funding

The White House has reportedly proposed cutting more than 9,400 jobs and over $1.5B from the roughly 60,000-employee Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which oversees airport security operations, according to budget documents.

The details were outlined in the Department of Homeland

WASHINGTON — President Trump is singling out the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority as a cautionary tale about Democratic mismanagement of publicly funded programs, using it to justify proposed cuts to homeless assistance services across the country.

Trump’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, released Friday, asks Congress to eliminate the Continuum of Care — a federal program that funds housing and services for homeless Americans — citing concerns about “fraud and corruption” among local agencies that administer it.

The White House points to LAHSA, which manages many homeless services for the city and county, as the example of why the program needs to go.

The agency has faced criticism locally for years for lack of proper oversight and the county is in the process of transitioning programs to an internal department.

“LAHSA has an abysmal record of reducing what is the highest number of street homeless individuals in the United States, and an independent audit issued in March 2025 found that the authority failed to accurately track billions of Federal and local dollars,” the budget says.

The local agency pushed back in a statement after the budget was released.

“Cutting this funding or destabilizing the Continuum of Care program would directly result in more tents on our streets, not fewer,” said Gita O’Neill, the agency’s interim chief executive, adding that under its leadership unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles has fallen 15% and that 90% of the program’s funding goes “directly to rental assistance.”

Local officials are already grappling with homeless service cuts at the state and county level given budget constraints and LAHSA warned Trump’s proposal would make matters worse.

“If anything, we need additional funding to cover rising costs, not fewer, to maintain our current momentum,” the agency said Friday.

The funding dispute over homelessness services is one front in a broader budget assault on California programs by the Trump administration.

Trump’s proposal also asks Congress to eliminate millions in funding from state initiatives the White House is characterizing as wasteful, ineffective or “woke.”

The cuts, if enacted, would cancel $4 billion in unspent funding for the state’s high-speed rail project, which the White house called a “boondoggle,” and strip grants from the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, which the budget criticized for “actively working to dismantle systems of power and privilege that favor whiteness.”

Smaller items are also targeted on the White House’s chopping block: a Los Angeles gelato festival, a dance building in Santa Cruz — which the White House dubs “one of the richest cities in the nation” — and a $3-million grant for a playground tied to an unspecified performing arts center in California.

Trump’s proposed cuts to California projects are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape federal spending priorities, largely by trading social programs for a massive military buildup.

The president is asking Congress to approve $1.5 trillion for defense and to slash $73 billion from domestic programs, a massive restructuring that would leave states, including California, to absorb costs Washington no longer wants to carry.

Trump made that vision explicit at a private Easter lunch at the White House on Wednesday, telling guests that the federal government should no longer be responsible for funding social programs that many Americans rely on.

“We can’t take care of daycare. We are a big country,” Trump said. “We are fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare.”

If states want to offer those services, Trump said, they should raise taxes to pay for them.

“Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis,” he said. “We have to take care of one thing: military protection.”

His proposed budget reflects that priority, which lawmakers will need to contend with as they grapple with the mounting costs of the Iran war and an economic fallout from a military operation that has left Americans paying more items, including gas pump.

Under the proposed budget, Trump is also seeking to make some investments in California projects.

The White House, for example, is seeking $152 million from Congress to turn Alcatraz back into a maximum-security prison, an idea the president has talked about for several years.

He also called on Congress to establish a National Center for Warrior Independence at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center.

Times staff writer Andrew Khouri, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

The sizable increase for the Pentagon had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president’s plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10% by shifting some responsibilities to state and local governments.

“President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength,” the budget said.

The president’s annual budget is considered a reflection of the administration’s values and does not carry the force of law. The massive document typically highlights an administration’s priorities, but Congress, which handles federal spending issues, is free to reject it and often does.

This year’s White House document, prepared by Budget Director Russ Vought, is intended to provide a road map from the president to Congress as lawmakers build their own budgets and annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded. Vought spoke to House GOP lawmakers on a private call Thursday.

Trump, speaking ahead of an address to the nation this week about the Iran war, signaled the military is his priority, setting up a clash ahead in Congress.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,” he said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

Immigration enforcement, air traffic controllers and national parks

Among the budget priorities the White House called for:

-Supporting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and deportation operations by eliminating refugee resettlement aid programs, maintaining Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds at current year levels and drawing on last’s year’s increases for the Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

— A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice, which the White House said would be focused on violent criminals.

— A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for beautification projects in Washington, D.C..

— A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

About two-thirds of the nation’s estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

The rest of the annual budget has typically been more evenly split between defense and domestic accounts, nearly $1 trillion each, which is where much of the debate in Congress takes place.

The GOP’s big tax breaks bill that Trump signed into law last year boosted his priorities beyond the budget process — with at least $150 billion for the Pentagon over the next several years, and $170 billion for Trump’s immigration and deportation operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to again push the president’s priorities, particularly the Defense Department spending, through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year.

It suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would come through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

Congress still fighting over 2026 spending

The president’s budget arrives as the House and Senate remain tangled over current-year spending and stalemated over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding changes to Trump’s immigration enforcement regime that Republicans are unwilling to accept.

Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 49 days. The Republican leadership in Congress reached an agreement this week on a path forward to fund the department, but lawmakers are away on spring break and have not yet voted on any new legislation.

Last year, in the president’s first budget since returning to the White House, Trump sought to fulfill his promise to vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reflecting the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

As DOGE slashed through federal offices and Vought sought to claw back funds, Congress did not always agree.

For example, Trump sought a roughly one-fifth decrease in non-defense spending for the current budget year ending Sept. 30, but Congress kept such spending relatively flat.

Some of the programs that Trump tried to eliminate entirely, such as assisting families with their energy costs, got a slight uptick in funding. Others got flat funding, such as the Community Development Block Grants that states and local communities use to fund an array of projects intended mostly to help low-income communities through new parks, sewer systems and affordable housing.

Lawmakers have also focused on ensuring the administration spends federal dollars as directed by Congress. This year’s spending bills contained what Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described as “hundreds upon hundreds of specific funding levels and directives” that the administration is required to follow.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Less than a week after he and other House Republican lawmakers rejected a Senate plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security — but not its immigration enforcement operations — Speaker Mike Johnson has made a complete about-face.

Johnson’s embrace of a two-track Senate bill marks a sharp reversal, after he had derided it as a “joke,” and said he was “quite convinced that it can’t be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.”

But now that Johnson appears to be fully on board, securing support from his own conference could prove more difficult after a sizable group of House Republicans blasted the Senate-passed bill last week.

President Trump said Thursday he will sign an order to pay all Homeland Security employees who have gone without paychecks during the partial government shutdown that has reached a record 48 days.

Trump used a similar maneuver to resume pay for the Transportation Security Administration after many employees had called out from work, resulting in long delays at airport security lines for travelers. Trump’s latest intervention is expected to apply to other non-law enforcement employees at the department, including many employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the agency responsible for coordinating federal cybersecurity efforts.

Despite that unilateral move announced in a social media post, the funding lapse for some Homeland Security needs is likely to stretch into next week as the House contemplates passing the very same Senate plan it previously rejected.

There was no legislative resolution Thursday after both the House and Senate met for just a few minutes in pro forma sessions. Nonetheless, the Republican leadership and Trump have coalesced around a plan to fully fund Homeland Security as part of a two-step process. The agreement puts the congressional leaders on the same page for ending the impasse after they had pursued separate paths that resulted in Congress leaving Washington for its spring recess without a fix.

During the brief sessions, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) put aside the House plan to fund the entire department for 60 days. Then the House met briefly without taking up the bipartisan Senate plan that had been worked out with Democrats, though Thune is looking toward eventual passage.

“I don’t know the particulars around what the House will do with it,” Thune told reporters. “My assumption is, at some point, hopefully, they’ll move it.”

Johnson’s about-face

Johnson (R-La.) and Thune announced Wednesday that they would return to the Senate measure, which funds most of Homeland Security with the exception of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol. Republicans will try later to fund those agencies through party-line spending legislation that could take months to finish.

Neither outcome is guaranteed, and the strategy could potentially still face opposition from the GOP’s ranks even though Trump has given his support.

House Republicans held a conference call later Thursday to discuss the next steps. The GOP leadership indicated to lawmakers that it does not expect to recall them to Washington during the spring recess; they are due back April 14.

Public backlash was swift after lawmakers left Washington last week without a resolution, with the tabloid website TMZ posting paparazzi-style photos of members at airports and out of town. The regularly scheduled break, while drawing criticism, is typically used by lawmakers to reconnect with constituents and travel abroad.

Lawmakers also heard from White House budget director Russ Vought. The White House is expected to release Trump’s 2027 budget proposal on Friday.

Funding ICE remains a hurdle

Democrats in both chambers were aligned last week with the Senate’s plan, and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York blamed House Republicans on Thursday for taking no action on it during the brief morning session.

“The deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck,” Schumer said.

Johnson will look to persuade the most conservative lawmakers within his conference to go along with the two-step approach agreed upon with the president, and Trump’s latest social media post could help. The president thanked Thune and Johnson for their work, and sought to project Republican unity.

“Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump wrote.

Many in the GOP conference have taken the stance that ICE and the Border Patrol need to be included as part of any funding agreement.

“Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) posted on X. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”

Meanwhile, the budget package that Trump wants voted on by June 1 is expected to fund ICE and Border Patrol through the remainder of Trump’s term, as a way to try to ensure those agencies are no longer at risk from Democrats objecting to his immigration enforcement agenda.

Thune acknowledged the potential hurdles to that route, such as efforts to expand the scope of the bill. He said the goal is to keep it “as narrow and focused as possible” in order to pass it “with haste.”

The vast majority of Homeland Security employees have reported to work during the shutdown, but many thousands have gone without pay. As more Transportation Security Administration agents called out from work, there was increasing frustration for air travelers confronted by long waits at some airport security lines. Those bottlenecks appeared to be clearing this week as agents began receiving backpay after Trump signed an executive order.

About 10,000 FEMA workers are being paid because their wages come out of the non-lapsing Disaster Relief Fund. At least 4,000 FEMA employees are furloughed or currently working without pay.

Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s effort to dramatically change the criteria to get tens of millions of dollars in funding to aid homeless people was unlawful.

Several nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of changing the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care program to better align with its social policies.

U.S District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Trump, said the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” was unlawful and she ordered it to scrap the new policy.

“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy said in her ruling that the NOFO violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

A spokesperson for HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocates for plaintiffs welcomed the ruling.

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”

“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva said in a statement.

Plaintiffs argued the Trump administration was aiming to upend polices in place for decades to satisfy its political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”

The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, adding that the new award process was “shockingly unlawful” and would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”

In its court filings, HUD argued the new criteria was an effort “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”

“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD wrote.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

March 31 (UPI) — A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump‘s executive order cutting funding to NPR and the PBS was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said the executive order signed in May violated the companies’ constitutional rights to a free press because Trump targeted for what he described as liberal views. He described the cut to funding as “viewpoint discrimination.”

“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 said in his ruling.

“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,” he added.

“To be sure, the president is entitled to criticize this or any other reporting, and he can express his own views as he sees fit. He may not, however, use his governmental power to direct federal agencies to exclude plaintiffs from receiving federal grants or other funding in retaliation for saying things that he does not like.”

Trump’s executive order, called Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media, ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to the maximum extent allowed by law.

At the time, more than 70% of CPB’s congressionally approved $535 million budget went directly to public media stations through grants.

According to NPR, about 1% of its annual operating budget came in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments, excluding CPB funding for the Public Radio Satellite System. Its largest funding stream — about 36% — comes from sponsorships, donations, memberships and licensing fees.

According to PBS, federal funding covered about 15% of its revenue.

CPB was founded in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation to fund public television and radio stations and their programs.

NPR sued the Trump administration later in the month, citing First Amendment and 1967 Public Broadcasting Act violations.

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 — The Senate early Friday morning approved Homeland Security funds to pay Transportation Security Administration agents and most other agencies, but not the immigration enforcement operations at the heart of the budget impasse that has jammed airports, disrupted travel and imposed financial hardship on workers.

The deal, which the Senate approved unanimously without a roll call, next goes to the House, which is expected to consider it Friday.

“We can get at least a lot of the government opened up again and then we’ll go from there,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. “Obviously, we’ll still have some work ahead of us.”

With pressure mounting to resolve the 42-day stalemate over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the endgame emerged in the final hours before TSA workers miss another paycheck Friday. President Donald Trump said he would sign an order to immediately pay the TSA agents, saying he wanted to quickly stop the “Chaos at the Airports.” The deal did not include any of the restraints Democrats have demanded as they sought to rein in Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the outcome could have been reached weeks ago, and vowed that his party would continue fighting to ensure Trump’s “rogue” immigration operation “does not get more funding without serious reform.”

What’s in and out of the funding package

Senators worked through the night on the deal that would fund much of the rest of the department, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard and TSA, but without funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs was funded, but Border Protection was not.

The package puts no new limits on immigration enforcement, which has remained largely uninterrupted by the shutdown. The GOP’s big tax cuts bill that Trump signed into law last year funneled billions in extra funds to DHS, including $75 billion for ICE operations, ensuring the immigration officers are still being paid despite the lapse.

Next steps in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., holds a slim majority, are uncertain. Passage will almost certainly require bipartisan support, as lawmakers on the left and right flanks revolt.

Conservative Republicans have panned their own party’s proposals, demanding full funding for immigration operations. Many have vowed to ensure ICE has the resources it needs in the next budget package to carry out Trump’s agenda.

“We will fully fund ICE. That is what this fight is about,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said as he tried to offer legislation to fund the agency. “The border is closing. The next task is deportation.”

On-again, off-again talks collapsed

Earlier Thursday, Thune announced he had given a “last and final” offer to the Democrats. But as the day dragged on, action stalled out.

Democrats argued the GOP proposals have not gone far enough at putting guardrails on officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and other federal agencies who are engaged in the immigration sweeps, particularly after the deaths of two Americans protesting the actions in Minneapolis.

They want federal agents to wear identification, remove their face masks and refrain from conducting raids around schools, churches or other sensitive places. Democrats have also pushed for an end of administrative warrants, insisting that judges sign off before agents search people’s homes or private spaces — something new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said he is open to considering.

Trump had largely left the issue to Congress, but warned he was ready to take action, threatening to send the National Guard to airports in addition to his deployment of ICE agents who are now checking travelers’ IDs.

The White House had floated the extraordinary move of invoking a national emergency to pay the TSA agents, a politically and legally fraught approach. Instead, Trump’s order would pay TSA agents using money from his 2025 tax bill, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly.

If the Senate package is approved by the House and signed it into law, the action Trump announced to pay TSA agents may be temporary or unneeded.

Airport lines grow as TSA workers endure hardships

The funding shutdown has resulted in travel delays and even warnings of airport closures as TSA workers missing paychecks stop coming to work.

Multiple airports are experiencing greater than 40% callout rates of TSA workers and nearly 500 of the agency’s nearly 50,000 transportation security officers have quit during the shutdown. Nationwide on Wednesday, more than 11% of the TSA employees on the schedule missed work, according to DHS. That is more than 3,120 callouts.

Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the union is grateful the TSA workers will be paid, but said Congress must stay in session to pass a deal “that funds DHS, pays all DHS workers, and keeps these vital agencies running.”

At George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Melissa Gates said she would not make her flight to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after waiting more than 2½ hours and still not reaching the security checkpoint. She said no other flights were available until Friday.

“I should have just driven, right?” Gates said. “Five hours would have been hilarious next to this.”

Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti, Kevin Freking, Rebecca Santana, Collin Binkley and Ben Finley in Washington, Lekan Oyekanmi in Houston, Wyatte Grantham-Philips in New York, Rio Yamat in Las Vegas, Russ Bynum in Savannah, Georgia, and Gabriela Aoun Angueira in San Diego contributed to this report.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

Caracas, March 26, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled out dismissing the case against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores in a hearing on Thursday in Brooklyn.

The defense team for Maduro and Flores—who face charges including drug trafficking conspiracy and weapons possession—requested that the case be thrown out after the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) denied them authorization to use Venezuelan state funds to pay for legal counsel. OFAC had initially granted the license on February 9 but revoked it three hours later.

New York Southern District Judge Hellerstein declined to throw out the charges due to the blockaded funds, calling it “a serious step based on hypotheticals.” However, he did not formally rule and left the door open to revisit the decision in the future. 

US Justice Department prosecutor Kyle Wirshba argued that allowing access to Venezuelan state funds would undermine existing sanctions policy, adding that if the defendants are unable to hire private attorneys, court-appointed counsel could be assigned. Maduro attorney Barry Pollack countered that such a measure would violate their Sixth Amendment right to choose their own legal representation.

During the hearing, Hellerstein challenged the prosecutors’ arguments, adding that OFAC’s personal sanctions against Maduro and Flores would also block them from using personal funds. The judge likewise disagreed with the prosecution’s claims that the blocking of funding for the defense was a matter of national security, stating that Maduro and Flores “no longer represent a threat.” 

He further remarked that “things have changed” and that the United States is already “doing business” with Venezuela.

According to observers in the courthouse, Maduro and Flores, both in beige prison uniforms and handcuffed, appeared calm throughout the hearing, using headphones for simultaneous translation. Neither spoke. Observers noted that Maduro appeared thinner. Flores’ attorney, Mark Donnelly, made an urgent request for a medical evaluation, specifically an electrocardiogram, citing a pre-existing condition. The judge approved the request.

Hellerstein will set a new court date in the coming days. Maduro and Flores have not requested bail and were returned to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn after the hearing.

Maduro and Flores, who is also a lawmaker, were kidnapped by US special forces during a military attack against Caracas on January 3. They pleaded not guilty at their arraignment two days later. Despite recurring “narcoterrorism” accusations over the years, US officials have not presented evidence tying high-ranking Venezuelan leaders to narcotics activities. Specialized agencies have consistently found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

Trump calls for additional ‘charges’

Prior to the hearing, US President Donald Trump argued before reporters that additional charges should be brought against the Venezuelan president. 

“He emptied his prisons into our country, and I expect that at some point he will be charged for that,” he said. Trump has repeatedly raised unfounded claims that the Venezuelan government “emptied” prisons and mental institutions into US territory.

Outside the courthouse, a heavy police presence separated Venezuelan opposition supporters from solidarity activists demanding the release of Maduro and Flores and an end to US attacks against the Caribbean nation.

In Caracas, social movements gathered at Plaza Bolívar to express support for the president and first lady. The demonstration followed another mobilization earlier in the week demanding the lifting of US economic sanctions against Venezuela.

Speaking at the rally, lawmaker Nicolás Maduro Guerra—the president’s son and also facing US Justice Department charges—described his father as “a worker” who identifies “as a son of God above any political office.” Days earlier, in a social media post, Maduro Guerra had said his father would appear “in high spirits” and “in good shape” due to regular exercise.

He was joined by Caracas Mayor Carmen Meléndez, while the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) also called for Maduro’s release in a public statement. 

For her part, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has yet to comment on Thursday’s hearing. Venezuelan authorities have also not publicly addressed US efforts to block the funding of Maduro and Flores’ legal expenses. 

Since January 3, the Rodríguez administration has led a diplomatic rapprochement with Washington, with several White House officials visiting Venezuela in recent weeks. A Venezuelan government delegation arrived in the US capital on Thursday, led by Vice Minister Oliver Blanco, who reported meetings with State Department officials to boost “mutually beneficial” relations.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

March 26 (UPI) — Senate Democrats blocked a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security after they could not reach terms on a bill 41 days into its shutdown.

A bill to fund all of DHS failed in the Senate for the seventh time, once again along a mostly party line vote, 53 to 47, as the Senate is expected to leave for a two-week recess that includes several members traveling outside the country, The Hill reported.

The is not expected to reconvene until April 13, but the GOP has not ruled out delaying, shortening or canceling the recess.

With the lack of action from Congress, President Donald Trump on Thursday said that he plans to declare a national emergency forcing DHS to pay TSA employees.

“I am going to sign an Order instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, to immediately pay our TSA Agents in order to address this Emergency Situation, and to quickly stop the Democrat Chaos at the Airports,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

Senate Republican majority leader John Thune, R-S.D., who’d earlier called the GOP’s latest plan “our last and final offer,” told reporters on Thursday night the executive order would temporarily relieve “the immediate pressure” on the Senate to solve the situation.

Senators actively negotiated Thursday on the DHS shutdown ahead of Friday’s deadline, which is the start of a two-week Easter recess.

Thune, also, however, kept a procedural vote open on the Senate floor to prevent requests for unanimous consent to fund only TSA as the rest of the funding bill gets worked out.

“Let’s let the Dems react to what’s out there, and hopefully we can find a pathway to drive this to the finish,” CBS News reported Thune said.

He didn’t share details of the plan, but said it’s close to what they offered earlier this week, which Democrats voted down because it didn’t create reforms for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Though recess is scheduled to start this weekend, if the Senate doesn’t agree on a funding bill, Thune said, “I suspect we’ll probably be around here.”

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said Democrats were looking at the offer, but he doesn’t think it’s enough.

“We’re talking through it right now but it’s not where we want it to be,” Kim said. “We just continue to be stuck here.”

He didn’t give details about the offer, but said, “it’s not good enough for me.”

Thune later walked back his “final offer” statement, saying that the GOP senators are willing to work with Democrats to tweak the bill.

“If there’s something that they think needs to be tweaked, one way or the other, as long as that’s a final thing, then we’ll see if it can get done,” Thune said.

“At some point they got to take yes for an answer,” Thune said.

The department has been shut down since Feb. 14 as Democrats and Republicans battle over a funding bill. Democrats don’t want to fund the department without putting some restrictions on ICE enforcement, and Republicans have agreed to some measures but not the ones on which Democrats insist.

Because of this, Transportation Security Administration workers have been working without pay for more than a month. Some are quitting or taking days off work, creating long lines at airports. Trump has sent ICE agents to some airports to help TSA agents.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told reporters this morning that talks have increased.

“We put options in front of the Democrats, and they just need to quit backing up on us and vote to get DHS funded and TSA agents paid,” CBS reported Hoeven said.

“I’m hoping that as we get to the end of this week — you know how it works around here with deadlines — that that’s going to get us to a point where we get it done,” he said. “But we’re still working.”

Thursday morning, President Donald Trump began a Cabinet meeting by saying that Democrats are “really punishing the American people.”

“They need to end the shutdown immediately, or we’ll have to take some very drastic measures,” he said. He didn’t explain what he meant.

The only Democrat who has voted for the Republican bill was Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. Some Democrats fear that other centrists will defect and vote for the Republican bill, The Hill reported.

Some who voted to reopen the government last fall met with White House border czar Tom Homan last week, including Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; and Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with Democrats. So far, they haven’t broken with the Democrats, but there is anxiety that they will, The Hill reported.

WASHINGTON — Pressure is mounting on Congress to end the funding shutdown that has resulted in travel disruptions, missed paychecks and even warnings of airport closures, but lawmakers have yet to resolve the underlying issue of reining in President Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

Senators intend to vote Thursday on a Republican proposal that would fund the Transportation Security Administration and much of the Department of Homeland Security, except the enforcement and removal operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That plan is expected to fail.

Democrats argue it does not go far enough at putting guardrails on officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies who are engaged in the immigration sweeps, particularly after the deaths of two Americans protesting the actions in Minneapolis.

Trump, who has largely left the issue to Congress to resolve, threatened to send the National Guard to airports, in addition his deployment of ICE agents who are now checking travelers IDs — a development drawing concerns.

“They need to end this shutdown immediately or we’ll have to take drastic measures,” Trump said Thursday during a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

With Congress set to leave town by week’s end for its own spring break recess, calls are intensifying for an end to the 41-day stalemate that’s put the livelihoods of TSA officers at risk as they provide airport security without pay.

Multiple airports are experiencing greater than 40% callout rates of TSA workers and more than 480 of its nearly 50,000 transportation security officers have now quit during the shutdown. Nationwide, nearly 11% of TSA workers — more than 3,200 on a single day — missed work.

Trump stays out of the fray

The Republican president initially signed off on the plan the GOP senators brought to him late Monday. By Tuesday, he said he would not be happy with any deal.

Trump did not directly address the status of negotiations late Wednesday evening during an annual fundraising dinner for the House Republicans’ campaign committee as Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., works to keep majority control of the chamber in the November elections.

But Trump criticized Democrats for refusing to settle their demands on immigration changes. On Thursday, he revived his campaign for senators to end the filibuster as a way to overpower opposition to GOP policies, something most Republican senators do not want to do.

The GOP’s big tax cuts bill that Trump signed into law last year funneled billions to DHS, including $75 billion for ICE operations, ensuring the money is flowing for his immigration and deportation agenda even with the funding shutdown. ICE and other immigration officers are still being paid.

The situation is partly of Trump’s making, a strategy the president put in place last fall when he cut a deal with Democrats to end a previous federal shutdown. At that time, Trump agreed to fund the federal government, except for DHS, which was then put on temporary funding that has expired.

A stopgap measure

The Republican offer added one new restraint on immigration officers, funding the use of body cameras that had previously been agreed to. It excluded other policies that Democrats have demanded, such as that federal agents wear identification, remove their face masks and refrain from conducting raids around schools, churches or other sensitive places.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said they needed to see real changes. “We’ve been talking about ICE reforms from day one,” he said.

Democrats had been in several days of talks with the White House, including with border czar Tom Homan, that appeared to be making progress toward a deal. The White House presented its own offer with several items Democrats had been demanding, including officer IDs and training.

But those negotiations broke down over the weekend.

Republicans say Democrats are putting the country at risk. They say the Trump administration has already made strides to meet Democrats’ demands and has shown a new approach to its immigration operations, swearing in Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin as the new homeland security secretary to replace Kristi Noem.

But conservative Republicans also panned the proposal, demanding full funding for immigration operations and skeptical of the promise from GOP leaders that they would address Trump’s proof-of-citizenship voting bill in a subsequent legislative package.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said late Wednesday that if Democrats put a “more realistic offer on the table, we’ll be back in business.”

Asked if Congress would consider a stopgap measure to temporarily fund the department, Thune said: “We’ll see.”

Airport lines grow as TSA workers endure hardships

Passengers are facing more four-hour waits to clear security at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

The airport’s website said Thursday morning that travelers should expect to wait two hours, 30 minutes in the security line at one of its open terminals and four hours at the other.

Lines and wait times are expected to grow Thursday and Friday because of “significantly higher passenger traffic,” according to an update on the airport’s website.

“This is a dire situation,” the acting TSA administrator, Ha Nguyen McNeill, testified at a House hearing Wednesday.

She described the multiple hardships facing unpaid TSA workers — piling up bills and eviction notices, even plasma donations to make ends meet — and warned of potential airport closures if more employees refuse to come to work.

“At this point, we have to look at all options on the table,” she said. “And that does require us to, at some point, make very difficult choices as to which airports we might try to keep open and which ones we might have to shut down as our callout rates increase.”

She cited the growing financial strain on the TSA workforce.

“Some are sleeping in their cars, selling their blood and plasma, and taking on second jobs to make ends meet,” she said.

McNeil also said TSA officers working at the nation’s airports have experienced a more than 500% increase in the frequency of assaults since the shutdown began.

“This is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated,” McNeill said.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Rebecca Santana and Ben Finley in Washington; Wyatte Grantham-Philips in New York; Rio Yamat in Las Vegas; Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., and Gabriela Aoun Angueira in San Diego contributed to this report.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights set a deadline Tuesday that sounds much like two earlier deadlines, giving San José State University 10 days to comply with a list of athletics-related demands or face enforcement action, including the termination of the university’s federal funding.

This is the third 10-day deadline issued by the OCR to SJSU, the first in January and the second having expired last weekend. All three concern the same case, that of a transgender woman who played on the school’s women’s volleyball team from 2022 to 2024.

A federal investigation was launched in February 2025 after controversy over Blaire Fleming disrupted the 2024 volleyball season. Four Mountain West Conference teams — Boise State, Wyoming, Utah State and Nevada-Reno — chose to forfeit matches to SJSU.

The probe concluded that SJSU’s policies “allowing males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities deny women equal educational opportunities and benefits.”

SJSU pushed back, insisting it followed the law in allowing Fleming to play. SJSU president Cynthia Teniente-Matson wrote in a March 6 letter to the campus community that the university “vigorously disputes the conclusions that OCR reached. … Our position is simple: We have followed the law and cannot be punished for doing so.”

SJSU requested that the OCR rescind its findings and close its investigation. Instead, the federal agency redoubled its efforts, with the latest salvo a “letter of impending enforcement” issued Tuesday and accompanied by a statement from U.S. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey.

“We have provided SJSU with multiple opportunities to resolve its Title IX violations with common sense actions: separating male and female athletes based on their biological sex, keeping men out of women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, restoring rightfully earned titles and accolades to female athletes, and apologizing to the women forced to forfeit competitions to protect themselves,” Richey said. “Yet, SJSU remains obstinate, choosing a radical ideology over safety, dignity, and fairness for its own students.

“With today’s action, the Department is putting the university on notice: comply with the law or risk losing its federal funding.”

SJSU enlisted the support of the California State University system, which sued the Department of Education on March 6 to challenge its allegedly “lawless overreach” and block the federal government from cutting funding to SJSU if the school does not agree to a proposed itemized resolution agreement.

“Whether and under what conditions transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s athletics has been hotly contested,” the CSU lawsuit said. “But this case is not about that issue. It is about the Department’s attempt to punish SJSU, even though the law in the Ninth Circuit has been and is clear. Under Ninth Circuit law, Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect transgender students from discrimination.”

Suing the Education Department “is not a step we take lightly,” Teniente-Matson said. “However, we have a responsibility to defend the integrity of our institution and the rule of law, while ensuring that every member of our community is treated fairly and in accordance with the law.”

An estimated two-thirds of SJSU students receive federal financial aid totaling about $130 million annually, according to Cal State University. Losing federal funds could also disrupt $175 million in research.

The Office of Civil Rights’ proposed resolution agreement, which SJSU dismissed out of hand, contains the following demands:

1) Issue a public statement that SJSU will adopt biology-based definitions of the words “male” and “female” and acknowledge that the sex of a human — male or female — is unchangeable.

2) Specify that SJSU will follow Title IX by separating sports and intimate facilities based on biological sex.

3) State that SJSU will not delegate its obligation to comply with Title IX to any external association or entity and will not contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex.

4) Restore to female athletes all individual athletic records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in women’s categories, and issue a personalized letter of apology on behalf of SJSU to each female athlete for allowing her participation in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.

5) Send a personalized apology to every woman who played in SJSU’s women’s indoor volleyball from 2022 to 2024, beach volleyball in 2023, and to any woman on a team that forfeited rather than compete against SJSU while a male student was on the roster — expressing sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position.

In a related lawsuit, a Colorado district judge this month deferred ruling on motions to dismiss former SJSU volleyball player Brooke Slusser’s lawsuit against the California State University system. Slusser alleged that she was made to share bedrooms and changing spaces with Fleming without being informed that Fleming is transgender.

Judge Kato Crews dismissed the Mountain West Conference as a defendant but said he wants to put the rest of the case on hold until after a Supreme Court ruling in B.P.J. v. West Virginia, which is expected to come in June.

The B.P.J. case went to the Supreme Court after a transgender teen sued West Virginia to block a state law that prevents males from competing in girls’ high school sports.

WASHINGTON — In session for rare weekend votes with the election fast approaching, Congress acted Saturday to keep the government running for another 24 hours but made little apparent progress in breaking a budget impasse.

Despite the action of the House and the Senate on the eighth stopgap spending measure since the fiscal year began Oct. 1, a weird limbo enveloped the Capitol as neither Republicans nor Democrats predicted a quick deal. Gone for the time being was the usual year-end pressure to adjourn. Instead, both sides seemed willing to wait to see who would blink first.

Negotiations focused on the handful of issues still dividing the parties, issues that might or might not influence voters at the polls Nov. 7. Among them were tax credits for school construction, proposed workplace safety regulations and measures to ease immigration law.

President Clinton, who forced the weekend votes by insisting that lawmakers pass daily stopgap budget measures, urged the Republican-led Congress to wrap up its budget work and include an increase in the federal minimum wage.

“I’m not trying to harass [Congress],” Clinton said at a news conference. “I’m just trying to get them to finish their job and go home.”

Clinton cited an agriculture spending bill he signed Saturday as a model of bipartisanship. The president said he signed the bill–which included milestone language easing a decades-old trade embargo on Cuba to allow U.S. agricultural exports–even though he was critical of provisions that would limit the effect of the trade opening.

In a GOP radio address, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman called the budget showdown “a case in point” of Washington gridlock that voters will punish.

“I think we are ready for a change,” Whitman said. “And the difference between the parties is striking. Republicans at all levels of government work with people to accomplish results–not make excuses for why we can’t even try to solve them.”

Republican congressional leaders note that they wrapped a minimum-wage increase Clinton supports into tax legislation that he is holding up with a promised veto. And they accuse the White House of constantly shifting its goals on the two government spending bills for fiscal 2001 that have not been finalized.

“I tell you, I’ve reached the end of my rope,” said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. To illustrate his frustration, Stevens said in an interview on the Capitol steps that the administration had sought $3.5 billion in extra spending on a bill containing $106.8 billion for discretionary spending on education, health and other programs. Then $4 billion. Then $4.1 billion. And now, he said, the demand is up to $4.5 billion.

“What can you do?” Stevens asked.

To register his protest, Stevens was one of two senators to vote against the daily budget resolution. The other was Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Sixty-seven senators voted for the resolution.

Thirty-one senators–11 Democrats and 20 Republicans–were absent for what the chamber regarded as a ritual vote. Many missed it because of campaign events, a few for health reasons. California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein–who is running for reelection–and Barbara Boxer, were both absent.

The House vote for the stopgap measure was 339 to 7. All seven dissenters were Democrats, including Rep. George Miller of Martinez. Of the 86 representatives who were absent, 42 were Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Twelve of California’s 52-member House delegation did not vote. They were Feinstein’s opponent in the Senate race, GOP Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose, and Reps. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego), Ken Calvert (R-Riverside), Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), Matthew G. Martinez (R-Monterey Park), Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa), Joe Baca (D-Rialto), Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), Pete Stark (D-Hayward) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

The roll call showed the political importance of the vote to many House members–all wary of the potential charge that their absence would reflect an insensitivity to the possibility of a government shutdown.

Bilbray was the only California absentee in a tough reelection race. Other California incumbents in contested races, such as Reps. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes), Calvin Dooley (D-Visalia), Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) and Stephen Horn (R-Long Beach), all eschewed campaign events to remain in Washington for the vote.

More stopgap budget votes were expected today.

Intelligence briefings have warned of the potential for extremists and criminals to target ⁠the FIFA World Cup 2026 at a time when hundreds of ⁠millions of dollars of approved security funds have been delayed, causing United States preparations to fall behind.

The previously unreported briefings from US federal and state officials and FIFA, the international federation overseeing the World Cup, outlined the risk of extremist attacks, including attacks on transportation infrastructure and civil unrest related to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The football World Cup, one of the ⁠globe’s biggest sporting events, will be held in June and July this year across three countries – the United States, Canada and Mexico.

While security at such events is always intense, US law enforcement officials have been on especially heightened alert since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, and have raised concerns over retaliatory threats.

Officials working to prepare for the World Cup in the US have increasingly sounded alarms in recent weeks over a stalled $625m in ⁠federal security grants for the event that were part of a Republican-backed spending bill passed in July 2025.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, tasked with distributing the money, said in November that it was expecting to allocate the funds no later than January 30.

Following inquiries by Reuters this month after officials and organisers complained that they had still received nothing, FEMA announced on Wednesday that it had awarded the grants, saying the money would “bolster security preparations”.

With the first matches kicking off in Mexico on June 11 and then the US and Canada the next day, states and cities hosting the events are deep into planning, including how to safeguard from possible attacks. The delayed funding and threat warnings have compounded ‌an already complex process, multiple officials involved told Reuters.

The grant money distribution process normally takes months, and efforts to buy technology and equipment can take even longer, according to Mike Sena, president of the National Fusion Center Association, which represents a network of 80 information centres across the US that facilitate federal, state and local intelligence sharing.

“It will be extremely tight,” he said.

A December 2025 intelligence report from New Jersey looking at potential threats to matches in the state – which will include the final – flagged recent domestic attacks, disrupted terror plots and a proliferation of extremist propaganda. The report also noted the possibility of spontaneous gatherings related to tensions between countries.

Another intelligence report, dated September 2025, described an online post appearing to encourage attacks on railroad infrastructure during the World Cup that said there were “plenty of opportunities for us to knock it off the tracks” and highlighted matches on the West Coast of the US and Canada. The documents were obtained through open records requests by the transparency nonprofit Property of the People.

Delayed funding risks lead to growing concerns, while ICE worries mount

Democrats have blamed outgoing US Department ⁠of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for delaying the release of the money. Under Noem’s leadership, the DHS also withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in homeland security funds last ⁠year from a dozen Democratic-led states and Washington, DC, while pressing them to increase immigration enforcement.

In response to a request for comment, White House spokesman Davis Ingle faulted Democrats for the delayed funding, citing disagreements over immigration enforcement tactics.

“The president is focused on making this the greatest World Cup ever while ensuring it is the safest and most secure in history,” Ingle said in a statement. “The Democrats need to stop playing games.”

Trump’s immigration crackdown has already cast a pall over the event and raised concerns about the presence of US ⁠Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Since Trump took office in January 2025, masked immigration agents have rounded up suspected immigration offenders in US cities and detained some tourists at airports.

That has coincided with a Trump-era dropoff in overall international visitors, according to US Commerce Department data. Early signs have, however, indicated still strong appetite for flight bookings ⁠and ticket sales for the tournament.

In a FIFA weekly intelligence briefing dated January 28, analysts warned that anti-ICE activism in US cities in response ⁠to immigration enforcement could lower the barriers “to hostile actions by lone actors or extremist elements”.

Trump has also placed full or partial travel bans on nationals of more than three dozen countries, including Iran, which is in talks with FIFA to move its matches to Mexico due to its current conflict with the United States. Three other countries whose fans face Trump travel bans – Haiti, Ivory Coast and Senegal – have also qualified for the tournament.

Security concerns extend to FIFA World Cup 2026 fan events

Several World Cup and state officials have said “FIFA Fan Festival” events are of particular concern. The events ‌allow large numbers of people to watch matches together on open-air screens.

A Fan Festival event that had been planned in Liberty State Park in Jersey City for the duration of the tournament was cancelled unexpectedly last month and replaced with smaller gatherings.

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill said at the time that many smaller events would allow more people in the area to enjoy the experience. Security concerns also factored in the decision, a person familiar with ‌the ‌planning said.

US Representative Nellie Pou, a Democrat representing a district in New Jersey that includes MetLife Stadium, one of the sites where games will be played, said that each of the World Cup’s 104 matches would be equivalent to a Super Bowl.

“Local government, local law enforcement, will certainly have their hands full,” Pou said. “They need every single dollar that they are eligible to receive, and they need it now.”

Caracas, March 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has opposed a motion from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores for the dismissal of US criminal charges on the grounds of the US Treasury blocking their legal defense funds.

In a court filing, US Justice Department prosecutors argued that “the defendants and their former regime” have been sanctioned by the US government for several years and that regulations from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) “expressly prohibit” that funds from a “sanctioned entity” be used to pay a “sanctioned person’s” legal expenses.

“OFAC’s denial of that request does not mean the [US] government violated the defendants’ due process rights. The motions to dismiss should be denied,” the statement read.

Last month, Maduro and Flores’ legal teams urged Judge Alvin Hellerstein to throw out the cases over the US government’s interference with their “ability to retain counsel.” Defense attorney for the Venezuelan president, Barry Pollack, argued that Washington’s actions violated Maduro’s Sixth Amendment rights.

In a sworn statement handed to the court, Maduro declared that under Venezuelan law he is “entitled” to have his legal expenses covered by Caracas and confirmed that Pollack is his “counsel of choice.”

Pollack further added that, on January 9, OFAC issued permission for the Venezuelan government to cover Maduro and Flores’ legal fees, only to withdraw it hours later. The high-profile attorney has announced plans to invoke Maduro’s immunity as a sitting president as part of his legal strategy.

US prosecutors have claimed that the defendants are allowed to use “personal funds” to pay their attorneys’ fees. However, both Maduro and Flores, as well as multiple immediate relatives, are under OFAC sanctions, making it illegal for US persons and entities to engage in financial transactions with them.

The Venezuelan Communications Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Venezuelan officials, including Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, have yet to weigh in on the Trump administration’s efforts to hamper Maduro and Flores’ defense efforts.

President Maduro and his wife, who is also a National Assembly deputy, were kidnapped by US Special forces on January 3 amid a bombing campaign against Caracas and nearby areas. Rodríguez, as sitting vice president, assumed the presidency on an acting basis after the Venezuelan Supreme Court decreed that Maduro’s abduction constituted a “temporary absence.”

Maduro was indicted on charges of “narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices against the United States.” Flores faces the latter three counts. Both pleaded not guilty in their arraignment hearing on January 5. The next hearing is scheduled for March 26.

Despite reiterated “narcoterrorism” accusations, US officials have not presented evidence tying Maduro and other high-ranking officials to narcotics activities. Specialized reports have likewise found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

Following the January 3 attacks and presidential kidnapping, Rodríguez has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump administration. The acting president has hosted several US officials in Caracas while promoting a pro-business overhaul of the country’s oil and mining laws aimed at courting  Western corporations.

Caracas and Washington reestablished diplomatic ties on March 5 following a seven-year hiatus, with the White House formally recognizing Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader” last week. 

Since January 3, Venezuelan government supporters have staged multiple demonstrations to condemn the US attacks and demand the immediate release of the Venezuelan president and first lady. 

US-based solidarity movements have also organized rallies in support of Maduro and Flores, including outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where they are detained.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

California and a coalition of other states sued the Trump administration Monday over its efforts to roll back fair housing rules that bar certain types of discrimination by landlords, including against LGBTQ+ people.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule change threatening funding for states that offer housing protections for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized individuals who are not explicitly covered by federal law is illegal, undermines state efforts to combat discrimination and would push vulnerable people onto the streets.

“In effect, the Trump administration is attempting to roll back civil rights enforcement in housing at the federal level, and pressure states to weaken their own protections as well,” Bonta said during a news conference Monday. “That’s not just bad policy, it’s unlawful.”

Representatives from HUD and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal Fair Housing Act explicitly bans discrimination based on seven traits: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Under rules set forth during the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years interpreted the law as banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many states, including California, also have adopted laws explicitly banning discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized groups not mentioned in the federal law, with California also banning discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income and veteran or military status.

In September, HUD issued new guidance threatening to decertify state housing agencies — stripping their federal funding and ability to investigate discrimination claims — if they provide anti-discrimination protections other than those spelled out in the Fair Housing Act. The guidance also barred state agencies from using federal funds to “promote gender ideology,” “fund or promote elective abortions” or promote illegal immigration, according to the lawsuit.

The guidance followed that of HUD Secretary Scott Turner, a former NFL player and Trump loyalist, who announced last year that HUD would no longer adhere to a 2016 Obama-era rule protecting transgender people from housing discrimination, which Turner said “tied housing programs, shelters and other facilities funded by HUD to far-left gender ideology.”

“We, at this agency, are carrying out the mission laid out by President Trump on January 20th [2025] when he signed an executive order to restore biological truth to the federal government,” Turner said in a statement, referring to Trump’s order calling on federal agencies across the government to rescind protections for transgender Americans.

“This means recognizing there are only two sexes: male and female,” Turner said. “It means getting government out of the way of what the Lord established from the beginning when he created man in His own image.”

Among other things, the administration said rules barring discrimination against transgender people allowed “biological men to enter shelters intended for women impacted by trauma, domestic abuse and violence.”

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups condemned the move, noting that transgender Americans face heightened discrimination in a slate of areas — including housing — and need protections. They also contended that HUD’s new policies violate a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision barring employment discrimination based on gender or gender identity.

Bonta said the Fair Housing Act “set a floor, not a ceiling, for protections against discrimination,” which means that states “have the authority to go further and protect more people,” as California has endeavored to do.

He said HUD has supported the state’s anti-discrimination work for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, which provides funding to state and local agencies to investigate and enforce laws against housing discrimination. HUD’s new guidance “threatens to undermine that system” by demanding an end to state protections not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for military veterans, immigrants as well as women receiving abortions and other reproductive healthcare, he said.

“Families across California are already struggling to find homes they can afford, and the last thing they need is for the federal government to make it harder,” Bonta said. “At its core, this lawsuit is about protecting a fundamental civil right: the right to rent, buy, or live in housing without discrimination.”

Bonta said California interprets the Fair Housing Act’s ban on sex discrimination as protecting LGBTQ+ people, but the Trump administration doesn’t agree — making the state’s more explicit protections important.

He said about $3 million in federal funding is currently at stake for California, with millions more at stake in other states.

Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul, who is helping lead the lawsuit and spoke alongside Bonta Monday, said states with robust antidiscrimination laws “will not go backwards and we will not give in to threats” from the Trump administration.

“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing pattern by this administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination, and to tear down the hard fought progress we have made for civil rights,” Raoul said. “It is also just the latest page in the president’s illegal playbook to use funding and programs created by Congress to try to strong arm states into adopting Trump’s preferred policies.”

The states allege that HUD’s targeting of state antidiscrimination policies comes after it downsized its own workforce and significantly reduced its ability to investigate housing discrimination complaints and enforce fair housing laws. They say the new guidance violates multiple federal laws, including laws that govern federal spending and rule changes, and are asking the federal court to immediately invalidate the guidance as unlawful.

Bonta and Raoul are joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a national public health leader by staking out science-backed policies in contrast with the Trump administration.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “the dangerous politicization of science,” Newsom hired her to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the West Coast Health Alliance, a regional public health agency, whose guidance the governors said would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the first state to join a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and Health and Human Services declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the COVID era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public health guided by science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has excoriated federal officials for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, warning that the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request, but Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and prevention efforts. The White House last year proposed cutting Health and Human Services spending by $33 billion, including $3.6 billion from the CDC. Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing and education, were axed.

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back more than $600 million in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, the states sued and a judge temporarily blocked the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Assn. of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for more than half of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3-billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding cuts hurt all

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the county has announced the closure of seven public health clinics that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. eliminated measles in 2000 but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had 2,281 confirmed cases last year, the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at schools, airports and Disneyland.

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust vaccine schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a more robust vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition suing the Trump administration over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza and COVID-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and several other East Coast states banding together to create the Northeast Public Health Collaborative.

Hilliard, of Health and Human Services, said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing red states

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year signed a bill authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.