federal

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.