fiscal year

WASHINGTON — President Trump has seized on the government shutdown as an opportunity to reshape the federal workforce and punish detractors, meeting with budget director Russ Vought on Thursday to talk through “temporary or permanent” spending cuts that could set up a lose-lose dynamic for Democratic lawmakers.

Trump announced the meeting on social media Thursday morning, saying he and Vought would determine “which of the many Democrat Agencies” would be cut — continuing their efforts to slash federal spending by threatening mass firings of workers and suggesting “irreversible” cuts to Democratic priorities.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump wrote on his social media account. “They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The post was notable in its explicit embrace of Project 2025, a controversial policy blueprint drafted by the Heritage Foundation that Trump distanced himself from during his reelection campaign. The effort aimed to reshape the federal government around right-wing policies, and Democrats repeatedly pointed to its goals to warn of the consequences of a second Trump administration.

Vought on Wednesday offered an opening salvo of the pressure he hoped to put on Democrats. He announced he was withholding $18 billion for the Hudson River rail tunnel and Second Avenue subway line in New York City that have been championed by both Democratic leaders, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, in their home state. Vought is also canceling $8 billion in green energy projects in states with Democratic senators.

Meanwhile, the White House is preparing for mass firings of federal workers, rather than simply furloughing as is the usual practice during a shutdown. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week that layoffs were “imminent.”

“If they don’t want further harm on their constituents back home, then they need to reopen the government,” Leavitt said Thursday said of Democrats.

A starring role for Russ Vought

The bespectacled and bearded Vought has emerged as a central figure in the shutdown — promising possible layoffs of government workers that would be a show of strength by the Trump administration as well as a possible liability given the weakening job market and existing voter unhappiness over the economy.

The strategic goal is to increase the political pressure on Democratic lawmakers as agencies tasked with environmental protection, racial equity and addressing poverty, among other things, could be gutted over the course of the shutdown.

But Democratic lawmakers also see Vought as the architect of a strategy to refuse to spend congressionally approved funds, using a tool known as a “pocket rescission” in which the administration submits plans to return unspent money to Congress just before the end of the fiscal year, causing that money to lapse.

All of this means that Democratic spending priorities might be in jeopardy regardless of whether they want to keep the government open or partially closed.

Ahead of the end of the fiscal year in September, Vought used the pocket rescission to block the spending of $4.9 billion in foreign aid.

White House officials refused to speculate on the future use of pocket rescissions after rolling them out in late August. But one of Vought’s former colleagues, insisting on anonymity to discuss the budget director’s plans, said that future pocket rescissions could be 20 times higher.

Shutdown continues with no endgame in sight

Thursday was Day 2 of the shutdown, and already the dial is turned high. The aggressive approach coming from the Trump administration is what certain lawmakers and budget observers feared if Congress, which has the responsibility to pass legislation to fund government, failed to do its work and relinquished control to the White House.

Vought, in a private conference call with House GOP lawmakers Wednesday, told them of layoffs starting in the next day or two. It’s an extension of the Department of Government Efficiency work under Elon Musk that slashed through the federal government at the start of the year.

“These are all things that the Trump administration has been doing since January 20th,” said Jeffries, referring to the president’s first day in office. “The cruelty is the point.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) underscored Thursday that the shutdown gives Trump and Vought vast power over the federal government. He blamed Democrats and said “they have effectively turned off the legislative branch” and “handed it over to the president.”

Still, Johnson said that Trump and Vought take “no pleasure in this.”

Trump and the congressional leaders are not expected to meet again soon. Congress has no action scheduled Thursday in observance of the Jewish holy day, with senators due back Friday. The House is set to resume session next week.

The Democrats are holding fast to their demands to preserve health care funding and refusing to back a bill that fails to do so, warning of price spikes for millions of Americans nationwide.

The shutdown is likely to harm the economy

With no easy endgame at hand, the standoff risks dragging deeper into October, when federal workers who remain on the job will begin missing paychecks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated roughly 750,000 federal workers would be furloughed on any given day during the shutdown, a loss of $400 million daily in wages.

The economic effects could spill over into the broader economy. Past shutdowns saw “reduced aggregate demand in the private sector for goods and services, pushing down GDP,” the CBO said.

“Stalled federal spending on goods and services led to a loss of private-sector income that further reduced demand for other goods and services in the economy,” it said. Overall CBO said there was a “dampening of economic output,” but that reversed once people returned to work.

How Trump and Vought can reshape the federal government

With Congress as a standstill, the Trump administration has taken advantage of new levers to determine how to shape the federal government.

The Trump administration can tap into funds to pay workers at the Defense Department and Homeland Security from what’s commonly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that was signed into law this summer, according to the CBO.

That would ensure Trump’s immigration enforcement and mass deportation agenda is uninterrupted. But employees who remain on the job at many other agencies will have to wait for government to reopen before they get a paycheck.

Mascaro, Boak and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writers Chris Megerian, Stephen Groves, Joey Cappelletti, Matt Brown, Kevin Freking, and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

One UCLA football legend sat across from the other, lamenting how far their beloved program had fallen.

On one side was Rick Neuheisel, a onetime Rose Bowl most valuable player and Bruins head coach, wondering aloud whether his alma mater had put itself in position to pick a strong successor to the recently dismissed DeShaun Foster.

“Is there confidence in the current athletic director when there’s been swing-and-misses,” Neuheisel asked, “or do you need to go find somebody else?”

On the other side of the CBS Sports studio roundtable was Randy Cross, a former All-America offensive lineman and three-time Super Bowl champion so angry about the state of the Bruins that his voice rose as he spoke.

“UCLA is clueless, they’re rudderless, they’re leaderless and it’s been decades since they had anybody there that had a freaking clue as to, A, what they want to do and, two, how they’re going to do it,” Cross said. “It sounds simple — there isn’t a better school in America to go to than UCLA — but that athletic department is a joke led by the football team.”

Theirs weren’t the only critical voices.

National college football writers and other pundits tweeted about the athletic department’s massive deficit, meager NIL resources and failed leadership. An online petition that called for athletic director Martin Jarmond’s resignation or removal generated more than 750 signatures as of Sunday evening.

Some of the fire has been friendly. Roughly 100 former UCLA football players met with Jarmond via Zoom to vent their frustrations about a variety of topics, including the need to get back to the days when football was a top priority at the school.

As UCLA commences a hiring process that will likely last until at least November, one of its biggest hurdles might be a perception problem. Its athletic department has been labeled as impoverished and directionless, with Jarmond squarely in the crosshairs of most detractors.

UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Many have questioned whether Jarmond should be involved in selecting Foster’s replacement after so badly whiffing on his hiring. A former position coach who had never run an offense or a defense, much less a team, Foster compiled a 5-10 record that included back-to-back losses to Mountain West Conference opponents before his dismissal three games into his second season.

“The puzzle doesn’t fit together,” said one veteran agent who works in the NIL space, speaking on condition of anonymity so that he could share his thoughts on the situation candidly. “It’s like, the bad AD hires the coach and they get rid of the coach but they still have the bad AD.”

UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk affirmed Jarmond’s standing in what amounted to a vote of confidence, saying in a statement provided to The Times last week that the athletic director would “oversee the process of hiring a new head coach who will elevate UCLA football to national prominence.”

In announcing a search committee that would assist him in making that hire, Jarmond said he was convening a group of accomplished sports and business executives and UCLA greats that would be revealed once finalized.

The agent who spoke with The Times said having a committee of respected names with UCLA ties such as football legend Troy Aikman, sports executive Casey Wasserman and former Golden State Warriors general manager and Washington Commanders consultant Bob Myers could elevate the Bruins’ prospects of finding a top-level coach.

“The more heavyweights involved, definitely more people might come to the table who wouldn’t otherwise come to the table and then they can try to convince them,” the agent said. “But then you have a lot of chefs in the kitchen picking, and they can’t get it wrong this time.”

The candidates will presumably have more questions than how much they would be getting paid. What does UCLA define as football success — eight-win seasons or reaching the College Football Playoff? What resources will they commit? How firm is Jarmond’s footing inside his department? How will the school bolster its NIL program to be competitive with top counterparts around the country?

Discussions about the school’s complex finances could take up a good chunk of any meeting.

The widely circulated figure of UCLA’s athletic department running a combined $219.55-million deficit over the last six fiscal years doesn’t fully reveal the financial situation. That tab has been covered in full by the university, bringing the balance to zero, thanks in part to $30 million in direct institutional support in the most recent fiscal year.

The university’s forgiving stance has been taken, in part, because a significant chunk of athletic department revenue is diverted to several other business units on campus, including the recreation department, parking, housing, food and Associated Students UCLA, which benefits from long-held trademark and licensing agreements.

That hasn’t stopped the Bruins from making significant investments in football, mostly thanks to an infusion of cash from their Big Ten media rights deal. The team spent $2.9 million to install new grass and artificial turf practice fields while also renovating the weight room inside its relatively new practice facility. A locker room renovation is in the works.

This summer, UCLA paid to hold its 18-day training camp in Costa Mesa. The team has also spent untold millions on food, travel, biometrics and mental health services while also upgrading the infrastructure of its football staff, including general manager and assistant general manager positions and expanded coaching, analytics and recruiting departments.

UCLA committed the maximum $20.5 million for revenue sharing with its athletes, earmarking an estimated $15 million or so for football players. The team also poured millions into NIL deals consummated before the House settlement so that players could benefit prior to the NCAA’s clearinghouse, NIL Go, going into effect July 1.

But how sustainable is that kind of spending?

In May, the UCLA Academic Senate’s executive board sent a letter to Frenk and Darnell Hunt, the executive vice chancellor and provost, outlining “profound concern” related to the athletic department deficit at a time of anticipated budget cuts for academic departments.

“We have been told that financial sacrifices are necessary to ensure that there is a UCLA in the future,” the letter stated. “How can austerity of this magnitude be imposed on the core academic mission while athletics spending goes unchecked?”

Fans attend the UCLA season opener against Utah at the Rose Bowl on Aug. 30.

(Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press)

The letter went on to note that Jarmond received a contract extension paying him more than $1.5 million annually despite never operating his department with less than a $20-million annual deficit. It also detailed several ways in which the athletic department’s roughly $80-million deficit for the most recent fiscal year (not counting the $30-million lifeline from the university) could be used to support academics, including covering nearly all in-state tuition for every doctoral student.

“All of these potential uses would directly support the academic mission in austere times,” the letter said. “Yet the money is instead being directed to bail out a non-academic department that consistently demonstrates poor fiscal management.”

The senate ended its letter by requesting, among other things, immediate assurance that campus would no longer subsidize the athletic department in any form, including providing or authorizing loans. What was Frenk’s response?

Megan M. McEvoy, the academic senate chair for the 2025-26 school year who is also a UCLA professor of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics, told The Times that the academic senate did not receive a reply and its concerns are ongoing.

But any pressure to save will undoubtedly be offset by calls to spend.

During a discussion of the coaching openings at UCLA and Virginia Tech on ESPN’s “College GameDay” on Saturday, reporter Pete Thamel noted that the Hokies were adding $50 million to their athletic department budget to display their commitment to winning at the highest level.

Host Rece Davis wryly added that of the two schools, Virginia Tech was the one that knew what needed to be done.

The agent who spoke with The Times said that UCLA’s best move might be to hire a coach from a lower-level conference who could bring a good chunk of his roster with him like Curt Cignetti did as part of his transition from James Madison to Indiana. In his first season with the Hoosiers, Cignetti won 11 games and took his team to the College Football Playoff.

“If you bring in a guy from Tulane, where those players don’t make as much [in NIL] as what UCLA has to pay,” the agent said, “you can just get it all done in a one-stop shop, so that’s a very interesting dynamic. I don’t think an A-lister [at a bigger school] can really build it as fast as the B-plus guy because the B-plus guy can bring players from his school right now.”

That’s assuming, of course, that the B-plus guy takes UCLA’s call.

The Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which helps pay for PBS, NPR, 1,500 local radio and television stations as well as programs like “Sesame Street” and “Finding Your Roots,” announced last week that it would close after the U.S. government withdrew funding.

The organization told employees that most staff positions will end with the fiscal year on Sept. 30. A small transition team will stay until January to finish any remaining work.

The private, nonprofit corporation was founded in 1968 shortly after Congress authorized its formation. Its demise ends nearly six decades of supporting the production of renowned educational programming, cultural content and emergency alerts about natural disasters.

Here’s what to know:

Losing funding

President Trump signed a bill July 24 canceling about $1.1 billion that had been approved for public broadcasting. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense, and conservatives have particularly directed their ire at NPR and PBS.

Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced concern about what the cuts could mean for some local public stations in their state. They warned that some stations will have to close.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday reinforced the policy change by excluding funding for the CPB for the first time in more than 50 years as part of a broader spending bill.

How it began

Congress passed legislation creating the body in 1967, several years after then-Federal Communications Commission Chair Newton Minow described commercial television as a “vast wasteland” and called for programming in the public interest.

The corporation doesn’t produce programming and it doesn’t own, operate or control any public broadcasting stations. The CPB, PBS and NPR are independent of one another, as are local public television and radio stations.

Rural stations hit hard

Roughly 70% of the corporation’s money went directly to 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country. The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it’s likely some won’t survive. National Public Radio’s president estimated that as many as 80 NPR stations may close in the next year.

Mississippi Public Broadcasting has already decided to eliminate a streaming channel that airs children’s programming 24 hours a day, including “Caillou” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.”

Maine’s public media system is looking at a hit of $2.5 million, or about 12% of its budget, for the next fiscal year. The state’s rural residents rely heavily on public media for weather updates and disaster alerts.

In Kodiak, Alaska, KMXT estimated the cuts would slice 22% from its budget. Public radio stations in the sprawling, heavily rural state often provide not just news but alerts about natural disasters such as tsunamis, landslides and volcanic eruptions.

From Big Bird to war documentaries

The first episode of “Sesame Street” aired in 1969. Child viewers, adults and guest stars alike were instantly hooked. Over the decades, Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Elmo have become household favorites.

Entertainer Carol Burnett appeared on that inaugural episode. She told the Associated Press she was a big fan.

“I would have done anything they wanted me to do,” she said. “I loved being exposed to all that goodness and humor.”

“Sesame Street” said in May it would get some help from a Netflix streaming deal.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. started “Finding Your Roots” in 2006 under the title “African American Lives.” He invited prominent Black celebrities and traced their family trees into slavery. When the paper trail ran out, they would use DNA to see which ethnic group they were from in Africa. Challenged by a viewer to open the show to non-Black celebrities, Gates agreed and the series was renamed “Faces of America,” which had to be changed again after the name was taken.

The show is PBS’ most-watched program on linear TV and the most-streamed nondrama program. Season 10 reached nearly 18 million people across linear and digital platforms and also received its first Emmy nomination.

Grant money from the nonprofit has also funded lesser-known food, history, music and other shows created by stations across the country.

Documentarian Ken Burns, celebrated for creating the documentaries “The Civil War,” “Baseball” and “The Vietnam War,” told “PBS NewsHour” that the corporation accounted for about 20% of his films’ budgets. He said he would make it up but projects receiving 50% to 75% of their funding from the organization won’t.

Influence of shows

Children’s programming in the 1960s was made up of shows like “Captain Kangaroo,” ’’Romper Room” and the cat-and-mouse skirmishes on “Tom & Jerry.” “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” mostly taught social skills.

“Sesame Street” was designed by education professionals and child psychologists to help low-income and minority students ages 2 to 5 overcome some of the deficiencies they had when entering school. Social scientists had long noted white and higher-income kids were often better prepared.

One of the most widely cited studies about the effects of “Sesame Street” compared households that got the show with those that didn’t. It found that the children exposed to “Sesame Street” were 14% more likely to be enrolled in the correct grade level for their age in middle and high school.

Over the years, “Finding Your Roots” showed Natalie Morales discovering she’s related to one of the legendary pirates of the Caribbean, and former “Saturday Night Live” star Andy Samberg finding his biological grandmother and grandfather. It revealed that drag queen RuPaul and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker are cousins, as are actors Meryl Streep and Eva Longoria.

“The two subliminal messages of ’Finding Your Roots,’ which are needed more urgently today than ever, is that what has made America great is that we’re a nation of immigrants,” Gates told the AP. “And secondly, at the level of the genome, despite our apparent physical differences, we’re 99.99% the same.”

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump says he wants to hire 10,000 new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, but experts and the history of law enforcement hiring sprees suggest the process could be challenging, lengthy and possibly result in problematic hires.

The massive funding bill signed into law this month by Trump earmarks about $170 billion for border and immigration enforcement, including tens of billions for new deportation agents and other personnel. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement to The Times, said that the agency will deliver on the president’s hiring directive.

“In June, our 2025 Career Expo successfully recruited 3,000 candidates and generated 1,000 tentative job offers — nearly double the 564 from 2023,” she wrote. “Our recruitment strategy includes targeted outreach, thorough vetting and partnerships with state and local law enforcement.”

During his first term, when Trump called for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire 15,000 people collectively, a July 2017 report by the Homeland Security inspector general found significant setbacks.

“Although DHS has established plans and initiated actions to begin an aggressive hiring surge, in recent years the Department and its components have encountered notable difficulties related to long hire times, proper allocation of staff, and the supply of human resources,” the report states.

The independent watchdog concluded that to meet the goal of 10,000 new immigration officers, ICE would need more than 500,000 applicants. For CBP to hire 5,000 new agents, it would need 750,000 applicants.

It doesn’t appear either goal was met. In 2017, ICE hired 371 deportation officers from more than 11,000 applications and took 173 days on average to finalize hires, the news outlet Government Executive reported. And Cronkite News reported that when Trump left office in 2021, Border Patrol had shrunk by more than 1,000 agents.

“The mere mechanics of hiring that many people is challenging and takes time,” said John Pfaff, a law professor at Fordham University who studies U.S. incarceration and has researched the hiring challenges ICE faces.

When the initial version of the funding bill passed the House of Representatives, it laid out a target of at least 10,000 ICE officers, agents and support staff, specifying a minimum of 2,500 people in fiscal year 2025 and 1,875 people in each subsequent year through 2029.

The legislation didn’t outline specific hiring goals for Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of Border Patrol, though Homeland Security said that, in addition to the 3,000 Border Patrol agents, the funding will also support the hiring of 3,000 more customs officers at ports of entry.

The Senate modified the bill and on final passage, the law removed those hiring specifics, meaning ICE can use the funding for a variety of purposes. ICE has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel. CBP has 60,000 employees, including about 19,000 Border Patrol agents.

Studies on accelerated hiring efforts have found that, in some cases, contracts were poorly managed. Ten months into a 2018 contract with the professional services firm Accenture, by which point CBP had paid $13.6 million, the inspector general found that just two people had accepted job offers.

Residents confront ICE agents and Border Patrol agents over their presence in their neighborhood on Atlantic Boulevard in the city of Bell on June 20.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Hiring thousands of employees would be an even bigger lift today, Pfaff said.

He pointed to the fact that since 2020, police departments nationwide have also struggled to recruit and retain officers. Immigration officer pay is lower than rookie salaries at big-city law enforcement agencies, such as the New York Police Department.

A job posting for a deportation officer offers a salary range of about $50,000 to $90,000. Pfaff compared that with NYPD, where officer salaries start at just over $60,000 and rise to more than $125,000 in less than six years.

Another recruitment push resulted in a wave of high-profile corruption cases.

During a Border Patrol hiring spree from 2006 to 2009, standards for hiring and training were lowered, about 8,000 agents were brought on. The Associated Press reported that the number of employees arrested for misconduct — such as civil rights violations or off-duty crimes like domestic violence — grew yearly between 2007 and 2012, reaching 336, or a 44% increase. More than 100 employees were arrested or charged with corruption, including taking bribes to smuggle drugs or people.

A 2015 report from an internal audit by a CBP advisory council said that “arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other federal law enforcement agencies.”

Josiah Heyman, an anthropology professor who directs the University of Texas at El Paso’s Center of Inter-American and Border Studies, studied the mid-2000s hiring spree. He said smuggling organizations have only gotten more sophisticated since then, as have security measures, so it’s more valuable for smugglers to “buy someone off” instead of attempting to bring in people or drugs undetected.

Beyond corruption, Heyman said he worries the drive to quickly increase Homeland Security staffing could lead to Americans being deported, as well as an increase of assault and abuse cases and deaths of detainees.

“Getting 10,000 [new employees] means basically hiring the people who walk in the door because you’re trying to hit your quota,” he said. “Rapid, mass-hiring lends itself to mistakes and cutting corners.”

The recruitment issues at Border Patrol led to reforms, such as the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010, which included mandatory polygraph testing for job applicants (though that requirement was not implemented for ICE applicants). The polygraph tests revealed some applicants had concerning backgrounds, including some believed to have links to organized crime.

The reforms also slowed hiring as two-thirds of Border Patrol applicants began failing the polygraph exam by 2017, the Associated Press reported.

If the government is not able to hit its hiring goals, it might turn to contractors, the U.S. military and local law enforcement to help carry out Trump’s aggressive crackdown on immigration. It is likely to continue its expansion of the 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to function as deportation agents. Homeland Security said the new budget will fully fund the 287(g) program.

Pfaff said that while using local police to make immigration arrests could help in the short term, many major cities and states, including California, have already banned the agreements or limited cooperation with ICE. Still, ProPublica reported that more than 500 law enforcement agencies have signed 287(g) agreements since January.

Jason Houser, who was ICE’s chief of staff under the Biden administration, said training new hires takes about a year and that classes are typically capped at 50 students.

Houser said another short-term workaround for permanent staff could be the use of contractors.

Most immigrant detainees are held in facilities that are run by private prison companies, including the Florida-based GEO Group and Tennessee-based CoreCivic.

But those companies have a limited inventory of detention space. CBP could also use its funding to erect soft-sided, temporary facilities on military bases within the 100 miles of the U.S. boundary, in which CBP has authority to conduct immigration checkpoints and other enhanced enforcement activities.

Houser said temporary facilities could be set up by October, and they could be staffed with National Guard or U.S. military personnel in administrative, nursing, food and sanitation roles.

Federal law generally prohibits the military from arresting civilians. But Homeland Security officials have said military personnel have the authority to temporarily detain anyone who attacks an immigration agent until law enforcement can arrest them.

But Houser worries that placing young service members, who aren’t trained to conduct civil detention, in charge of those facilities will lead to people getting hurt. He also worries that without other countries agreeing to accept more deportees, the number of immigrants detained for months could quickly balloon.

As of June 29, there were nearly 58,000 immigrants held in detention, according to TRAC, a nonpartisan data research organization. That’s far beyond the congressionally approved 41,500 detention beds this fiscal year.

“This is 9/11-style money,” Houser said. “Think about the money in counterterrorism post-9/11. It turns the entire apparatus toward this goal. Everything in government is going to turn to where the money is, and that’s the scary piece to me.”

Over the last several months, a deep sense of unease has settled over laboratories across the United States. Researchers at every stage — from graduate students to senior faculty — have been forced to shelve experiments, rework career plans, and quietly warn each other not to count on long-term funding. Some are even considering leaving the country altogether.

This growing anxiety stems from an abrupt shift in how research is funded — and who, if anyone, will receive support moving forward. As grants are being frozen or rescinded with little warning and layoffs begin to ripple through institutions, scientists have been left to confront a troubling question: Is it still possible to build a future in U.S. science?

On May 2, the White House released its Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request, proposing a nearly $18-billion cut from the National Institutes of Health. This cut, which represents approximately 40% of the NIH’s 2025 budget, is set to take effect on Oct. 1 if adopted by Congress.

“This proposal will have long-term and short-term consequences,” said Stephen Jameson, president of the American Assn. of Immunologists. “Many ongoing research projects will have to stop, clinical trials will have to be halted, and there’ll be the knock-on effects on the trainees who are the next generation of leaders in biomedical research. So I think there’s going to be varied and potentially catastrophic effects, especially on the next generation of our researchers, which in turn will lead to a loss of the status of the U.S. as a leader in biomedical research.“

In the request, the administration justified the move as part of its broader commitment to “restoring accountability, public trust, and transparency at the NIH.” It accused the NIH of engaging in “wasteful spending” and “risky research,” releasing “misleading information,” and promoting “dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”

National Institutes of Health.

(NIH.gov)

To track the scope of NIH funding cuts, a group of scientists and data analysts launched Grant Watch, an independent project that monitors grant cancellations at the NIH and the National Science Foundation. This database compiles information from public government records, official databases, and direct submissions from affected researchers, grant administrators, and program directors.

As of July 3, Grant Watch reports 4,473 affected NIH grants, totaling more than $10.1 billion in lost or at-risk funding. These include research and training grants, fellowships, infrastructure support, and career development awards — and affect large and small institutions across the country. Research grants were the most heavily affected, accounting for 2,834 of the listed grants, followed by fellowships (473), career development awards (374) and training grants (289).

The NIH plays a foundational role in U.S. research. Its grants support the work of more than 300,000 scientists, technicians and research personnel, across some 2,500 institutions and comprising the vast majority of the nation’s biomedical research workforce. As an example, one study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that funding from the NIH contributed to research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016.

Jameson emphasized that these kinds of breakthroughs are made possible only by long-term federal investment in fundamental research. “It’s not just scientists sitting in ivory towers,” he said. “There are enough occasions where [basic research] produces something new and actionable — drugs that will save lives.”

That investment pays off in other ways too. In a 2025 analysis, United for Medical Research, a nonprofit coalition of academic research institutions, patient groups and members of the life sciences industry, found that every dollar the NIH spends generates $2.56 in economic activity.

A ‘brain drain’ on the horizon

Support from the NIH underpins not only research, but also the training pipeline for scientists, physicians and entrepreneurs — the workforce that fuels U.S. leadership in medicine, biotechnology and global health innovation. But continued American preeminence is not a given. Other countries are rapidly expanding their investments in science and research-intensive industries.

If current trends continue, the U.S. risks undergoing a severe “brain drain.” In a March survey conducted by Nature, 75% of U.S. scientists said they were considering looking for jobs abroad, most commonly in Europe and Canada.

This exodus would shrink domestic lab rosters, and could erode the collaborative power and downstream innovation that typically follows discovery. “It’s wonderful that scientists share everything as new discoveries come out,” Jameson said. “But, you tend to work with the people who are nearby. So if there’s a major discovery in another country, they will work with their pharmaceutical companies to develop it, not ours.”

At UCLA, Dr. Antoni Ribas has already started to see the ripple effects. “One of my senior scientists was on the job market,” Ribas said. “She had a couple of offers before the election, and those offers were higher than anything that she’s seen since. What’s being offered to people looking to start their own laboratories and independent research careers is going down — fast.”

In addition, Ribas, who directs the Tumor Immunology Program at the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, says that academia and industry are now closing their door to young talent. “The cuts in academia will lead to less positions being offered,” Ribas explained. “Institutions are becoming more reluctant to attract new faculty and provide startup packages.” At the same time, he said, the biotech industry is also struggling. “Even companies that were doing well are facing difficulties raising enough money to keep going, so we’re losing even more potential positions for researchers that are finishing their training.”

This comes at a particularly bitter moment. Scientific capabilities are soaring, with new tools allowing researchers to examine single cells in precise detail, probe every gene in the genome, and even trace diseases at the molecular level. “It’s a pity,” Ribas said, “Because we have made demonstrable progress in treating cancer and other diseases. But now we’re seeing this artificial attack being imposed on the whole enterprise.”

Without federal support, he warns, the system begins to collapse. “It’s as if you have a football team, but then you don’t have a football field. We have the people and the ideas, but without the infrastructure — the labs, the funding, the institutional support — we can’t do the research.”

For graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in particular, funding uncertainty has placed them in a precarious position.

“I think everyone is in this constant state of uncertainty,” said Julia Falo, a postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeley and recording secretary of UAW 4811, the union for workers at the University of California. “We don’t know if our own grants are going to be funded, if our supervisor’s grants are going to be funded, or even if there will be faculty jobs in the next two years.”

She described colleagues who have had funding delayed or withdrawn without warning, sometimes for containing flagged words like “diverse” or “trans-” or even for having any international component.

The stakes are especially high for researchers on visas. As Falo points out for those researchers, “If the grant that is funding your work doesn’t exist anymore, you can be issued a layoff. Depending on your visa, you may have only a few months to find a new job — or leave the country.”

A graduate student at a California university, who requested anonymity due to the potential impact on their own position — which is funded by an NIH grant— echoed those concerns. “I think we’re all a little on edge. We’re all nervous,” they said. “We have to make sure that we’re planning only a year in advance, just so that we can be sure that we’re confident of where that funding is going to come from. In case it all of a sudden gets cut.”

The student said their decision to pursue research was rooted in a desire to study rare diseases often overlooked by industry. After transitioning from a more clinical setting, they were drawn to academia for its ability to fund smaller, higher-impact projects — the kind that might never turn a profit but could still change lives. They hope to one day become a principal investigator, or PI, and lead their own research lab.

Now, that path feels increasingly uncertain. “If things continue the way that they have been,” they said. “I’m concerned about getting or continuing to get NIH funding, especially as a new PI.”

Still, they are staying committed to academic research. “If we all shy off and back down, the people who want this defunded win.”

Rallying behind science

Already, researchers, universities and advocacy groups have been pushing back against the proposed budget cut.

On campuses across the country, students and researchers have organized rallies, marches and letter-writing campaigns to defend federal research funding. “Stand Up for Science” protests have occurred nationwide, and unions like UAW 4811 have mobilized across the UC system to pressure lawmakers and demand support for at-risk researchers. Their efforts have helped prevent additional state-level cuts in California: in June, the Legislature rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed $129.7-million reduction to the UC budget.

Earlier this year, a coalition of public health groups, researchers and unions — led by the American Public Health Assn. — sued the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services over the termination of more than a thousand grants. On June 16, U.S. District Judge William Young ruled in their favor, ordering the NIH to reinstate over 900 canceled grants and calling the terminations unlawful and discriminatory. Although the ruling applies only to grants named in the lawsuit, it marks the first major legal setback to the administration’s research funding rollback.

Though much of the current spotlight (including that lawsuit) has focused on biomedical science, the proposed NIH cuts threaten research far beyond immunology or cancer. Fields ranging from mental health to environmental science stand to lose crucial support. And although some grants may be in the process of reinstatement, the damage already done — paused projects, lost jobs and upended career paths — can’t simply be undone with next year’s budget.

And yet, amid the fear and frustration, there’s still resolve. “I’m floored by the fact that the trainees are still devoted,” Jameson said. “They still come in and work hard. They’re still hopeful about the future.”

The amount of money that the city of Los Angeles pays annually for police misconduct, trip and falls, and other lawsuits has ballooned, rising from $64 million a decade ago to $254 million last year and $289 million this fiscal year.

The reasons are complicated, ranging from aging sidewalks to juries’ tendency to award larger judgments to possible shifts in legal strategy at the city attorney’s office to an increase in the sheer number of lawsuits against the city.

The biggest chunk of payouts over the past five years were for “dangerous conditions” — lawsuits singling out faulty city infrastructure, such as broken elevators — at 32%, followed by civil rights violations and unlawful uses of force at 18%, and traffic collisions involving city vehicles also at 18%.

City officials have cited the legal payouts as a significant factor in a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025-26 that was closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who took office in December 2022, heads the office that defends the city against lawsuits.

In an interview with The Times and public appearances throughout the city, Feldstein Soto cited a backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts were barely moving, that were settled or went to trial in recent years.

“Structured settlements” negotiated by her predecessor, Mike Feuer, which are paid out annually rather than in one lump sum, have also contributed to the tab, she said.

Feldstein Soto also said she believes juries are increasingly antagonistic to city governments, resulting in larger verdicts.

Feuer said in an interview that the city was entering into structured settlements before he took office, and he does not believe he increased their use.

To explain the rise in legal liability payouts during his tenure — from about $40 million in 2013 to about $91 million in 2022 — Feuer cited a lack of investment in city infrastructure like streets and sidewalks during the 2008 financial crisis.

In public appearances, Feldstein Soto has sometimes blamed plaintiffs for trying to get financial compensation for what she characterized as risky behavior or interpersonal disputes.

Speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association earlier this year, she said that two types of lawsuits — “dangerous conditions” lawsuits and those brought by city employees over working conditions — are ripe for abuse. Some employees who sue the city simply don’t like their bosses, Feldstein Soto said, citing a lawsuit by an LAPD captain, Stacey Vince, who alleged that higher-ups retaliated against her after she complained about her boss. Vince was awarded $10.1 million by a jury, and the city subsequently settled the case for just under $6 million.

Feldstein Soto also described one man who sued the city as an “idiot.” The man was riding his electric scooter without a helmet, Feldstein Soto said, when he crashed on an uneven sidewalk and into a nearby tree, suffering a traumatic brain injury.

According to Feldstein Soto, taxpayers ultimately pay the price for these lawsuits.

“Please understand that every dollar you award is your money,” she said.

The number of lawsuits filed against the city has risen each year since the pandemic, from 1,131 in 2021 to 1,560 in 2024.

At the same time, the average amount the city pays per case has increased dramatically, from under $50,000 in 2022 to $132,180 in 2024. A contributing factor is the increase in payouts of least $1 million, with 17 such cases in 2022 and 39 in 2024. (The city counts settlements or jury verdicts in the fiscal year they are paid out, not when the dollar amount is decided.)

From July 2024 to March 2025, the city paid $1 million or more in 51 lawsuits.

Feldstein Soto said these “nuclear verdicts” cut deep into the city budget and could raise payouts for similar cases in the future.

Total annual payouts in police misconduct cases jumped from $15 million in 2020 to $50 million in 2024. Dangerous conditions cases rose from around $41 million in 2020 to about $84 million in 2024.

Earlier this year, the city paid $21 million to plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits related to a botched LAPD bomb squad fireworks detonation that injured more than 20 people and displaced many residents.

Also this year, the city paid out a $17.7-million verdict to the family of a man with mental health issues killed by an off-duty LAPD officer.

This coming fiscal year, the city increased its allocation for liability payouts from about $87 million to $187 million — far less than what it has been paying in recent years — out of a $14-billion budget.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s public works committee, said the rising payouts stem in part from the city’s long-term lack of investment in infrastructure. The city spent about 10% of its overall budget on streets and other public works last year — substantially less than it spent on police, said Hernandez, who favors a smaller LAPD.

“As a city, we don’t invest in the maintenance of our city,” she said. “I have felt like I’ve been screaming into the void about some of these things.”

In one lawsuit paid out this year, the city agreed to give $3 million to a man who tripped over a slightly uneven sidewalk and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last April, the city reached a $21-million settlement with a man whose skull was broken by a street lamp part that fell on him. The city had gone to trial, with a jury awarding the man $22 million, but the parties eventually settled for the slightly lower amount.

“I believe the driving force is the delays and lack of maintenance of the city that has caused an increase in such incidents,” said Arash Zabetian, a lawyer for the man hit by the streetlight.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys say that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies are contributing to the rising liability costs. They assert that she is taking more cases to trial, resulting in larger verdicts than if she had settled.

Matthew McNicholas, an attorney who often sues the city on behalf of police officers, said he recently went to trial in five cases and won all of them, for a total payout of more than $40 million.

He would have been happy to settle all five cases for a total of less than $10 million, he said.

One of the lawsuits, which ended with a $13-million verdict, was filed by two male officers accused of drawing a penis on a suspect’s abdomen. The officers alleged that higher-ups did not cast the same suspicion on their female colleagues.

In another of the lawsuits, a whistleblower alleged that he was punished for highlighting problems in the LAPD Bomb Detection K-9 Section. A jury also awarded him $13 million.

“It’s not a tactic to say we’re going to play hardball. It’s just stupid,” McNicholas said. “I am frustrated because she goes and blames my clients and runaway juries for her problems.”

Greg Smith, another plaintiffs’ attorney, said he has also noticed a tendency at Feldstein Soto’s office to push cases to trial.

“Everything is a fight,” Smith said. “I have been suing the city for 30 years, and this has been the worst administration with respect to trying to settle cases.”

Feldstein Soto said her office settles “every case we can.”

“It’s in nobody’s interest to go to trial. It’s a waste of resources,” she said. “But we will not settle cases where we don’t think we’re liable or where the demand is unreasonable.”

To stem the flood of large payouts, Feldstein Soto is looking to Sacramento for help, proposing a bill that would cap lawsuits against California cities at $1 million or three times the economic losses caused by an incident, whichever is greater. Caps on damages exist already in 38 states, according to Feldstein Soto’s office.

She has yet to find a state legislator to sponsor the bill.

The Nintendo Switch 2 console has officially been released, as retailers opened their doors at midnight — 9 p.m. here on the West Coast — to welcome early adapters and die-hard fans. It’s the follow-up to Nintendo’s second-bestselling gaming device ever; with sales topping 150 million, the Switch is behind only the handheld Nintendo DS.

Thus, Switch 2 carries expectations.

Though it has a bigger, higher-resolution 1080p screen and more processing power than its predecessor to better run some of today’s most popular games, it’s not a wholesale re-imagining. It looks similar, albeit just a tad larger, and again comes with detachable controllers, which Nintendo dubs “Joy-Con,” only now they are magnetized. Switch owners will feel right at home with the new device.

And judging by lines at retailers yesterday — a social media friend of mine claims to have spent eight hours standing outside a Best Buy to get a Switch 2 on Day One — many have already made the plunge to buy the new console. Nintendo has stated that it expects to sell 15 million new consoles between now and the end of its fiscal year next March.

Yet a new video game console brings with it questions. What is worth playing? Is it easy to upgrade? And will it even be in stock?

Nintendo has stated it believes it has enough consoles to meet demand, but whether there will be shortages after the initial rush remains an unknown. I’m still getting to know my Switch 2, but have spent some time with its showcase game and transferred my data from my prior console, and here are some initial answers to basic queries.

The showcase game for the Nintendo Switch 2 is “Mario Kart World.”

(Nintendo)

There’s only one new marquee game at launch: “Mario Kart World.” How is it?

While it may seem odd to release a new console with only one potential blockbuster title, remember that the most recent game in the series, “Mario Kart 8,” is one of Nintendo’s top-selling games, selling more than 67 million units since its release about a decade ago. Therefore, it’s a pretty safe bet, as it’s a game that works for casual and hardcore players, and has cross-generational appeal. Nintendo has also made “Mario Kart” the centerpiece of its theme park lands, of which there is one here at Universal Studios Hollywood.

And there’s good news: It’s a winner.

While its feel and tone will be instantly familiar, it comes with a couple of new tricks. One of those is a new mode called “Knockout Tour,” in which you’ll need to maintain a certain placement throughout each of the race’s five checkpoints. It’s a fast play style that is constantly upping the tension, which is key for a game in which it’s always possible to go from first to last and vice versa at a moment’s notice. Another new option, and my early favorite, is the “free roam” setting. No racing here, just exploring.

At a preview session earlier this year, some of the most fun I had was when I wasn’t racing and was simply driving my kart off the track to see what hidden surprises awaited me in the world. I came across Toad characters fishing and ramshackle vehicles that encouraged me to follow them. It was play for play’s sake. This morning, I relaxed with coffee while pulling up to a cafe run by Yoshi, and then stumbled across some timed mini-challenges in the world. It adds a surprising sense of depth and presence to Mario’s Mushroom Kingdom.

Short answer: Early impressions are dazzling.

“Nintendo Switch Welcome Tour” is a delightful exploration of the Nintendo Switch 2 featuring a host of mini games.

(Nintendo)

Wait, there’s an add-on game that’s essentially a Switch 2 tutorial? What’s that about?

I was eager to get my hands on “Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour,” a $9.99 title game-as-tutorial in which we control a tiny human avatar who appears to live in a giant Switch 2. Only instead of tech bits, we see a sleek mall-meets-amusement park world full of mini-games designed to showcase various aspects of the Switch 2’s technology — a guessing game centered on frames per second or a dodging challenge that has us using the Joy-Con detachable controllers as mouse-like gadgets. The latter is one of the key differences between the Switch and Switch 2, and will be especially handy in games that require precision.

Some of the other games in “Welcome Tour” are essentially demos. One aims to show off modern television sets with 4K resolution. Another has us adjusting Switch settings to help convey the vibrancy of HDR via animated fireworks. They’re simple, quick ways to get to know new tech, and I had fun with a mini-game that tests out the rumbling of the controllers, challenging us to pinpoint the precise moment the vibrations are at their most intense. They’re good mini-games that won’t last more than a minute or two.

Yet it’s a game designed to teach players about the new fancy game console they just bought, and therefore should come bundled with it. I wonder if I’ll revisit it after my initial week with it.

Short answer: “Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour” is cute but should be free.

The Nintendo Switch 2 looks and feels familiar to the Switch.

(Nintendo)

How complicated is it to transfer data from my original Switch?

If you’re purchasing a Switch 2 and playing via cartridges rather than downloadable games, you can jump right in. But I’d recommend downloading the system update and transferring your saved game data and as many games as you’d like from your prior Switch. The Switch 2 is largely backward compatible, meaning the vast majority of older titles will work on it (Nintendo is maintaining a list).

While I opted not to download every game from my previous Switch, wanting to save space on the 256 GB internal storage of the new console, I was pleased to see that the more than 50 games I had on my older device were all ready to go. Better yet, this was all relatively simple to accomplish and extremely user intuitive. A QR code will have you log into your Nintendo account, and as long as your older Switch and Switch 2 are in the same room, everything should transfer within a couple hours, depending on how many games you want to port over.

Short answer: Don’t stress.

“Donkey Kong Bananza” is due next month for the Nintendo Switch 2.

(Nintendo)

Eek, the price! Will it increase?

Early headlines regarding the Switch 2 focused on the price. It’s high.

The base system sells for $449.99 and “Mario Kart World” carries a hefty $80 tag, the highest price Nintendo has given a game, and an atypical price for an industry that has long valued non-special editions of games at around $59.99. And just hours after announcing a price and pre-sale date, Nintendo pulled back its pre-order plan, stating that there was uncertainty due “the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions.” President Trump’s trade war remains an evolving situation, but the Japanese tech giant ultimately decided not to increase the price of the system. That being said, Nintendo did up the cost of some of the accessories for the Switch 2.

In recent interviews, Nintendo of America President Doug Bowser said the company would continue to monitor the situation. For now, the price is set, but things seem to always be in flux in our current political climate. Nintendo’s gaming competitor Microsoft recently raised the prices on its Xbox consoles.

Short answer: It remains unknown, but if you’re in the market for a Switch 2, it may be advisable to buy when you can.

A purchaser of the Nintendo Switch 2 at a Target in Chicago.

(Kiichiro Sato / Associated Press)

So, should I buy it?

This is, of course, the No. 1 question I receive, and I’m being honest when I say it’s difficult to answer. I’ve had a Switch 2 in my home for only half a day, at the time of writing, and while I attended a preview event earlier this year, I still haven’t been able to put it through its paces. Additionally, it’s always difficult to tell someone to drop $500 — $600 or more, if you’re buying some games and a recommended Pro Controller — on a video game console, which is, of course, a luxury item.

That being said, I am a big proponent of the importance of play, and Nintendo tends to get this right. The company’s video game mantra since its Nintendo Entertainment System days has been to show gaming and play as a medium full of possibilities, using world-building, competition and puzzles to enchant. I believe some new additions to “Mario Kart World,” for instance, such as the free roam mode, accomplish this goal. You likely already know if you’re a fan of the worlds Nintendo creates, whether they involve Mario and his brother Luigi or are franchises such as “Zelda” and “Animal Crossing.” And Nintendo isn’t going to abandon its core franchises — a new “Donkey Kong” title arrives in July — and there are some abilities, such as using the detachable controllers as mice, that should add some fun twists to future gameplay.

Short answer: If you have the means, my early impression is that Switch 2 is a worthy successor. That being said, if you’re not a fan of “Mario Kart” or Nintendo’s main franchises, I think you’re safe to wait until there are more games to your liking, as the Switch has a robust catalog and Nintendo is going to continue to support it for the near future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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