other state

If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

“Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

“The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

“The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

“I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

“The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning Monday that food assistance benefits for millions of low-income Californians could be delayed starting Nov. 1 if the ongoing federal shutdown does not end by Thursday.

The benefits, issued under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and formerly called food stamps, include federally funded benefits loaded onto CalFresh cards. They support some 5.5 million Californians.

Newsom blamed the potential SNAP disruption — and the shutdown more broadly — on President Trump and slammed the timing of the potential cutoff just as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches.

“Trump’s failure to open the federal government is now endangering people’s lives and making basic needs like food more expensive — just as the holidays arrive,” Newsom said. “It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine, stand up to Trump, and deliver for the American people.”

The White House responded by blaming the shutdown on Democrats, as it has done before.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the “Democrats’ decision to shut down the government is hurting Americans across the country,” and that Democrats “can choose to reopen the government at any point” by voting for a continuing resolution to fund the government as budget negotiations continue, which she said they repeatedly did during the Biden administration.

“Newscum should urge his Democrat pals to stop hurting the American people,” Jackson said, using a favorite Trump insult for Newsom. “The Trump Administration is working day and night to mitigate the pain Democrats are causing, and even that is upsetting the Left, with many Democrats criticizing the President’s effort to pay the troops and fund food assistance for women and children.”

Congressional Republicans also have blamed the shutdown and resulting interruptions to federal programs on Democrats, who are refusing to vote for a Republican-backed funding measure based in large part on Republican decisions to eliminate subsidies for healthcare plans relied on by millions of Americans.

Newsom’s warning about SNAP benefits followed similar alerts from other states on both sides of the political aisle, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned state agencies in an Oct. 10 letter that the shutdown may interrupt funding for the benefits.

States have to take action to issue November benefits before the month ends, so the shutdown would have to end sooner than Nov. 1 for the benefits to be available in time.

Newsom’s office said Californians could see their benefits interrupted or delayed if the shutdown is not ended by Thursday. The Texas Health and Human Services Department warned that SNAP benefits for November “won’t be issued if the federal government shutdown continues past Oct. 27.”

Newsom’s office said a cutoff of funds would affect federally funded CalFresh benefits, but also some other state-funded benefits. More than 63% of SNAP recipients in California are children or elderly people, Newsom’s office said.

In her own statement, First Partner of California Jennifer Siebel Newsom said, “Government should be measured by how we protect people’s lives, their health, and their well-being. Parents and caregivers should not be forced to choose between buying groceries or paying bills.”

States were already gearing up for other changes to SNAP eligibility based on the Republican-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which set new limits on SNAP benefits, including for nonworking adults. Republicans have argued that such restrictions will encourage more able-bodied adults to get back into the workforce to support their families themselves.

Many Democrats and advocacy organizations that work to protect low-income families and children have argued that restricting SNAP benefits has a disproportionately large effect on some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including poor children.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served by SNAP benefits per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. The USDA has some contingency funding it can utilize to continue benefits in the short term, but does not have enough to cover all monthly benefits, advocates said.

Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy at the advocacy group End Child Poverty California, urged the USDA to utilize its contingency funding and any other funding stream possible to prevent a disruption to SNAP benefits, which he said would be “disastrous.”

“CalFresh is a lifeline for 5.5 million Californians who rely on the program to eat. That includes 2 million children. It is unconscionable that we are only days away from children and families not knowing where their next meal is going to come from,” Cheyne said.

He said the science is clear that “even a brief period of food insecurity has long-term consequences for children’s growth and development.”

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said a disruption would be “horrific.”

“We speak out for the needs of kids and families, and kids need food — basic support to live and function and go to school,” he said. “So this could be really devastating.”

Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Chicago is emerging as the latest testing ground for President Trump’s domestic deployment of military force as hundreds of National Guard troops were expected to descend on the city.

The president said Wednesday that Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson should be jailed for failing to support federal agents, and continued to paint a dark and violent picture of both Chicago and Portland, Ore., where Trump is trying to send federal troops but has so far been stonewalled by the courts.

“It’s so bad,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday. “It’s so crazy. It’s like the movies … where you have these bombed-out cities and these bombed-out people. It’s worse than that. I don’t think they can make a movie as bad.”

Pritzker this week characterized Trump’s depiction of Chicago as “deranged” and untrue. Federal agents are making the community “less safe,” the governor said, noting that residents do not want “Donald Trump to occupy their communities” and that people of color are fearful of being profiled during immigration crackdowns.

Trump has taken issue with Democrats in Illinois and Oregon who are fighting his efforts, and has twice said this week that he is willing to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 if local leaders and the courts try to stop him. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller also contended this week that a court ruling blocking Trump’s deployments to Portland amounted to a “legal insurrection” as well as “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”

In a televised interview Monday, Miller was asked about his remarks and asked whether the administration would abide by court rulings that stop the deployment of troops to Illinois and Portland. Miller responded by saying the president has “plenary authority” before going silent midsentence — a moment that the host said may have been a technical issue.

“Plenary authority” is a legal term that indicates someone has limitless power.

The legality of deployments to Portland and Chicago will face scrutiny in two federal courts Thursday.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal by the Trump administration in the Portland matter. A Trump-appointed judge, Karin Immergut, found the White House had not only violated the law in activating the Oregon National Guard, but it also had further defied the law by attempting to circumvent her order, sending the California National Guard in its place.

That three-judge appellate panel consists of two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, U.S. District Judge April Perry declined Monday to block the deployment of National Guard members on an emergency basis, allowing a buildup of forces to proceed. She will hear arguments Thursday on the legality of the operation.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of Trump’s top political foes, has joined the fight against the president’s deployment efforts.

The Trump administration sent 14 members of California’s National Guard to Illinois to train troops from other states, according to court records filed Tuesday. Federal officials have also told California they intend to extend Trump’s federalization of 300 members of the state’s Guard through next year.

“Trump is going on a cross-country crusade to sow chaos and division,” Newsom said Wednesday. “His actions — and those of his Cabinet — are against our deeply held American values. He needs to stop this illegal charade now.”

By Wednesday evening, there were few signs of National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago. But troops from other states, including Texas’ National Guard, were waiting on the sidelines at an Army Reserve Center in Illinois as early as Tuesday.

In anticipation of the deployment, Pritzker warned that if the president’s efforts went unchecked, it would put the United States on a “the path to full-blown authoritarianism.”

The Democratic governor also said the president’s calls to jail him were “unhinged” and said Trump was a “wannabe dictator.”

“There is one thing I really want to say to Donald Trump: If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me,” Pritzker said in an interview with MSNBC.

As tensions grew in Chicago, Trump hosted an event at the White House to address how he intends to crack down on antifa, a nebulous left-wing anti-facist movement that he recently designated as a domestic terrorist organization.

At the event, the president said many of the people involved in the movement are active in Chicago and Portland — and he once again attacked the local and state leaders in both cities and states.

“You can say of Portland and you can say certainly of Chicago, it is not lawful what they are doing,” Trump said about the left-wing protests. “They are going to have to be very careful.”

Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, slammed Trump for saying he should be jailed for his actions.

“This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested,” Johnson posted on social media. “I’m not going anywhere.”

Pritzker continued to attack Trump’s efforts into the evening, accusing the president of “breaching the Constitution and breaking the law.”

“We need to stand up together and speak up,” the governor said on social media.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez in Sacramento contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday heard a free-speech challenge to state laws against “conversion therapy” and sounded likely to rule the measures violate the 1st Amendment.

California and more than 20 other states have adopted laws to forbid licensed counselors from urging or encouraging gay or transgender teens to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

They were adopted in reaction to a history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatments that induced nausea and vomiting or administered electric shocks.

Lawmakers and medical experts said these efforts to “cure” LGBTQ+ teens were cruel and ineffective and caused lasting harm.

But these “talk therapy” laws have been challenged by a number of Christian counselors who believe they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.

The court on Tuesday heard an appeal from Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colo. She says she is an evangelical Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people of a same-sex attraction or change their gender identity.

But she sued, alleging the state law seeks to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.

She lost before a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, both of whom said the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prevent substandard healthcare.

But the justices, both conservative and liberal, said the Colorado law appeared to violate the 1st Amendment.

“What’s being regulated here is pure speech,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Moreover, he said, the state law enforces a double standard. It would punish a licensed counselor who agrees to talk to a teenage client who wants to “overcome same-sex attractions,” but not if she encourages the teen to accept or affirm those attractions.

Justice Elena Kagan said she too saw a potential 1st Amendment violation. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there was less evidence that talk therapy alone has caused real harm.

In defense of the law, Colorado state solicitor Shannon Stevenson said the law applies only to licensed counselors. It does not extend to others, including religious ministers.

The practice of medical care “is a heavily regulated area. A doctor doesn’t have a 1st Amendment right to give wrong advice to patients,” she said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others suggested counselors could still face a medical malpractice lawsuit, even if the court rules the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

Of all the finger-pointing and recriminations that come with the current federal government shutdown, one of the most striking elements is that the Trump administration blames it on Democratic support for granting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants. The White House has called out California specifically, saying the state exploits a legal “loophole” to pay for that coverage with federal dollars, and other states have followed suit.

“California utilized an egregious loophole — since employed by several other states — to draw down federal matching funds used to provide Medicaid benefits for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a policy memo released Wednesday as a budget stalemate forced a shutdown of the U.S. government.

The administration said that the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which goes into effect in October 2026, closes the loophole by prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to provide healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants and other noncitizens.

In the memo, the White House accused congressional Democrats of wanting to repeal those policy reforms as a condition to keep the government running.

Izzy Gardon, a spokeswoman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said there’s nothing to the administration’s underlying assertion that California and other states have found some sort of loophole that enables them to funnel Medicaid money to noncitizens.

“This is false — CA does not do this,” Gardon said in a one-line email to the L.A. Times.

Healthcare policy experts agree. California is not exploiting a “loophole,” said Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto, a senior policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that studies inequality.

“The state is making lawful, transparent budget choices to invest in health coverage with its own dollars,” Ramos-Yamamoto said in a statement to The Times. “These investments improve health outcomes, strengthen communities, and lower health care costs in the long run.”

At issue is Section 71117 of the Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which imposes nearly $1 trillion in reductions to federal Medicaid healthcare spending for low-income Americans over the next 10 years. The provision allows states “to finance the non-federal share of Medicaid spending through multiple sources, including state general funds, healthcare related taxes (or ‘provider taxes’), and local government funds,” as long as taxes on healthcare providers are imposed uniformly so as not to unfairly burden providers of Medicaid services.

The bottom line, analysts said, is the administration is citing a problem with the law that doesn’t seem to exist, at least not in California.

“The so-called California loophole references a provision in the law that ends a waiver of the uniformity requirements for provider taxes — this provision has nothing to do with using federal funds to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a healthcare expert at the nonprofit healthcare research, polling and news organization KFF.

“But the White House makes the claim that California uses the money they get from the provider tax to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” Tolbert said.

Fact-checking the administration’s claim is all the more difficult because there are no official data on how states spend money collected from provider taxes, Alice Burns, another KFF analyst, added. What’s more, California is among several states that offer some level of Medicaid coverage to all immigrants regardless of status. And because California cannot be federally reimbursed for healthcare spending on people who are not in the country legally, those expenses must be covered at the state level.

The White House memo goes on to claim that if Democrats were to succeed at repealing the provisions in the Working Families Tax Act, the federal government would have to spend an additional $34.6 billion in taxpayer money “that would continue to primarily be abused by California to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

This assertion also misconstrues the facts, according to KFF.

“What we do know is that the $35 billion in savings that is referenced in the White House Fact Sheet refers to the federal government’s estimated savings … resulting from states making changes to their provider tax systems,” KFF spokesperson Tammie Smith said. That is, the projected savings aren’t connected to healthcare for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Political squabbling aside, California’s approach to medical coverage for low-income, undocumented immigrants is set to undergo a major shift thanks to provisions in the 2025-26 state budget that the Democrat-led legislature and Newsom approved in June.

Starting on Jan. 1, adults “who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS)” will no longer be able to enroll in Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, according to the state’s Department of Health Care Services webpage. Those who already have this coverage can keep it and continue to renew their enrollment. And starting on July 1, Medi-Cal enrollees who are age 19-59, undocumented and not pregnant will have to pay a $30 monthly premium to keep their coverage.

The changes, which Newsom called for in the spring to offset a ballooning Medi-Cal budget deficit, drew criticism from some immigrant rights groups, with the California Immigrant Policy Center describing the moves as “discriminatory.”

“In light of the militarized mass immigration raids and arrests causing fear and chaos across California, we are disappointed that the governor and the leadership in the Legislature chose to adopt a state budget that makes our communities even more vulnerable,” Masih Fouladi, the center’s executive director said at the time.

Everyone in California who qualifies for Medi-Cal will still be eligible to receive emergency medical and dental care, no matter their immigration status.

The federal Office for Victims of Crime announced in the summer that millions of dollars approved for domestic violence survivors and other crime victims would be withheld from states that don’t comply with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

California, 19 other states and the District of Columbia sued, alleging that such preconditions are illegal and would undermine public safety.

The administration then took a different tack, announcing that community organizations that receive such funding from the states — and use it to help people escape violence, access shelter and file for restraining orders against their abusers — generally may not use it to provide services to undocumented immigrants.

California and other states sued again, arguing that the requirements — which the administration says the states must enforce — are similarly illegal and dangerous. Advocates agreed, saying screening immigrant women out of such programs would be cruel.

The repeated lawsuits reflect an increasingly familiar pattern in the growing mountain of litigation between the Trump administration, California and other blue states.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has tried to force the states into submission on a host of policy fronts by cutting off federal funding, part of a drive to bypass Congress and vastly expand executive power. Repeatedly when those cuts have been challenged in court, the administration has shifted its approach to go after the same or similar funding from a slightly different angle — prompting more litigation.

The repeated lawsuits have added complexity and volume to an already monumental legal war between the administration and states such as California, one that began almost immediately after Trump took office and is ongoing, as the administration once again threatens major cuts amid the government shutdown.

The White House has previously dismissed California’s lawsuits as baseless and defended Trump’s right to enact his policy agenda, including by withholding funds. Asked about its shifting strategies in some of those cases, Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration “has won numerous cases regarding spending cuts at the Supreme Court and will continue to cut wasteful spending across the government in a lawful manner.”

Other administration officials have also defended its legal tactics. During a fight over frozen federal funding earlier this year, for instance, Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” — sparking concerns about a constitutional crisis.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the pattern is a result of Trump overstating his power to control federal funding and use it as a weapon against his political opponents, but also of his dangerous disregard for the rule of law and the authority of both Congress and federal judges. His office has sued the administration more than 40 times since January, many times over funding.

“It is not something that you should have to see, that a federal government, a president of the United States, is so contemptuous of the rule of law and is willing to break it and break it again, get told by a court that they’re violating the law, and then have to be told by a court again,” Bonta said.

And yet, such examples abound, he said. For example, the Justice Department’s repeated attempts to strip California of crime victim funding echoed the Department of Homeland Security’s repeated attempts recently to deny the state disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding, Bonta said.

Homeland Security officials first told states that such funding would be conditioned on their complying with immigration enforcement efforts. California and other states sued, and a federal judge rejected such preconditions as unconstitutional.

The administration then notified the states that refused to comply, including California, that they would simply receive less money — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — while states that cooperate with immigration enforcement would receive more.

California and other Democratic-led states sued again, arguing this week that the shifting of funds was nothing more than the administration circumventing the court’s earlier ruling against the conditioning of funds outright.

Bonta’s office cited a similar pattern in announcing Thursday that the Trump administration had backed off major cuts to AmeriCorps funding. The win came only after successive rounds of litigation by the state and others, Bonta’s office noted, including an amended complaint accusing the administration of continuing to withhold the funding despite an earlier court order barring it from doing so.

Bonta said such shifting strategies were the work of a “consistently and brazenly lawless and lawbreaking federal administration,” and that his office was “duty-bound” to fight back and will — as many times as it takes.

“It can’t be that you take an action, are held accountable, a court finds that you’ve acted unlawfully, and then you just take another unlawful action to try to restrict or withhold that same funding,” he said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, said he agreed with Bonta that there is “a pattern of ignoring court orders or trying to circumvent them” on the part of the Trump administration.

And he provided another example: a case in which he represents University of California faculty and researchers challenging Trump administration cuts to National Science Foundation funding.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought talks to reporters outside the White House on Monday, accompanied by House Speaker Mike Johnson, left, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Vice President JD Vance.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

After a judge blocked the administration from terminating that funding, the Trump administration responded by declaring that the funds were “suspended” instead, Chemerinsky said.

The judge then ruled the administration was violating her order against termination, he said, as “calling them suspensions rather than terminations changed nothing.”

Mitchel Sollenberger, a political science professor at University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of several books on executive powers, said Trump aggressively flexing those powers was expected. Conservative leaders have been trying to restore executive authority ever since Congress reined in the presidency after Watergate, and Trump took an aggressive approach in his first term, too, Sollenberger said.

However, what Trump has done this term has nonetheless been stunning, Sollenberger said — the result of a sophisticated and well-planned strategy that has been given a clear runway by a Supreme Court that clearly shares a belief in an empowered executive branch.

“It’s like watching water run down, and it tries to find cracks,” Sollenberger said. “That’s what the Trump administration is doing. It’s trying to find those cracks where it can widen the gap and exercise more and more executive power.”

Bonta noted that the administration’s targeting of blue state funding began almost immediately after Trump took office, when the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo asserting that vast sums of federal funding for all sorts of programs were being frozen as the administration assessed whether the spending aligned with Trump’s policy goals.

California and other states sued to block that move and won, but the administration wasn’t swayed from the strategy, Bonta said — as evidenced by more recent events.

On Wednesday, as the government shutdown over Congress’ inability to pass a funding measure set in, Russell Vought — head of the Office of Management and Budget and architect of the Trump administration’s purse-string policies — announced on X that $8 billion in funding “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda” was being canceled. He then listed 16 blue states where projects will be cut.

Vought had broadly outlined his ideas for slashing government in Project 2025, the right-wing playbook for Trump’s second term, which Trump vigorously denied any connection to during his campaign but has since broadly implemented.

On Thursday, Trump seemed to relish the opportunity, amid the shutdown, to implement more of the plan.

“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump posted online. “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

Bonta said Wednesday that his office had no plans to get involved in the shutdown, which he said was caused by Trump and “for Trump to figure out.” But he said he was watching the battle closely.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) chalked Vought’s latest cuts up to more illegal targeting of blue states such as California that oppose Trump politically, writing, “Our democracy is badly broken when a president can illegally suspend projects for Blue states in order to punish his political enemies.”

Cities and towns have also been pushing back against Trump’s use of federal funding as political leverage. On Wednesday, Los Angeles and other cities announced a lawsuit challenging the cuts to disaster funding.

L.A. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto said the cuts were part of an “unprecedented weaponization” of federal funding by the Trump administration, and that she was proud to be fighting to “preserve constitutional limits on executive overreach.”

ORLANDO, Fla. — After Paola Freites was allowed into the U.S. in 2024, she and her husband settled in Florida, drawn by warm temperatures, a large Latino community and the ease of finding employment and housing.

They were among hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the state in recent years as immigration surged under former President Biden.

No state has been more affected by the increase in immigrants than Florida, according to internal government data obtained by the Associated Press. Florida had 1,271 migrants who arrived from May 2023 to January 2025 for every 100,000 residents, followed by New York, California, Texas and Illinois.

Freites and her husband fled violence in Colombia with their three children. After some months in Mexico they moved to Apopka, an agricultural city near Orlando, where immigrants could find cheaper housing than in Miami as they spread throughout a community that already had large populations of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Her sister-in-law owned a mobile home that they could rent.

“She advised us to come to Orlando because Spanish is spoken here and the weather is good,” Freites, 37, said. “We felt good and welcomed.”

The data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which must verify addresses of everyone who is allowed to enter the U.S. and stay to pursue an immigration case, shows Miami was the most affected metropolitan area in the U.S. with 2,191 new migrants for every 100,000 residents. Orlando ranked 10th with 1,499 new migrants for every 100,000 residents.

The CBP data captured the stated U.S. destinations for 2.5 million migrants who crossed the border, including those like Freites who used the now-defunct CBP One app to make an appointment for entry.

Freites and her husband requested asylum and obtained work permits. She is now a housekeeper at a hotel in Orlando, a tourist destination with more than a dozen theme parks, including Walt Disney World, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld. Her husband works at a plant nursery.

“We came here looking for freedom, to work. We don’t like to be given anything for free,” said Freites, who asked that the AP identify her by her middle and second last name for fear of her mother’s safety in Colombia.

Orlando absorbed new immigrants who came

Historically, Central Florida’s immigrant population was mainly from Mexico and Central America, with a handful of Venezuelans coming after socialist Hugo Chávez became president in 1999. In 2022, more Venezuelans began to arrive, encouraged by a program created by the Biden administration that offered them a temporary legal pathway. That same program was extended later to Haitians and Cubans, and their presence became increasingly visible. The state also has a large Colombian population.

Many immigrants came to Florida because they had friends and relatives.

In Orlando, they settled throughout the area. Businesses catering to newer arrivals opened in shopping areas with Mexican and Puerto Rican shops. Venezuelan restaurants selling empanadas and arepas opened in the same plaza as a Mexican supermarket that offers tacos and enchiladas. Churches began offering more Masses in Spanish and in Creole, which Haitians speak.

As the population increased, apartments, shopping centers, offices and warehouses replaced many of the orange groves and forests that once surrounded Orlando.

The economy grew as more people arrived

New immigrants found work in the booming construction industry, as well as in agriculture, transportation, utilities and manufacturing. Many work in restaurants and hotels and as taxi drivers. Some started their own businesses.

“It’s just like a very vibrant community,” said Felipe Sousa-Lazaballet, executive director at Hope CommUnity Center, a group that offers free services to immigrants in Central Florida. “It’s like, ‘I’m going to work hard and I’m going to fight for my American dream,’ that spirit.”

Immigrants’ contributions to Florida’s gross domestic product — all goods and services produced in the state — rose from 24.3% in 2019 to 25.5% in 2023, according to the pro-immigration American Immigration Council’s analysis of the Census Bureau’s annual surveys. The number of immigrants in the workforce increased from 2.8 million to 3.1 million, or 26.5% to 27.4% of the overall population. The figures include immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally.

Immigrants looked for advice

Groups that help immigrants also increased in size.

“We got hundreds of calls a week,” said Gisselle Martinez, legal director at the Orlando Center for Justice. “So many calls of people saying ‘I just arrived, I don’t know anybody, I don’t have money yet, I don’t have a job yet. Can you help me?’”

The center created a program to welcome them. It grew from serving 40 people in 2022 to 269 in 2023 and 524 in 2024, Melissa Marantes, the executive director, said.

In 2021, about 500 immigrants attended a Hispanic Federation fair offering free dental, medical, and legal services. By 2024, there were 2,500 attendees.

Hope, meantime, went from serving 6,000 people in 2019, to more than 20,000 in 2023 and 2024.

Many now fear being detained

After President Trump returned to office in January, anxiety spread through many immigrant communities. Florida, a Republican-led state, has worked to help the Trump administration with its immigration crackdown and has enacted laws targeting illegal immigration.

Blanca, a 38-year-old single mother from Mexico who crossed the border with her three children in July 2024, said she came to Central Florida because four nephews who were living in the area told her it was a peaceful place where people speak Spanish. The math teacher, who has requested asylum, insisted on being identified by her first name only because she fears deportation.

In July 2025, immigration officials placed an electronic bracelet on her ankle to monitor her.

Because a friend of hers was deported after submitting a work permit request, she has not asked for one herself, she said.

“It’s scary,” she said. “Of course it is.”

Salomon writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

California and other Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday for allegedly stripping them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funding based on their unwillingness to aid in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case barred the administration from conditioning similar federal grant funding on states rescinding their so-called “sanctuary” policies protecting immigrants.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the latest funding reduction — which the states were notified of over the weekend — flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democratic states into complying with a federal immigration campaign they have no legal obligation to support.

“Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities.”

The White House referred questions on the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The agency has previously argued that its core mission is to defend the nation’s security against threats, including from illegal immigration, and therefore that it should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining that mission.

The funding in question — billions of dollars annually — is distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and have been distributed “evenhandedly” for decades by administrations of both political parties, the states’ lawsuit argues.

The funding, authorized by Congress in part after disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, pays for things such as the salaries and training of first responders, testing of state computer systems for vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, mutual aid compacts among regional partners and emergency responses to disasters, the states said in their lawsuit.

Bonta’s office said California expected about $165 million, but was notified it would receive $110 million, a cut of $55 million, or a third of its funding. Other blue states saw even greater reductions, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, it said.

Other states that are supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies received large increases, and some more than 100% increases, the suing states said.

They said the notifications provided no justification for the reductions, noting only that they were made at the direction of Homeland Security. And yet, the reason was clear, they said, including because of recent comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials who have stated outright that states who do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and that maintain sanctuary policies would see reduced funding.

“The explanation for DHS and FEMA’s last-minute decision to reallocate $233 million in homeland security funds — the Reallocation Decision — is apparent. Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current Administration is taking money from its enemies,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Or, as defendant Secretary Noem put it succinctly in a February 19 internal memorandum, States whose policies she dislikes ‘should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money.’”

The states also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the funding cuts — and prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency from disbursing any related funds that could not be recouped later — as the case proceeds.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration setting immigration-related conditions on similar emergency funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” and unconstitutional.

“DHS justifies the conditions by pointing to its broad homeland security mission, but the grants at issue fund programs such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, and emergency preparedness,” the judge in that case wrote. “Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring.”

Last month, another judge ruled in a third case that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles or other local jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies.

In their lawsuit Monday, California and the other states argued that the Trump administration appeared “undeterred” by last week’s ruling against pre-conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

After being “frustrated in its first attempt to coerce [the states] into enforcing federal civil immigration law,” the states wrote, “DHS took yet another lawless action” by simply reallocating funding to “more favored jurisdictions” willing to support the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Bonta said the law requires such funding to be distributed based on objective assessments of “threat and risk,” but the weekend notifications showed the Trump administration doing little more than “rushing to work around last week’s order” and “force and coerce” blue states into compliance in a new way.

“This is a lawless, repeat offender administration that keeps breaking the law,” he said.

Bonta said the lawsuit is the 40th his office has filed against the current Trump administration to date. He said his office was in conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and that they both believe that “we deserve all the funding that has been appropriated to us.”

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. All were also party to the litigation challenging preconditions on such funding that was decided last week.

“The Pitt” may not be set in Los Angeles, but its cast and creatives are proud that it’s filmed there.

HBO Max’s hour-by-hour look at an emergency room shift in a Pittsburgh hospital took home the Emmy Award for best drama series on Sunday, and its cast and creatives dedicated their recognition to healthcare workers. Once they got backstage, they advocated for something else: increasing production in Los Angeles.

Speaking to press after the series’ big win, creator R. Scott Gemmill and star and executive producer Noah Wyle said they believe filming locally is important for the entertainment industry in Los Angeles as production rates have declined over the past several years because of a confluence of issues, including the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023 and more attractive tax incentives in other states and countries.

Both “The Pitt” and “The Studio,” which won the top prize in the comedy category, are shot in L.A., but the latter is actually set in the city, centering on a fictional Hollywood studio and satirizing the entertainment industry.

Gemmill, who was also a producer on “ER,” said he feels pride in knowing “The Pitt” serves as an example of a series that was successfully filmed in L.A. “When we get casting, I think they get like 3,000 submissions for each role,” he said. “That’s how hungry the people are that work in Los Angeles, so just the fact that we can do our small part is really important, but I hope other producers take note.”

Wyle, who won two Emmy awards, one as an executive producer on the series and one for lead actor in a drama, echoed Gemmill’s comments and said he attended the ceremony in July where Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California’s film tax credit boost into law. It will increase the cap on California’s film and TV tax credit program to $750 million, up from $330 million. Wyle said he gave a speech at the event, sharing his experience filming locally.

“I talked about our special effects coordinator on our show, whose name is Rob Nary, whose father was a special effects coordinator, whose grandfather was a special effects coordinator,” Wyle said. “I said it to highlight the fact that there’s generational talent in this city that’s worked in this industry for over 100 years. When you shoot a show here, you get the benefit of three generations of talent. You get a Rob Nary. You can put up a soundstage in another state, but they don’t come with Rob Narys.”

While production in L.A. overall is still on the decline according to the nonprofit organization FilmLA, which tracks production in the Greater Los Angeles region, television is serving as a bright spot. From April through June, TV production saw an increase of 17% compared with the same time period last year, with 2,224 on-location shoot days. That’s the highest total since early 2024, though it is still 32.6% lower than the five-year quarterly average, FilmLA said in a report published this summer.

Overall, on-location shoot days from April to June decreased 6.2% compared with the same time period last year.

Paul Audley, FilmLA’s president, responded to the Emmy wins for shows that shoot in town, saying in a statement to The Times that the organization “thanks them for choosing to film locally, and for helping to make Los Angeles the entertainment capital of the world.”

“These productions not only highlight the overwhelming talent that this region is known for, but productions like these employ hundreds of film industry workers and contribute to a strong and thriving economy,” Audley said. “Filming locally supports our communities, small businesses, and workers across every corner of the film industry.”

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Republicans handed President Trump a political victory Friday, giving final legislative approval to a redistricting plan that could help Republicans win an additional U.S. House seat in next year’s elections.

The Senate vote sends the redistricting plan to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe for his expected signature to make it law. But opponents immediately announced a referendum petition that, if successful, could force a statewide vote on the new map.

“This fight is not over. Missouri voters — not politicians — will have the final say,” said Elsa Rainey, a spokesperson for People Not Politicians, which is leading the referendum effort.

U.S. House districts were redrawn across the country after the 2020 census to account for population changes. But Missouri is the third state to take up mid-decade redistricting this year in an emerging national battle for partisan advantage ahead of the midterm elections.

Republican lawmakers in Texas passed a new U.S. House map last month aimed at helping their party win five additional seats. Democratic lawmakers in California countered with their own redistricting plan aimed at winning five more seats, but it still needs voter approval. Other states could follow with their own redistricting.

Each seat could be critical, because Democrats need to gain just three seats to win control of the House, which would allow them to obstruct Trump’s agenda and launch investigations into him. Trump is trying to stave off a historic trend in which the president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections.

Republicans currently hold six of Missouri’s eight U.S. House seats. The revised map passed the Republican-led state House earlier this week as the focal point of a special session called by Kehoe that also includes a proposal making it harder for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to win voter approval.

The Republican-led Senate passed both measures Friday after changing the chamber’s rules, then shutting off Democratic opponents.

Kehoe promoted the reshaped districts as a way to amplify “Missouri’s conservative, common-sense values” in Washington.

Trump had pressed Missouri officials to act, asserting on his social media site earlier this week that the Senate “must pass this Map now, AS IS, to deliver a gigantic Victory for Republicans.”

Missouri’s revised map targets a seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by shaving off portions of his Kansas City district and stretching the rest of it into Republican-heavy rural areas. The plan reduces the number of Black and minority residents in Cleaver’s district, partly by creating a dividing line along a street that has served as a historical segregation line between Black and white residents.

Cleaver, who was Kansas City’s first Black mayor, has served in Congress for over 20 years. He won reelection with over 60% of the vote in both 2024 and 2022 under districts adopted by the Republican-led state Legislature after the 2020 census.

Cleaver has said he plans to challenge the new map in court and seek reelection in 2026, regardless of the shape of his district.

Cleaver’s revised Kansas City district would stretch from near the city’s St. James United Methodist Church — which Cleaver once led — 180 miles southeast to include another United Methodist church in rural Vienna. In the neighborhood around Cleaver’s hometown church, where his son is now pastor, about 60% of the residents are Black or a mix of Black and another race, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. By contrast, the area around Vienna has just 11 Black residents out of nearly 2,500 people.

Democratic state Sen. Barbara Washington of Kansas City, who described Cleaver as her longtime pastor, said the new map “erases the voice of my community.”

“Carving up Kansas City and silencing our constituents is terrible,” Washington said.

Kansas City resident Roger C. Williams Jr., a 79-year-old former middle-school principal, said the effort to reshape congressional districts reminds him of the discrimination he witnessed against Black residents while growing up in Arkansas.

“What Republicans are doing now in the state of Missouri is they’re taking me back to a time when I, or people that looked like me, would not have an opportunity, because they wouldn’t have a voice,” he said.

Republican lawmakers said little during Senate debate. But sponsoring state Rep. Dirk Deaton, a Republican, has said the new congressional map splits fewer overall counties and municipalities into multiple districts than the current one.

“It is a better map for the state of Missouri,” Deaton told a Senate committee Thursday. “By really every metric I look at, I feel that way.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Heather Hollingsworth in Kansas City, Mo., and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — A popular perk for California drivers of electric and low-emission cars is coming to an end.

Beginning Oct. 1, motorists with a Clean Air Vehicle decal will no longer be able to drive solo in carpool lanes because the program was not extended by the federal government, according to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

The carpool benefit was promoted as a cost-effective incentive to encourage Californians to buy clean and zero-emission vehicles. More than a million motorists have applied for the decal since it became available more than two decades ago. There are roughly a half million vehicles in California with active decals, allowing them to use the carpool lane alone. Last month, the DMV stopped issuing new decals and warned that the program could be ending.

Extending the program would have required approval from Congress and President Trump.

“A Trump traffic jam is on its way to California and other states – all because Republicans in Congress decided to let a wildly successful bipartisan program expire,” Newsom said in a statement. “That’s Trump’s America: more traffic, more smog and a government more committed to slashing proven programs than solving real problems.”

California is one of 13 states offering the benefit. Vehicles that qualified included fuel cell electric, natural gas or plug-in electric cars.

Last year, Newsom signed a bill that extended California’s decal program until 2027, but the state will no longer be able to continue it without federal authority, the governor’s office said. According to the California Energy Commission, 25% of new cars sold in the state are zero-emission vehicles.

Drivers in electric and low-emission cars will only be able to use carpool lanes after the program expires if they meet the multiple occupant requirements. The reduced toll rates available in some areas to drivers with a decal will also end on Oct. 1.

California law indicates that drivers will not be cited for driving in the carpool lane with an invalid decal within 60 days of the program ending.

“Californians are committed to lowering their carbon footprint and these decals helped drivers be good stewards of our highways and environment,” said Steve Gordon, director of the California DMV, in a statement. “By taking away this program, hundreds of thousands of California’s drivers will pay the price. It’s a lose-lose and we urge the federal government to retain this program.”

The program ends at the same time that a $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric vehicles expires.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles amounted to costly political theater, saddling taxpayers with a nearly $120-million bill.

Newsom’s office said the newly revealed price tag was tallied from estimates provided by the California National Guard about costs incurred since June, when Trump sent more than 4,200 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. That included $71 million for food and other basic necessities, $37 million in payroll, $4 million in logistic supplies, $3.5 million in travel and $1.5 million in demobilization costs, Newsom’s office said.

Most of the soldiers were sent home in August, although 300 remain in Los Angeles.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco barred soldiers from aiding immigration arrests in a scathing opinion that amounted to a major win for California and other states critical of the Trump administration’s deployments. Newsom filed a preliminary injunction after the ruling asking that the court block a new order from the U.S. Secretary of Defense that extended the deployment of 300 National Guard members in Los Angeles until after the election in November.

“Let us not forget what this political theater is costing us all — millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain and an atrophy to the readiness of guardsmembers across the nation and unnecessary hardships to the families supporting those troops,” Newsom said in a statement. “Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We ask other states to do the math themselves.”

In Washington, D.C., where Trump has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital, city leaders filed a lawsuit earlier this week. That lawsuit said more than 2,200 National Guard troops are in Washington D.C., where they are seen dressed in military fatigues and carrying rifles around national monuments. Soldiers are seen picking up trash, laying down mulch and chatting aimlessly as they patrol.

Trump has warned that he intends to expand his use of military forces in other cities.

It’s not easy being from California, especially if you’re hoping to leave the Golden State’s fires and rising home costs behind and move to a more affordable red state.

In Texas, some politicians have adopted “Don’t California my Texas” as both a rallying cry and a fundraising appeal.

In Montana, rising home prices prompted lawmakers to pass a package of bills this year that increased property taxes on people — including many Californians — who own second homes in the state.

And now, in Oklahoma, education officials have entered the fray by requiring teachers from California and New York to take an exam aimed at guarding against “radical leftist ideology.”

The test is being developed by leadership from the Oklahoma State Department of Education and PragerU, a nonprofit advocacy group that produces videos promoting conservative views of history, finance and other topics. PragerU videos have already been approved for use in schools in several states, including Oklahoma.

“Our teacher qualification test is very simple,” PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said in a statement to The Times. “Frankly, every American should be able to pass it. Certainly, every teacher should be able to pass it.”

She added that the full test will be available in the coming weeks. “We encourage you to take a look at the test yourself and make your own decision on whether it’s reasonable or not,” she said.

Superintendent Ryan Walters poses for a portrait in his office.

(Nick Oxford)

Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, told The Times that he launched the test out of concern over state standards in California and New York that require teachers to instruct students about gender identity.

The test comes at a time when Californians are increasingly relocating to other states in search of a slower pace of life and more affordable housing. Some cities seeking to reverse years-long population declines have created incentive programs to attract remote workers.

Tulsa Remote, which pays workers $10,000 to move to the second-largest city in the Sooner State, has attracted more than 3,600 remote workers since its inception in 2019. More than 7,800 Californians have applied to the program and 539 have made the move, cementing California as the second-most common origin state behind Texas.

Amid a nationwide teacher shortage, the Oklahoma schools system has launched a $50,000 signing bonus program — the largest in the country — to help recruit new educators for some of the most difficult to fill jobs, including early elementary and special education instruction.

The so-called “Californian exodus” accelerated during the pandemic, with places like Texas, Florida and Tennessee seeing major influxes from the West.

But by 2024, the exodus had ended, according to state data. The state’s population rose slightly in 2024 after three years of decline.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey in March found that many Californians who leave are either favoring nearby states such as Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon; larger states such as Texas; or locations without income taxes — not necessarily Oklahoma.

And the emigration of Californians to other states has done little to shift political demographics in their new homes, according to Eric McGhee, a policy director and senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The partisan balance of people moving to different states tends to be an exaggerated version of the partisan balance of the state they’re moving to,” he said. “So states that are more Republican tend to have migrants from California who are even more Republican than people in the state they’re moving to.”

The number of teachers that would be mandated to take the test in Oklahoma is unclear, but some data indicates that it might be small.

Information from the Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability — which oversees the education department and reviews out-of-state certification assessments for comparability with Oklahoma’s testing standards — shows that since 2020, the agency has reviewed only 19 out-of-state applications from California and New York. In 2025, only one applicant came from California, and none from New York.

Critics say the exam will discourage educators from accepting jobs in Oklahoma, which has been struggling with a teacher shortage and continues to lag behind the national average in reading and math, according to national data.

“This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said.

“[Walters’] priority should be educating students, but instead, it’s getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him,” she said. “Teachers are patriots, and whether they are conservative or liberal, they want what students need: safe and welcoming public schools that are engaging and relevant and that prepare kids for college, career and life.”

Dennis Prager, founder of PragerU, in 2024 in Los Angeles. A test for new teachers in Oklahoma is being developed by leadership from the State Department of Education and PragerU.

(Araya Doheny / Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Experts say the creation of a test where teachers are forced to adhere to a certain viewpoint to get a job is unprecedented in the American education system. It also highlights the growing foothold PragerU has on the education system in certain states, said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history of education at the University of Pennsylvania.

“What they’re doing is they’re making Prager into a central player in the operation by vetting teachers based on their affinity for what Prager believes,” Zimmerman said. “I think the other thing that’s unprecedented, frankly, is the involvement of the White House in all of this.”

In January, Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which sought to cease funding any schools that teach gender ideology or curriculum that portrays the United States as “fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.” The order emphasizes the need for a “patriotic education.”

“I don’t think we’ve ever seen the White House engaging directly in these sorts of questions,” Zimmerman said.

“Historically, in the United States, school has been a state and especially a local concern and it still is,” he added. “The bulk of money for schools comes from states and localities, but I think something’s really different about our moment in the way these issues have become nationalized.”

With respect to California and New York educators, Walters has taken issue with the “gender fluidity argument,” which details that a person’s gender identity is not fixed and can shift or change over time, which he says is a “lie that they continue to push.”

The California Healthy Youth Act, which took effect in 2016, requires that districts provide comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education for students in grades 7 through 12 in public schools. The lessons, which parents can opt to take their children out of, include discussions of gender and sexual orientation.

Oklahoma public schools are not required to teach sex education, including gender. In 2021, the state passed a bill, HB 1775, that restricts the teaching of certain concepts related to race and gender in public schools and universities. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging what they called “unconstitutional censorship” in schools. That case is ongoing.

New York and California were “the first states that we’ve seen that are actually requiring their teachers to do things that are antithetical to our standards,” Walters said, adding that the test’s goal is to ensure they’ll teach to Oklahoma state standards. Walters is also looking at requiring the test for teachers from other states including Massachusetts, Maine and Minnesota.

Still, the notion that waves of Californians moving to other states are changing the political leanings on a large scale of their destinations isn’t borne out in the research.

The 50 question multiple choice exam, which is expected to be rolled out in the next few weeks, will include questions about gender, civics and American history. A preview of the exam released by the department of education included the question: Why is freedom of religion important to America’s identity?

Teachers must answer all 50 questions correctly to pass the test, Walters said, noting that the state is proud to be focusing on creating good citizens and being “unapologetic about a patriotic education.”

Zimmerman sees the creation of a good citizen a bit differently.

“To me, a good citizen, is somebody who has the capacity and skill to judge matters for themselves. Now how are you going to teach a future citizen to do that if you’re simply giving them one answer? I don’t think you can,” he said.

It’s not a surprise that Donald Trump has pushed Texas Republicans to redraw congressional district lines to find five more GOP seats for the U.S. House of Representatives in time for the 2026 midterm elections. He just signed a deeply unpopular bill to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut healthcare for millions of people, and his approval rating keeps dropping. In an election based on district maps as they stand — and should stand until the next census, in 2030 — his party’s 2026 prospects for holding the House are grim. Unlike his predecessors, he’s proven willing to break our democracy to get what he wants.

If Trump’s gambit succeeds — and right now it looks as if it will — then California and other states that could counter the premature Texas redistricting have only one choice — to respond in kind.

Consider the stakes: A majority of Americans disapprove of Trump’s job performance and have done so since within a month of his taking office. Yet he is undercutting the institutions that we’d otherwise depend on to speak independently and resist presidential excesses — judges, journalists, university leaders and even government officials who make the mistake of neutrally reporting facts like economic data.

With history as a predictor, Democrats would succeed in the 2026 midterms, retake the House and provide checks and balances on the Trump administration. The framers regarded Congress as the primary actor in the federal government, but it is now a shell of its former self. Elections are how America holds presidents in check. But if Trump gets his way, voters may vote but nothing will change. The already tenuous connection between the ballot box and the distribution of power will evaporate.

One can understand why Democratic legislators might not want to mimic Trump’s tactics. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who represented New York for nearly a quarter century, warned decades ago about the tendency to “define deviancy down” and normalize actions that are anything but normal. But we don’t get to pick and choose the times we live in or the type of response that is required to meet the moment.

When voters in California approved independent redistricting 15 years ago, they would have reasonably expected that many other states would follow their lead. They would have hoped that Congress or the Supreme Court would step in to create a federal standard. They would have understood other states changing the rules for purely political reasons as unconscionable. And yet here we are.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom succinctly put it: “California’s moral high ground means nothing if we’re powerless because of it.”

The solution Newsom has proposed is a prudent one — redrawing just the congressional lines, not those for the state Legislature as well, and only doing so until the next census, when Trump will have passed from the scene.

Every objection to the proposal falls apart under inspection.

A radical left-wing plot? Even many moderate members of the Democratic Party, such as Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, have praised it as a necessary response.

An end run around voters? Unlike in Texas, California voters themselves will decide whether to approve the plan.

An expensive special election? Cost was a reason to oppose the wishful-thinking 2021 recall election launched against Newsom (which he defeated with more than 60% of the vote), but the argument applies less so today given that Trump’s extreme unilateral actions — budget cuts and slashed programs, ICE raids, the attack on higher education, including the University of California — are putting California’s fiscal future at risk.

A race to the bottom? The University of Michigan game theorist Robert Axelrod demonstrated that if we want to foster cooperation, a tit-for-tat strategy outperforms all others. As a summary of his research succinctly put it: “Be nice. Be ready to forgive. But don’t be a pushover.” California officials have indicated that they will withdraw the proposal if Texas Republicans stand down.

A political risk? Certainly, but the leader taking on the risk is Newsom. If the proposal is defeated at the ballot, voters will be in the same position they are in right now.

Czech dissident-turned-statesman Vaclav Havel, in his famous essay “The Power of the Powerless,” described the Prague Spring not only as a “clash between two groups on the level of real power” but as the “final act … of a long drama originally played out chiefly in the theatre of the spirit and the conscience of society.”

We do not know how the current drama will play out. But the choice that Havel set out — of living within a lie or living within the truth — is as potent as ever. If Trump continues to goad Texas into abandoning its commitment to the norms of our election rules, Americans who hold onto hope that their voices still matter will be counting on California to show the way.

Vivek Viswanathan is a fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. He served in the Biden White House as senior policy advisor and special assistant to the president, and previously worked for Gov. Jerry Brown and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Many voters are undecided in California’s 2026 governor’s race as well as about Democratic efforts to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an effort to counter GOP efforts in other states, according to a new poll released Friday.

In the first public poll since former Vice President Kamala Harris opted to not run for governor, former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter had the support of 18% of registered voters in California, while Republican commentator Steve Hilton had the backing of 12%, according to the Emerson College poll. No other candidate in the sprawling field had double-digit support, and 38% of voters said they were undecided.

The primary will take place June 2. The candidates have yet to start aggressively advertising or reaching out to voters, so these numbers could fluctuate wildly over the next 10 months.

When asked about a special election that could occur in November, voters were split over a proposed Democratic effort to redraw congressional districts. One-third of voters support the effort, a quarter oppose it and 42% were unsure, according to the poll.

Redistricting typically occurs after the once-a-decade census, but California is considering a middecade redrawing of congressional boundaries to counter potential moves by Texas and other GOP states to boost the number of Republicans in the House and keep the GOP in control of Congress.

California state lawmakers are expected to vote on calling a special election about the matter after they return from summer recess Aug. 18.

The poll of 1,000 California voters took place on August 4 and 5, and has 3% margin of error in either direction.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that bars Planned Parenthood and other large nonprofit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for a host of unrelated healthcare services.

The measure has threatened clinics across the country that rely on federal funding to operate. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who is helping to lead the litigation, called it a “cruel, backdoor abortion ban” that violates the law in multiple ways.

The states’ challenge comes one day after Planned Parenthood won a major victory in its own lawsuit over the measure in Boston, where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect against Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions, but the new “defund provision” in the bill passed by congressional Republicans earlier this month goes further. It also bars nonprofit abortion providers that generated $800,000 or more in annual Medicaid revenue in 2023 from receiving any such funding for the next year — including for services unrelated to abortion, such as annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that the measure “stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion,” that Congress under the constitution is “free to decline to provide taxpayer funds to entities that provide abortions,” and that Planned Parenthood’s position should not hold sway over that of Congress.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, Bonta’s office echoed Planned Parenthood officials in asserting that the provision specifically and illegally targets Planned Parenthood and its affiliate clinics — calling it “a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color.”

Bonta’s office said the measure threatened $300 million in federal funding for clinics in California, where Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider, and “jeopardized the stability” of Planned Parenthood’s 114 clinics across the state, which serve about 700,000 patients annually — many of whom use Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

During a virtual news conference Monday, Bonta noted that federal funds already don’t cover abortions. He said the new provision was “punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion” and “a direct attack on access to essential healthcare for millions who rely on Medicaid.”

“The Trump administration and Congress are actually gutting essential lifesaving care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, simply because Planned Parenthood has spoken out in support of reproductive rights,” Bonta said. “The hypocrisy is really hard to ignore. A party that claims to be defenders of free speech only seem to care about it when it aligns with their own agenda.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured, California will continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state, and will continue to defend healthcare as a human right.”

In their lawsuit, the states argue that the measure is unlawfully ambiguous and violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment, and that it will harm people’s health and increase the cost of Medicaid programs for states by more than $50 million over the next decade.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood also argued that the measure intentionally singled it and its affiliates out for punishment, in violation of their constitutional rights, including free speech.

In granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote Monday that she was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.”

Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that she also was not requiring the federal government “to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.”

Instead, Talwani wrote, her order blocks the Trump administration from “targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program,” as they were likely to prove that “such targeted exclusion violates the United States Constitution.”

In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was “legally passed by both chambers of the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Chief Executive,” and Talwani’s order granting the injunction was “not only absurd but illogical and incorrect.”

“It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the states’ lawsuit.

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, joined Bonta during his news conference. She welcomed the states’ lawsuit, saying “an attack this severe requires a multi-pronged response with both short and long term strategies.”

Hicks said it’s particularly important that California is helping to fight back, given the huge stakes for the state.

“California is the most impacted state across the country because of the volume of patients that we have, but also because of the amount of Medicaid that our state takes,” she said. “It speaks to our values. And this defund provision is certainly [an] attack on values — most heavily on California.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Bonta noted the lawsuit is the 36th his office has filed against the Trump administration in the last 27 weeks.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent demand that they turn over the personal information of millions of people receiving federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins informed states earlier this month that they would have to transmit the data to the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to comply with an executive order by President Trump. That order demanded that Trump’s agency appointees receive “full and prompt access” to all data associated with federal programs, so that they might identify and eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Last week, USDA officials informed state SNAP directors that the deadline for submitting the data is Wednesday and that failure to comply “may trigger noncompliance procedures” — including the withholding of funds.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the “unprecedented” demand “violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws” and “further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.”

Bonta’s office noted that states have administered the equivalent of SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — for 60 years. It said that California alone receives “roughly $1 billion a year” to administer the program in the state and that “any delay in that funding could be catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.”

The USDA has demanded data for all current and former SNAP recipients since the start of 2020, including “all household group members names, dates of birth, social security numbers, residential and mailing addresses,” as well as “transactional records from each household” that show the dollar amounts they spent and where. It said it may also collect information about people’s income.

Meanwhile, a Privacy Impact Assessment published by the agency showed that it also is collecting data on people’s education, employment, immigration status and citizenship.

The USDA and other Trump administration officials have said the initiative will save taxpayers money by eliminating “information silos” that allow inefficiencies and fraud to fester in federal programs.

“It is imperative that USDA eliminates bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency and enhances the government’s ability not only to have point-in-time information but also to detect overpayments and fraud,” Rollins wrote in a July 9 letter to the states.

The Trump administration, which is pursuing what Trump has called the biggest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the nation’s history, has requested sensitive data from other federal programs and services — including Medicaid and the IRS — to share with immigration officials.

That has raised alarm among Democrats, who have said that tying such services to immigration enforcement will put people’s health at risk and decrease tax revenue. California sued the Trump administration earlier this month for sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

On Monday, Bonta raised similar alarms about the administration’s demand for SNAP data, questioning what it will do with the information and how families that rely on such assistance will react. His office said it appeared to be “the next step” in the administration’s anti-immigrant campaign.

“President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information — not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services,” Bonta said. “We’re talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences.”

Bonta said the USDA demand for SNAP benefits data is illegal under established law, and that California “will not comply” while it takes the administration to court.

“The president doesn’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,” Bonta said. “While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.”

The new data collection does not follow established processes for the federal government to audit state data without collecting it wholesale. During a recently concluded public comment period, Bonta and other liberal attorneys general submitted a comment arguing that the data demand violates the Privacy Act.

“USDA should rethink this flawed and unlawful proposal and instead work with the States to improve program efficiency and integrity through the robust processes already in place,” they wrote.

Last week, California and other states sued the Trump administration over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen other federally funded benefit programs, including Head Start, short-term and emergency shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, healthcare services and adult education programs.

The states did not include USDA in that lawsuit despite its issuing a similar notice, writing that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.

Bonta announced Monday’s lawsuit along with New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James. Joining them in the lawsuit were Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky.

WASHINGTON — Congressional redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and California and other states could follow suit.

President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year’s midterm elections, that could send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the House majority and blunt his agenda.

Texas has 38 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner in March.

“There’s been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries — literally and figuratively — to reconfigure what the game is,” said Doug Spencer, the Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. chair in constitutional law at the University of Colorado.

Other states, including California, are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit.

The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking.

Here’s what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting:

When does redistricting normally happen?

Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count.

It’s a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat or two at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined.

States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district.

Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually on claims of violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance and resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own.

Is midcycle redistricting allowed?

By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional.

There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power.

“The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,” Spencer said. “And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, ‘Well, it doesn’t say we can’t do it more.’”

Some states have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment — approved by state voters — that requires an independent commission to lead the process.

Is Texas’ effort unprecedented?

Texas has done it before.

When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map.

Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. “I’m the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time.

Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five districts in the 2004 general election.

What do the courts say about gerrymandering?

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said redistricting is “highly partisan by any measure.”

But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Other states’ plans

Washington state Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats’ campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines.

“If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,” DelBene said. “We’re not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.”

In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play.

Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and “working through what that would look like.”

Askarinam writes for the Associated Press.

In 2010, California voters drove the foxes from the henhouse, seeing to it that lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento would no longer have the power to draw congressional districts to suit themselves.

It wasn’t close.

Proposition 20 passed by a lopsided 61%-to-38% margin, giving congressional line-drawing authority to an independent mapmaking commission and thus ending decades of pro forma elections by injecting much-needed competition into California’s House races.

Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is talking about undoing voters’ handiwork.

Newsom said he may seek to cancel the commission, tear up the boundaries it drew and let Democratic partisans draft a new set of lines ahead of next year’s midterm election — all to push back on President Trump and Texas Republicans, who are attempting a raw power grab to enhance the GOP’s standing in 2026.

The threatened move is a long shot and, more than anything, a ploy to boost Newsom’s White House ambitions.

It’s also highly presumptuous on his part, reflecting an increased arrogance among lawmakers around the country who are saying to voters, in effect, “Thank you for your input. Now go away.”

Take what just happened in Missouri. Last year, 58% of voters approved a ballot measure increasing the state minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. This month, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that limited the minimum wage increase and scrapped the sick leave requirement altogether.

In two other states, Alaska and Nebraska, lawmakers similarly tried but failed to, respectively, overturn voter-passed measures on paid sick leave and a hike in the minimum wage.

“It’s a damning indictment of representative democracy when elected officials are scared of the will of their own voters,” said Alexis Magnan-Callaway of the Fairness Project, a union-backed advocacy group that focuses on state ballot measures.

It is indeed.

But it’s part of a pattern in recent years of lawmakers, mainly in Republican-led states, undercutting or working to roll back voter-designed measures to enshrine abortion rights, expand Medicare and raise the minimum wage.

To be clear, those measures were passed by voters of all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, independents.

“People are transcending party lines to vote for issues that they know will impact their communities,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive organization. By ignoring or working to nullify the result, she said, lawmakers are helping contribute “to what we’re seeing across the country, where people are losing faith in our institutions and in government.”

And why wouldn’t they, if politicians pay no mind save to ask for their vote come election time?

In a direct attack on the initiative process, at least nine state legislatures passed or considered laws in their most recent session making it harder — and perhaps even impossible — for citizens to place measures on the ballot and seek a popular vote.

There can be issues with direct democracy, as Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice pointed out.

“There can be times when systems can be abused to confuse voters,” he said, “or where voters do things without maybe fully understanding what it is they’re doing, because of the way ballot measures are drafted or ballot summaries are offered.”

But it’s one thing to address those glitches, Morales-Doyle said, and “another thing to just basically say that we, as the representatives of voters, disagree with what voters think the best policy is and so we’re going to make it harder for them to enact the policy that they desire.”

In Texas, Republicans are wielding their lopsided power in hopes of erasing as many as five Democratic-leaning congressional seats, boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House in the 2026 midterm election. Trump, staring at the prospect of an emboldened, subpoena-wielding Democratic House majority, is backing the effort whole-hog.

That, Newsom said, is the fighting-fire-with-fire reason to tear up California’s congressional map and gerrymander the state for Democrats just as egregiously as Texas Republicans hope to do. “We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or, we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,” the governor asserted.

It’s awfully hard to argue against corralling the errant Trump and his Republican enablers. Still, that’s no reason to ignore the express will of California voters when it comes to reining in their own lawmakers.

Taking Newsom’s gerrymander threat at face value, there are two ways he could possibly override Proposition 20.

He could break the law and win passage of legislation drawing new congressional districts, face an inevitable lawsuit and hope to win a favorable ruling from the California Supreme Court. Or he could call a costly special election and ask voters to reverse themselves and eliminate the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, at least for the time being.

It’s a hard sell. One presumes Newsom’s message to Californians would not be: “Let’s spend hundreds of millions of your tax dollars so you can surrender your power and return it to politicians working their will in the backrooms of Washington and Sacramento.”

But that’s the gist of what they would be asked to do, which bespeaks no small amount of hubris on Newsom’s part.

If elections are going to matter — especially at a time our democracy is teetering so — politicians have to accept the results, whether they like them or not.

Otherwise, what’s the point of having elections?