Musk praised the team of DOGE, an acronym for the Department of Government Efficiency program, for saving what he said was $175 billion in government spending. The program had initially set a more lofty goal of cutting $2 trillion, and it is unclear if Musk’s team has even met its revised figure, with the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service documenting an increase in federal spending over this time last year.

“The DOGE team is doing an incredible job,” Musk said. “I’ll continue to be visiting here, and be a friend and advisor to the president.”

Whether Musk continues in his role will have legal consequences. As a special government employee, Musk is obligated to end his service, now that the maximum work period allowed of 130 days has passed.

A group of 14 states has sued, arguing that Musk’s employee status was a ruse for the Trump administration to bring him into a powerful government role without having to go through a Senate confirmation process.

A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday ruled that Musk’s initial appointment was questionable, stating he “occupies a continuing position” and “exercises significant authority,” opening up a broader legal challenge over the constitutionality of his work for DOGE.

In a series of interviews leading up to his official departure from government, Musk has said that he plans to lessen his political spending going forward, and has criticized the Trump administration and congressional Republicans for pursuing legislation that would balloon the national deficit, a move he said was contrary to DOGE’s mission.

His departure this week comes after the New York Times reported on Musk’s heavy use of ketamine, a potent anesthetic drug, and after a Wall Street Journal article detailed Musk’s attempts to thwart Trump from pursuing partnerships on artificial intelligence in the Middle East that would benefit Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI and a personal nemesis of Musk’s.

Musk’s time in government has been marked by multiple setbacks for his companies. SpaceX has failed to meet essential engineering milestones for Starship, a critical super-heavy rocket ship that is critical to the U.S. effort to return humans to the moon and his own personal goal of reaching Mars. And Tesla, his electric vehicle company, saw a 71% plunge in profits in the first quarter of 2025 and a 50% drop in stock value from its highs in December.

“I think I probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,” Musk told Ars Technica, a science and technology publication, in an interview on Tuesday.

“It’s not like I left the companies,” he added. “It was just relative time allocation that probably was a little too high on the government side, and I’ve reduced that significantly in recent weeks.”

The Trump administration’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is a serious challenge to the 14th Amendment, which enshrined a radical principle of our democratic experiment: that anyone born here is an American. But the order will most affect average Americans — whose own citizenship, until this point, has been presumed and assured — rather than the intended target, illegal immigrants. The irony is hiding in plain sight.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, birthright citizenship is not entirely settled U.S. law. The executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and it is very narrowly drafted to exploit this uncertainty by rejecting citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents. Federal law and practice has recognized American citizenship to anyone born here since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. But that case did not specifically protect the birthright of children born in the United States to noncitizen, nonresident aliens.

This is a massive blind spot that states are sleep-walking into. They are depending on weak legal precedent, federal code, policy and hair-splitting over the meaning of “subject of the jurisdiction thereto.” In a brief, the states argue that the “understanding of birthright citizenship has permeated executive agency guidance for decades — and no prior administration has deviated from it.” But that won’t matter to this Supreme Court, which has demonstrated a certain glee in dismantling precedent. There is a clear risk that the justices could fundamentally restrict the definition of birthright citizenship and overturn the 1898 ruling.

The executive order directs the federal government not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born to parents unlawfully present here — but also to parents who are here legally but temporarily. This second group is a potentially vast population (the State Department issued 14.2 million nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2024) that includes students, artists, models, executives, investors, laborers, engineers, academics, tourists, temporary protected status groups, ship and plane crews, engineers, asylees, refugees and humanitarian parolees.

A limited change targeting a specific population — nonresident aliens — will have huge effects on those who will least expect it: American citizen parents giving birth to children in the United States. Until this point, a valid, state-issued birth certificate established prima facie evidence of U.S. citizenship to every child born in the country. That would no longer be the case if citizenship depended on verifying certain facts about every U.S.-born child’s parents. With that presumption removed by executive order, citizenship must be adjudicated by a federal official.

I know what that adjudication involves. I was a U.S. consular officer in Latin America, and both of my children were born overseas to married U.S. citizen parents carrying diplomatic passports. But because they did not have the presumption of citizenship conferred by an American birth certificate, we had to go to the U.S. Consulate for adjudication of transmission to demonstrate to the U.S. government that our children were American citizens.

This was document-intensive and time-consuming. Each time, we filled out forms. We photographed the baby in triplicate. We swore an oath before the consular officer. We brandished our passports. We presented the baby to the consular officer. We surrendered the local birth certificate. We demonstrated our hospital stay. Only then did we receive a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and only with that report could we apply for U.S. passports for our children. Without the report or a passport, our children could neither leave the country of their birth nor enter the United States.

That is an evidentiary and bureaucratic burden that all natural-born American citizens have until now not had to bear. The Trump administration’s change, if allowed by courts, will require those same parents to prove their own citizenship to the federal government. Good luck, because showing your birth certificate wouldn’t be sufficient in the new regime: The government would require proof not only that you were born in the U.S., but also that at least one of your parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. (Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over this “practical question” during oral arguments last week.)

Americans several generations removed from their immigrant forebears — even those whose ancestors came to North America 10,000 years ago — will suddenly be treated like the unlawfully present parents they thought this rule was designed to exclude.

This rule will lead to chaos, even danger. The federal bureaucracy will have to expand drastically to adjudicate the 3.5 million children born here every year. (For comparison, 1 million people are issued permanent residency status each year and 800,000 become naturalized citizens. This population is typically much better documented than a newborn.) Fearing immigration enforcement, undocumented parents will avoid hospitals for childbirth, dramatically escalating medical risk for mother and baby. Because hospitals also generate birth certificates — as Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted last week — those babies will form a large, new and entirely avoidable population of stateless children.

It is a truism in some communities that ancestors and family members came to this country legally. But the administration is prepared to dismantle the presumption of citizenship that has been a literal birthright for 125 years. U.S. citizenship is on the brink of becoming a privilege rather than a right, bestowed on those who can afford protracted bureaucratic struggles. Most of the burden will fall on those who least expected it: American parents themselves.

James Thomas Snyder is a former U.S. consular officer and NATO International Staff member.

A federal judge will decide later this week whether to allow an L.A. County sheriff’s deputy to take a plea deal that would spare him from prison time months after he was convicted of punching and pepper spraying an unarmed woman who filmed him during a 2023 arrest.

In a Monday court hearing, Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Assistant U.S. Atty. Rob Keenan sparred for more than two hours over the federal government’s highly unusual legal maneuver to offer L.A. County sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk a misdemeanor plea deal just two months after he was convicted of a felony in the excessive force case.

Kirk was convicted in February of one count of deprivation of rights under color of law after he was caught on camera rushing at the victim, hurling her to the ground and then pepper spraying her in the face while planting a knee on her neck during a 2023 incident outside of a Lancaster supermarket.

Wilson said he would rule on the motion to accept the plea in the next “three or four days.”

He faced up to a decade in prison at sentencing.

But that was upended after the Trump administration last month appointed Bill Essayli, a former California assemblyman, as U.S. attorney for Los Angeles. On May 1, prosecutors reached a rare post-trial plea agreement with Kirk.

The government recommended a one-year term of probation for Kirk and moved to strike the jury’s finding that Kirk had injured the victim, which made the crime a felony. Kirk agreed to plead guilty to a lesser-included misdemeanor violation of deprivation of rights under color of law.

The agreement caused turmoil in the U.S. attorney’s office, with assistant U.S. attorneys Eli A. Alcaraz, Brian R. Faerstein, Michael J. Morse and Cassie Palmer, chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section, all withdrawing from the case. Keenan, the only assistant U.S. attorney who signed off on the plea agreement, was not previously involved in the case.

Alcaraz, Faerstein and Palmer submitted their resignations following the “post-trial” plea agreement offer, sources previously confirmed to the Times. A filing submitted in the case last week also confirmed Palmer is departing the federal prosecutor’s office.

The incident mirrored turmoil at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan that followed pressure by Trump Administration officials to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Essayli, a former California assemblyman, is a staunch Trump ally and hard line conservative appointed at a time when the President has sought to weaken the independence of the Department of Justice. He made the post-conviction plea offer to Kirk the same week Trump issued an executive order vowing to “unleash” American law enforcement.

In court Monday, Wilson grilled Keenan, appearing increasingly perplexed at the government’s logic in offering Kirk a deal. He questioned if prosecutors had a “serious and significant doubt” as to the deputy’s guilt and continually pushed Keenan to justify the deal.

“If the government hasn’t offered any explanation for its change of course, the court must grant the motion?” Wilson asked.

Keenan said he believed the court was legally obligated to do so, claiming the deal was “a pure exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

In June 2023, Kirk was responding to a reported robbery when he threw a woman to the ground and pepper-sprayed her in the face while she filmed him outside a Lancaster WinCo. The woman — who is only identified in federal court filings as J.H. but named as Jacey Houston in a separate civil suit — matched a dispatcher’s description of a female suspect she was not armed or committing a crime at the time Kirk first confronted her, court records show.

But in a 31-page position statement filed May 13, Keenan dissected the victim’s actions leading up to and during the confrontation with Kirk. Keenan said Kirk used the pepper spray after “continued resistance by J.H.”

“In contrast to other excessive-force cases, defendant did not use pepper spray after J.H. was cuffed or otherwise secured,” Keenan wrote.

Keenan said the evidence didn’t show that Kirk sprayed Houston in the face with an intent to cause bodily injury. He also described her injuries as “limited in duration and severity” and said they did not constitute “serious bodily injury.”

In the filing, Keenan appeared to question the government’s evidence relating to a reported “blunt head injury,” calling it “vague and ill-defined even at trial.”

In court Monday, Keenan described Kirk’s use of force as “excessive, but just “barely so,” at one point attacking the credibility of the victim in the case, suggesting she exaggerated her injuries in a victim impact statement she made before the court.

Wilson did not accept that analysis.

“The jury was completely justified in finding he used excessive force in taking her to the ground and pepper spraying her,” the judge said. “Had he ordered her to be handcuffed … that would be a different case,” the judge said.

Earlier in the morning, Houston said Kirk should never be allowed to be a police officer or own a firearm again, given the “uncontrollable rage” he aimed at her on the day of the incident.

“I was certain that I was going to die,” she said, describing the moment Kirk grabbed her.

Houston’s attorney, Caree Harper, has said Keenan’s filing distorts the reality of what happened in the parking lot that day.

“J.H. is a senior citizen. She committed no crime. She had no weapon. She did not try to flee. She did not try to resist. J.H. sustained a black eye, a fractured bone in her right arm, multiple bruises, scratches, and significant chemical burning from the pepper-spray,” Harper wrote in a court filing. “J.H. screamed in pain and struggled to fill her lungs with oxygen.”

Wilson had previously denied a motion from Yu for an acquittal, finding that footage of the incident was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Kirk had used “objectively unreasonable force.”

“J.H. did not have a weapon, did not attack Defendant, was not attempting to flee, and was not actively committing a crime,” Wilson wrote in his ruling last month.

The judge also noted that, while Kirk acted aggressively toward Houston from the outset, his partner managed to lead the arrest of the other robbery suspect without using force.

Keenan painted the concessions Kirk made in the post-trial agreement as “significant.” He said Kirk was agreeing to admit that he “used unnecessary force” while attempting to detain Houston and that he did so “willfully.”

In early 2024, shortly after the Winco incident, Kirk was arrested by his own department on suspicion of domestic violence against his wife. His attorney dismissed it as a non-issue, noting the victim did not want Kirk to be prosecuted, contending the alleged abuse was reported by a third party. A spokesman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said the case was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

In her filing last week, Harper also said Kirk was arrested on allegations he threw his wife on the ground in January 2023. Harper alleged Kirk “threatened to bury [his wife] in the desert,” records show.

Sheriff’s department arrest logs only display the 2024 arrest. A sheriff’s department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Support for Kirk began gaining steam on social media after his indictment last September. In January, Nick Wilson, founder of a first responder advocacy group and spokesperson for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Professional Assn., wrote a letter to Trump urging him to intervene before the case went to trial.

Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who has become increasingly popular in right-wing circles online, has also championed Kirk’s case, posting an Instagram video of himself and Wilson consoling the deputy at the courthouse after trial. Both Villanueva and Wilson have insisted Kirk did nothing wrong.

Villanueva, Wilson and Essayli were all present in court Monday. At one point Harper approached Essayli directly and asked about the legality of the plea deal he was offering.

Essayli, seated in a plastic chair because all of the benches in the courtroom were filled, threatened to have Harper removed from the courtroom. Harper noted that only judges and federal marshals have the right to remove someone from a courtroom. A U.S. Attorney’s office spokesman declined to comment.

Some deputies have also blamed current Sheriff Robert Luna for pushing federal prosecutors to go after Kirk, a fact Luna has denied. Some deputy groups have staged forms of protest against Luna as a result.

But in a sentencing recommendation obtained by The Times, Luna asked Wilson to sentence Kirk to probation, blaming his actions that day on poor training.

He noted prior department leaders had effectively ignored a monitoring agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that was meant to mandate reform policies on use-of-force issues at the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. Luna’s letter did not address whether or not Wilson should act on Essayli’s request to vacate the jury verdict.

“I’m not suggesting that the failures of the Department should immunize Deputy Kirk or any other deputy taking responsibility for their actions,” Luna wrote. “No deputy who is found by a jury to have used excessive force or who has agreed to a plea deal should have such immunity.”

WASHINGTON — A humanities federation and a state council have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reverse local funding cuts made by Trump advisor Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., by the Federation of State Humanities Councils and the Oregon Council for the Humanities, names DOGE, its acting administrator, Amy Gleason, and the NEH among the defendants.

The plaintiffs ask the court to “stop this imminent threat to our nation’s historic and critical support of the humanities by restoring funding appropriated by Congress.” It notes the “disruption and attempted destruction, spearheaded by DOGE,” of a partnership between the state and the federal government to support the humanities.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, maintains that DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities exceeded their authority in terminating funding mandated by Congress.

DOGE shut down the funding and laid off more than 80% of the staff at the NEH in April as part of an executive order signed by President Trump.

The humanities is just one of many areas that have been affected as Trump’s Republican administration has targeted cultural establishments including the Smithsonian Institution, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowment of the Arts. The moves are part of Trump’s goals to downsize the federal government and end initiatives seen as promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, which he calls “discrimination.”

The humanities groups’ lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils “to a screeching halt” this spring when it terminated its grant program.

The filing is the most recent lawsuit filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations.

The funding freeze for the humanities comes when state councils and libraries have been preparing programming for the summer and beginning preparations for celebrations meant to commemorate next year’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Requests for comment Friday from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the White House were not immediately returned.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.