federal official

The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.

“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”

The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.

Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.

The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.

The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.

Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.

Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.

In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.

Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.

The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.

The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”

The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.

As authorities identified the shooter in the deadly attack on CDC headquarters as a Georgia man who blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal, a union representing workers at the agency is demanding that federal officials condemn vaccine misinformation, saying it was putting scientists at risk.

The union said that Friday’s shooting at the Atlanta offices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which left a police officer dead, was not a random incident and that it “compounds months of mistreatment, neglect, and vilification that CDC staff have endured.”

The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2883, said the CDC and leadership of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must provide a “clear and unequivocal stance in condemning vaccine disinformation.”

The 30-year-old gunman, who died during the event, had also tried to get into the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta but was stopped by guards before driving to a pharmacy across the street and opening fire, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press on Saturday.

The man, identified as Patrick Joseph White, was armed with five guns, including at least one long gun, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation.

Here’s what to know about the shooting and the continuing investigation:

An attack on a public health institution

Police say White opened fire outside the CDC headquarters in Atlanta on Friday, leaving bullet marks in windows across the sprawling campus. At least four CDC buildings were hit, agency Director Susan Monarez said on X.

DeKalb County Police Officer David Rose was mortally wounded while responding. Rose, 33, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan, had graduated from the police academy in March.

White was found on the second floor of a building across the street from the CDC campus and died at the scene, Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum said. “We do not know at this time whether that was from officers or if it was self-inflicted,” he said.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation said the crime scene was “complex” and the investigation would take “an extended period of time.”

CDC union’s call

The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2883, is calling for a statement condemning vaccine misinformation from the Department of Health and Human Services. The agency is led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who rose to public prominence on healthcare issues as a leading vaccine skeptic, sometimes advancing false information.

A public statement by federal officials condemning misinformation is needed to help prevent violence against scientists, the union said in a news release.

“Their leadership is critical in reinforcing public trust and ensuring that accurate, science-based information prevails,” the union said.

Fired But Fighting, a group of laid-off CDC employees, has said Kennedy is directly responsible for the villainization of the CDC’s workforce through “his continuous lies about science and vaccine safety, which have fueled a climate of hostility and mistrust.”

Kennedy reached out to staff on Saturday, saying that “no one should face violence while working to protect the health of others.”

Thousands of people who work on critical disease research are employed on the campus. The union said some staff members were huddled in various buildings until late at night, including more than 90 young children who were locked down inside the CDC’s Clifton School.

The union said CDC staff should not be required to immediately return to work after experiencing such a traumatic event. In a statement released Saturday, it said windows and buildings should first be fixed and made “completely secure.”

“Staff should not be required to work next to bullet holes,” the union said. “Forcing a return under these conditions risks re-traumatizing staff by exposing them to the reminders of the horrific shooting they endured.”

The union also called for “perimeter security on all campuses” until the investigation is fully completed and shared with staff.

Shooter’s focus on COVID-19 vaccine

White’s father, who contacted police and identified his son as the possible shooter, said White had been upset over the death of his dog and had become fixated on the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a law enforcement official.

A neighbor of White told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that White “seemed like a good guy” but spoke with her multiple times about his distrust of COVID-19 vaccines in unrelated conversations.

“He was very unsettled, and he very deeply believed that vaccines hurt him and were hurting other people,” Nancy Hoalst told the newspaper. “He emphatically believed that.”

But Hoalst said she never believed White would be violent: “I had no idea he thought he would take it out on the CDC.”

Haigh writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — An off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer was shot in a Manhattan park after an apparent robbery gone wrong, New York City police and federal officials said Sunday.

The 42-year-old officer was in stable condition after the Saturday attack and is expected to survive. A spokesperson for the New York Police Department said there was no indication the shooting was politically motivated.

The agent, who was not in uniform, was sitting in a park beneath the George Washington Bridge when he was approached by a man riding on the back of a moped, who shot him in the face and arm, police said. The off-duty officer returned fire as the moped sped off.

No arrests had been made as of Sunday afternoon, according to a police spokesperson.

The Department of Homeland Security shared video online of the two men on a moped, alleging the shooter was caught entering the country illegally in 2023 but released.

The NYPD spokesperson said they had no information about the source of that claim.

In a social media post Sunday afternoon, President Trump seized on the shooting, alleging it was evidence of Democrats’ failures to secure the border. “The CBP Officer bravely fought off his attacker, despite his wounds, demonstrating enormous Skill and Courage,” he wrote.

The shooting comes as federal officials say there has been a surge of attacks on agents carrying out Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Enforcement officers involved in the crackdown often cover their faces, which critics say spreads fear and panic across communities and imperils citizens as well as immigrants without legal status. The Trump administration defends masking, which it says is needed to avoid harassment of agents in public and online.

On Sunday, the acting director of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, said he would allow agents to continue covering their faces, which he called a safety measure “If that’s a tool that the men and women of ICE that keeps themselves and their families safe, then I will allow it,” he said.

An unusual alliance of Republican lawmakers and animal rights advocates, together with others, is creating storm clouds for a plan to protect one threatened owl by killing a more common one.

Last August, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a plan to shoot roughly 450,000 barred owls in California, Oregon and Washington over three decades. The barred owls have been out-competing imperiled northern spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest, as well as California spotted owls, pushing them out of their territory.

Supporters of the approach — including conservation groups and prominent scientists — believe the cull is necessary to avert disastrous consequences for the spotted owls.

But the coalition argues the effort is too expensive, unworkable and inhumane. They’re urging the Trump administration to cancel it and lawmakers could pursue a reversal through special congressional action.

Last month, The Times has found, federal officials canceled three owl-related grants to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife totaling roughly $1.1 million, including one study that would remove barred owls from over 192,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties.

A female barred owl sits on a branch in the wooded hills, Dec. 13, 2017, outside Philomath, Ore.

(Don Ryan / Associated Press)

Two were nixed before federal funding was allocated and never got off the ground, Peter Tira, a spokesperson for the state wildlife agency, said. Another, a collaboration with University of Maryland biologists to better understand barred owl dispersal patterns in western forests, was nearly complete when terminated.

“Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, we are eliminating wasteful programs, cutting unnecessary costs and ensuring every dollar serves a clear purpose,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in a statement when asked whether the grants had been terminated.

Another lever would be for Congress to overturn the owl-kill plan altogether using the Congressional Review Act.

The Government Accountability Office concluded in a late-May decision that the plan is subject to that act, sometimes used by new presidential administrations to reverse rules issued by federal agencies in the final months of prior administrations. Both chambers of Congress would need to pass a joint resolution to undo it.

In the months leading up to the GAO determination, bipartisan groups of U.S. House members wrote two letters to the secretary of the Interior laying out reasons why the owl-cull plan should not move forward. In total, 19 Republicans and 18 Democrats signed the letters, including seven lawmakers from California — David Valadao (R-Hanford), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), Gil Cisneros (D-Covina), Josh Harder (D-Tracy), Linda T. Sánchez (D-Whittier), Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Adam Gray (D-Merced).

Rep. Troy E. Nehls (R-Texas), an ardent Trump supporter, signed the initial letter, and is “currently exploring other options to end this unnecessary plan, which prioritizes one species of owls over another, and wastes Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,” communications director Emily Matthews said.

Kamlager-Dove said also said earlier this year that she objected to killing one species to preserve another. “And as an animal lover, I cannot support the widespread slaughter of these beautiful creatures,” she said.

If a resolution is introduced, passed and signed by President Trump, the plan will be over. The Fish and Wildlife Service would not be allowed to bring forward a similar rule, unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, which supports reducing the barred owl population, called the specter of the Congressional Review Act “very scary.”

It’s “an intrusion by Congress into areas where we’re relying on high agency expertise and scientific understanding,” he said. “It’s vibes versus science.”

A California spotted owl is shown inside the Tahoe National Forest in California on July 12, 2004.

(Debra Reid / Associated Press)

Wheeler said he believed it was more likely the program would be deprioritized amid budget cuts than eliminated through the Act.

“If we don’t move forward with barred owl removal, it will mean the extinction of the northern spotted owl, and it will likely mean the extinction of the California spotted owl as well,” he said.

Science is on its side, he said. A long-term field experiment showed that where barred owls were killed, the population of spotted owls stabilized.

For animal welfare activist Wayne Pacelle, who has galvanized opposition to the owl-cull plan, it’s a hopeful turn of events.

“Even if they had full funding for this, we don’t think it could possibly succeed,” said Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy. The land area where the barred owls need to be controlled is just too vast, he said. And barred owls from elsewhere, he said, will simply fly in and replace those that are felled.

As few as 3,000 northern spotted owls are left on federal lands. The brown raptors with white spots are listed as threatened under both the California and federal Endangered Species Act.

California spotted owls are also in decline, and federal wildlife officials have proposed endangered species protections for two populations.

The two sides of the fierce debate agree that barred and spotted owls compete for nesting sites and food — such as woodrats and northern flying squirrels.

Barred owls and spotted owls are similar in appearance and can even interbreed. But barred owls are more aggressive and slightly larger, in addition to being more generalist when it comes to what they’ll eat and where they’ll live, allowing them to muscle out their fellow raptors.

Federal wildlife officials and some conservationists consider barred owls invasive.

As Europeans settled the Great Plains, they suppressed fire and planted trees, allowing barred owls to expand westward from their origin in eastern North America, biologists believe.

“I would call this an invasion, and I would call these non-native species,” Wheeler said.

On the flip side, some see the owl arrival along the West Coast as natural range expansion.

There are also conflicting views of the cost of exterminating so many owls.

Opponents estimate it will cost about $1.35 billion, extrapolated from a $4.5-million contract awarded to a Northern California Native American tribe last year to hunt about 1,500 barred owls over four years.

A 2024 research paper, however, concluded that barred owl removal in the range of the northern spotted owl would cost from $4.5 million to $12 million per year in its initial stages, and would likely decrease over time. At $12 million a year, the 30-year plan would run $360 million.

Pacelle’s Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy have also sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in U.S. District Court in Washington state over the plan. Friends of Animals, another animal welfare group, filed suit in Oregon.

Wheeler’s Environmental Protection Information Center has intervened in the suits in defense of the plan, and those cases continue to advance.

Vice President JD Vance on Friday castigated Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, arguing that the elected leaders are endangering the lives of law enforcement officers because of their opposition to federal immigration raids in Los Angeles and surrounding communities.

Vance, while meeting with federal, state and local officials in Los Angeles Friday afternoon, justified President Trump’s decision to seize control of California National Guard troops from Newsom and deploy them in Los Angeles, a decision that triggered a legal battle between state and federal officials.

“What happened here was a tragedy,” Vance told reporters. “You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law, and you had rioters, egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job.”

Although Newsom and Bass have criticized the immigration raids, which led to protests and sporadic violent attacks against law enforcement officials, both have repeatedly urged demonstrators to remain peaceful.

Bass, who did not meet with Vance, dismissed his description of what has unfolded in Los Angeles over the last two weeks.

“Unfortunately, the vice president did not take time to learn about our city and understand that our city is a city of immigrants from every country and continent on the planet,” Bass said at a news conference Friday evening. “But then again, he did need to justify the hundreds of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars that were wasted in the performance of a stunt.

“How dare you say that city officials encourage violence,” Bass said. “We kept the peace.”

Newsom weighed in repeatedly on the social media platform X, notably about Vance calling Sen. Alex Padilla “Jose” during his remarks.

Padilla was dragged to the ground by federal law enforcement officers and briefly detained when he attempted to ask U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during a press conference earlier this week.

“I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn’t a theater, and that’s all it is,” Vance said.

A spokesperson for Padilla responded that Vance, as a former colleague of Padilla in the U.S. Senate, “knows better.”

“He should be more focused on demilitarizing our city than taking cheap shots,” spokesperson Tess Oswald posted on X. “Another unserious comment from an unserious administration.”

Vance’s visit to Los Angeles was unexpected but is reportedly coinciding with a political fundraiser at the Republican National Committee’s annual summer retreat taking place in Beverly Hills. Tickets cost up to $445,000, according to NOTUS, a nonprofit news group.

Vance landed at LAX around 1:35 p.m. and toured the Federal Building Command Center, an FBI Mobile Command Center that is currently being used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was briefed by officials from the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Los Angeles Police Department and the California Highway Patrol.

Reporters traveling with the vice president were told they not allowed to cover Vance’s meetings with officials there because the facility contained classified information. Vance was also scheduled to meet with Marines during his visit.

During his visit with federal officials, Vance called Newsom and Bass’ actions during the protests “disgraceful,” referred to the actions as “riots” and said that was why Trump decided to deploy troops from the California National Guard.

“We have to remember that the day that the riots started, before there was ever a single national guardsman, before the president of the United States had sent in additional resources, you had law enforcement officers that were being captured and beaten by a violent mob, egged on by Gavin Newsom and other officials,” Vance said. “It was necessary to send in the National Guard to stop that process to bring some order back to this great city.”

Newsom criticized the federal raids, saying they violated Trump’s vow to target violent, criminal immigrants, but also urged Californians protesting the actions to do so peacefully and said those who engaged in lawlessness would be arrested.

During protests in downtown Los Angeles, federal agents stood guard around federal buildings that were the focus of protesters. Los Angeles police officers, as well as officers from other local police agencies and the California Highway Patrol, responded in large numbers and repeatedly moved demonstrators away from National Guard troops, pushing the crowds to undulate across downtown’s civic center.

Standing next to U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Bill A. Essayli, and FBI Assistant Director Akil Davis, Vance defended the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

“That’s why we’re here, that’s why these guys are standing beside me,” Vance said. “That’s why we have close to 5,000 soldiers and Marines from the Department of Defense. It’s because we’ve got to enforce the law.”

The visit comes as California and federal officials battle in court over control of the California National Guard. Trump federalized the troops over the objections of Newsom and sent them to L.A. after immigration raids sparked protests.

On Thursday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals kept control of the troops in Trump’s hands while the issue is litigated in federal court. On Friday, a federal judge in San Francisco asked attorneys for the federal and state governments to submit briefs by noon on Monday about the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prohibits the use of federal military forces in civilian law enforcement, and the length of time the California National Guard is under control of the federal government.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has vowed to continue fighting the Trump administration over the decision.

The clash has left Newsom and officials in the Trump administration trading barbs in interviews and social media. Vance appears unlikely to meet with the highest elected official of the country’s most populous state.

“We’re always open to working together — which makes it all the more disappointing that the White House chose not to engage with us directly ahead of the visit,” a statement from the governor’s office read. “We’ve yet to receive any official notice of the Vice President’s trip — which, from what we understand, is focused on a high-dollar fundraiser.”

Newsom later released a video on X, addressing Vance directly and urging the vice president to meet with victims of the Palisades and Altadena fires.

“It’s been months now since some of the most devastating wildfires in U.S. history occurred — tens of thousands of lives completely torn asunder,” Newsom said in the video. “I hope you have an opportunity to spend some quality time with some of the victims of the families in the Palisades and also spend some time in Altadena, which is incredibly important.”

Newsom also urged Vance to speak with Trump about comments the president made earlier this week, suggesting he would cut disaster relief for the fires because of the ongoing feud with Newsom.

“It’s honestly important as well, and I honestly mean this, that you sit down with the president of the United States, who just a couple of days ago suggested that these American citizens may not get the support that other citizens get all across this country in terms of disaster relief,” Newsom said. “I hope we get that back on track. We’re counting on you, Mr. Vice President.”

Times staff writer Julia Wick and Dave Zahniser contributed to this report.