federal

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s design for the Triumphal Arch he wants built at an entrance to the nation’s capital moved a step forward Thursday after a key agency reviewed the proposal for the first time. One commissioner suggested changes, including losing the Lady Liberty-like statue and pair of eagles that would sit on top of the arch and add to its height.

The arch is one of several projects that the Republican president is pursuing alongside a White House ballroom to leave his lasting imprint on Washington.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts voted to approve the concept design for the arch. The seven commissioners, all appointed by Trump, will review an updated version of the design before taking a final vote at a future meeting.

Trump said last week on social media that the arch “will be the GREATEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL Triumphal Arch, anywhere in the World” and a “wonderful addition to the Washington D.C. area for all Americans to enjoy for many decades to come!”

Also on the agenda for the commission’s monthly meeting was his plan to paint the gray granite exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is next to the White House, white.

A third White House-related project, construction of an underground center to conduct security screenings of tourists and other guests, was also up for consideration.

Triumphal Arch

The arch would stand 250 feet tall from its base to a torch held aloft by a Lady Liberty-like figure atop the structure. That figure would be flanked up top by two eagles and guarded at the base by four lions — all gilded. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be inscribed in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

The commission’s vice chairman, architect James McCrery II, said he preferred the arch without the figure and eagles on top. McCrery also objected to the lions on the base.

The arch would be built on a human-made island managed by the National Park Service on the Virginia side of the Potomac River at the end of Memorial Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. The arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet tall, and be close to half the height of the Washington Monument, an obelisk that is about 555 feet tall.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the arch’s 250-foot height will honor America’s 250 years of existence.

A group of veterans and a historian has sued in federal court to block construction on the grounds that the arch would disrupt the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, among other reasons.

Underground screening center for White House visitors

The U.S. Secret Service, Interior Department, National Park Service, and the Executive Office of the President want to start construction in August on a 33,000-square-foot (3,066-square-meter) center to screen tourists and other visitors to the White House.

It would be built beneath Sherman Park, federal land southwest of the White House, to provide a more secure place to screen those going on White House tours or attending events. The new facility would have seven lanes to ease processing and reduce wait times.

Officials want it operating by July 2028, six months before Trump’s term ends.

Eisenhower Executive Office Building paint job

Trump said the Executive Office Building is beautiful, but he does not like its gray exterior.

“It’s one of the most beautiful buildings anywhere in Washington,” Trump said in August. “I think it’s just incredible, but you have to get past the color because the stone they used was a really bad color.”

Two proposals were given to the commission: Cover the entire building in bright white or paint most of it white while leaving untouched the granite on the exposed basement and subbasement.

In written materials, the White House said the building has been largely neglected since its construction. It said the building’s color, design and massing do not “align visually with the surrounding architecture” and lack ”any symbolic cohesion with the White House.”

The paint job is also the subject of litigation in federal court.

The building sits across a driveway from the West Wing. It was completed in 1888 after 17 years of construction, and its granite, slate, and cast iron exterior makes it one of America’s best examples of the French Second Empire style of architecture.

It originally housed the departments of State, War and Navy. It currently houses offices for the vice president and the National Security Council, among others.

The building is a National Historic Landmark and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5-billion renovation project, according to two people familiar with the visit.

Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation.

The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe.

Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project.

Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which the Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.”

“Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote.

Republican Tillis is key vote

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh.

The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named.

Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave their posts as governor when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose.

Last month, Powell said, “I have no intention of leaving the Board until the investigation is well and truly over, with transparency and finality.” If he remains in his seat, even after Warsh is confirmed, it would deny Trump the oppotunity to fill a seat on the seven-member board.

Late Tuesday, Tillis posted a link on social media to the Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.”

Investigation centers on building renovations

The investigation by Pirro’s office centers on an appearance by Powell before the Senate Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the Fed’s extensive building renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion.

“It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said on Fox Business. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?”

The president’s support for the investigation threatens a time frame set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after.

Threat to fire Powell

News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month.

“Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said when reminded that Powell has said he won’t leave the Fed while the Justice Department investigates a $2.5-billion renovation project at the bank. Powell has also said he will remain as chair of the Fed’s rate-setting committee until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate, following the precedent of previous chairs.

Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell as chair of the Fed, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates.

Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal

Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time.

The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy.

The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiously, calling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”

Kunzelman and Rugaber write for the Associated Press. AP Writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

President Trump has signed a bill restoring federal funding to tech startups in California and elsewhere, money that had been held up for more than six months.

The Small Business Administration money, a key source of capital for new aerospace and defense firms in the Los Angeles region, ran out in October after a Congressional impasse.

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act signed by Trump on Monday funds the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) and related programs.

They provide more than $4 billion in seed funding to commercial startups that provide valuable services to the government and public, stimulate the economy and help maintain the country’s competitive edge.

The money is awarded by multiple agencies, including the Health and Human Services and Energy departments and NASA, with the military distributing the largest portion.

The funding has helped launch defense and aerospace startups across Southern California, including Costa Mesa autonomous weapons maker Anduril Industries, now valued at more than $30 billion.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, held up reauthorization over concerns some startups had become reliant on the money instead of developing commercial businesses. She proposed a bill with a $75-million lifetime funding cap for individual companies.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the committee’s ranking Democrat, contended the bill would crimp innovation and hurt companies.

The reauthorization includes no lifetime caps but requires departments to set limits on how many times companies can apply each year for the SBA funding, prioritizing startups .

The bill also establishes a Strategic Breakthrough Allocation program that awards up to $30 million in SBA funding to a single company provided it can bring in matching funding.

The new program is intended to assist startups to become commercially viable after they run through their SBIR or STTR funding, which are intended to fund feasibility studies and prototypes. STTR requires a partnership with a research institution.

Other provisions in the bill include new due diligence standards to prevent any tech developed by the startups from falling into the hands of adversaries such as China .

“With a bipartisan, five-year reauthorization signed into law, small businesses are once again empowered to create these innovative technologies and tackle our nation’s most pressing challenges head-on,” Markey said in a statement.

April 14 (UPI) — Kevin Warsh, the presidential pick for the next Federal Reserve chairman, has wealth greater than any other recent chairman, his financial disclosures released Tuesday show.

The filings were part of the usual consideration process for the role. Warsh, if confirmed, would succeed current Chairman Jerome Powell, whose second term ends May 15. A Senate hearing on the matter is expected to take place April 21.

CNBC reported that Warsh’s disclosure forms show that the nominee has about $192 million in assets in combination with his wife, Jane Lauder, who is an heir to the Estee Lauder fortune. Warsh’s solo assets equal about $135 million to $226 million. These numbers show a large range because they can include variable items such as bonds, stocks and other assets.

By comparison, Powell’s financial filings for 2025 showed assets of between $19 million and $75 million, while former Chairman Ben Bernanke, who left office in 2014, submitted filings that year of about $2.3 million in assets, CNBC reported.

If the Senate confirms Warsh, he has said that he will divest a large amount of assets, of which about 1,800 were listed in the forms. Some of these were undisclosed because of cited “preexisting confidentiality agreements,” The New York Times and CNBC reported.

Warsh, who served as a governor at the Federal Reserve from 2006 to 2011, also said that he would resign posts such as his role as financial adviser to investor Stanley Druckenmiller, as well as several other positions including a board seat at UPS.

Warsh will face the Senate Banking Committee in the planned hearing before a full Senate vote. However, an ongoing Department of Justice investigation into Powell has further complicated matters. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has said he will not vote on Warsh or any other nominee for the role until the investigation is completed.

L.A. County officials want to put $2.7 million toward beefing up the team of people investigating fraud within a deluge of recent sex abuse lawsuits, suggesting a broadening probe at the district attorney’s office.

The funding allocation, part of the county’s $48.8-billion budget proposal unveiled Monday, would bring on 10 new people to the small team prosecuting alleged fraud within the county’s historic $4-billion sex abuse settlement. L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman announced the probe last November following a Times investigation that found nine people who said they were paid to sue.

The county has agreed to pay billions to settle more than 11,000 claims of sex abuse in juvenile halls and foster homes, a flood of lawsuits spurred by a 2020 law changing the statute of limitations. Since those settlements, more than 5,000 new lawsuits have been filed with an average of 150 new claims coming in per month, according to the county, raising the prospect of future costly payouts.

Acting Chief Executive Joseph Nicchitta said Monday the new filings would continue to be an “anchor” around the county’s finances.

“It is something that’s going to weigh on us going forward,” he said at a news conference announcing the new spending plan.

Hochman said in a statement that the investigation was a priority for his office and the money would be used to “pursue every credible lead and hold fraudsters accountable.”

“It is our pledge to the real survivors of childhood sexual abuse that we will root out and prosecute those who manufactured false claims and profited or tried to profit from those lies,” Hochman said. “As for those who filed fraudulent claims of sex abuse, the time is growing short for you to turn yourselves in before you are arrested, prosecuted and punished.”

Nicchitta made a pitch for legislative change, noting the county was looking to Sacramento to “eliminate loopholes allowing abusive practices by attorneys that inject weak and potentially fraudulent claims into settlement pools.”

The push by the county to change the law has been hotly criticized by some advocates who accuse government officials of trampling on victims’ rights.

“These reforms that we are seeking are anti-fraud,” said Nicchitta. “They are not anti-survivor.”

The payouts are yet another cloud looming over the budget proposal, along with rising labor costs and federal funding cuts. The recommended budget represents a 7% decrease in spending compared to the current plan.

But Nicchitta said Monday it wasn’t all doom and gloom, with the county managing to stave off layoffs and program cuts.

The upcoming budget proposal, he said, represented the calm before the next big wave of potential rollbacks.

“Remember, we’re in the eye of the hurricane,” he said.

The budget forecast was notably rosier than last year’s, in which the county was saddled with $2 billion in new wildfire costs and had made the first round of slashes to finance the sex abuse payouts. The county froze hiring at the time and made most departments shrink their budgets by 3%.

Those cuts, Nicchitta said, went deep enough that they can avoid major slashes this upcoming fiscal year, though he warned the fallout from the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” will soon wreak fresh havoc on the county’s finances. Health officials say they expect more than $2 billion to be cut from the budget for health services over the next three years.

Costs from wildfire will also continue to weigh on the county’s coffers. Officials say the federal government has yet to respond to a February request for rebuilding aid. Nicchitta said he was “optimistic” the money would soon be made available.

Growth from property taxes has given the county a small new pot of funds, which will be used largely to pay for increased salaries for county workers. An additional $12 million will go to public defenders, who say they’re buckling under untenably heavy caseloads, while the Office of Emergency Management will get roughly $10 million to add 44 positions, according to the proposal.

The office, which is responsible for coordinating during emergencies, was under scrutiny following the alert failures of the Eaton fire, and officials had promised in the aftermath to revamp the small office.

The supervisors will be briefed on the budget plan Tuesday.

April 13 (UPI) — Voters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, are voting in byelections on Monday that could give Prime Minister Mark Carney a liberal majority.

The ballot boxes are open in two ridings, or electoral districts, in Ontario as well as one in Quebec. The Liberal Party of Canada needs to win one of three elections to establish majority control of the government.

Liberal hold 171 of 343 seats in the House of Commons.

Both Ontario districts, Scarborough Southwest and University-Rosedale, are in the Toronto area. They were previously held by liberal members of Parliament.

The district in Quebec, Terrebonne, is in the Montreal area. A liberal candidate won in that district by one vote last year. Canada’s high court nullified the result of that election in February, citing a clerical error.

The Liberals have bolstered their control of the House with four members of the Conservative Party of Canada defecting. A member of the New Democratic Party also defected to join the Liberals.

The most recent defection occurred last week when Marilyn Gladu left the Conservative Party. Gladu represents the Sarnia-Lambton-Bkejwanong riding in Ontario.

House leader Steven MacKinnon, a liberal parliament member, said that he plans to “continue that impulse of working across party lines” if his party captures a majority.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking Massachusetts’ state voter rolls, marking the latest setback in a wide-ranging effort by the Trump administration to collect detailed data on the nation’s voters.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin marks at least the fifth time a judge has rejected similar attempts by the Justice Department. Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the U.S. attorney general’s office did not take the necessary steps required to access voter rolls, as outlined in federal law.

“Put simply, the statute requires a statement of why the Attorney General demands production of the requested records,” Sorokin wrote. That statement has to be factual, “not just a conceivable or possible basis.”

In an emailed response, the Justice Department said it “does not comment on ongoing litigation.”

It has said it’s seeking the voter data as part of an effort to ensure election security, but Democratic and Republican officials in several states have refused, saying the demand violates state and federal privacy laws. Some have raised concerns that federal officials will use the sensitive data for other purposes, such as searching for potential noncitizens.

During a hearing last month in Rhode Island, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge that the department was seeking unredacted voter roll information so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security to check citizenship status. Homeland Security over the past year has beefed up the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program, for just this purpose.

“Our intention is to run this against the DHS SAVE database,” Department of Justice attorney Eric Neff told U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy during a March 26 hearing challenging the federal government’s authority to access the voter data.

The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking to force release of the data, which includes dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

At least 12 states have either provided or promised to provide their detailed voter registration lists to the department, according to the Brennan Center: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

In the Massachusetts case, the the judge found that the Justice Department failed to follow the requirements for demanding the voter rolls set by a 1960 civil rights law.

That law, enacted as part of an effort to end racial discrimination in elections, says state voter records must be made available for inspection by the U.S. attorney general if the office includes a statement outlining why the information is being demanded and how it will be used.

The department’s letter demanding Massachusetts’ voter data made no reference to the Civil Rights Act and didn’t cite any concerns about the way Massachusetts complied with federal voting laws, the judge said. Most importantly, it didn’t include any factual basis for the demand, Sorokin wrote.

In court documents, the Justice Department said it was demanding the data to check for “Massachusetts’ possible lack of compliance” with federal voter registration list requirements. It also said the Civil Rights Act was designed to be an investigatory tool to identify federal election law violations and argued that the U.S. attorney general can’t be required to prove a violation before seeking evidence of one.

“These arguments miss the point,” Sorokin wrote.

Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Andrea Joy Campbell called the ruling a decisive win for voters and the rule of law.

“The privacy of our voters is not up for negotiation, and I will continue to defend the integrity and security of our elections from the Trump Administration’s cruel and harmful agenda,” she said in a news release.

Four federal judges in other states have dismissed similar lawsuits from the Department of Justice.

A federal judge in Michigan found the laws cited by the Justice Department do not require the disclosure of the voter records sought by the federal government. A federal judge in California said the administration “may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections,” which the Constitution gives to the states and Congress. A federal judge in Oregon said the federal government was not entitled to unredacted voter registration lists containing sensitive data.

A federal judge in Georgia dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit because he found it had been filed in the wrong city. The federal government then refiled the lawsuit in the city specified by the judge; that case is ongoing.

The Justice Department has appealed the Oregon, California and Michigan dismissals.

Boone writes for the Associated Press. Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. AP writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

NEW ORLEANS — The wife of a U.S. soldier was released Tuesday from a federal immigration detention facility where she had spent nearly a week after being taken into custody on a Louisiana military base.

The detention of 22-year-old Annie Ramos, the Honduran-born wife of a U.S. Army staff sergeant preparing to deploy, prompted public backlash from critics of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign who warned it demoralized troops during an ongoing war.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Ramos’ mother-in-law, Jen Rickling, confirmed her release to the Associated Press. The New York Times first reported Ramos’ release.

Ramos, who married Staff Sgt. Matthew Blank in March, had been detained by federal immigration agents while attempting to register at his base to receive military benefits and ultimately obtain a green card. She had lived in the country since she was less than 2 years old. Homeland Security said Ramos had been ordered removed by a federal immigration judge in 2005 after her family had failed to appear for a hearing.

Ramos and her husband say she has been attempting to gain legal status, including by applying for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2020 though her application remained stalled amid legal battles to eliminate the program.

“All I have ever wanted is to live with dignity in the country I have called home since I was a baby,” Ramos said in a statement to the Associated Press after her release. “I want to finish my degree, continue my education, and serve my community — just as my husband serves our country with honor.”

A spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona, said that Kelly had called Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin regarding Ramos’ detention. Blank has family in Arizona.

“I’m happy Annie is back with her husband and family where she belongs,” Kelly said in a statement. “They never should have gone through this painful process, but far too many families like theirs are because of this administration.”

Homeland Security told the Associated Press that Ramos had been released with a GPS monitor “while she undergoes further removal proceedings.”

“She will receive full due process,” Homeland Security said.

The Trump administration has scrapped policies of immigration enforcement leniency toward the family members of military personnel and veterans, even as the military has promoted the protection of U.S. soldiers’ family members from deportation as a recruiting incentive.

Ramos said she plans to continue studying biochemistry and focusing on enjoying married life with her husband.

“As Matthew continues preparing for his long career in the military, my focus now is on securing my status, continuing my studies, and building our life together,” Ramos said. “We want to create a home, a future, and a family. This experience has been incredibly difficult, but it has also reminded me of the power of faith, love, and community. I am hopeful for what comes next.”

Brook writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Juan Lozano contributed to this report from Houston.

SACRAMENTO — A federal judge appears willing to block a $6.2-billion merger of two large TV station groups as he evaluates whether Nexstar Media Group’s takeover of a rival violates U.S. antitrust laws.

At the conclusion of a two-hour hearing in Sacramento on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley signaled he was preparing to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent Nexstar and Tegna from combining operations amid an ongoing legal challenge.

Nunley said he would draft a written order, which is expected by Friday.

Previously, Nunley had issued a temporary restraining order to pause the merger.

Last month, Nexstar raced to finalize its blockbuster purchase of Tegna — despite a lawsuit filed by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and seven other state attorneys general. The state officials, all Democrats, claimed the massive merger would give Nexstar too much control over local TV stations, ultimately hurting consumers by diminishing the diversity and quality of their newscasts.

California Deputy Attorney General Laura Antonini argued that when news consolidates, it results in a loss of diverse viewpoints.

“That’s extremely harmful to democracy and to the citizens of this state,” she said at the hearing.

President Trump has championed the Nexstar-Tegna merger, suggesting it would diminish the clout of the major TV networks, including those he often gripes about: ABC and NBC. Nexstar, based in Irving, Texas, owns dozens of network affiliate stations.

Nexstar, which also owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, already is the nation’s largest station group. The deal was expected to reshape the local television industry by extending Nexstar’s reach to 265 television stations, up from 164.

If the acquisition is finalized , Nexstar stations would cover 80% of the U.S. population, exceeding a 39% ownership cap set by Congress.

El Segundo-based DirecTV separately sued, alleging the combination of the nation’s two largest television station groups would do irreparable harm to its pay-TV business by raising prices and potentially increasing programming blackouts.

Representatives of Nexstar, DirecTV and Bonta’s office declined to comment after Tuesday’s hearing.

During the hearing, Nexstar attorney Alexander Okuliar, argued against an injunction, saying the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the merger posed an immediate threat to the public. He said DirecTV and the attorneys general had only offered proposed financial harms.

In court documents, the state attorneys general and DirecTV alleged the deal would give Nexstar multiple TV stations in dozens of markets. That raised concerns about layoffs in an industry that has sustained significant downsizing in recent years as viewers and advertisers migrate to streaming options and social media platforms like TikTok.

Nexstar could “shut down local newsrooms in dozens of markets, reducing the amount, variety, and quality of local broadcast news that Americans rely on for trusted information about their communities,” DirecTV alleged.

For example, Nexstar owns the Fox station in Sacramento, while McLean, Virginia-based Tegna owns the ABC affiliate.

Okuliar pushed back, saying there was no evidence that local newsrooms would be shuttered.

“One of the reasons for this deal is to protect local broadcasters, to protect local journalism,” he told the judge.

Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. The company cited dozens of awards won by Nexstar journalists, including in Oklahoma City.

In addition to Bonta, the plaintiffs include state attorneys general in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

Nearly two dozen lawyers attended the hearing on behalf of the other plaintiffs. Eight lawyers represented Nexstar and Tegna.

Nexstar Chief Executive Perry Sook and Chief Operating officer Michael Biard also attended.

In its complaint, DirecTV argued that it would suffer financial harm because Nexstar would use its increased heft to demand significantly higher fees for the rights to carry its network-affiliate stations, which carry local news, primetime shows and professional sports, including NFL football. Such programming disputes can lead to blackouts which infuriate customers.

Nexstar’s lawyers disputed such allegations, telling the judge the merger would ultimately increase the value of content. The company suggested the deal could lower prices for distributors like DirecTV, which has about 10 million customers nationwide.

Nunley recently combined the DirecTV and state attorneys general lawsuits into one.

The judge, who was elevated to the federal bench by President Obama, had already expressed concerns about the merger.

In his March 27 order granting the temporary restraining order, Nunley said DirecTV had demonstrated that it could prevail at a trial due to the merits of its arguments.

He then instructed Nexstar to “immediately cease all ongoing actions relating to integration and consolidation of Nexstar and Tegna.”

Instead, the Tegna unit must continue to operate independently as “an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor,” the judge wrote.

The Nexstar-Tegna merger took on political overtones in early February after Trump threw his weight behind it, writing in a post on Truth Social that the proposed union was among the “good deals,” because it would provide competition against “THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks.”

“GET THAT DEAL DONE!” Trump wrote.

The state attorneys general sued to block the merger on March 18, when the transaction was still pending at the U.S. Justice Department, which is tasked with conducting anti-trust reviews, and the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees TV station licenses.

The DOJ and FCC blessed the deal the following day.

Within an hour, Nexstar announced that it finalized the transaction and that Tegna had been disbanded.

“It’s very rare to do what Nexstar did here,” DirecTV’s attorney Glenn Pomerantz said.

Nexstar had asked the judge to require the plaintiffs to post a $150 million bond to compensate it for damages it would suffer from any delays in closing the deal.

April 3 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday refused a Department of Justice request for him to reconsider his earlier ruling to block grand jury subpoenas it issued to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Friday said he would not lift his block on subpoenas that the Justice Department issued to board of the Federal Reserve regarding the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s complex in Washington, D.C.

The judge had previously blocked the subpoenas because, he said, they had nothing to do with a Justice Department probe about the renovations, but rather were intended to pressure Powell into adjusting interest rates, as President Donald Trump had been chiding him to do for months.

“On March 11, 2026, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that quashed the Government’s subpoenas directed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Research System,” Boasberg wrote in a response to the Justice Department request that was filed on Friday.

“The Government promptly moved for reconsideration of that decision,” he wrote. “As its cursory brief neither offers new evidence nor points to any material error, the Court will deny the Motion.”

The DOJ launched its criminal investigation into the Fed’s renovation budget, which Powell at the time called “pretexts” to punish him for not setting interest rates based on Trump demands.

Boasberg, in his response to the Justice when he blocked the subpoenas said that the government “has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime.”

The Justice Department later acknowledged when appealing Boasberg’s quashing of the subpoenas that it did not have evidence that a crime had been committed, instead saying that there were “1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it.”

Across the country, President Trump has installed handpicked loyalists as top federal prosecutors. Several have been pushed out after legal battles because they lack Senate confirmation to serve as U.S. attorneys.

But in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli wields the power of a top prosecutor under a lesser title: “first assistant.”

Essayli clocked his first full year in office this week. He has survived the kinds of challenges that sunk Trump picks in other states through a combination of legal gamesmanship by the U.S. Department of Justice and a lack of action by judges in the Central District of California.

Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits over transgender and environmental policies in California.

After Trump’s firing Thursday of U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, it’s unclear how her replacement will handle continuing battles over the legality of Trump’s appointees. Essayli is popular with high-level administration officials, and received a congratulatory post on X from Vice President JD Vance over the filing of fraud cases earlier this week.

A conservative former state Assembly member from Riverside County, Essayli, 40, was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney last April. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, Bondi made him a “special attorney” and designated him “first assistant.” A federal judge later disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But the judge said he had no authority to undo Essayli’s designation as first assistant. With no one above him in the office, that title leaves Essayli as the de facto U.S. attorney.

In other jurisdictions, members of the federal bench have exercised their authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee’s chambers did not respond to a request for comment about why no similar action has been taken in L.A.

A court spokesman declined to comment. Essayli did not respond to a request for comment. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.

A Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement that praised Essayli for prosecuting “drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations, sex traffickers, violent street gangs, leftist rioters and domestic terrorists, fraudsters, and child predators.”

“It is a disservice to our prosecutors and the American people when judges prevent the President and the Attorney General from installing qualified and capable prosecutors who will aggressively enforce our laws and make America safe again,” the Justice Department spokesperson said.

The lack of action by Gee, a President Obama appointee, has surprised some legal observers, especially given the swiftness with which judges in other districts have acted. It also has frustrated some former federal prosecutors that fled the office under Essayli’s chaotic tenure.

One former assistant U.S. attorney, who left the office under Essayli and requested anonymity to discuss sitting judges who will likely preside over future cases of theirs in the district, accused Gee and others of “shirking their responsibilities” by not appointing someone to the vacant U.S. attorney post.

Another former Central District prosecutor who left the office before Essayli’s appointment said Gee was being practical, taking a “protective” stance to “keep the court away from the ire and invectives coming out of the White House.”

It is “unfair to say the court is abdicating its authority,” said the ex-prosecutor, who also requested anonymity to speak candidly about the district’s judges.

Under long-standing Senate tradition, individual senators can block a U.S. attorney nominee in their home state by withholding their “blue slip,” which clears a nominee’s path to a confirmation hearing.

Trump has tried to skirt the Senate confirmation process to appoint top federal prosecutors in multiple states, including New Jersey and Virginia, where two of the president’s personal lawyers were named U.S. attorney — who immediately moved to zealously advance the president’s agenda and, in some cases, prosecute his rivals.

In Virginia, Trump replaced U.S. Atty. Erik Siebert, a nominee who was under Senate consideration, with one of his former personal attorneys, Lindsey Halligan. Siebert had refused to prosecute some of Trump’s political enemies and resigned. In her first ever criminal case, Halligan swiftly moved to indict former FBI Director James B. Comey. The prosecution was later thrown out and Halligan’s appointment deemed illegal.

In New York’s Northern District, when judges moved to oust the president’s former campaign attorney — who received the same “first assistant” designation as Essayli — Justice Department officials promptly fired his replacement.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said Trump’s attempts to bypass the normal confirmation processes are unconstitutional.

“This is very troubling because it circumvents the constitutional procedure of having the president nominate and the Senate confirm. That’s crucial to checks and balances,” he said. “This allows the president to appoint whoever he wants.”

Though Essayli has more law enforcement experience than many of Trump’s chosen prosecutors, he’s still struggled to achieve courtroom victories. His prosecutors have lost nearly all the cases they’ve brought to trial against anti-Trump protesters and abandoned others after grand juries refused to return indictments.

Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor and veteran defense attorney, suggested Gee’s inaction with Essayli might be a clever act of resistance. Rather than picking a fight with the White House, Blanco said, the judges are letting the top prosecutor fall on his face.

“If you’re a judge and displeased with what DOJ is doing and the shenanigans they’re pulling … you let the Essayli appointment play out,” Blanco said. “No one has seen a U.S. attorney’s office lose the way this office is losing now.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times this week that he is working with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to craft legislation to clarify the procedures required to appoint U.S. attorneys and prevent Trump and future presidents from circumventing the Senate.

The legislation, which Schiff did not describe in detail, faces an uphill battle even if Democrats retake the Senate in the upcoming midterms. But the California senator said he is committed to challenging Trump’s maneuvering.

Schiff said Essayli “could not be confirmed and for a reason: He lacks the judgment, temperament and integrity required of a U.S. attorney.”

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, said local federal judges may believe it would be “more disruptive to try and put somebody in when the administration will just fire them.”

But their inaction, she said, has effectively confirmed Essayli as U.S. attorney — and highlights “a real weakness in the system” that demands a legislative fix.

“The bottom line is you have an administration that just doesn’t want to follow the rules,” she said. “There has to be some political will to have Congress do its duty.”

Nearly six years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the underlying inflation process in advanced economies has fundamentally shifted, even as headline consumer price inflation has declined substantially from its 2021–2022 peaks.

According to the Federal Reserve in a

April 1 (UPI) — A federal judge has blocked construction of President Donald Trump‘s $400 million White House ballroom, ruling the New York real estate developer does not have congressional authorization to continue the project.

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” U.S. District Judge Richard Leon for the District of Columbia wrote in the ruling.

Trump has said building a White House ballroom had been a dream of his since before he was president. Construction of the 90,000-square-foot building began with the demolition of the East Wing of the White House in October. Initially said to cost $200 million, the ballroom’s price tag has since doubled. Trump has said it will be financed by private donors.

In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued the Trump administration to halt construction, arguing the project has not been authorized by Congress as required by U.S. law.

In response, the Trump administration has claimed Congress has already given him authority to construct the project, pointing to a statute that Leon, a President George W. Bush appointee, said only permits the president “to conduct ordinary maintenance and repair of the White House.”

Leon said the Trump administration’s understanding of the law assumes Congress has granted “nearly unlimited power to the President to construct anything, anywhere on federal land in the District of Columbia, regardless of the source of funds.”

“This clearly is not how Congress and former Presidents have managed the White House for centuries, and this Court will not be the first to hold that Congress has ceded its powers in such a significant fashion,” he said in the 35-page ruling.

For Trump to continue with the project, he can ask Congress to either appropriate the funds or approve of another funding scheme, he said.

“Unfortunately for Defendants, unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!”

In awarding the National Trust for Historic Preservation an injunction, Leon delayed its enforcement for 14 days in acknowledgment that the Trump administration intends to appeal his decision and that stopping an ongoing construction project may raise logistical issues.

“We are pleased with Judge Leon’s ruling today to order a halt to any further ballroom construction until the Administration complies with the law and obtains express authorization to go forward,” Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the nonprofit organization, said in a statement.

“This is a win for the American people on a project that forever impacts one of the most beloved and iconic places in our nation.”

Trump lambasted the decision on his Truth Social platform.

“He is WRONG! Congressional approval has never been given on anything in these circumstances, big or small, having to do with construction at the White House,” he said in a statement.

In an earlier statement issued after the ruling was made, Trump insulted the National Trust for Historic Preservation as “a Radical Left Group of Lunatics.”

According to the White House Historical Association, Congress has long been responsible for appropriating funds for the care, repair, refurnishing and maintenance of the White House, and Congress approved the Truman-era reconstruction project from 1948 to 1952.

WASHINGTON — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.

The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.

Moss ruled that President Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision

The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.

“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.

Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.

NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.

“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.

PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”

Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.

A victory, though incremental, for press freedom

Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”

“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”

The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

While Trump was sued in this legal action, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.

Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David Bauder contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the government to return to the U.S. a California DACA recipient who was deported last month to Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins in Sacramento gave the government seven days to return Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, 42, and restore her protections under the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, “as if her Feb. 19, 2026 removal never occurred.”

A lawyer for Estrada Juarez argued that she was unlawfully deported within a day of appearing at a scheduled immigration appointment in Sacramento.

Lawyers for the government, meanwhile, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Estrada Juarez’s case because her petition was filed after she was deported and because her removal was a discretionary decision the government is entitled to.

Coggins said she found the government’s argument “unavailing,” writing in her ruling that Estrada Juarez “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA, and in violation of the Constitutional protections afforded to her under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

In a statement, Estrada Juarez said she was “overwhelmed with relief and hope” after learning the court’s decision.

The Department of Homeland Security said it had reinstated an expedited removal order for Estrada Juarez from 1998, when she was 15. But her lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, said the record showed that the order lacked supervisory approval and was never finalized, so there was no valid removal order to reinstate.

Homeland Security previously told The Times that an immigration judge had ordered Estrada Juarez’s deportation in 1998 “and she was removed from the United States shortly after.” Tolchin said Estrada Juarez never saw an immigration judge.

Estrada Juarez, who worked as a regional manager for Motel 6, has had protection from deportation under DACA since 2013. She applied for legal permanent residency, or a green card, through her daughter, Damaris Bello, 22, who is a U.S. citizen.

Her deportation after the green card interview garnered public attention and outrage from members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

Tolchin filed the lawsuit seeking her return on March 10.

DACA was created to protect undocumented people who were brought to the U.S. as children.

As of June 2025, there were more than 515,000 DACA recipients, known as “Dreamers,” in the U.S. California has 144,000 DACA recipients, the most of any state, according to federal data.

Sheriff Robert Luna has asked the National Institute of Corrections to examine conditions and practices at Los Angeles County jails, a request made after 10 inmates died in jail custody in less than three months.

The request comes amid growing concern over conditions inside county lockups. In September, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued the Sheriff’s Department over what he called “unsafe and unconstitutional conditions at county jails.”

Luna has also faced questions from the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission over health conditions, health access, drug use, and other factors that have led to in-custody deaths.

Now, the Sheriff’s Department is asking the National Institute of Corrections to conduct a comprehensive review of county jails in an effort to reduce the number of deaths, Luna told The Times.

“I want someone to come in and review from top to bottom,” Luna said.

Specifics on when the review would begin, and what it would entail, have not yet been set, but Luna said the aim is to get an outside, “unbiased view.”

Officials with the National Institute of Corrections referred questions to the federal Bureau of Prisons, its parent agency, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The National Institute of Corrections provides state, local and federal resources and guidance.

The agency, according to its site, provides “on site technical assistance” to jail administrators, and also helps to identify “gaps in policy and practice.”

The review, Luna said, would entail “everything we’re doing from policy, procedure, facilities, to make sure we’re not missing anything,” Luna said.

Inmate deaths have raised concerns among top sheriff officials and agencies charged with overseeing sheriff operations. The department saw 46 in-custody deaths in 2025, a steep increase from the 32 reported in 2024.

In-custody deaths are reviewed by the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bonta’s lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department, filed in September 2025, alleged inmates were being “forced to live in filthy cells with broken and overflowing toilets, infestations of rats and roaches, and no clean water for drinking or bathing.”

In a statement, Bonta’s office alleged that a lack of access to healthcare in the jails, and conditions inside, contributed to a “shocking rate of preventable in-custody deaths, such as suicides.”

In a previous interview, Luna referred to the spate of death at the start of the year as a “kick in the groin.”

Efforts to reduce deaths are challenging partly because the inmate population inside the jails has been increasingly older, and ill, Luna said, with many of them suffering from drug addiction or long-term conditions.

About 82% of those in custody disclosed at least one medical or mental health issue when booked, officials said.

According to department data, half of the 46 inmate deaths recorded in 2025 were listed as natural. Autopsy results to determine the causes of death are still pending in this year’s cases.

Luna has pointed to changes that have already been made as efforts to improve conditions, including deploying body-worn cameras at the Inmate Reception Center, Men’s Central Jail and Twin Towers Correctional Facility.

The department has also opened a remodeled mental health assessment area at the Inmate Reception Center, the primary intake and release point for county inmates near Men’s Central Jail.

SACRAMENTO — A corporate tax policy that costs California billions in lost tax revenue each year could be coming to an end as the state struggles to backfill federal cuts and resolve a looming budget deficit.

The proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 1790, would repeal the so-called “water’s edge” tax break, a filing option that allows multinational corporations to exclude the income of their foreign subsidiaries from state taxation.

“The tax bills of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world are at all-time lows,” Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), one of the primary sponsors of the bill, told The Times. “Meanwhile, we’re struggling to fund programs that feed children — I think everyone understands that now is the time for long-term budget solutions.”

Republican Sen. Roger Niello, vice chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, said the bill to repeal water’s edge won’t receive support from GOP lawmakers. He said the legislation would lead to double taxation, meaning the same income would be taxed twice by different countries, and compared taxing corporations’ foreign profits to enacting tariffs.

“California already has the reputation of being not particularly business friendly,” said Niello (R-Fair Oaks). “This would really just compound that.”

A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about the governor’s views on the proposal. Newsom, however, has largely shunned new tax increase proposals.

Legislation to increase taxes requires a two-thirds approval vote instead of a simple majority. Democrats in California hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, meaning the bill could still pass without Republican support, but it would require backing from the progressive and moderate wings of the party.

Kayla Kitson, a senior analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center, said the measure has a decent chance of winning support among moderate Democrats due to the state’s budgetary woes.

“The stakes are really high this year,” she said. “With any tax policy, it’s certainly hard to get folks beyond the progressive community on board, but there are a lot of discussions happening behind closed doors given the challenges that the state knows it’s going to have to deal with in the next few years.”

When filing taxes, a multinational corporation in the United States can currently choose between two methods. Worldwide reporting takes into account all of the corporation’s global profits or losses, while the water’s edge option allows the U.S.-based parent company to exclude the income of foreign subsidiaries. This can help corporations that own profitable foreign companies pay less taxes in the United States.

California is scrambling for solutions as the state is facing an estimated $18-billion budget deficit and fallout from federal cuts that slashed healthcare. A Republican-backed tax and spending bill signed last year by President Trump shifted federal funding away from safety net programs and toward tax cuts and immigration enforcement.

Carl Davis, a research director for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said the idea is picking up momentum nationwide, with states like Maryland, Minnesota and New Hampshire also considering a repeal in recent years, due to a growing awareness about profit shifting — a loophole in the water’s edge tax break that some corporations use to reduce their tax burdens by shifting profits made in a high-tax country into tax havens.

“Folks are outraged when they hear that these companies are pretending that they are earning their profits in the Caymans or in Switzerland and are skipping out on paying U.S. taxes as a result,” he said. “That feels insulting to a lot of people who are paying the taxes they owe every day.”

During an informational hearing at the Legislature last month, Rowan Isaaks, an economist with the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the state does not know the extent to which corporations use profit shifting, which makes it impossible to determine exactly how much revenue California would gain by eliminating the water’s edge tax exemption. But he estimated it would bring in “single digit billions” for the state each year.

“While there would be revenue gains, the Legislature also faces a trade-off between broadening the tax base but also managing additional uncertainty,” said Isaaks, explaining it could increase budget volatility because foreign income is more sensitive to global economic conditions.

Issaks added that the Legislative Analyst’s Office has found no strong evidence that companies would flee California if the water’s edge tax break was repealed.

Jennifer Barton, director of the legislative services bureau for the California Franchise Tax Board, told legislators that mandating worldwide reporting wouldn’t be difficult for the state from an administrative standpoint, only requiring some additional outreach or educational efforts.

California Tax Foundation visiting fellow Jared Walczak said that the water’s edge option exists for a reason and that it would be unfair to mandate worldwide reporting. “The vast majority of the activity abroad is true economic activity abroad,” he told lawmakers. “Companies don’t just exist in the United States; they have sales, they have manufacturing, they do things abroad.”

A survey last year from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 63% of adult Americans believe large corporations or businesses should pay more in taxes, while 19% want corporate taxes to be lower and 17% believe corporate tax policy should remain the same.

Tech companies appear to be particularly aggressive with profit shifting. Six U.S. multinational corporations — Apple, Cisco, EBay, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — may have underpaid their U.S. corporate income taxes by $277 billion over varying periods from 2009 through 2022, according to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Repealing the water’s edge tax break isn’t the only tax-related proposal being considered as the state seeks to increase revenue. The Billionaire Tax Act is a controversial proposed state ballot initiative that would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the state’s billionaires to help offset federal cuts. Newsom is among its critics.

Davis believes it will continue to be a hot topic regardless of the bill’s outcome this year.

“There is very good reason to think this [repeal] is going to happen at some point,” he said. “This is a debate that is certainly not going away.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, left state service with two things: a federal corruption investigation and more than $50,000 in pay for vacation time she accrued but never took.

State payroll records reviewed by The Times show Williamson used approximately $30,000 in unused vacation time to remain on California’s payroll through Jan. 31 — seven weeks after Newsom’s office indicated she had departed — before collecting an additional $22,000 lump-sum payout for the hours she had left.

Large cash-outs for departing state workers with hundreds of hours of time off on the books have been a recurring issue in California. The state’s unfunded liability for vacation and other leave owed to employees has ballooned in recent years to $5.6 billion, fueled by generous time-off provisions and a long-standing failure to enforce policies that cap most employees’ vacation balances at 640 hours.

Many state workers accumulate large balances of unused vacation after decades of being on the government payroll. The typical public employee retires with more than two decades in public service, according the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Their unused time off is paid when they leave state employment at their final rate of pay.

Williamson, however, amassed 462 hours of unused leave in less than two years on the job. She earned $19,612 a month as the governor’s chief of staff.

John Moorlach, director at the conservative think tank the Center for Public Accountability at the California Policy Center, said that a job like Williamson had probably involved incredibly long workdays but that the pace in which employees accumulate days off is a major financial burden.

“A normal blue-collar worker would say, ‘Really? Really?“” said Moorlach, a former Republican state senator from Orange County. “You don’t find this perk in the private sector.”

Williamson notified Newsom in November 2024 that she was under federal investigation and was put on paid administrative leave through Dec. 16, the governor’s office said.

Federal charges against Williamson, which were filed in November 2025, allege she siphoned $225,000 out of a dormant state campaign account belonging to gubernatorial hopeful Xavier Becerra and illegally claimed $1 million in luxury handbags and travel as business expenses on her tax returns. She pleaded not guilty to the charges.

A status conference in Williamson’s case was moved to April 16 after she recently underwent a successful liver transplant and due to the large volume of discovery — more than 280,000 pages so far — according to court records filed last month.

Williamson’s attorney, McGregor Scott, did not respond to a request for comment.

State payroll records show Williamson earned $40,000 in regular pay in 2025, which the state controller’s office said included her December 2024 and January 2025 paychecks. The governor’s office said Williamson’s December 2024 paycheck included 11 days of paid administrative leave, and the remainder of both paychecks was covered by her unused leave.

With her final cash-out of $22,000 in remaining time off, she made a total of $62,000 last year — all tied to administrative leave and unused vacation time rather than time worked.

“That’s shocking, honestly,” said Assemblyman Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), adding that stockpiled vacation time overall is something the state Legislature should look into.

The state paid $453 million in unused leave benefits to state workers in 2025. That was an average of more than $20,000 to the 21,000 employees who received a lump-sum check. The amount paid to departing or retiring state workers has steadily increased each year. In 2024, the state paid $413 million for unused time off.

“Obviously, employees are an important part of our state and they accrue vacation time,” Hoover said. “But, if this is something being used to pad people’s salaries … we need to look into that and possibly reform that.”

Last year, 80 state employees took home at least $250,000 in unused time off, and 1,081 employees were paid more than $100,000. Those numbers have been increasing each year. For example, the state paid 16 state workers more than $250,000 for unused time off in 2010, and 309 employees were paid more than $100,000.

In 2024, the state paid out a record $1.2 million to a prison supervising dentist for unused time off. Last year, the top amount paid for unused leave was about $650,000 to an assistant fire chief with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The state owed nearly $5.6 billion to state workers for unused vacation and other leave benefits in 2024, according to the most recent financial accounting report issued by the state controller’s office. Although that unfunded liability held steady when compared with 2023, it has risen sharply from pre-pandemic amounts.

In 2019, the state owed $3.9 billion for employees’ unused time off before COVID-19 curtailed travel and work-from-home policies resulted in fewer workers taking time off. State employees have argued that under-staffing at state agencies can make it difficult to take vacations.

Nick Schroeder, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the state has plans to reduce unfunded liabilities for pensions and retiree healthcare, but that isn’t the case with unused time off.

“There isn’t a plan to address it,” Schroeder said.

When an employee retires with a large leave balance, the department where that person worked last is on the hook for the amount.

“It can be a big effect on that individual department’s budget,” Schroeder said.

During budget deficits — including in the current fiscal year — the state has cut employee pay or deferred annual raises in exchange for additional days off, a strategy that helps balance budgets but also adds to workers’ growing vacation balances.

In Newsom’s January budget proposal, which estimated a $3-billion deficit, the governor recommended providing $91 million in ongoing funding to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to help the prison system pay departing employees for their unused time off. The department said that from 2020 to 2025, it paid about $130 million annually on average to employees leaving state service, according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

When employees cash out banked leave, the state pays them not only for the hours they have accumulated, but also for the additional vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken that time off.

That means a person with 640 hours of vacation would also be paid for all of the vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken those 80 days off. Each hour of leave is paid based on an employee’s final salary — not what they were earning when the time was accrued.

Most private-sector employers cap vacation accrual between 40 and 400 hours and stop employees from earning additional time once they reach those limits. Some companies have moved in the opposite direction, adopting “unlimited paid time off” policies. Under those systems, employees do not accumulate vacation days that can be banked or cashed out, but critics say the policies can lead to workers taking less time off because there is no guaranteed number of days and employees may feel pressure not to appear absent.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said there appears to be little appetite in the state Capitol to address California’s burgeoning vacation liability.

“This problem is systemic within California government and no one seems willing to take it on,” Coupal said. “At the same time, they are clamoring that there is a budget crisis. I suspect they will continue to kick the can down the road.”

Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?

A threat.

Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”

Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.

He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.

The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.

Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.

For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.

Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.

You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.

The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.

Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.

“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”

In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday quashed Justice Department subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve in January, a severe blow to an investigation that has already attracted strong criticism on Capitol Hill.

Judge James Boasberg said that a “mountain of evidence suggests” that the purpose of the subpoenas was simply to pressure the Fed to cut its key interest rate, as President Trump has repeatedly demanded.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell revealed the investigation Jan. 11, prompting Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican to block consideration of Trump’s pick to replace Powell as Fed chair when his term expires May. 15.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

SANTA FE, N.M. — Democratic-led states alarmed by the prospect of federal immigration officers patrolling the polls during this year’s midterm elections are taking steps to counter what they see as a potential tactic to intimidate voters.

New Mexico this week became the first state to bar armed agents from polling locations in response to President Trump’s immigration crackdown, a step being considered in at least half a dozen other Democratic-led states.

The moves highlight a deep distrust toward the Trump administration from blue states, which have been the target of his aggressive immigration tactics while threatened with military deployments and deep cuts in federal funding. Their concerns were heightened after the president suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, even though the Constitution says it’s the states that run elections.

The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations. Last month, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol told a congressional committee “No, sir” when asked if they had any plans to guard polling places. The Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, recently told secretaries of state it “is simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year.

But a group of eight secretaries of state wants that in writing from the nominee to succeed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter Monday to Trump’s new pick to lead the agency, Markwayne Mullin, the group pressed for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.”

Federal law already prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” but Democratic lawmakers, election officials and governors remain concerned.

“The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” said Connecticut Democratic state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, co-author of a state bill to establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

A potential clash between states and the federal government

Other bills seeking to ban immigration agents at the polls are pending in Democratic-led states, large and small, from California to Rhode Island.

In Virginia, lawmakers are weighing legislation that could prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of any polling place or courthouse. But the provision on polling sites remains under negotiation, and it’s unclear whether it will be in the final bill.

The newly signed law in New Mexico prohibits orders that put any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, from the start of early voting.

Under New Mexico’s new law, which takes effect in May and will be in place for the state’s June 2 primary, people who experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel can file a civil lawsuit seeking relief in state courts. State prosecutors and local and state election officials also can sue, and the courts can apply fines of up to $50,000 per violation.

It also prohibits changes to voting qualifications and election rules and procedures that conflict with New Mexico law, as Trump prods the U.S. Senate to approve a bill to impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections nationwide.

Any state measures intended to counter federal election law will face legal hurdles because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law.

“It could set up a direct clash between state governments and the federal government. We don’t know exactly how that’s going to go,” said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the UCLA School of Law. “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”

‘We will hold free and fair elections’

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her own distrust of the Trump administration in election oversight stems from ongoing Department of Justice efforts to get detailed state voter data without explaining why and Trump’s continuing false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” said Lujan Grisham, who terms out of office at the end of 2026.

“We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility,” the Democrat said Tuesday during a news conference. “The Constitution says the states run their elections, and that bill makes that painfully re-clear to the federal government.”

Federal seizure of ballots and election records is a growing concern

New Mexico Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature, voted in unison against the bill.

“I would question strongly why we have to do this other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer of Farmington said during floor debate.

State Sen. Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it’s “better safe than sorry with democracy.” She said she wanted to “make sure that there was some sort of tool that our local law enforcement would have at their disposal if something does happen, if the federal government does in some manner try to interfere with our elections.”

Connecticut’s bill, scheduled for a hearing later this week, also takes aim at federal attempts to seize ballots or other election material. It would require that state officials receive notification of such a move.

Blumenthal said state lawmakers can’t prevent seizures such as the January search by the FBI on an election center in Fulton County, Ga., a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. But he said, “there might be an opportunity for our state attorney general’s office or the secretary of the state’s office to challenge that.”

Lee and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn. AP writer Oliva Diaz in Richmond, Va., and David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.