home country

Watching comedians perform under the thumb of a government that is actively attacking swaths of its population is nothing new for Angelo Colina.

The 31-year-old joke teller was born and raised in the Venezuelan city of Maracaibo as the South American country faced continuous political turmoil under the prolonged presidencies of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro, among other economic, humanitarian and democratic challenges — such as hyperinflation, increased rates of starvation and decreased access to adequate healthcare services.

Colina — who carved a lane in the Americas as a Spanish-language comedian and has garnered millions of views across social media due to his whip-smart jokes and playful crowd work — left his home country at 21 and began pursuing a comedy career after moving to the neighboring Colombia.

It was the audacity of Venezuelan acts — like Nacho Redondo, Led Varela, Erika de la Vega and Luis Chataing, who spoke out against oppressive government rule — that inspired Colina and informed his worldview.

“As someone who grew up watching [them] perform and doing jokes about the government in Venezuela while they still could, that was my example,” Colina told The Times. “They really fought censorship as long as they could.”

As a self-described “double immigrant,” first to Colombia and subsequently Salt Lake City, the New York-based comedian said he felt as though he’s already lived four lives — all of which have helped shape his comic eye and sharpened his observational skills.

The current political climate, the continued artistic acceptance of Latino art in the U.S. and the ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids throughout the country were at the top of mind as Colina spoke with The Times ahead of his Oct. 11 performance at the Hollywood Improv.

This interview has been edited and shortened for clarity.

What has it been like doing comedy shows for a Spanish-speaking crowd in the time of ICE raids?

I start my shows by saying, “We’re doing comedy. You guys are not noticing, but we’re doing comedy in Spanish. In the United States in 2025. This is the closest to punk that we’ve ever been.” And people start laughing about it, because [federal officials] backed up by the law to say that if you speak Spanish, then they can ask about your current immigration status. And it’s like, all right, let’s speak Spanish. We’re not doing anything wrong. We’re just celebrating our culture in every show we do.

Do you like the idea of being a little punk?

I think it just became that; it was more organic. I wasn’t thinking that I’m part of a larger movement that started by other people of doing comedy in Spanish, which has always been and it’s certainly been a cool thing to me, but now it’s counterculture for sure. But I don’t need to invite people to my show because it’s counterculture, that’s not the reason why I want to sell. People have been freely celebrating being Latino for years already and I don’t think there’s any way to stop it, honestly.

Have you felt a change in your audience at all in recent months?

Unfortunately, I have. I do, however, have to give a shout-out to all the non-Latinos coming to the shows. They are coming because they want to see a form of Latinidad in its own rhythm and they are in love with our culture and they come and they support it.

I see the hesitance to come to shows a lot more with people that used to come with their parents. A lot of people born in the States, but with immigrants parents, used to come to my shows. My shows have always been a place where people finally can do something with their parents. Normally, they don’t find a lot of activities where they can share something like that. So their parents are now the ones that are faster on the joke and they are the ones that are catching up. It’s always been part of my whole demographic.

That’s the shift I’ve been seeing. A lot of people have reached out to me and said, “I would love to go to your show, but I don’t think it’s a good idea right now.” I got a lot of Venezuelans coming to my shows and saying, “This is the last show I’m going to in the States. I’m leaving next week. I got a deportation letter.” I got screenshots of it and they’re saying they’ll see me in Colombia or Argentina. It’s been pretty emotional. Honestly, this might be the first time I actually get emotional talking about it, but it’s hurt a bit.

It must be nice for the audience to have that time at your show to be who they are, but are you addressing the craziness of everything in your act?

I’m not pretending that’s not happening out there. Comedy gave me the opportunity to become a resident in the United States. I got my visa because of the people coming to my shows. It would be disgraceful for me not to talk about what’s happening or not to at least try to be of help, even if it’s by making people laugh.

Has it been difficult navigating the U.S. comedy scene as a fully Spanish act?

I would say dealing with the industry can be tougher sometimes because of the lack of awareness of how powerful Latino crowds can be. Luckily, it’s changing a bit because of musicians like Bad Bunny and Karol. Everything artists like them have done has made people organizing shows say, “Hmm, let’s see. Maybe I won’t give the Spanish act a Tuesday night slot. Let me try them on a Thursday or Friday night or a Sunday.” And then they see the room packed and people spending money, just having a great time.

I complained a lot about the industry last year and now I’m in a phase where I just want to do this for my people for as long as I can. I’m just enjoying being able to perform.

How has it been seeing Latinos in the U.S. further embrace Spanish-language content?

It’s not only Latinos; people from all backgrounds are interested in our culture. In L.A., a lot of Latinos that were born here didn’t have the chance to learn Spanish or practice it as much, but they love the culture. You also see a lot of people that are non-Latino at my show because they’re interested in Spanish.

It’s like music. There’s no merengue in English because there’s no need for merengue in English. If you are a non-Spanish speaker and you like the rhythm, you’re gonna come to the music. And that’s happening at my show and I’m learning how to navigate it. Sometimes I see people making faces and you don’t hear the laugh coming back at you. Then the show ends and everyone’s DMing me and then they’re signing at the very end of the DM because white people love doing that.

McALLEN, Texas — The Trump administration said Friday that it would pay migrant children $2,500 to voluntarily return to their home countries, dangling a new incentive in efforts to persuade people to self-deport.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t say how much migrants would get or when the offer would take effect, but the Associated Press obtained an email to migrant shelters saying children 14 years of age and older would get $2,500 each. Children were given 24 hours to respond.

The notice to shelters from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Administration for Families and Children did not indicate any consequences for children who decline the offer. It asked shelter directors to acknowledge the offer within four hours.

ICE said in a statement that the offer would initially be for 17-year-olds.

“Any payment to support a return home would be provided after an immigration judge grants the request and the individual arrives in their country of origin,” ICE said. “Access to financial support when returning home would assist should they choose that option.”

Advocates said the sizable sum may prevent children from making informed decisions.

“For a child, $2,500 might be the most money they’ve ever seen in their life, and that may make it very, very difficult for them to accurately weigh the long-term risks of taking voluntary departure versus trying to stay in the United States and going through the immigration court process to get relief that they may be legally entitled to,” Melissa Adamson, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, said in response to the plans Friday.

ICE dismissed widespread reports among immigration lawyers and advocates that it was launching a much broader crackdown Friday to deport migrant children who entered the country without their parents, called “Freaky Friday.”

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge Saturday said it appeared the Trump administration was making an “end run” around U.S. court orders prohibiting five African immigrants to be deported to their home countries by sending them first to Ghana, which was poised to then relocate them to countries where they could face torture or death.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the government to detail Saturday night how it was trying to ensure Ghana would not send the immigrants elsewhere in violation of domestic court orders. One of the plaintiffs has already been shipped from Ghana to his native Gambia, where a U.S. court found he could not be sent, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told Chutkan.

Elianis Perez of the Department of Justice acknowledged that she told Chutkan in court Friday that Ghana had pledged that wouldn’t happen. But she argued that Chutkan had no power to control how another country treats deportees. She noted the Supreme Court this summer ruled the administration could continue sending immigrants to countries they are not from, even if they hadn’t had a chance to raise fears of torture.

Gelernt, however, compared the case to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting it, then argued it couldn’t get him back. After multiple courts directed the administration to “facilitate” his return, Abrego Garcia came back to the U.S., where he is now fighting human-trafficking charges and another Trump administration push to deport him.

“This appears to be a specific plan to make an end run around these obligations,” Chutkan said of the administration shipping the immigrants to Ghana. “What does the government intend to do? And please don’t tell me you don’t have any control over Ghana, because I know that.”

Chutkan later issued an order giving the administration until 9 p.m. Eastern Time to file a declaration detailing how they were trying to ensure the other immigrants weren’t improperly sent to their home countries from Ghana.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary legal protections that have granted more than 1 million people from Haiti and Venezuela the right to live and work in the United States.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco for the plaintiffs means 600,000 Venezuelans whose temporary protections expired in April or whose protections were about to expire Sept. 10 have status to stay and work in the United States. It also keeps protections for about 500,000 Haitians.

Chen scolded Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for revoking protections for Venezuelans and Haitians that the judge said would send them “back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries.”

He said Noem’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and she exceeded her authority in ending protections that were extended three times by the Biden administration.

Presidential administrations have executed the law for 35 years based on the best available information and in consultation with other agencies, “a process that involves careful study and analysis. Until now,” Chen wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Temporary Protected Status is a designation that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people in the United States, if conditions in their homelands are deemed unsafe for return due to a natural disaster, political instability or other dangerous conditions.

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.

Their designations were to expire in September but later extended until February, due to a separate court order out of New York.

Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow migrants from the countries to stay on for what is a temporary program. Attorneys for the government have said the secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program are not subject to judicial review.

Designations are granted for terms of six, twelve or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work.

The secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violated the law, Chen wrote.

The case has had numerous legal twists, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In March, Chen temporarily paused the administration’s plans to end TPS for people from Venezuela. An estimated 350,000 Venezuelans were set to lose protections the following month.

The U.S. Supreme Court in May reversed his order while the lawsuit played out. The justices provided no rationale, which is common in emergency appeals, and did not rule on the merits of the case.

Venezuelans with expired protections were fired from jobs, separated from children, detained by officers and even deported, lawyers for TPS holders said.

The Supreme Court’s reversal does not apply to Friday’s ruling. The government is expected to seek a stay of Chen’s order as it appeals.

Last week, a three-judge appeals panel also sided with plaintiffs, saying the Republican administration did not have the authority to vacate protection extensions granted by the previous administration.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

For the first time in more than half a century, immigrants leaving the U.S. outnumber those arriving, a phenomenon that may signal President Trump’s historic mass deportation efforts are having the intended effect.

An analysis of census data released by Pew Research Center on Thursday noted that between January and June, the United States’ foreign-born population had declined by more than a million people.

Millions of people arrived at the border between 2021 and 2023 seeking refuge in America after the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, which ravaged many of their home countries. In 2023, California was home to 11.3 million immigrants, roughly 28.4% of the national total, according to Pew.

In January, 53.3 million immigrants lived in the U.S., the highest number recorded, but in the months that followed, those who left or were deported surpassed those arriving — the first drop since the 1960s. As of June, the number living in the U.S. had dropped to 51.9 million. Pew did not calculate how many immigrants are undocumented.

Trump and his supporters have applauded the exodus, with the president declaring “Promises Made. Promises Kept,” in a social media post this month.

“Seven months into his second term, it’s clear that the president has done what he said he’d do by reestablishing law and order at our southern border and by removing violent illegal immigrants from our nation,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a USA Today column on Thursday. “Both actions were necessary for Americans’ peace and prosperity.”

But some experts caution that such declines will have negative economic effects on the United States if they continue, resulting in labor shortages as America’s birth rate continues to drop.

“Looking ahead in the future, we’re going to have to rely on immigrant workers to fulfill a lot of the jobs in this country,” said Victor Narro, project director at UCLA Labor Center. “Like it or not, the demographics are going to be changing in this country. It’s already changing, but it’s going to be more pronounced in the future, especially with the decline in native-born workers.”

The Pew analysis highlights several policy changes that have affected the number of immigrants in the country, beginning during then-President Biden’s term.

In June 2024, Biden signed a proclamation that bars migrants from seeking asylum along the U.S. border with Mexico at times when crossings are high, a change that was designed to make it harder for those who enter the country without prior authorization.

Trump, who campaigned on hard-line immigration policies, signed an executive order on the first day of his second term, declaring an “invasion” at the southern border. The move severely restricted entry into the country by barring people who arrive between ports of entry from seeking asylum or invoking other protections that would allow them to temporarily remain in the U.S.

Widespread immigration enforcement operations across Southern California began in June, prompting pushback from advocates and local leaders. The federal government responded by deploying thousands of Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. after the raids sparked scattered protests.

Homeland Security agents have arrested 4,481 undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area since June 6, the agency said this month.

Narro said the decrease in immigrants outlined in the study may not be as severe as the numbers suggest because of a reduction in response rates amid heightened enforcement.

“When you have the climate that you have today with fear of deportation, being arrested or detained by ICE — all the stuff that’s coming out of the Trump administration — people are going to be less willing to participate in the survey and documentation that goes into these reports,” Narro said.

Michael Capuano, research director at Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit that advocates for a reduction in immigration, said the numbers are trending in the right direction.

“We see it as a positive start,” Capuano said. “Obviously enforcement at the border is now working. The population is beginning to decrease. We’d like to see that trend continue because, ultimately, we think the policy of the last four years has been proven to be unsustainable.”

Capuano disagrees that the decrease in immigrants will cause problems for the country’s workforce.

“We don’t believe that ultimately there’s going to be this huge disruption,” he said. “There is no field that Americans won’t work in. Pew notes in its own study that American-born workers are the majority in every job field.”

In 2023, the last year with complete data, 33 million immigrants were part of the country’s workforce, including about 10 million undocumented individuals. Roughly 19% of workers were immigrants in 2023, up from 15% two decades earlier, according to Pew.

“Immigrants are a huge part of American society,” said Toby Higbie, a professor of history and labor studies at UCLA. “Those who are running the federal government right now imagine that they can remove all immigrants from this society, but it’s just not going to happen. It’s not going to happen because the children of immigrants will fight against it and because our country needs immigrant workers to make the economy work.”

The United States experienced a negative net immigration in the 1930s during the Great Depression when at least 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans left the country, often as a result of government pressure and repatriation programs. Not long after, the U.S. implemented the bracero program in 1942 in which the U.S. allowed millions of Mexican citizens to work in the country to address labor shortages during World War II.

Higbie predicts the decline in immigration won’t last long, particularly if prices on goods rise amid labor shortages.

“You could say that there’s a cycle here where we invite immigrants to work in our economy, and then there’s a political reaction by some in our country, and they kick them out, and then we invite them back,” he said. “I suspect that the Trump administration, after going through this process of brutally deporting people, will turn around and propose a guest worker program in order to maintain a docile immigrant workforce.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand “expedited removal” for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.

Immigrants’ advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge’s ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case’s conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.

A plaintiffs’ attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Kunzelman and Spagat write for the Associated Press. Spagat reported from San Diego.

As a Christian who smuggled Bibles into my home country of Iran, I became a target of the country’s Islamist regime, which imprisons and sometimes kills those who invite Muslims to convert. After living under house arrest for two years, I fled as a refugee and was ultimately resettled to the United States.

I experienced true religious freedom for the first time in my life in this country, of which I am now a proud, grateful citizen — and that’s why I am shocked by the ways that my government is now treating my Iranian congregants, who have been detained by masked officers, separated from their families and threatened with deportation to a country that would kill them for their Christian faith. What I have witnessed gives me flashbacks to Tehran, and I believe that America must be better.

Two families who are a part of the Farsi-speaking evangelical congregation that I pastor in Los Angeles have been detained in recent weeks. First, a couple and their 3-year-old daughter, who are in the process of seeking asylum because they fear persecution if they were returned to Iran. They were detained at their court hearing in downtown Los Angeles on June 23. The entire family is now being held in South Texas.

The next day, I received a call from a woman in my church. Like me, she had been forced to flee Iran for Turkey when her involvement in Iran’s underground churches was exposed.

When the woman and her husband found themselves in a desperate situation in Turkey last year, they were not offered the option to fly to the U.S. as resettled refugees as I had been in 2010. Instead, they flew to South America, made a treacherous journey north and waited in Mexico for an appointment they reserved on a U.S. government app, CBP One, to be able to explain their situation to officers of the U.S. government.

Once lawfully allowed in with provisional humanitarian status, they found our church — where they could be baptized and publicly profess their faith in Jesus — and legal help to begin their asylum request. They received their work authorization documents and found jobs. Their first asylum hearing in immigration court was scheduled for this September.

When President Trump returned to office, however, his administration both suspended all refugee resettlement and canceled humanitarian parole for those who had been allowed to enter via the CBP One app. Many parolees received menacing letters instructing them to self-deport or face prosecution, fines or deportation. But these letters also noted that these instructions did not apply to those who had “otherwise obtained a lawful basis to remain,” such as a pending asylum application.

That’s why I was so shocked to receive a call from the woman in my congregation informing me that her husband had been detained by masked immigration officers on the street, just a few blocks from our church. I rushed over and began to film the shocking scene: First he was detained by masked officers, and then she was. I asked if they had a judicial warrant, but if they did, they would not show me. The woman experienced a panic attack and was taken to a hospital but discharged into ICE custody; she is now hours away in a detention center in California. Her husband is in a detention center in Texas.

It’s not just these two families who are affected. My community of Iranian Christians is terrified of being detained and deported back to Iran, where they fear being killed for their faith. Some have lost jobs because they fear leaving their homes. Others lost jobs because their work authorization, tied to humanitarian parole, was abruptly terminated.

I believe that America is better than this. This behavior reminds me disturbingly of what I fled in Iran. But I know that most Americans do not support this, nor do most fellow evangelical Christians: Many evangelicals voted for Trump because he pledged to protect persecuted Christians — not to deport them. While most evangelicals want those convicted of violent crimes detained, one-quarter or less of us say that about other immigrants, and 7 in 10 believe the U.S. has a moral responsibility to receive refugees. I have been overwhelmed by the support of English- and Spanish-speaking sister congregations of our church, by the outreach of Christians from across the country and by a recent biblically rooted statement of many California evangelical leaders.

Now, Congress has passed legislation to exponentially increase the funding for detaining and deporting immigrants. Trump’s administration has been clear that anyone in the country unlawfully — including more than a million who were here lawfully until his administration abruptly canceled their status — is at risk of deportation. According to a recent study by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, 80% of those vulnerable to deportation are Christians; some, like those in my church, would likely face death if deported to their home countries.

I hope and pray Trump will reverse course on these policies, going after those who genuinely present a public safety threat but having mercy on others, especially those who fled persecution on account of their faith. And until he does make that policy shift, I plead with Congress to pass real immigration reforms that would halt these horrifying detentions and deportations.

Ara Torosian is a pastor at Cornerstone West Los Angeles.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” now before the Senate takes the current preoccupation with making every governmental relationship transactional to an immoral extreme. It puts a $1,000 price tag on the right to seek asylum — the first time the United States would require someone to pay for this human right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” U.S. law incorporates that right, stating that “any alien … irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” Neither makes this right contingent on being able to pay.

Bear in mind that asylum seekers in the United States do not have the right to court-appointed attorneys. That means the system already profoundly disadvantages indigent asylum seekers — they can’t afford a lawyer, often don’t speak English and have no road map for navigating arcane immigration law.

The new law would make asylum even more inaccessible for a poor person, in effect, creating two classes of those seeking refuge here. Those wealthy enough to pay $1,000 up front would have their protection claims heard; those unable to pay would be shunted back to face persecution and the problems that drove them from their home countries to begin with.

If this part of the bill isn’t modified before its final passage, Congress will have piled on to the obstacles the Trump administration has already put in place to block the right to seek asylum. On Inauguration Day, President Trump proclaimed an invasion of the United States by “millions of aliens” and “suspend[ed] the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border.” Until the president decides the “invasion” is over, the order explicitly denies the right of any person to seek asylum if it would permit their continued presence in the United States.

Since Jan. 20, asylum seekers trying to enter the United States at the southwestern border have been turned away and, in some cases, loaded onto military planes and flown to third countries — Panama, for example — without any opportunity to make asylum claims.

“I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried,” Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old Christian convert from Iran, told Human Rights Watch after being sent to Panama. “Nobody listened to me …. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.”

On top of the basic fee for asylum seekers, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would also require an asylum seeker to pay a fee of “not less than $550” every six months to be permitted to work in the U.S. while their claim is pending. The bill would also impose an additional $100 fee for every year an asylum application remains pending in the heavily backlogged system, punishing the person fleeing persecution for the government’s failure to provide sufficient immigration judges.

Children are not spared. For the privilege of sponsoring an unaccompanied migrant child, the bill would require the sponsor, often a relative who steps forward to care for the child, to pay a $3,500 fee. Congressional priorities for spending on unaccompanied children who arrive at our borders show a distinct lack of compassion: The bill directs that a $20-million appropriation for U.S. Customs and Border Protection “shall only be used to conduct an examination of such unaccompanied alien child for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings.”

Add to these barriers the complete shutdown of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, except for white South Africans; the termination of “humanitarian parole” for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans; the end of temporary protected status programs that have provided protection to people coming from countries of widespread conflict, and the travel ban that bars entry from some of the world’s top refugee-producing countries, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran and Sudan.

In the meantime, Trump hypes the idea of selling $5-million “gold cards” for super rich foreigners who want to buy U.S. permanent residence. When asked who might be interested, Trump replied, “I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention capacity (by my calculations, that would more than triple capacity). It also specifies $14.4 billion for ICE transportation and removal operations, $46.5 billion for the border wall and $858 million to pay bonuses to ICE officials.

With all the money Congress is prepared to spend, it’s a wonder the bill didn’t add a few dollars for sanding down the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty and re-chiseling it to say, “Give me your rich and well-rested … yearning to breathe free.”

Bill Frelick is refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report “‘Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened’: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama.”

It turns out Zoe Saldaña was more than just emotionally drained after tearfully accepting her supporting actress Oscar for “Emilia Pérez” at this year’s Academy Awards — she was also worn out physically.

The 46-year-old actor explained Wednesday on the ABC talk show “Live With Kelly and Mark” how she had been fighting a cold and felt fully exhausted immediately following one of her career-defining moments.

“I collapsed right after. I lost my voice within an hour after I won the award,” she said. “I couldn’t stand on those heels that I had. All I wanted to do was crawl in bed and maybe cry. I don’t know why, I just needed to cry.”

The “Avatar” star noted that up until that point her body was running on all cylinders for months on end during awards season.

“Your body is running on pure adrenaline so you know that your immune system is in optimal condition, but once you tell your body that it’s over, then everything sort of collapses,” Saldaña said.

The Oscar victory capped an impressive awards season run for the “Guardians of the Galaxy” actor, having won the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Critics’ Choice awards for her role as Mexico City attorney Rita Castro in “Emilia Pérez.”

While her performance was almost universally celebrated and well-regarded, the film as a whole was heavily criticized for its incomplete and offensive portrayals of transgender issues and the lack of consideration taken in depicting Mexico.

LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD declared the film is “Not Good Trans Representation.” The organization did not nominate “Emilia Pérez” for any GLAAD Media Awards.

Although physically and emotionally exhausted, Saldaña managed to make some attention-grabbing statements in the Oscars press room after a Mexican journalist noted that the movie’s presentation of Mexico was “really hurtful for us Mexicans.”

“First of all, I’m very, very sorry that you and so many Mexicans felt offended,” Saldaña said in the defense of the film. “That was never our intention. We spoke and came from a place of love, and I will stand by that.”

She went on to further disagree with the Mexican journalist’s point of view regarding the centrality and importance of Mexico in the 13-time Oscar nominated movie.

“For me, the heart of this movie was not Mexico. We were making a film about friendship. We were making a film about four women,” Saldaña explained. “And these women are still very universal women that are struggling every day, but trying to survive systemic oppression and trying to find the most authentic voices.”

Outside of the issues within the film, much of the main cast and crew of the movie was bogged down by mostly self-inflicted negative press.

Actor Karla Sofía Gascón faced backlash in January after Canadian writer Sarah Hagi resurfaced tweets dating from 2016 to 2023 that spoke negatively of Muslims’ clothing, language and culture in her home country of Spain. Additionally, Gascón caught heat for resurfaced comments about the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the ensuing racial reckoning, the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19-era Academy Awards ceremony in 2021.

Gascón later apologized for her previous online remarks and deactivated her X account.

The film’s director Jacques Audiard spoke openly on record about how little he prepped to portray Mexico and denigrated the Spanish language during his press tour.

When asked by a Mexican journalist at a red carpet event about how much he had to study up on Mexico and Mexican culture to prepare for the movie, Audiard gave a telling answer.

“No, I didn’t study that much. What I needed to know, I already knew a little about,” the filmmaker said. “It was more about capturing the little details and we came a lot to Mexico to see actors, to see locations, to see the decorations and so on.”

Speaking with the French outlet Konbini, Audiard spoke down on the Spanish language, saying, “Spanish is a language of modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and migrants.”

Audiard later apologized for his comments after the movie received backlash from Mexican audiences.

Selena Gomez, who played a pivotal supporting role in the film, was criticized for her proficiency in Spanish. Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez was among those who called out Gomez’s performance and Spanish language ability.

Gomez has previously said her Spanish fluency waned after she started working in television at age 7. She responded to the criticism on social media, saying, “I did the best I could with the time I was given. Doesn’t take away from how much work and heart I put into this movie.” Derbez later apologized.

Tom Llamas first stepped into NBC’s Rockefeller Center headquarters in 2000 as a fresh-faced intern.

On Monday, he becomes part of television news history as the fifth anchor of “NBC Nightly News” and the first Latino journalist to helm a daily English-language network evening newscast (one of his mentors, Jose Diaz-Balart, handles the Saturday edition of “Nightly”).

Llamas, 45, takes over for Lester Holt, who will move full time to NBC’s “Dateline” after a 10-year run in the anchor chair. Llamas will remain the anchor of “Top Story,” a live, hourlong newscast on the network’s free streaming platform NBC News Now.

The son of Cuban immigrants, Llamas grew up in Miami, where he continues to have strong ties (pop superstar Gloria Estefan and “Sabado Gigante” host Don Francisco attended a party in Florida to celebrate his promotion). He lives in Westchester County, N.Y., with his wife, Jennifer, three children aged 12, nine and seven, and a dedicated room for his vinyl record collection built from a decade of crate-digging while traveling around the world on assignment.

He recently spoke with The Times about his new role.

You’ve known Lester Holt since you were a 21-year-old production assistant at NBC News. What advice did he give you for your new role?

He’s been married to this job. And so I asked him about that, because my kids have always known me as a network correspondent and a network anchor. But he told me, “Your life is going to change.” And he explained to me that everyone’s going to want a piece of you and there’s going to be a lot of demands, even more than you’ve ever experienced.

And he’s been right about that. He said, “You have to make the right decisions when it comes to your career and your family.” My wife and my kids have known that sometimes I’ll be at a little league game or I’ll be at a school play, and I have to run and jump on a plane because there’s breaking news. And they understand that their dad does that. But we always have conversations about it. And it’s tough.

Do your children watch “NBC Nightly News” and “Top Story”?

Oh yeah.

I had my 7-year-old explaining the election to his classmates. He was walking them through when President Biden stepped down and Kamala Harris took over the nomination. Sometimes it’s tough. They were watching that night during Hurricane Milton last summer when a transformer exploded over my head, and that is a little scary. There were some text messages and calls to me quickly.

Sometimes they watch a little too much and we have to turn it off. But they are very plugged-in; they know the world around them. It’s just the same way I was raised. We watched news in English and Spanish as far back as I can remember. Because my parents were always searching for news out of Cuba.

Tom Llamas reporting from Kyiv in March 2022.

(NBC News)

What are your early news viewing memories?

I can really remember any time Fidel Castro was going to be interviewed. It was always a major moment, right? I remember my parents watching the interview and then deciding if it was a fair interview or not and having an open conversation about that. So I’m hearing about conversations of fairness my entire life. And I see what it means and how viewers react to that.

Did that inspire you to go into the profession?

I don’t know if it was an inspiration as much as it was a testament of how important the news is. It’s just that my family relied on the news. They wanted to know what was happening in their home country. They wanted to know what was happening in America. And they listened, and they trust these people.

What made the powers that be decide that you should keep doing “Top Story” while doing “Nightly”?

It was actually my idea.

Right now, in this country, you’ve got to be everywhere. And I didn’t want to lose what we’ve established for three and a half years. We just got nominated for an Emmy up against amazing legacy shows like “Nightly News,” “ABC World News Tonight” and the “CBS Evening News.” To be in that circle with a streaming show that is three years old, that’s been one of the greatest achievements of my career. Because this was a startup. And a lot of people said we couldn’t do this, and we have.

President Trump basically declared war on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. [The Federal Communications Commission has called for an investigation into NBC’s parent firm Comcast for what it describes as “DEI discrimination.”] Has that muted the achievement of being the first Latino to anchor an English-speaking nightly newscast?

I don’t think I got this job because I’m Hispanic; I think I got this job because I’m the best person for the job. And I know that’s what NBC believes, too.

My life story is something I’m very proud of. [My parents] essentially came to this country with nothing. They had no money, they barely spoke the language, and this incredible country gave them a second chance. It gave them a new home. And they taught me hard work, but they also taught me to love this country. And I do, I think this is the greatest place in the world, hands down. To become the anchor of “Nightly News” tells me that the American dream is still very alive.

NBC’s Tom Llamas in Rome, covering the death of Pope Francis in April 2025.

(NBC News)

You’re from the streaming music generation, but you have a vinyl record collection. How did that happen?

Ten or 12 years ago, I went to my friend’s house in Los Angeles and he has a record player. I think he played “Sticky Fingers” from the Rolling Stones. We just chilled and we listened to the album. And I thought, “What a great experience.”

Then I realized the other fun part about records is just finding them and collecting them, and trying to get original pressings. I have Wilson Pickett records that were made in Spain. I have Beatles records where the liner notes and the album covers are in different languages. I have a room where I have them — it feels like you’re walking into a jukebox. It’s where I read the paper sometimes. It’s where I prepare for big election nights. I’ll be in there for hours. It’s how I relax.

What’s on your turntable at the moment?

I’m in a bit of a hard-bop phase, so I’m listening to a lot of Art Blakey, a lot of Cannonball Adderley. I’ve been trying to find great live albums. I picked up this great five-record set from Bruce Springsteen, the run he had in the late ’70s through the ’80s. And a great album, which I got turned on to, is Elvis Presley’s “From Elvis in Memphis.” He recorded that in 1969, when Jimi Hendrix was taking off and Woodstock was happening. And it’s just a very country Americana album with beautiful songs. It’s got the Memphis Boys backing him.

You have good taste in music.

I appreciate it.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking federal agencies to cancel contracts with Harvard University worth about $100 million, a senior administration official said Tuesday, intensifying the president’s clash with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university.

The government already has canceled more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants for the Ivy League school, which has pushed back on the administration’s demands for changes to several of its policies.

A draft letter from the General Services Administration directs agencies to review contracts with the university and seek alternate vendors. The administration plans to send a version of the letter Tuesday, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

The New York Times first reported on the letter.

President Trump has railed against Harvard, calling it a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. The school filed a lawsuit April 21 over the administration’s calls for changes to the university’s leadership, governance and admissions policies. Since then, the administration has slashed the school’s federal funding, moved to cut off enrollment of international students and threatened its tax-exempt status.

Contracts include scientific research, executive training

The administration has identified about 30 contracts across nine agencies to be reviewed for cancellation, according to another administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly and provided details on the condition of anonymity.

The contracts total roughly $100 million. They include executive training for Department of Homeland Security officials, research on health outcomes related to energy drinks and a contract for graduate student research services.

Agencies with contracts that are deemed critical are being directed not to halt them immediately, but to devise a plan to transition to a different vendor other than Harvard.

The letter applies only to federal contracts with Harvard and not its remaining research grants.

Trump threatens to give Harvard’s funding to trade schools

Trump laid into Harvard on social media over the weekend, threatening to cut an additional $3 billion in federal grants and give it to trade schools across the United States. He did not explain which grants he was referring to or how they could be reallocated.

The president also accused Harvard of refusing to release the names of its foreign students. In a new line of attack, he argued that students’ home countries pay nothing toward their education and that some of the countries are “not at all friendly to the United States.” International students are not eligible for federal financial aid, but Harvard offers its own aid to foreign and domestic students alike.

“We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” Trump said on social media.

It wasn’t clear exactly what he was demanding. The federal government already has access to visa information and other records on foreign students at Harvard and other universities.

The Department of Homeland Security has demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of files related to its foreign students, including disciplinary records and records related to “dangerous or violent activity.”

Harvard says it complied, but the agency said its response fell short and moved to revoke the university’s ability to enroll foreign students. A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked the move after Harvard sued.

Other nations respond

Japan’s government said Tuesday that it’s looking for ways to help Harvard’s foreign students. Education Minister Toshiko Abe told reporters she planned to ask Japanese universities to compile measures to support international students.

The University of Tokyo, Japan’s top school, is considering temporarily accepting some Harvard students hit by the Trump sanctions.

Superville and Binkley write for the Associated Press.

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration late Friday to facilitate the return of a Guatemalan man it deported to Mexico in spite of his fears of being harmed there.

The man, who is gay, was protected from being returned to his home country under a U.S. immigration judge’s order at the time. But the U.S. put him on a bus and sent him to Mexico instead, a removal that U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found probably “lacked any semblance of due process.”

Mexico has since returned him to Guatemala, where he is in hiding, according to court documents. An earlier court proceeding determined that the man, identified by the initials O.C.G., risked persecution or torture if returned to Guatemala, but said he also feared returning to Mexico. He presented evidence of being raped and held for ransom in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S.

“No one has ever suggested that O.C.G. poses any sort of security threat,” Murphy wrote. “In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped.”

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said O.C.G. was in the country illegally, was “granted withholding of removal to Guatemala” and was instead sent to Mexico, which she said was “a safe third option for him, pending his asylum claim.”

McLaughlin called the judge a “federal activist judge” and said the administration expects to be vindicated by a higher court.

Murphy’s order adds to a string of findings by federal courts against recent Trump administration deportations. Those have included other deportations to third countries and the erroneous deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran who had lived as a legal U.S. resident in Maryland for 14 years while working and raising a family.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. from a notorious prison in El Salvador, rejecting the White House’s claim that it couldn’t retrieve him after mistakenly deporting him. The White House and the Salvadoran president have said they are powerless to return him. The Trump administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege, arguing that releasing details in open court — or even to the judge in private — about returning Abrego Garcia to the United States would jeopardize national security.

In his Friday ruling, Murphy nodded to the dispute over the verb “facilitate” in that case and others, saying that returning O.C.G. to the U.S. is not complicated.

“The Court notes that ‘facilitate’ in this context should carry less baggage than in several other notable cases,” he wrote. “O.C.G. is not held by any foreign government. Defendants have declined to make any argument that facilitating his return would be costly, burdensome, or otherwise impede the government’s objectives.”

Smyth writes for the Associated Press.