order

Officials announced Thursday that Los Angeles County has automated the process of notifying law enforcement agencies when people who violate restraining orders fail to comply with judges’ orders to hand their guns over to authorities.

Previously, court clerks had to identify which of the county’s 88 law enforcement agencies to notify about a firearm relinquishment by looking up addresses for the accused, which could take multiple days, Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II of the L.A. County Superior Court said during a news conference.

Now, “notices are sent within minutes” to the appropriate agencies, Tapia said.

“This new system represents a step forward in ensuring timely, consistent and efficient communication between the court and law enforcement,” he said, “helping to remove firearms from individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing them.”

According to a news release, the court launched the platform, which the Judicial Council of California funded with a $4.12 million grant in conjunction with the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and district attorney’s office, and the L.A. Police Department and city attorney’s office.

The court also rolled out a new portal for law enforcement that “streamlines interagency communications by providing justice partners with a centralized list of relevant cases for review” and allows agencies “to view all firearm relinquishment restraining order violations within their jurisdiction,” according to the release.

The new digital approach “represents a major enhancement in public safety,” Luna said.

“Each of those firearms,” he said, “represents a potential tragedy prevented or a domestic violence situation that did not escalate, a life that was not lost to gun violence.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

A famous Civil War-era photo of an escaped slave who had been savagely whipped. Displays detailing how more than 120,000 U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry were forcibly imprisoned during WWII. Signs describing the effects of climate change on the coast of Maine.

In recent months, a small army of historians, librarians, scientists and other volunteers has fanned out across America’s national parks and museums to photograph and painstakingly archive cultural and intellectual treasures they fear are under threat from President Trump’s war against “woke.”

These volunteers are creating a “citizen’s record” of what exists now in case the administration carries out Trump’s orders to scrub public signs and displays of language he and his allies deem too negative about America’s past.

More than 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly relocated and incarcerated in camps during World War II, including these Japanese Americans seen at Manzanar in the Owens Valley in 1942.

(LA Library)

“My deepest, darkest fear,” said Georgetown University history professor Chandra Manning, who helped organize an effort dubbed Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian, is that the administration plans to “rewrite and falsify who counts as an American.”

In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” arguing that, over the past decade, signs and displays at museums and parks across the country have been distorted by a “widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history,” replacing facts with liberal ideology.

“Under this historical revision,” he wrote, “our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

He ordered the National Parks Service and The Smithsonian to scrub their displays of content that “inappropriately disparages Americans” living or dead, and replace it with language that celebrates the nation’s greatness.

The Collins Bible — a detailed family history recorded by Richard Collins, a formerly enslaved man — is seen at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C.

(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

That’s when Manning’s colleague at Georgetown University, James Millward, who specializes in Chinese history, told her, “this seems really eerie,” Manning recalled. It reminded him of the Chinese Communist Party’s dictates to “tell China’s story well,” which he said was code for censorship and falsification.

So the professors reached out to friends and discovered that there were like-minded folks across the country working like “monks” in the Middle Ages, who painstakingly copied ancient texts, to photograph and preserve what they regarded as national treasures.

“There’s a human tradition of doing exactly this,” Manning said. “It feels gratifying to be a part of that tradition, it makes me feel less isolated and less alone.”

Jenny McBurney, a government documents librarian at the University of Minnesota, said she found Trump’s language “quite dystopian.” That’s why she helped organize an effort called Save Our Signs, which aims to photograph and preserve all of the displays at national parks and monuments.

The sprawling network includes Manzanar National Historic Site, where Japanese American civilians were imprisoned during the Second World War; Fort Sumter National Monument, where Confederates fired the first shots of the Civil War; Ford’s Theater National Historic Site in Washington, D.C., where Abraham Lincoln was assassinated; and the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Park.

It would be difficult to tell those stories without disparaging at least some dead Americans — such as the assassins John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray — or violating Trump’s order to focus on America’s “unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity and human flourishing.”

At Acadia National Park in Maine, where the rising sun first hits the U.S. coast for much of the year, signs describing the effect of climate change on rising seas, storm surge and intense rain have already been removed.

McBurney doesn’t want volunteers to try to anticipate the federal government’s next moves and focus only on displays they think might be changed, she wants to preserve everything, “good, bad, negative or whatever,” she said in a recent interview. “As a librarian, I like complete sets of things.”

And if there were a complete archive of every sign in the national park system in private hands — out of the reach of the current administration — there would always be a “before” picture to look back at and see what had changed.

“We don’t want this information to just disappear in the dark,” McBurney said.

Another group, the Data Rescue Project, is hard at work filling private servers with at-risk databases, including health data from the Centers for Disease Control, climate data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the contents of government websites, many of which have been subject to the same kind of ideological scrubbing threatened at parks and museums.

Both efforts were “a real inspiration,” Manning said, as she and Millward pondered what they could do to contribute to the cause.

Then, in August, apparently frustrated by the lack of swift compliance with its directives, the Trump administration sent a formal letter to Lonnie G. Bunch III, the first Black Secretary of the Smithsonian, setting a 120-day limit to “begin implementing content corrections.”

Days later, President Trump took to Truth Social, the media platform he owns, to state his case less formally.

“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL,” he wrote, “everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.”

Even though the Smithsonian celebrates American astronauts, military heroes and sports legends, Trump complained that the museums offered nothing about the “success” and “brightness” of America, concluding with, “We have the “HOTTEST” Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it.”

People visit the Smithsonian Museum of American History on the National Mall in Washington.

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press)

Immediately, Manning and Millward knew where they would focus.

They sent emails to people they knew, and reached out to neighborhood listservs, asking if anyone wanted to help document the displays at the 21 museums that make up the Smithsonian Institution — including the American History Museum and the Natural History Museum — the National Zoo and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Within about two weeks, they had 600 volunteers. Before long, the group had grown to over 1,600, Manning said, more people than they could assign galleries and exhibitions to.

“A lot of people feel upset and kind of paralyzed by these repeated assaults on our shared resources and our shared institutions,” Manning said, “and they’re really not sure what to do about it.”

With the help of all the volunteers, and a grad student, Jessica Dickenson Goodman, who had the computer skills to help archive their submissions, the Citizen Historians project now has an archive of over 50,000 photos and videos covering all of the sites. They finished the work Oct. 12, which was when the museums closed because of the government shutdown.

After several media outlets reported on the order to remove the photo of the whipped slave from the Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia — citing internal emails and people familiar with deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly — administration officials described the reports as “misinformation” but declined to specify which part was incorrect.

A National Parks Service spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

But the possibility that the administration is considering removing the Scourged Back photo is precisely what has prompted Manning, and so many others, to dedicate their time to preserving the historical record.

“I think we need the story that wrong sometimes exists and it is possible to do something about it,” Manning said.

The man in the photo escaped, joined the Union army, and became part of the fight to abolish slavery in the United States. If a powerful image like that disappears from public display, “we rob ourselves of the reminder that it’s possible to do something about the things that are wrong.”

President Donald Trump says he plans to sign an executive order that would compel the U.S. Navy to use steam-powered catapults and hydraulic elevators on new aircraft carriers. Trump has railed against the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapults and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) on the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s newest supercarrier, for years now. Ford‘s catapults and elevators have faced reliability and maintenance issues, but swapping out these features, even just for future ships in the class, would involve an extremely costly and time-consuming redesign that would further delay new carriers entering service.

Trump announced his intention to issue an executive order regarding carrier catapults and weapons elevators during often free-wheeling remarks to servicemembers aboard the Nimitz class carrier USS George Washington earlier today. The George Washington is currently in port in Yokosuka, Japan, where it is forward deployed. The President is in Japan as part of a larger tour of Asia.

The Navy currently has 10 Nimitz class carriers, which have steam-powered catapults and hydraulic weapons elevators. In addition to the in-service USS Gerald R. Ford, there are three more Ford class carriers now in various stages of construction. The Navy’s stated plan has been to eventually acquire at least 10 Ford class flattops to replace the Nimitz class.

“I’m putting out an order, I’m going to sign an executive order, when we build aircraft carriers, it’s steam for the catapults and it’s hydraulic for the elevators,” Trump said after suggesting, without elaborating, that water could disable Ford‘s electromagnetic systems. “We’ll never have a problem.”

“I’m gonna put in an order, seriously,” the President also said. “They’re spending billions of dollars to build stupid electric. And the problem, when it breaks, you have to send up to MIT, get the most brilliant people in the world, fly them out. The steam, they said they can fix it with a hammer and blowtorch. And it works just as well, if not better.”

“They had steam, which worked so beautifully, and it has for 50 years, right? So we’re gonna go back. Seriously, fellas, I want to make that change. I’m gonna do an executive order,” he added. “I’m not going to let them continue to do this thing. They’re trying to make it work, they’re trying so hard, and they have something that’s perfect. So we’re going to go back on that and the magnets.”

As noted, this is hardly the first time Trump has criticized the Ford class design’s electromagnetic catapults and elevators, stretching back all the way to his first term. In 2017, he also indicated that he would order the Navy to abandon those features, but never followed through. If an executive order on this matter is now indeed coming, what it will actually direct the service to do remains to be seen.

TWZ has reached out to the White House, the Pentagon, and the Navy in regards to Trump’s remarks. The Pentagon redirected us to the Navy.

There is real truth behind the President’s criticisms about the catapults and weapons elevators on Ford, which is also known by its hull number CVN-78. TWZ has covered the issues with both of these systems, as well as other long-troubled aspects of the ship’s design, in detail for years now. The Navy has been working to mitigate these problems, but has continued to face challenges at least as recently as last year.

During Ford‘s first full-length deployment between May 2023 to January 2024, “the ship and its embarked air wing completed 8,725 catapult launches using the EMALS,” according to the most recent annual report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), which was published earlier this year. “However, DOT&E has not received sufficient data to update the reliability statistics reported in the FY23 [Fiscal Year 2023] Annual Report. Despite engineering upgrades to hardware and software, reliability has not appreciably changed from prior years and reliance on off-ship technical support remains a challenge. NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] is continuing development on improvements.”

“The Navy reported that, during CVN 78’s deployment, the ship’s weapons department conducted 11,369 AWE runs, moving 1,829,580 pounds of ordnance to the flight deck. However, the Navy has yet to build and transfer ordnance to the flight deck at rates reflective of the Design Reference Mission,” DOT&E’s report also said. “Of note, the crew is reliant on off-ship technical support for correction of
hardware and software failures. DOT&E expects the SGR [sortie generation rate] tests [planned for Fiscal Year 2025] to be the first operationally representative demonstration of high ordnance throughput.”

In principle, EMALS, together with the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), is supposed to give Ford class carriers a significant boost in capability over their predecessors when it comes to the speed at which they can launch and recover aircraft. The software-controlled EMALS and AAG, the latter of which has also faced issues over the years, have lower reset times than the steam-powered systems found on Nimitz class carriers.

The EMALS and AAG can also be more fine-tuned in terms of the forces they exert on aircraft during launch and recovery, expanding the range of types they can accommodate and adding additional margins of safety. This notably helps open the door for embarking smaller and more fragile types on Ford class carriers in the future. This flexibility could be particularly critical for supporting carrier-based drone operations down the line. Wear and tear on individual aircraft can also be reduced.

The electromagnetic AWEs are intended to further help improve the overall efficiency of flight operations on Ford by reducing the time it takes to get ordnance and other stores to where they need to go.

As DOT&E has made clear, however, the EMALS and AWEs, as well as the AAG, have yet to live up to their full potential, despite Ford now being regularly deployed, including in support of combat operations.

There is something of a precedent for significant changes to the Ford class design. The USS Gerald R. Ford is now set to be the only ship in the class with another long-troubled feature, a Dual Band Radar (DBR) system, which you can read more about here. All future ships in the class are now set to have a variant of the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) in place of the DBR.

That being said, replacing the EMALS (and likely the AAG as a result) and the AWEs on the Ford, or any of the other ships in the class currently under construction, would be an immensely more complicated, costly, and time-consuming proposition. The catapults and elevators are far more deeply integrated into the core structure of the ship than the DBR. Even just changing the design for future carriers in the class would be extremely complex. A hybrid arrangement involving a mix of steam and EMALS capabilities might be an option, but would then create two systems that need to be integrated together, as well as sustained once operational.

Delivery of additional Ford class carriers has already been significantly delayed. The prospective delivery date for the second ship in the class, the future USS John F. Kennedy, has already slipped to March 2027, nearly three years later than originally expected. The Navy told USNI News earlier this year that it is looking for ways to shift that timetable back to the left.

Any massive changes to the underlying Ford class design of the ships could easily have cascading effects in that regard, on top of cost growth and other issues. This, in turn, could upend Navy plans for replacing retiring Nimitz class carriers at a time when the service’s carrier fleet overall has been under particular strain due to high operational demands in recent years. Just last week, the Pentagon ordered Ford to cut its scheduled cruise in Europe short and set sail for the Caribbean to support expanded counter-drug operations in that part of the world.

Beyond just his vocal opposition to Ford‘s electromagnetic catapults and weapons elevators, Trump has a long history of being particularly outspoken when it comes to U.S. naval ship design and force planning, as well as the aesthetics of those vessels.

Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House and the Navy are in the early stages of hashing out a larger naval force restructuring plan for what has been termed a future “Golden Fleet.”

“Specifically, the White House and the Pentagon are in early talks about building a heavily armored, next-generation ship that could weigh as much as 15,000-20,000 tons and carry more powerful weapons, even potentially hypersonic missiles, in larger numbers than current destroyers and cruisers, the current and former officials said,” according to that report.

This lends some credence to off-hand comments from Trump back in September, where he claimed to be talking with Navy Secretary John Phelan about adding “battleships” with gun-centric armament and heavily armored hulls back into America’s combat fleets. In TWZ‘s deep analysis of Trump’s remarks at the time, we highlighted that battleship-like arsenal ships primarily packed with Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells have been proposed as part of the Navy’s future force structure on various occasions in the past.

The Golden Fleet plans, at least as they exist now, also reportedly put heavy emphasis on uncrewed vessels as part of a “barbell-shaped” overall force structure, “with large ships at one end and small ships at the other,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

It is also worth noting here that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has skipped steam-powered catapults entirely in its carrier force plans. The PLAN has moved straight from short take-off, but arrested recovery (STOBAR) carriers with ski jump bows, and no catapults at all, to the new EMALS-equipped Fujian. China’s new supersized Type 076 amphibious assault ship also has a single catapult, which is understood to be an EMALS type.

Two federal judges told the U.S. Department of Agriculture in separate rulings Friday that it must begin using billions of dollars in contingency funding to provide federal food assistance to poor American families despite the federal shutdown, but gave the agency until Monday to decide how to do so.

Both Obama-appointed judges rejected Trump administration arguments that more than $5 billion in USDA contingency funds could not legally be tapped to continue Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for nearly 42 million Americans while the federal government remains closed. But both also left unclear how exactly the relief should be provided, or when it will arrive for millions of families set to lose benefits starting Saturday.

The two rulings came almost simultaneously Friday.

In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani stopped short of granting California and a coalition of 24 other Democrat-led states a temporary restraining order they had requested. But she ruled that the states were likely to succeed in their arguments that the USDA’s total shutoff of SNAP benefits — despite having billions in emergency contingency funds on hand — was unlawful.

Talwani gave USDA until Monday to tell her whether they would authorize “only reduced SNAP benefits” using the contingency funding — which would not cover the total $8.5 billion to $9 billion needed for all November benefits, according to the USDA — or would authorize “full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.”

Separately, in Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John McConnell granted a temporary restraining order requested by nonprofit organizations, ruling from the bench that SNAP must be funded with at least the contingency funds, and requesting an update on progress by Monday.

The White House referred questions about the ruling to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was not immediately clear if the administration would appeal the rulings.

The Massachusetts order was a win for California and the other Democrat-led states, which sued over the interruption to SNAP benefits — which were previously known as food stamps — as Republicans and Democrats continue to squabble over reopening the government in Washington.

However, it will not mean that all of the nation’s SNAP recipients — including 5.5 million Californians — will be spared a lapse in their food aid, state officials stressed, as state and local food banks continued scrambling to prepare for a deluge of need starting Saturday.

Asked Thursday if a ruling in the states’ favor would mean SNAP funds would be immediately loaded onto CalFresh and other benefits cards, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — whose office helped bring the states’ lawsuit — said “the answer is no, unfortunately.”

“Our best estimates are that [SNAP benefit] cards could be loaded and used in about a week,” he said, calling that lag “problematic.”

“There could be about a week where people are hungry and need food,” he said. For new applicants to the program, he said, it could take even longer.

The rulings came as the now monthlong shutdown continued Friday with no immediate end in sight. The Senate adjourned Thursday with no plans to meet again until Monday.

It also came after President Trump called Thursday for the Senate to end the shutdown by first ending the filibuster, a longstanding rule that requires 60 votes to overcome objections to legislation. The rule has traditionally been favored by lawmakers as a means of blocking particularly partisan measures, and is currently being used by Democrats to resist the will of the current 53-seat Republican majority.

“It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Los Angeles Regional Food Bank Chief Executive Michael Flood, standing alongside Bonta as members of the California National Guard worked behind them stuffing food boxes, said his organization was preparing for massive lines come Saturday, the first of the month.

He said he expected long lines of families in need of food appearing outside food distribution locations throughout the region, just as they did during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This is a disaster type of situation for us here in Los Angeles County, throughout the state of California and throughout the country,” Flood said.

“5.5 million Californians, 1.5 million children and adults in L.A. County alone, will be left high and dry — illegally so, unnecessarily so, in a way that is morally bankrupt,” Bonta said.

Bonta blamed the shutdown on Trump and his administration, and said the USDA has billions of dollars in contingency funds designed to ensure SNAP benefits continue during emergencies and broke the law by not tapping those funds in the current situation.

Bonta said SNAP benefits have never been disrupted during previous federal government shutdowns, and should never have been disrupted during this shutdown, either.

“That was avoidable,” he said. “Trump created this problem.”

The Trump administration has blamed the shutdown and the looming disruption to SNAP benefits entirely on Democrats in Congress, who have blocked short-term spending measures to restart the government and fund SNAP. Democrats are holding out to pressure Republicans into rescinding massive cuts to subsidies that help millions of Americans afford health insurance.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told The Times that Democrats should be the ones getting asked “when the shutdown will end,” because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

“Americans are suffering because of Democrats,” Jackson said.

In their opposition to the states’ request for a temporary restraining order requiring the disbursement of funds, attorneys for the USDA argued that using emergency funds to cover November SNAP benefits would deplete funds meant to provide “critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes,” and could actually cause more disruption to benefits down the line.

They wrote that SNAP requires between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month, and the USDA’s contingency fund has only about $5.25 billion, meaning it could not fully fund November benefits even if it did release contingency funding. Meanwhile, “a partial payment has never been made — and for good reason,” because it would force every state to recalculate benefits for recipients and then recalibrate their systems to provide the new amounts, they wrote.

That “would take weeks, if it can be done at all,” and would then have to be undone in order to issue December benefits at normal levels, assuming the shutdown would have lifted by then, they wrote. “The disruption this would entail, with each State required to repeatedly reprogram its systems, would lead to chaos and uncertainty for the following months, even after a lapse concludes,” they wrote.

Simply pausing the benefits to immediately be reissued whenever the shutdown ends is the smarter and less disruptive course of action, they argued.

During a Thursday hearing in the states’ case, Talwani had suggested that existing rules required action by the government to prevent the sort of suffering that a total disruption to food assistance would cause, regardless of whatever political showdown is occurring between the parties in Washington.

“If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt,” she said in court. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”

In addition to suing the administration, California and its leaders have been rushing to ensure that hungry families have something to eat in coming days. Gov. Gavin Newsom directed $80 million to food banks to stock up on provisions, and activated the National Guard to help package food for those who need it.

Counties have also been working to offset the need, including by directing additional funding to food banks and other resource centers and asking partners in the private sector to assist.

Dozens of organizations in California have written to Newsom calling on him to use state funds to fully cover the missing federal benefits, in order to prevent “a crisis of unthinkable magnitude,” but Newsom has suggested that is not possible given the scale of funding withheld.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served through SNAP per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. Of the 5.5 million Californian recipients, children and older people account for more than 63%.

This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — Those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program shoudl continue to do so in November and possibly beyond after two federal court rulings ordered program funding.

Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue providing SNAP benefits amid the ongoing federal government shutdown.

U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue providing SNAP benefits while the federal government shutdown continues on its 31st day, according to CNN.

Talwani cited a contingency fund containing $5.2 billion that Congress had appropriated to help fund SNAP benefits when needed, but acknowledged the program’s monthly cost is $9 billion.

“This court has now clarified that defendants are required to use those contingency funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” Talwani said in her 15-page ruling.

“While these contingency funds reportedly are insufficient to cover the entire cost of SNAP for November, defendants also may supplement the contingency funds by authorizing a transfer of additional funds,” she said.

Talwani on Thursday heard oral arguments from the Justice Department and attorneys representing 25 states that sued the Trump administration to continue SNAP benefits.

Shortly after Talwani submitted her ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island issued an oral ruling blocking the Trump administration from not funding SNAP benefits that provide food support for 42 million recipients across the United States, CNBC reported.

The benefits lack funding as Senate Democrats, during 13 votes, overwhelmingly have voted against a funding resolution that would keep the federal government funded and open, including the SNAP benefits, through Nov. 21.

Because there is no funding available for the SNAP program, Justice Department attorney Tyler Becker said the program does not exist.

“There is no SNAP program and, as a result, the government cannot just provide SNAP benefits,” Becker argued.

McConnell rejected the argument and, like Talwani, said the Trump administration must use congressionally appropriated contingency funds to continue providing at least some of the benefits that are due starting on Saturday.

While the Trump administration has been ordered to fund SNAP benefits via the U.S. Department of Agriculture, many will experience delays in getting them due as the USDA and respective states need time to access and distribute the benefits.

President Donald Trump on Friday told reporters the government could fund SNAP benefits past Saturday.

He said it would be easier if Senate Democrats voted in favor of the continuing resolution to fund the government while negotiating policy differences in the eventual 2026 fiscal year budget.

The fiscal year started Oct. 1, but so did the shutdown after the Senate failed to muster the 60 votes needed to approve it and keep the government open.

The shutdown will last at least through Monday after the Senate adjourned for the weekend Thursday.

CHICAGO — An appeals court intervened Wednesday and suddenly blocked an order that required a senior Border Patrol official to give unprecedented daily briefings to a judge about immigration sweeps in Chicago.

The one-page suspension by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came before Greg Bovino’s first scheduled, late afternoon meeting with U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis at the courthouse in downtown Chicago.

Ellis had ordered the meetings Tuesday after weeks of tense encounters and increasingly aggressive tactics by government agents working Operation Midway Blitz. It has produced more than 1,800 arrests and complaints of excessive force.

Bovino told Fox News that he was eager to talk to Ellis. But government lawyers, at the same time, were appealing her decision. Lawyers for news outlets and activists who say agents have used too much force, including tear gas, have until 5 p.m. Thursday to respond in the appeals court.

Ellis’ order followed enforcement actions in which tear gas was used, including in a neighborhood where children had gathered for a Halloween parade last weekend on the city’s Northwest Side. Neighbors had joined in the street as someone was arrested.

“Halloween is on Friday,” she said. “I do not want to get violation reports from the plaintiffs that show that agents are out and about on Halloween, where kids are present and tear gas is being deployed.”

Bovino defended agents’ actions.

“If she wants to meet with me every day, then she’s going to see, she’s going to have a very good firsthand look at just how bad things really are on the streets of Chicago,” Bovino told Fox News. “I look forward to meeting with that judge to show her exactly what’s happening and the extreme amount of violence perpetrated against law enforcement here.”

Meanwhile, prosecutors filed charges against Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic congressional candidate, and five other people over protests at an immigration enforcement building in Broadview, outside Chicago. The indictment, unsealed Wednesday, alleges they illegally blocked an agent’s car on Sept. 26.

Abughazaleh said the prosecution was an “attempt to silence dissent.”

The Chicago court actions came as groups and officials across the country have filed lawsuits aimed at restricting federal deployments of National Guard troops.

President Trump’s administration will remain blocked from deploying troops in the Chicago area until at least the latter half of November, following a U.S. Supreme Court order Wednesday calling on the parties to file additional legal briefs.

The justices indicated they would not act before Nov. 17 on the administration’s emergency appeal to overturn a lower-court ruling that has blocked the troop deployments.

In Portland, Ore., a federal trial seeking to block a troop deployment got underway Wednesday morning with a police commander describing on the witness stand how federal agents at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building repeatedly fired tear gas at nonviolent protesters.

In Chicago, Bovino, who is chief of the Border Patrol sector in El Centro, Calif., was to sit for a daily 5:45 p.m. briefing to report how his agents are enforcing the law and whether they are staying within constitutional bounds, Ellis said. The check-ins were to take place until a Nov. 5 hearing.

Ellis also demanded that Bovino produce all use-of-force reports since Sept. 2 from agents involved in Operation Midway Blitz.

The judge expressed confidence Tuesday that the check-ins would prevent excessive use of force in Chicago neighborhoods.

Ellis previously ordered agents to wear badges, and she has banned them from using certain riot control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists. She subsequently required body cameras after the use of tear gas raised concerns that agents were not following her initial order.

Ellis set a Friday deadline for Bovino to get a camera and to complete training.

Lawyers for the government have repeatedly defended the actions of agents, including those from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and told the judge that videos and other portrayals of enforcement actions have been one-sided.

Besides his court appearance, Bovino still must sit for a videotaped Thursday deposition, an interview in private, with lawyers from both sides.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday indefinitely barred the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying that labor unions were likely to prevail on their claims that the cuts were arbitrary and politically motivated.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted a preliminary injunction that bars the firings while a lawsuit challenging them plays out. She previously issued a temporary restraining order against the job cuts that was set to expire Wednesday.

Illston, who was nominated by former President Clinton, has said she believes evidence will show the mass firings were illegal and in excess of authority.

Federal agencies are enjoined from issuing layoff notices or acting on notices issued since the government shut down Oct. 1. Illston said her order does not apply to notices sent before the shutdown.

The Republican administration has slashed jobs in education, health and other areas it says are favored by Democrats. The administration also said it will not tap roughly $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, flowing into November.

The American Federation of Government Employees and other labor unions sued to stop the “reductions in force” layoffs, saying the firings were an abuse of power designed to punish workers and pressure Congress.

“President Trump is using the government shutdown as a pretense to illegally fire thousands of federal workers — specifically those employees carrying out programs and policies that the administration finds objectionable,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement thanking the court.

The White House referred a request for comment to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond.

Lawyers for the government say the district court does not have the authority to hear personnel challenges and that President Trump has broad authority to reduce the federal workforce as he pledged to do during his campaign.

“The president was elected on this specific platform,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Velchik said. “The American people selected someone known above all else for his eloquence in communicating to employees that you’re fired; this is what they voted for.”

Trump starred on a long-running reality TV series called “The Apprentice” in which his signature catchphrase was telling candidates they were fired.

About 4,100 layoff notices have gone out since Oct. 10, some sent to work email addresses that furloughed employees are not allowed to check. Some personnel were called back to work, without pay, to issue layoff notices to others.

The lawsuit has expanded to include employees represented by additional labor unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. All Cabinet departments and two dozen independent agencies are included in the lawsuit.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding that any deal to reopen the government address expiring health care subsidies that have made health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill passed this summer.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to negotiate with Democrats until they agree to reopen the government.

This is now the second-longest shutdown in U.S. history. The longest occurred during Trump’s first term over his demands for funds to build the Mexico border wall. That one ended in 2019 after 35 days.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

NASHVILLE — A federal judge in Tennessee on Monday warned of possible sanctions against top Trump administration officials if they continue to make inflammatory statements about Kilmar Abrego Garcia that could prejudice his coming trial.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw filed an order late on Monday instructing local prosecutors in Nashville to provide a copy of his opinion to all Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security employees, including Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“Government employees have made extrajudicial statements that are troubling, especially where many of them are exaggerated if not simply inaccurate,” Crenshaw writes.

He lists a number of examples of prohibited statements as outlined in the local rules for the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee. They include any statements about the “character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party” and “any opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence.”

“DOJ and DHS employees who fail to comply with the requirement to refrain from making any statement that ‘will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing’ this criminal prosecution may be subject to sanctions,” his order reads.

Earlier this year, Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation to El Salvador, where he was held in a notoriously brutal prison despite having no criminal record, helped galvanize opposition to President Trump’s immigration crackdown. Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked Crenshaw to dismiss them.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang and even implicating him in a murder. Crenshaw’s opinion cites statements from several top officials, including Bondi and Noem, as potentially damaging to Abrego Garcia’s right to a fair trial. He also admonishes Abrego Garcia’s defense attorneys for publicly disclosing details of plea agreement negotiations.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador as a teenager. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, finding he had a well-founded fear of violence there from a gang that targeted his family.

Since his return to the U.S. in June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, most recently Liberia.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

The long-running saga of Saab Gripen fighters for Ukraine took a dramatic new turn today, with the Swedish and Ukrainian leaders unveiling a plan to export as many as 150 Gripens to Kyiv. While no timeline has been set, and the financing is yet to be determined, the deal, if it goes ahead, would provide Ukraine with its first new-built fighter jets since it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky today signed a letter of intent (LOI) with the aim of “deepening air force cooperation.” The cornerstone of this is a potential major export deal covering “likely between 100 and 150 fighter jets,” according to Kristersson. The LOI was signed in front of a Gripen E at Linköping, the site of Saab’s manufacturing facility for the fighter.

“Sweden supports the development of Ukraine’s future air force,” the Swedish government said in a statement. “This new Swedish–Ukrainian cooperation will include exchange of experience and knowledge on air combat and defense and on the use of advanced capabilities in this area, for example, fighter aircraft.”

🇺🇦🇸🇪 Ukraine and Sweden signed the first agreement to bring a fleet of Swedish-made Gripen jets to Ukraine – powerful aircraft ready for a wide range of missions! We look forward to the future contract, which is expected to bring at least 100 of these fighter jets to Ukraine.

💬… pic.twitter.com/iaxTHDQ2uq

— MFA of Ukraine 🇺🇦 (@MFA_Ukraine) October 22, 2025

At Linköping, Zelensky “got the chance to see first-hand the impressive capabilities of the Gripen fighter,” Kristersson said, describing the LOI as “a step towards a massive possible export deal regarding Gripen.”

Kristersson continued: “We fully realize it’s a long road ahead of us, but from today we are committed to exploring all the possibilities in providing Ukraine with a large amount of Gripen fighters in the future.”

As well as the plan to get Gripens into Ukrainian Air Force hands, the Swedish government said that it would harness Ukraine’s “unique experience of air combat and defense” as it continues to develop advanced systems, including the Gripen.

Even if Ukraine receives ‘only’ 100 Gripen E/Fs, this will mark by far the biggest export order for the type and Sweden’s biggest-ever arms sale. It is also significant that the Gripen has long been touted as very suitable for Ukraine, especially since it was built from the start with austere operations in mind; Ukraine is regularly conducting these kinds of operations to keep its fighters from being destroyed on the ground.

So far, Brazil has ordered 36, Thailand has ordered four, and Colombia is set to buy between 15 and 24. For its part, Sweden has ordered 60, the first of which was delivered to an operational unit earlier this week.

The LOI covers the in-production Gripen E. Despite it having a similar outward appearance to the Gripen C/D, the Gripen E is regarded as a completely new aircraft type — as you can read about here.

Today Sweden takes an important step towards increasing air defence & JAS Gripen cooperation with Ukraine. We are one step closer to seeing Gripen protect Ukraine’s air space. Ukraine has asked for 100-150 Gripen E and we are looking into how this can be financed. (1/3) pic.twitter.com/j3hZJvs1dH

— Pål Jonson (@PlJonson) October 22, 2025

In the past, Ukraine has repeatedly been linked with a possible transfer of secondhand Swedish Air Force Gripen C/Ds, a topic that was reportedly discussed between Zelensky and Kristersson earlier this month.

Sweden’s long-term plan is to have 120 Gripens in service by 2030, with half being E variants. That would leave roughly 37 Gripen C/D models potentially available to Ukraine, but the number is likely somewhat lower due to airframe fatigue and other factors.

Kristersson has said it would take around three years for new-build Gripen Es to arrive in Ukraine. With an urgent need for fighters, Zelensky today said he would like to see Gripens delivered from 2026. That would almost certainly involve secondhand Gripen C/Ds.

An important meeting with the @SwedishPM Ulf Kristersson. We greatly value our relations with Sweden and all forms of support for our people. And today, one of the key topics of our negotiations was strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities. We consider the JAS 39 Gripen… pic.twitter.com/iW5BxkSF6w

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) October 22, 2025

Ukrainian pilots have already been exposed to the Gripen C/D in Sweden, where test flights began in 2023.

Despite the arrival of Western-supplied F-16s and Mirage 2000s, the Ukrainian Air Force continues to rely heavily on its Soviet-era fighters. The MiG-29, in particular, has been continually adapted to carry new weaponry, both Western-supplied and locally developed.

Long-term, however, Ukraine has been looking to acquire advanced Western-made fighter equipment in more significant numbers than the secondhand F-16s and Mirages, stocks of which are limited. Meanwhile, the Mirages and F-16s are now old, approaching the ends of their service lives, and will need to be replaced before too long.

As we’ve highlighted in detail as far back as April of 2022, Gripens would be a very good fit for Ukraine:

“Another option, and possibly the best of all, would be Sweden’s surplus JAS 39C/D Gripen multirole fighters. These light-to-medium-weight fighters are built with great efficiency and reliability in mind. They were designed to be turned around in the bush by tiny teams of mainly conscripted groundcrew and flown from roadways and rough fields during wartime. Distributed operations under very harsh sustained wartime conditions, especially in the cold, are literally what the design is all about.”

“Their single F404-derivative engine (license-built by Volvo) drinks comparatively small amounts of fuel compared to the other options, and the type has a wide array of available armory from multiple nations. It has all-around good performance, modern radar and avionics, and is small in size, making it hard to spot visually.“

“The Gripen really is well-suited for the current combat doctrine Ukraine is using in Ukraine today, although the fact that it is a Swedish design makes it a bit harder for the United States and NATO to supply and support it. Still, other NATO members operate the type. There is also the question of how many Swedish Gripens will be able to give up at this time.”

President Zelenksy says Gripen was chosen because it is the best fighter when it comes to money, maneuverability and how to use it.

— Mikael Holmström (@MikaelHolmstr) October 22, 2025

While Gripen C/Ds might still be supplied in the short term, which would help considerably with training and transition, Ukraine would ultimately receive the more capable Gripen E (and potentially also the two-seat Gripen F).

The Gripen will also provide Ukraine with a notable opportunity to work with the two Saab 340 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft equipped with Erieye radar that have been donated by Sweden. A delivery date for the transfer of these aircraft to Ukraine has not been announced.

However, the Saab 340 AEW&C aircraft “will provide Ukraine with a completely new capability against both airborne and maritime targets,” the Swedish government has said. “Ukraine’s capability to identify and engage targets at long range will be strengthened. The package will also include a holistic solution that involves training, technical equipment, and methodological support for air surveillance and command and control.”

Once Gripens are available to Ukraine, the Saab 340 AEW&C will be able to operate alongside them as a fighter control asset, detecting targets, prioritizing them, and then assigning them to the fighters for interception.

Today’s announcement could potentially yield the biggest overhaul for the Ukrainian Air Force since the country gained independence in 1991. How this will sit with other Western nations that are also supplying arms to Ukraine, and especially the United States, is far from clear. However, Sweden has long taken a more autonomous approach when it comes to defense exports.

But there are many more hurdles to overcome before the jets might start to arrive on Ukrainian soil. First, it has to be determined how Kyiv will pay for the fighters. Second, there are questions about how rapidly Saab might be able to start producing Gripen Es for export, and in what kind of numbers; potentially, it might be able to leverage the Brazilian Gripen production line. Lastly, and most critically, Ukraine still has to survive an existential conflict with Russia before it can get its hands on any of its much-anticipated Gripens.

Contact the author: [email protected]

“Art is worth something, even if it’s stolen.”

Read more

SACRAMENTO — California will close part of Interstate 5 on Saturday after military officials confirmed that live-fire artillery rounds will be shot over the freeway during a Marine Corps event, prompting state officials to shut down 17 miles of the freeway in an unprecedented move expected to cause massive gridlock.

Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized the White House for failing to coordinate or share safety information ahead of the Marine Corps 250th anniversary celebration, which will feature Vice President JD Vance.

The closure will stretch from Harbor Drive in Oceanside to Basilone Road near San Onofre and will be in effect from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Amtrak also is shutting down train service between Orange and San Diego counties midday.

“The President is putting his ego over responsibility with this disregard for public safety,” Newsom said in a statement Saturday. “Firing live rounds over a busy highway isn’t just wrong — it’s dangerous.”

The freeway closure comes despite the Marine Corps and White House saying it is unnecessary. It also underscores the deepening strain between California and the Trump administration — which has been escalating in recent months after the White House deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles to clamp down on protests, ramped up immigration raids and pressured California universities to comply with his agenda.

The Marine Corps said in a statement that Saturday’s event will be a “historic Amphibious Capabilities Demonstration, showcasing the strength and unity of the Navy-Marine Corps team and ensuring we remain ready to defend the Homeland and our Nation’s interests abroad.”

A spokesperson for the Marines said artillery was shot from Red Beach into designated ranges on Friday evening as part of a dress rehearsal.

“M777 artillery pieces have historically been fired during routine training from land-based artillery firing points west of the I-5 into impact areas east of the interstate within existing safety protocols and without the need to close the route,” the statement said. “This is an established and safe practice.”

The governor’s office said it was informed earlier in the week that the White House was considering closing the freeway and when no order materialized by Wednesday, state officials began weighing whether to do so themselves. Driving that decision, they said, were safety concerns about reports that live ordnance would be fired over the freeway and onto the base.

Newsom’s office said Thursday it was told no live fire would go over the freeway, only to be informed Friday that the military event organizers asked CalTrans for a sign along I-5 that read “Overhead fire in progress.”

Earlier Saturday morning, the state was told that live rounds are scheduled to be shot over the freeway around 1:30 p.m, prompting California Highway Patrol officials to recommend the freeway closure because of the potential safety risk and likelihood it would distract drivers.

The military show of force coincides with “No Kings” rallies and marches across the state Saturday challenging President Trump and what critics say is government overreach. Dozens of protests are scheduled Saturday across Southern California, with more than 2,700 demonstrations expected across the country.

During “No Kings” protests in June, President Trump held a military parade in Washington, D.C., which included a 21-gun salute, to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary.

“Using our military to intimidate people you disagree with isn’t strength — it’s reckless, it’s disrespectful, and it’s beneath the office he holds,” Newsom said in a statement. “Law and order? This is chaos and confusion.”

The Marine Corps said in a statement to The Times on Thursday that a detailed risk assessment was conducted and “no highways or transportation routes will be closed” for the event titled “Sea to Shore — A Review of Amphibious Strength.”

Capt. Gregory Dreibelbis of the I Marine Expeditionary Force said that no ordnance will be fired from a U.S. Navy ship during the event, but Marines will fire high explosive rounds from artillery known as M777 Howitzers into designated ranges “with all safety precautions in place.” Simulated explosives and visual effects will also be used, he said.

William Martin, the communications director for Vance, said the Marine Corps determined the training exercise is safe and accused Newsom of politicizing the event.

“Gavin Newsom wants people to think this exercise is dangerous,” Martin said in a statement.

Caltrans said in a press release that the closure is “due to a White House-directed military event at Camp Pendleton involving live ammunition being discharged over the freeway” and that drivers should expect delays before, during and after the event.

CalTrans advised drivers in San Diego County that the detour to head north will begin at State Route 15 in southeast San Diego. Travelers west of SR-15 along the I-5 corridor in San Diego are advised to use SR-94, SR-52, SR-56, or SR-78 to I-15 north.

Drivers heading from San Diego to Los Angeles County are advised to use I-15 north to State Route 91 west into Los Angeles. For those starting in Los Angeles and heading south to San Diego, use SR-91 east to I-15 south.

To get to Orange County from San Diego, drivers should take I-15 north to SR-91 west, then SR-55 south. If heading from Orange County south to San Diego, drivers should use SR-55 north to SR-91 east to I-15 south.

The Trump administration previously had plans for a major celebration next month for the 250th anniversary of the Navy and Marines, which would have included an air and sea show — with the Blue Angels and parading warships — to be attended by Trump, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Plans to host that show in San Diego have been called off, the paper reported.

Camp Pendleton is a 125,000-acre base in northwestern San Diego County that has been critical in preparing troops for amphibious missions since World War II thanks to its miles of beach and coastal hills. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering making a portion of the base available for development or lease.

In a rare public rebuke, the Los Angeles City Council pressed the city’s top lawyer to abandon her attempt to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

One day before “No Kings” demonstrations against the Trump administration were set to launch in L.A. and elsewhere, the council voted 12-0 to direct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to withdraw her request to lift the order.

Hours later, Feldstein Soto’s legal team did just that, informing the judge it was pulling back its request — around the same time the judge rejected it.

Since June, the city has been hit with dozens of legal claims from protesters and journalists who reported that LAPD officers used excessive force against them during protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit that prompted the judge’s ban was brought by the Los Angeles Press Club and the news outlet Status Coup, who pointed to video evidence and testimonials suggesting that LAPD officers violated their own guidelines, as well as state law, by shooting journalists and others in sensitive parts of the body, such as the head, with weapons that launch projectiles the size of a mini soda can at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour.

“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the motion opposing Feldstein Soto’s legal filing, said in a statement. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”

In a motion filed Wednesday, Feldstein Soto’s legal team sought a temporary stay of the order issued by U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera. She reiterated her earlier argument that Vera’s ban was overly broad, extending protections to “any journalist covering a protest in [the City of] Los Angeles.”

The city’s lawyers also argued that the ban, which bars the LAPD from using so-called less lethal munitions against journalists and nonviolent protesters, creates “ambiguous mandates” that jeopardize “good-faith conduct” by officers and pose “immediate and concrete risk to officer and public safety.”

In addition to Feldstein Soto’s request for a temporary stay, the city has filed an appeal of Vera’s injunction. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking up the appeal, with a hearing tentatively set for mid-November.

Council members have become increasingly vocal about their frustrations with the city attorney’s office. Two months ago, they voiced alarm that an outside law firm billed the city $1.8 million in just two weeks — double the amount authorized by the council. They have also grown exasperated over the rising cost of legal payouts, which have consumed a steadily larger portion of the city budget.

After Feldstein Soto’s motion was reported by LAist, several city council members publicly distanced themselves from her and condemned her decision.

In a sternly worded statement before Friday’s vote, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wrote that the city attorney’s “position does not speak for the full City Council.”

“The LAPD should NEVER be permitted to use force against journalists or anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights,” said the statement from Soto-Martínez, who signed Hernandez’s proposal along with Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Monica Rodriguez.

On Friday, the council also asked the city attorney’s office to report back within 30 days on “all proactive litigation the Office has moved forward without explicit direction from the City Council or Mayor since July 1, 2024.”

Rodriguez said that Friday’s vote should send a message that the city council needs “to be consulted as a legislative body that is independently elected by the people.”

“What I hope is that this becomes a more permanent act of this body — to exercise its role in oversight,” she said.

Carol Sobel, the civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, welcomed the council’s action. Still, she said Feldstein Soto’s filings in the case raise questions about whose interests the city attorney is representing.

“Sometimes you say ‘Mea culpa, we were wrong. We shouldn’t have shot people in the head, despite our policies,’” she said.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Wednesday from firing thousands of government workers based on the ongoing federal shutdown, granting a request from employee unions in California.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the temporary restraining order after concluding that the unions “will demonstrate ultimately that what’s being done here is both illegal and is in excess of authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”

Illston slammed the Trump administration for failing to provide her with clear information about what cuts are actually occurring, for repeatedly changing its description and estimates of job cuts in filings before the court, and for failing — including during Wednesday’s hearing in San Francisco — to articulate an argument for why such cuts are not in violation of federal law.

“The evidence suggests that the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore,” Illston said — which she said was not the case.

She said the government justified providing inaccurate figures for the number of jobs being eliminated under its “reduction in force” orders by calling it a “fluid situation” — which she did not find convincing.

“What it is is a situation where things are being done before they are being thought through. It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” she said. “And it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston also ran through a string of recent comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the firings and their intentionally targeting programs and agencies supported by Democrats, saying, “By all appearances, they’re politically motivated.”

The Trump administration has acknowledged dismissing about 4,000 workers under the orders, while Trump and other officials have signaled that more would come Friday.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Wednesday on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that the number of jobs cut could “probably end up being north of 10,000,” as the administration wants to be “very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding,” and the shutdown provided that opportunity.

Attorneys for the unions, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, said that the figures were unreliable and that they feared additional reduction in force orders resulting in more layoffs, as promised by administration officials, if the court did not step in and block such actions.

Illston, an appointee of President Clinton, did just that.

She barred the Trump administration and its various agencies “from taking any action to issue any reduction in force notices to federal employees in any program, project or activity” involving union members “during or because of the federal shutdown.”

She also barred the administration from “taking any further action to administer or implement” existing reduction notices involving union members.

Illston demanded that the administration provide within two days a full accounting of all existing or “imminent” reduction in force orders that would be blocked by her order, as well as the specific number of federal jobs affected.

Elizabeth Hedges, an attorney for the Trump administration, had argued during the hearing that the order should not be granted for several procedural reasons — including that the alleged harm to federal employees from loss of employment or benefits was not “irreparable” and could be addressed through other avenues, including civil litigation.

Additionally, she argued that federal employment claims should be adjudicated administratively, not in district court; and that the reduction in force orders included 60-day notice periods, meaning the layoffs were not immediate and therefore the challenge to them was not yet “ripe” legally.

However, Hedges would not discuss the case on its actual merits — which is to say, whether the cuts were actually legal or not, which did not seem to sit well with Illston.

“You don’t have a position on whether it’s OK that they do what they’re doing?” Illston asked.

“I am not prepared to discuss that today, your honor,” Hedges said.

“Well — but it’s happening. This hatchet is falling on the heads of employees all across the nation, and you’re not even prepared to address whether that’s legal, even though that’s what this motion challenges?” Illston said.

“That’s right,” Hedges said — stressing again that there were “threshold” arguments for why the case shouldn’t even be allowed to continue to the merits stage.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the unions, suggested the government’s positions were indefensible and directly in conflict with public statements by the administration — including remarks by Trump on Tuesday that more cuts are coming Friday.

“How do we know this? Because OMB and the president relentlessly are telling us, and other members of the administration,” Leonard said.

Leonard said the harm from the administration’s actions is obvious and laid out in the union’s filings — showing how employees have at times been left in the dark as to their employment status because they don’t have access to work communication channels during the shutdown, or how others have been called in to “work without pay to fire their fellow employees” — only to then be fired themselves.

“There are multiple types of harm that are caused exactly right now — emotional trauma. That’s not my word, your honor, that is the word of OMB Director Vought. Let’s cause ‘trauma’ to the federal workforce,” Leonard said. “And that’s exactly what they are doing. Trauma. The emotional distress of being told you are being fired after an already exceptionally difficult year for federal employees.”

Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which is co-counsel for the unions, praised Illston’s decision in a statement after the hearing.

“The statements today by the court make clear that the President’s targeting of federal workers — a move straight out of Project 2025’s playbook — is unlawful,” Perryman said. “Our civil servants do the work of the people, and playing games with their livelihoods is cruel and unlawful and a threat to everyone in our nation.”

Illston asked the two parties to confer on the best date, probably later this month, for a fuller hearing on whether she should issue a more lasting preliminary injunction in the case.

“It would be wonderful to know what the government’s position is on the merits of this case — and my breath is bated until we find that,” Illston said.

After the hearing, during a White House news conference, Trump said his administration was paying federal employees whom “we want paid” while Vought uses the shutdown to dismiss employees perceived as supporting Democratic initiatives.

“Russell Vought is really terminating tremendous numbers of Democrat projects — not only jobs,” Trump said.

CHICAGO — Cook County’s top judge signed an order barring ICE from arresting people at court. Cook County includes Chicago, which has seen a federal immigration crackdown in recent months.

Detaining residents outside courthouses has been a common tactic for federal agents, who have been stationed outside county courthouses for weeks, making arrests and drawing crowds of protesters.

The order, which was signed Tuesday night and took effect Wednesday, bars the civil arrest of any “party, witness, or potential witness” while going to court proceedings. It includes arrests inside courthouses and in parking lots, surrounding sidewalks and entryways.

“The fair administration of justice requires that courts remain open and accessible, and that litigants and witnesses may appear without fear of civil arrest,” the order states.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defended the practice of making arrests at courthouses, calling it “common sense.”

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” DHS said in a Wednesday statement. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Immigration advocates decry immigration enforcement outside courthouses

Local immigration and legal advocates, including the county’s public defender’s office, have called for an order like this, saying clients were avoiding court out of fear of being detained. The office has confirmed at least a dozen immigration arrests at or near county courthouses since the end of July, when representatives said they’ve seen U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence outside courthouses increase.

“I have had numerous conversations with clients who are presented with a difficult decision of either missing court and receiving an arrest warrant or coming to court and risk being arrested by ICE,” Cruz Rodriguez, an assistant public defender with the office’s immigration division, said at a news conference earlier this month.

Domestic violence advocacy organizations also signed on to a petition earlier this month calling for Cook County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Evans to issue the order. This comes after advocates said a woman was was arrested by ICE last month while entering the domestic violence courthouse.

Alexa Van Brunt, director of MacArthur Justice Center’s Illinois office, which filed the petition, said she was “gratified” by Evans’ order.

“This is a necessary and overdue action to ensure that the people of Cook County can access the courts without fear,” she said in a Wednesday statement to the Associated Press.

Evans said justice “depends on every individual’s ability to appear in court without fear or obstruction.”

“Our courthouses remain places where all people — regardless of their background or circumstance — should be able to safely and confidently participate in the judicial process,” Evans said in a statement.

ICE tactics outside courthouses seen across country

The tactic of detaining people at courthouses in the Chicago area is part of a larger jump in courthouse immigration arrests across the country. The flurry of immigration enforcement operations at courthouses has been condemned by judicial officials and legal organizations, and has drawn lawsuits from some states and the adoption of bills seeking to block the practice.

In June, President Donald Trump’s administration sued the state of New York over a 2020 law barring federal immigration agents from making arrests at state, city and other municipal courthouses.

Statehouse Democrats vow to adopt resolutions condemning federal immigration crackdown

Opening the second day of the six-day fall legislative session in Springfield, Ill., House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch decried the federal government’s immigration squeeze and vowed that his majority Democrats would use floor time Wednesday to adopt resolutions condemning the action.

“We won’t sit back and let our democracy be taken from us,” Welch said at the Capitol, surrounded by two dozen of his caucus members

Questioned about the practical impact of resolutions, Welch said there also are discussions about legislation to restrict federal agents’ patrol statewide. He lambasted reports of ICE arrests in medical facilities and applauded Evans’ ruling prohibiting warrantless arrests near courthouses.

“If we can do something similar statewide, I’d love to get that done,” Welch said. “These should be safe spaces.”

Republicans questioned their opponents’ sincerity. Debating a resolution condemning political violence, GOP Rep. Adam Niemerg noted incendiary language from Gov. JB Pritzker — in the spring he called for “street fighters” to oppose the administration — although the governor has not espoused violence. Rep. Nicole La Ha, who said she has received death threats, accused Democrats of trying to stifle opposition.

“This is not a stand against violence,” La Ha said. “It is a tasteless tactic to punish dissent and difference of opinion.”

Illinois governor denounces tear gas use on protesters

Meanwhile, Pritzker suggested federal agents may have violated a ruling by a federal judge last week that said they could not use tear gas, pepper spray and other weapons on journalists and peaceful protesters after a coalition of news outlets and protesters sued over the actions of federal agents during protests outside a Chicago-area ICE facility. Pritzker said he expected the attorneys involved to “go back to court to make sure that is enforced against ICE”

“ICE is causing this mayhem,” he said. “They’re the ones throwing tear gas when people are peacefully protesting.”

The comments also come after Pritzker denounced Border Patrol agents for using tear gas on protesters who gathered Tuesday after a high-speed chase on a residential street on Chicago’s South Side.

A few protesters also gathered Wednesday afternoon outside an ICE facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview, where a fence that has been at the center of a recent lawsuit had come down.

A judge ordered ICE to remove the fence after the village of Broadview sued federal authorities for “illegally” erecting an 8-foot-tall fence outside the facility, blocking public streets and creating problems for local emergency services trying to access the area. On Monday, state legislators and Black mayors of nearby suburbs gathered outside the facility to demand the fence be removed and announce an executive order limiting protests in the area to designated zones. Trump has long targeted Black mayors in large Democratic cities, many of whom have voiced solidarity with one another in recent months amid federal interventions in their areas.

Community efforts to oppose ICE have also ramped up in the nation’s third-largest city, where neighborhood groups have assembled to monitor ICE activity and film any incidents involving federal agents in their areas.

On Tuesday, hundreds of people attended “Whistlemania” events across the city and made thousands of “whistle kits” with whistles, “Know Your Rights” flyers and instructions on how to use them to alert neighbors of when immigration enforcement agents are nearby.

An increasing number of GoFundMe pages have also been launched to pay for legal costs for community members detained by ICE, most recently a landscaper and father of three children detained earlier this month.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John O’Connor in Springfield contributed.

Oct. 15 (UPI) — Mike Johnson, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, called Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., a “faithful colleague” on Wednesday, one day after he was issued a restraining order.

A Florida judge issued the protective order Tuesday against Mills, directing him to have no contact with a former girlfriend who accused him of threatening her.

“I have not heard or looked into any of the details of that. I’ve been a little busy,” Johnson told reporters in the Capitol. “We have a House Ethics Committee. If it warrants that, I’m sure they’ll look into that.”

The petitioner was Lindsey Langston, a Republican state committeeperson and Miss United States 2024. She alleged that Mills threatened her on Instagram after blocking him and telling him she didn’t want further contact. “The messages progressively got more threatening over time,” she wrote.

She said he threatened to release nude videos of her.

In his order, the judge said the evidence supported Langston’s allegations that Mills had caused her “substantial emotional distress.” The judge said Mills offered “no credible rebuttal” to her testimony. He found that Langston has a “reasonable cause to believe she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence” without the restraining order being put in place, Politico reported.

When pressed about the allegations, Johnson brushed them off.

“You have to ask Rep. Mills about that. He’s been a faithful colleague here. I know his work on the Hill. I don’t know all the details of all the individual allegations, and what he’s doing — things outside life,” Johnson said. “Let’s just talk about the things that are really serious.”

The restraining order directs Mills, 45, to stay at least 500 feet away from Langston and to not contact her until Jan. 1. The order also blocks Mills from mentioning Langston on social media, according to NBC News.

California Sen. Alex Padilla is among the highest-ranking Latinos in U.S. politics today, but it took a pair of handcuffs to make him famous.

How’s that for a comment on America 2025?

Padilla, you may remember, was tackled and cuffed by federal officers after attempting to ask a question of Homeland Security Czarina Kristi Noem at an L.A. news conference in June, when the National Guard first made its appearance on our streets. Noem later claimed Padilla “lunged” at her — which he did not — using the classic Trumpian technique of erasing reality with blame, especially when it comes to brown people.

Padilla told me that “from day one of this administration, I have tried to speak truth to power,” and if getting tackled forced people to “have no choice but to now start paying attention … that could be helpful, because the general public knows it’s wrong.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi recycled the incident on Tuesday when Padilla attempted to question her during a congressional hearing, voicing concern about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. Bondi refused to answer multiple questions, instead invoking the Noem defense.

“I find it interesting that you want order … in this proceeding now,” Bondi said. “You sure didn’t have order when you stormed Secretary Noem at a press conference in California, did you?”

Again, no storming, no lunging, not even a feint. Really, if anything can be said of Padilla, it’s that he’s a guy who likes order. An MIT-trained engineer, he’s known for being calm to the point of boring — in the best of ways. Who wouldn’t want a bit of boring in their politics today, if it’s seasoned with compassion and common sense?

Calm, of course, does not mean a lack of conviction. As the government shutdown limps to the end of its first full week, Padilla took a few minutes to fill me in on why Democrats shouldn’t back down, and why he won’t — whether the issue is healthcare, immigration or the collision of the two, which is at the heart of this shutdown.

Republicans would like voters to believe that undocumented immigrants are throwing parties in our emergency rooms, racking up free services while shoving U.S. citizens out to the sidewalk. In reality, there’s not a lot of good data on how many ER visits involve undocumented folks because doctors are more focused on saving lives than checking immigration status. But one Texas study found that about 2% of all hospital visits in a three-month period involved people without documentation. That’s in a state with a high number of undocumented folks, so take it for what it’s worth — hardly a scourge.

Padilla and Democrats would like to stay focused on an actual crisis — healthcare premiums for low- and middle-income folks are about to skyrocket in coming weeks if Congress doesn’t keep the Obama-era subsidies that make the premiums affordable. Padilla wants voters to understand how dire this is.

“This is not a what-might-happen-next-year concern … this is a now concern,” Padilla told me.

“Open enrollment is opening,” he said. “People are setting their premiums and have to make choices of where to sign up for healthcare and at the cost right now, and so it does need to be immediately addressed.”

In case you think this is partisan show, far-right MAGA cheerleader Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) agrees with Padilla. That’s when you know things are getting weird.

“Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!” Greene wrote on social media, breaking with her party on the issue.

That’s about the only thing that Padilla and Greene may ever agree on. Padilla is the son of immigrants who met in L.A. and later obtained legal status. He was born in Southern California, making birthright citizenship core to his identity at a moment when Trump is asking the Supreme Court to end it. His isn’t just an immigrant story, it’s a California story, and it’s never far from his mind.

He was recently asked if he regretted fighting with the Biden administration over proposed immigration reform that lacked pathways for immigrants, especially Dreamers and others who have been in the United States for years if not decades, to become citizens. Would it have been better to sell them out, leave them in limbo, but fix the border before Trump could exploit it?

“Of course not,” Padilla told me. Rather than shrink under attack, Padilla said he’s holding his ground.

California is one of a handful of states that does in fact offer healthcare to undocumented people, though budget shortfalls forced Gov. Gavin Newsom to scale back that plan.

No federal dollars are used for that undocumented healthcare — it’s solely state money. And Padilla supports it.

“There are some states that choose to use state funding to provide that care, and I agree with that, because it’s much smarter, from a public health standpoint, to help prevent people from getting sick or treat people early on, not administer healthcare, certainly not primary care, through emergency rooms,” he said.

Padilla said it’s rich that the very workers deemed essential during the coronavirus pandemic, the workers who kept food on tables, deliveries going, and cared for our young and our elderly, are now “the primary target of Trump’s massive deportation agenda. So whether it’s in the vein of the healthcare question, whether it’s in the vein of the indiscriminate raids by ICE and other federal agencies, that’s the cruel irony.”

The Trump administration raised Padilla’s profile inadvertently, but the newfound fame has had a somewhat unexpected consequence: Frequent speculation that he may run for governor when Newsom terms out in 2026.

Padilla said he hasn’t “made a decision on that and not making any announcements right now.”

Instead, he’s focusing on helping to pass California’s Proposition 50, which would rig election maps to potentially create five more Democratic seats in the midterm elections, with the hopes of taking control of at least one house of Congress, an effort he says is “critical to reining in this out-of-control administration.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday that he intends to seek a court order in an attempt to stop President Trump’s deployment of California National Guard troops to Oregon.

Calling the president’s action a “breathtaking abuse of power,” Newsom said in a statement that 300 California National Guard personnel were being deployed to Portland, Ore., a city the president has called “war-ravaged.”

“They are on their way there now,” Newsom said of the National Guard. “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

Trump’s move came a day after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard.

The president, who mobilized the California National Guard amid immigration protests earlier this year, has pursued the use of the military to fight crime in cities including Chicago and Washington, D.C., sparking outrage among Democratic officials in those cities. Local leaders, including those in Portland, have said the actions are unnecessary and without legal justification.

“The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents,” Newsom said.

In June, Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit over Trump’s mobilization of the state’s National Guard during immigration protests in Los Angeles. California officials are expected to file the court order over Sunday’s deployment using that existing lawsuit.

Newsom has ratcheted up his rhetoric about Trump in recent days: On Friday, the governor lashed out at universities that may sign the president’s higher education compact, which demands rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

“I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history,” Newsom said. “…This is it. We are losing this country.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.

The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.

The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court said in an unsigned order Friday.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.

Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.

But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.

Homeland Security applauded the Supreme Court’s action. “Temporary Protected Status was always supposed to be just that: Temporary,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Yet, previous administrations abused, exploited, and mangled TPS into a de facto amnesty program.”

Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.

The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.

Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.

Shortly afterward, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.

In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.

The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.

He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.

The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.

In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.

“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.

In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.

That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”

Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.

In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.

“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”