Politics

California voters are sharply divided along partisan lines over the Trump administration’s immigration raids this year in Los Angeles and across the nation, according to a new poll.

Just over half of the state’s registered voters oppose federal efforts to reduce undocumented immigration, and 61% are against deporting everyone in the nation who doesn’t have legal status, according to a recent poll by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab released to The Times on Wednesday.

But there is an acute difference in opinions based on political leanings.

Nearly 80% of Democrats oppose reducing the number of people entering the United States illegally, and 90% are against deporting everyone in the country who is undocumented, according to the poll. Among Republicans, 5% are against reducing the entries and 10% don’t believe all undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave.

“The big thing that we find, not surprisingly, is that Democrats and Republicans look really different,” said political scientist Amy Lerman, director of UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab, who studies race, public opinion and political behavior. “On these perspectives, they fall pretty clearly along party lines. While there’s some variation within the parties by things like age and race, really, the big divide is between Democrats and Republicans.”

While there were some differences based on gender, age, income, geography and race, the results largely mirrored the partisan divide in the state, Lerman said.

One remarkable finding was that nearly a quarter of survey respondents personally knew or were acquainted with someone in their family or friend groups directly affected by the deportation efforts, Lerman said.

“That’s a really substantial proportion,” she said. “Similarly, the extent to which we see people reporting that people in their communities are concerned enough about deportation efforts that they’re not sending their kids to school, not shopping in local stores, not going to work,” not seeking medical care or attending church services.

The poll surveyed a sample of the state’s registered voters and did not include the sentiments of the most affected communities — unregistered voters or those who are ineligible to cast ballots because they are not citizens.

A little more than 23 million of California’s 39.5 million residents were registered to vote as of late October, according to the secretary of state’s office.

“So if we think about the California population generally, this is a really significant underestimate of the effects, even though we’re seeing really substantial effects on communities,” she said.

Earlier this year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a series of raids in Los Angeles and surrounding communities that spiked in June, creating both fear and outrage in Latino communities. Despite opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other elected Democrats, the Trump administration also deployed the National Guard to the streets of the nation’s second-largest city to, federal officials said, protect federal immigration officials.

The months since have been chaotic, with masked, armed agents randomly pulling people — most of whom are Latino — off the streets and out of their workplaces and sending many to detention facilities, where some have died. Some deportees were flown to an El Salvador prison. Multiple lawsuits have been filed by state officials and civil rights groups.

In one notable local case, a federal district judge issued a ruling temporarily blocking federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area. The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal and lifted that order, while the case moves forward.

More than 7,100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in the Los Angeles area by federal authorities since June 6, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

On Monday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Bass and other elected officials hosted a congressional hearing on the impact of immigration raids that have taken place across the country. Garcia, the top Democrat on the House’s oversight committee, also announced the creation of a tracker to document misconduct and abuse during ICE raids.

While Republican voters largely aligned with Trump’s actions on deportations, 16% said that they believed that the deportations will worsen the state’s economy.

Lerman said the university planned to study whether these numbers changed as the impacts on the economy are felt more greatly.

“If it continues to affect people, particularly, as we see really high rates of effects on the workforce, so construction, agriculture, all of the places where we’re as an economy really reliant [on immigrant labor], I can imagine some of these starting to shift even among Republicans,” she said.

Among Latinos, whose support of Trump grew in the 2024 election, there are multiple indications of growing dissatisfaction with the president, according to separate national polls.

Nearly eight in 10 Latinos said Trump’s policies have harmed their community, compared to 69% in 2019 during his first term, according to a national poll of adults in the United States released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center on Monday. About 71% said the administration’s deportation efforts had gone too far, an increase from 56% in March. And it was the first time in the two decades that Pew has conducted its survey of Latino voters that the number of Latinos who said their standing in the United States had worsened increased, with more than two-thirds expressing the sentiment.

Another poll released earlier this month by Somos Votantes, a liberal group that urges Latino voters to support Democratic candidates, found that one-third of Latino voters who previously supported Trump rue their decision, according to a national poll.

Small business owner Brian Gavidia is among the Latino voters who supported Trump in November because of financial struggles.

“I was tired of struggling, I was tired of seeing my friends closing businesses,” the 30-year-old said. “When [President] Biden ran again I’m like, ‘I’m not going to vote for the same four years we just had’ … I was sad and I was heartbroken that our economy was failing and that’s the reason why I went that way.”

The East L.A. native, the son of immigrants from Colombia and El Salvador, said he wasn’t concerned about Trump’s immigration policies because the president promised to deport the “worst of the worst.”

He grew disgusted watching the raids that unfolded in Los Angeles earlier this year.

“They’re taking fruit vendors, day laborers, that’s the worst of the worst to you?” he remembered thinking.

Over a lunch of asada tortas and horchata in East L.A., Gavidia recounted being detained by Border Patrol agents in June while working at a Montebello tow yard. Agents shoved him against a metal gate, demanding to know what hospital he was born at after he said he was an American citizen, according to video of the incident.

After reviewing his ID, the agents eventually let Gavidia go. The Department of Homeland Security later claimed that Gavidia was detained for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants. He is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups alleging racial profiling during immigration raids.

“At that moment, I was the criminal, at that moment I was the worst of the worst, which is crazy because I went to go see who they were getting — the worst of the worst like they said they were going to get,” Gavidia said. “But turns out when I got there, I was the worst of the worst.”

WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 (UPI) — A new federal definition of hemp tucked into Congress’ recently passed spending bill has reopened the debate over legal cannabis and set up a year-long fight that could determine the future of hemp-derived CBD and THCA products — and thousands of small businesses behind them.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the 2018 Farm Bill, allowed hemp production and removed the plant from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s schedule of Controlled Substances.

But now, Congress has sharply moved to restrict the hemp industry after slipping new language into the latest continuing resolution that ended the 43-day government shutdown Nov. 13.

This change could redefine what counts as legal hemp and effectively outlaw many of the products that have fueled the sector’s rapid growth over the last seven years.

Jonathan Miller, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable’s general counsel, said this provision was introduced more than a year ago as part of the House appropriations bill. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., then brought it to the Senate six months ago.

The controversial provision was then included in the House’s fiscal year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations draft. Lawmakers, including Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., and Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., publicly opposed the provision’s language, while Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C. was a staunch leader pushing the provision through.

“Members of Congress were forced to choose between saving the hemp industry or reopening government, and there was just too much at stake. As a result, we lost this battle. The good news is it doesn’t go to effect for a year, so we’ve got over 350 days now to try to get it reversed and to replace it with a regulatory framework,” Miller said.

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable emphasized that once the legislation moved to the Senate, McConnell included a 365-day delay before the restrictions take effect. The grace period which runs to Nov. 13, 2026, is planned to give hemp businesses time to push Congress toward adopting a regulatory framework rather than an all-out ban.

Since 2018, manufacturers and retailers have taken advantage of what some describe as a “loophole” in federal hemp regulations to produce products containing hemp-derived CBD.

Under federal law, hemp is cannabis containing less than 0.3% THC by dry weight, the psychoactive compound that produces a “high.” Because this threshold is calculated on dry weight, companies have formulated products that technically comply but may deliver stronger effects.

This loophole helped expand the hemp industry, particularly cannabidiol, or CBD, a non‑psychoactive compound touted for therapeutic benefits.

A new congressional provision would redefine hemp to include all forms of THC — including THCA — within the 0.3% limit, and prohibit hemp‑derived CBD products manufactured for consumption in beverages, edibles, or vapes.

Lawmakers argue these products exploit the current definition while producing intoxicating effects.

Many tied to hemp production have responded with fears of a widespread economic blow to an industry worth $28.4 billion and employs a large number of Americans.

“There are 300,000 jobs affiliated with the industry. Those would go away. There’s $1.5 billion of state and local tax revenue that would go away. Many farmers would would lose their farms. Many small [companies] would lose their businesses,” Miller said.

“Many consumers, including veterans and seniors, who rely on these products for their health and wellness would lose access to them.”

“It’s a $28 billion market, which means there is a ton of demand for these products. If they’re made illegal, people will find a way to access them illegally, and which means there will be no safety protections and no regulatory regime,” he added.

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable, one of the industry’s largest national coalitions, said the measure could ban “more than 95% of all hemp extract products.” While the law would continue the sales of products containing less than 0.4 mg. of total THC per container, the group says items that meet that threshold are “very rare.”

“If it goes through as is, the industry is over as we know it. Ninety-five percent of our products would be considered schedule one narcotics, akin to heroin, and the remaining 5% it would be impossible to produce because of the restrictions on extraction,” Miller said.

Conversely, supporters of including this provision in the continuing resolution that reopened the government believe closing the loophole was overdue, arguing that the hemp-derived intoxicating products are largely unregulated.

For example, the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp praised Congress for moving to clarify federal intent. In a press release, it said the bill “carefully distinguishes between intoxicating and non-intoxicating products” and would, for the first time, provide federal recognition and protection for non-intoxicating hemp-derived items.

The policy shift will potentially cause conflict between federal and state governments. Several states have created their own regulatory frameworks for hemp-derived products, including testing, age limits and potency caps. These could be disrupted by the new federal standards.

“It’s difficult to say how state implementation of the new federal hemp policy will look across states. It will certainly differ based on the state policy environment and state priorities and goals,” Gillian Schauer said, executive director of the Cannabis Regulators Association.

The association is a nonpartisan, nonprofit that helps regulate cannabis, marijuana and hemp across more than 45 states, the District of Columbia, three U.S. territories and a number of international governments.

“Ultimately, regulators are primarily implementers — they will implement what comes down from their state legislatures. Most of these policy implementation decisions will be made legislatively. With legislative sessions right around the corner in most states, those decisions may be made before we have any further federal guidance,” Schauer said.

Kentucky is one of the top producing hemp states, along with California, Colorado and Oregon. The two Kentucky senators are on opposite ends of viewpoint on the provision being added.

After the continuing resolution passed, McConnell released a statement saying, ​​”I am proud to have championed this language that keeps these products out of the hands of children, secures the future of regulated hemp businesses and keeps our promise to American farmers and law enforcement by clarifying the intention in the 2018 Farm Bill.”

“The language included in [the] bill preserves the legitimate hemp industry, while addressing the rise of intoxicating and synthetic THC products. Industrial hemp and CBD will remain legal for industrial applications — such as seed, stock, fiber, grain oil — or used in drug trials, federally authorized research or research at an institution of higher education,” he added.

Countering that, Sen. Rand Paul said he opposed this provision. On the Senate floor before it passed, he said “The bill, as it now stands, overrides the regulatory frameworks of several states, cancels the collective decisions of hemp consumers and destroys the livelihoods of hemp farmers.”

He added: “Farmers’ costs have increased as the price of fertilizer and machinery have jumped, while prices for their crops, like soybean, corn and wheat, have declined. For many farmers, hemp has proved to be a lifeline, a new cash crop.”

In effect, the same language McConnell praised drew criticism from Paul, who argued it would wipe out existing markets and override state authority.

“The numbers put forward in this bill will eliminate 100% of the hemp products in our country. That amounts to an effective ban, because the limit is so low that the products intended to manage pain or anxiety will lose their effect,” Paul said.

“This bill will effectively preempt and nullify all state laws concerning hemp. Most of the things your states have regulated and made legal will be made illegal by this bill,”

SACRAMENTO — The final pieces of a multi-bill legislative package needed to implement a $52.1-billion state budget stalled in the state Senate on Monday as lawmakers made last-minute efforts to change or derail several measures.

The major issues still on the table include a proposed suspension of the renters tax credit and legislation to allow local governments to implement cheaper retirement plans for their workers.

The Senate shut down late Monday afternoon without taking major action. Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) said members would return at noon today, and “we will go until all business is completed, exhausted or until all hope is dead.”

In one late maneuver that was outside the framework of the bipartisan budget agreement, a proposal was emerging to give local governments the proceeds of a new statewide tax on tobacco while stripping them of much of their authority to regulate smoking.

Gov. Pete Wilson was awaiting passage of the package to which he had agreed last week with Democratic and Republican leaders of the Assembly and Senate. The new fiscal year begins Thursday.

“The governor will sign the budget as soon as he has the entire package on his desk,” said Dan Schnur, Wilson’s chief spokesman. “Every piece of the budget package is critical. You take out one piece and the package doesn’t fit together anymore.”

There was disagreement, however, over just what constituted the agreed-upon package.

Wilson Administration officials have said all five members of the leadership group agreed to suspend the renters tax credit for two years. The Assembly passed a bill to do that last week.

But the legislation has hit a snag in the Senate, where Roberti insists that the deal included an agreement to place a measure on the ballot next year that, if approved by the voters, would embed the renters credit in the state Constitution. Such a move would make it impossible for the Legislature to tamper with it again.

Roberti and Wilson appeared to be on the verge of a compromise late Monday, although it was not clear if there was sufficient support in the Legislature. The new deal would put the issue to the voters, as Roberti wants, but would reinstate the $60 credit only for tenants who have a state tax obligation. The credit now goes–in the form of a refund–even to renters who pay no taxes.

Senate Democrats also appeared to be dragging their feet on the local government retirement issue. That bill, passed by the Assembly, would allow local governments to implement pension options for new employees that would save the governments money over time.

In holding up the bill, which is opposed by organized labor, Democrats appeared to be gambling that Wilson would look the other way because the measure produces no immediate savings to any level of government. But Schnur said the governor would not give up any piece of the package, no matter how minor.

“Even if the specific legislation doesn’t have direct fiscal impact, it is still the part of an overall agreement,” Schnur said. “We want to get this signed before midnight Wednesday. But we need the whole package in place before he can sign it.”

Schnur said the retirement bill, and another measure pending to allow counties to reduce general assistance welfare payments by as much as 27%, helped provide the rationale for the governor’s proposed shift of $2.6 billion in property tax revenue from local government to schools.

The so-called mandate relief, he said, was intended to give counties more control of their shrinking budgets.

The tobacco tax proposal floated Monday, although not part of the package, would address the same issue.

Local government reportedly could realize about $300 million annually through the 15-cent per pack tax. But in return, they would have to agree to strict limits on their ability to control smoking, perhaps leading to a state-imposed repeal of anti-smoking ordinances in place.

Several sources said Monday that the proposal had the tacit support of the tobacco industry and of Los Angeles County, which would stand to gain several millions dollars.

Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier) confirmed that he was pushing the tobacco tax legislation. He said it made sense to restrict local government’s regulatory powers at the same time–a goal long sought by the tobacco industry.

“If we’re going to dedicate a revenue source, we have to make sure that the locals cannot circumvent or cut down the revenue source by continuing to impact the sales of cigarettes,” Calderon said.

But anti-smoking activists were out to kill the plan before it could even become an official proposal.

“Everybody wants to do something for (Los Angeles) County, but not under these conditions,” said Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). “This is the most dishonest, diabolical scheme. It’s the worst kind of politics.”

Times staff writer Dan Morain contributed to this report.

State Budget Watch

Less than three days before the end of the fiscal year, these were the key developments in Sacramento:

THE PROBLEM: The state will end the year with a $2.7-billion deficit and faces a $9-billion gap between anticipated tax revenues and the amount needed to pay off the deficit and provide all state services at the current levels for another 12 months.

THE LEGISLATURE: Final legislative approval of the last handful of bills to complete the 1993-94 state budget was making no progress by late afternoon. The Senate met in the morning but recessed without voting on four budget bills, the stickiest of which would suspend the renters tax credit for two years.

GOV. PETE WILSON: Wilson was holding fast to his vow not to sign a new budget until all companion measures are passed by the Legislature.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS: Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) was one of those holding up his approval of legislation reducing the renters tax credit. He was seeking as a condition assurances in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment, to be considered by voters, that the credit would be protected and fully funded in future years.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, ruling that Southern states may no longer be forced to seek federal approval before making changes in their election laws.

The ruling came on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaking for the court.

Roberts said the 1965 law had been a “resounding success” and has ensured that blacks now register and vote at the same rate as whites.

But he said it was no longer fair or rational to subject these states and municipalities to special scrutiny based on a formula that is more than 40 years old.

“States must beseech the federal government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have a right to enact and execute on their own,” he wrote. This conflicts with the principle that all the states enjoy “equal sovereignty” and cannot be subjected to different federal laws, he said.

PHOTOS: 2013’s memorable political moments

“Our country has changed in the last 50 years,” the chief justice said. He said that Congress needs to “speak to current conditions.”

As it currently stand, nine states are covered by the law based on voting data from the 1960s and early 1970s.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with the chief justice.

The decision may have an immediate impact. Texas has been fighting federal courts over its voter ID law and plans to redistrict its congressional districts. Those state actions were halted under the part of the law struck down Tuesday.

The decision leaves open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new formula to target states or municipalities for special scrutiny.

The decision leaves intact the rest of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to adopt or enforce laws that have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. But civil rights advocates say the provision struck down Tuesday was still needed because it stopped discriminatory measures before they could take effect.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for the four dissenters. She said the court had made an “egregious” error by striking down a law that had been extended in 2006 by a near unanimous vote in Congress.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

[email protected]

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest is bigger than at any time since the 1920s — just before the Depression. According to an analysis this year by Edward Wolff of New York University, the top 20% of wealthy individuals own about 85% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% own very near 0%. Many in that bottom 40% not only have no assets, they have negative net wealth.

A gap this pronounced raises the politically divisive question of whether there is a need for wealth redistribution in the United States. This central question underlies such hot-button issues as whether the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire and whether the government should provide more assistance to the poor. But before those issues can be addressed, it’s important to understand how Americans feel about the country’s increasing economic polarity.

We recently asked a representative sample of more than 5,000 Americans (young and old, men and women, rich and poor, liberal and conservative) to answer two questions. They first were asked to estimate the current level of wealth inequality in the United States, and then they were asked about what they saw as an ideal level of wealth inequality.

In our survey, Americans drastically underestimated the current gap between the very rich and the poor. The typical respondent believed that the top 20% of Americans owned 60% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% owned 10%. They knew, in other words, that wealth in the United States was not distributed equally, but were unaware of just how unequal that distribution was.

When we asked respondents to tell us what their ideal distribution of wealth was, things got even more interesting: Americans wanted the top 20% to own just over 30% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% to own about 25%. They still wanted the rich to be richer than the poor, but they wanted the disparity to be much less extreme.

But was there consensus among Americans about their ideal country? Importantly, the answer was an unequivocal “yes.” While liberals and the poor favored slightly more equal distributions than conservatives and the wealthy, a large majority of every group we surveyed — from the poorest to the richest, from the most conservative to the most liberal — agreed that the current level of wealth inequality was too high and wanted a more equitable distribution of wealth. In fact, Americans reported wanting to live in a country that looks more like Sweden than the United States.

So, if Americans say they want a country that is more equal than they believe it to be, and they believe that the country is more equal than it actually is, the question becomes how we lessen these disparities. Our survey didn’t ask what measures people would be willing to support to address the wealth gap. But to achieve the ideal spelled out by those surveyed, about 50% of the total wealth in the United States would have to be taken from the top 20% and distributed to the remaining 80%.

Few people would argue for an immediate redistribution of 50% of the nation’s wealth, and such a move would unquestionably create chaos. In addition, despite the fact that individual Americans give large amounts to charitable causes each year — in effect, a way of transferring wealth from the rich to the poor — the notion of government redistribution raises hackles among many constituencies.

Despite these reservations, our results suggest that policies that increase inequality — those that favor the wealthy, say, or that place a greater burden on the poor — are unlikely to reflect the desires of Americans from across the political and economic spectrum. Rather, they seem to favor policies that involve taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Michael I. Norton is an associate professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School; Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University and the author of “The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home.”

SACRAMENTO — “This is one of the most obscure issues the California voter has ever been asked to decide.”

That was how Fred Main, vice president and general counsel for the California Chamber of Commerce, described Proposition 162 on the Nov. 3 ballot, a measure that would give governing boards of public employees retirement systems more authority and independence.

Obscure though the initiative may be, supporters say it is needed to protect the $70-billion Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) fund and other public employee pension funds from political “raids.”

They cite the deal that allowed Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature to use $1.9 billion in supplemental pension funds to balance the 1991-92 state budget and also to Wilson’s attempt last year to place more gubernatorial appointees on the PERS governing board.

However, opponents argue that the measure does little to prevent raids but instead makes pension fund governing boards more autonomous and less accountable to the Legislature and other elected bodies.

Proposition 162 would change the state Constitution to:

* Give the governing board of a public employee pension fund “sole and exclusive authority” over investment decisions and management of the system.

* Require governing boards to place more emphasis on providing benefits to the system’s participants and less on the costs to taxpayers. The state, using taxpayer funds, makes an annual contribution to PERS.

* Allow the PERS board to hire its own actuaries–experts who calculate the contributions needed to keep the fund sound–instead of using those named by the governor, as state law requires.

* Maintain the present composition of PERS and other public pension fund governing boards.

The measure is supported by the California State Employees Assn., the state School Employees Assn. and other public employee unions. It is opposed by the California Taxpayers Assn., the state Chamber of Commerce and the League of California Cities.

Backers of the initiative raised $1.6 million by Sept. 30, Common Cause reported, while there is no organized financial effort in opposition.

Although there are more than 100 public employee pension systems in the state, most attention is focused on PERS because of last year’s budget maneuvering.

Jeff Raimundo, communications director for Californians for Pension Protection, said giving governing boards sole authority to manage the funds would “keep it away from the Legislature, keep their hands out of the cookie jar.”

Raimundo acknowledged that future governors, Legislatures and PERS governing boards still could reach agreements similar to last year’s $1.9-billion deal but said the Legislature “won’t be able to grab these funds unilaterally. They’ll have to negotiate with the governing board whether this use of the money is in the best interests of the trust fund.”

Ron Roach of the California Taxpayers Assn. said the change would “create a lack of accountability and give public employee pension boards–which often are dominated by public employee unions–control over the amount of taxpayer contributions, which are in fact taxpayer dollars.”

Wilma Krebs, a retired economics professor and a supporter of the initiative, said restoring the PERS board’s right to name its actuaries was important because “if the governor makes the appointment, we feel that spells political control.”

The actuaries study the pension system’s assets and liabilities each year and determine what the state contribution to the fund should be.

Wilson was given the authority, subject to approval by the Legislature, to name the PERS actuaries in legislation passed last year. Wilson’s nominees were approved by the Senate but rejected by the Assembly, and the pension system has continued to use its own actuaries.

“Over time, there could be a big cost to taxpayers” if PERS names the actuaries, Roach said. “The fund is so large that a change in the estimate (of state contributions) by one-half of 1% could mean hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Nov. 25 (UPI) — A coalition of 19 attorneys general and two state governors sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over changes to funding allocations and conditions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that they say threaten thousands of formerly homeless people and families with eviction.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, alleges new restrictions and funding cuts announced by HUD earlier this month to its Continuum of Care program threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people experiencing homelessness, including those with mental disabilities and substance use disorders.

The Democratic-led states allege that the changes have thrown CoC into “chaos” and that HUD was holding congressionally approved funds and vulnerable people hostage.

“Communities across the country depend on Continuum of Care funds to provide housing and other resources to our most vulnerable neighbors,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

“These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night. I will not allow this administration to cut off these funds and put vital housing and support services at risk.”

Founded by Congress in 1987, the CoC program provides states, local governments and nonprofits with funds to provide housing and support services to those experiencing homelessness.

Earlier this month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner criticized the CoC for prioritizing funds for organizations with Housing First policies, which provide housing to individuals without preconditions, such as sobriety or minimum income.

Turner said the policy ran counter to the department’s objective of selecting the most effective and innovative programs, and it would be instituting changes, including requiring that 70% of projects to be selected through competition.

In a statement, HUD said 90% of CoC awards went to support projects with “failed” Housing First ideologies, which the department said “encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental health.”

Changes to be implemented are to increase competition for grants, advance public safety, focus on self-sufficiency, encourage personal accountability and crack down on gender ideology, use of taxpayer dollars on undocumented migrants and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“Our philosophy for addressing the homelessness crisis will now define success not by dollars spent or housing units filled, but by how many people achieve long-term self-sufficiency and recovery,” Turner said.

In their lawsuit, the states allege that the changes mean only 30% of CoC funds may be used for permanent housing, a drop from roughly 90%.

HUD has also revised the scoring system used to grant awards. According to the lawsuit, the previous system encouraged CoCs to address needs of minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, and the new changes arbitrarily disadvantage programs that provide supportive services for mental disabilities and substance use disorder

The policies also bar funding for applicants that acknowledge the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people and penalize homeless-service providers that pursue approaches to homelessness that do not align with the Trump administration.

In total, the changes will threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people with mental disabilities and substance use disorder, the lawsuit states.

“This program has proven to be effective at getting Americans off the streets, yet the Trump administration is now attempting to illegally slash its funding,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Those caring for our unhoused neighbors need the federal government’s continued support. Absent judicial intervention, the Trump administration’s actions would only worsen the homelessness crisis.”

Stocks around the world whipped higher Wednesday, riding a wave of optimism on encouraging data about a possible treatment for COVID-19.

The upswell of hope was so strong that investors completely sidestepped a report showing the coronavirus outbreak drove the U.S. economy to its worst quarterly performance since the Great Recession. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index jumped 2.7%, extending a rally that has brought the U.S. stock market to the brink of its best month in 45 years.

The spark for Wednesday’s rally was a report that an experimental drug proved effective against the coronavirus in a study run by the National Institutes of Health. The nation’s top infectious diseases expert said the drug reduced the time it takes patients to recover, raising hopes that life around the world may eventually tiptoe back toward the way it was before the pandemic.

The S&P 500 index rose 76.12 points to 2,939.51. It has surged 13.7% in April, and it’s a day away from closing out its best month since late 1974.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose 532.31 points, or 2.2%, to 24,633.86. The Nasdaq climbed 306.98 points, or 3.6%, to 8,914.71.

What’s happening now is a “debate between optimism and realism,” said Adam Taback, chief investment officer for Wells Fargo Private Wealth Management.

The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that it expects the health crisis to weigh on the economy “over the medium term,” as it promised to keep in place massive amounts of aid and interest rates at nearly zero. Oil prices, bonds and other markets besides stocks have also been dominated in recent weeks by worries about the economic effects of the virus outbreak.

“Everything except equities is telling you things are not great,” Taback said. “This market is overly optimistic.”

Gilead Sciences’ release about its drug remdesivir hit markets at the same moment as a government report showing that the U.S. economy shrank at a 4.8% annual rate in the first three months of the year.

Job losses have exploded since early April, as layoffs sweep the nation following widespread stay-at-home orders, and economists expect to see even worse numbers for the second quarter of the year.

The first-quarter figure was “merely the tip of the iceberg,” said Michael Reynolds, investment strategy officer at Glenmede.

But stocks have been rallying over the last month as investors look beyond the current economic devastation and focus instead on the prospect of economies gradually reopening. Some U.S. states, as well as some nations around the world, have laid out plans to relax restrictions keeping people at home and businesses bereft of customers. Any new treatment for COVID-19 could also lower the dread so prevalent among households and businesses around the world.

But what got the 31.4% rally for the S&P 500 started in late March was massive aid from the Federal Reserve and Congress. The Fed said Wednesday that it wouldn’t pull back on the aid anytime soon.

The market’s easing pessimism about the economy’s path is perhaps most clear in how the smallest stocks have been performing.

When recession worries were at their height, investors punished small-cap stocks and sent them to sharper declines than the rest of the market, in part on worries about their more limited financial resources. But the Russell 2000 index of small-cap stocks jumped 4.8% on Wednesday. It’s up 10.4% this week alone, more than twice as much as indexes of bigger stocks.

The market’s gains were widespread and accelerated through the day. Big tech and communications stocks helped lead the way after Alphabet, Google’s parent company, said its revenue was stronger in the first three months of the year than Wall Street expected.

Alphabet shares jumped nearly 9%. That helped communications stocks in the S&P 500 rise 5%, one of the biggest gains among the 11 sectors that make up the index.

Gilead Sciences shares climbed 5.7%.

In Europe, the French CAC 40 rose 2.2% after being down before the Gilead report. The German DAX returned 2.9%, and the FTSE 100 in London added 2.6%. In Asia, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng added 0.3%, and the Kospi in Seoul advanced 0.7%.

Many professional investors are skeptical of the U.S. stock market’s big rally. There’s still a lot of uncertainty about how long the recession will last.

Stocks’ vigorous rise over the last month also implies investors see a relatively quick rebound for the economy and profits after the current devastation. But it may take awhile for households and businesses to get back to how things used to be.

“My concern is that the market is starting to get a little bit more focused on the rewards and less focused on the risks right now,” said Sal Bruno, chief investment officer at IndexIQ. “Maybe investors are getting a little too enthusiastic.”

“I don’t think you just flip the switch and everybody goes back to work right away,” he said.

The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury rose to 0.62% from 0.61%. Yields tend to rise when investors are upgrading expectations for the economy and inflation.

Oil prices are continuing their extreme swings after a collapse in demand has sent crude storage tanks close to their limits. Benchmark U.S. crude oil for June delivery jumped $2.72, or 22%, to $15.06 a barrel Wednesday. Brent crude, the international standard, climbed $2.08, or 10.2%, to $22.54 a barrel.

China’s Foreign Ministry said Trump initiated call with Xi Jinping and that communication was crucial for developing stable US-China relations.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has “more or less agreed” to increase purchases of goods from the United States, President Donald Trump said, a day after a phone call between the two leaders was described by Beijing as “positive, friendly and constructive”.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Tuesday evening, Trump said he asked the Chinese leader during the call to accelerate purchases from the US.

“I think we will be pleasantly surprised by the actions of President Xi,” Trump said.

“I asked him, I’d like you to buy it a little faster. I’d like you to buy more. And he’s more or less agreed to do that,” he said.

Trump’s upbeat forecast on trade with China comes after Beijing announced last month that it would resume purchases of US soya beans and would halt expanded curbs on rare earths exports to the US amid detente in the tariff war with Washington.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that China had pledged to buy 12 million metric tonnes of soya beans from US farmers this year, but the Reuters news agency reports that the pace of Chinese purchases had been less than initially expected.

China has so far ordered nearly two million metric tonnes of US soya beans, according to data by the US Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports.

The call on Monday between Trump and Xi comes just weeks after the two leaders met in South Korea, where they agreed to a framework for a trade deal that has yet to be finalised.

“China and the United States once fought side by side against fascism and militarism, and should now work together to safeguard the outcomes of World War II,” Xi was quoted as telling Trump in the call, China’s official Xinhua news agency reports.

Xi also told Trump that “Taiwan’s return to China is an integral part of the post-war international order”.

China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to unite the self-ruled, democratic island with the Chinese mainland.

The US has been traditionally opposed to China’s potential use of force to seize Taiwan and is obligated by a domestic law to provide sufficient military hardware to Taipei to deter any armed attack.

But Trump has maintained strategic ambiguity about whether he would commit US troops in case of a war in the Taiwan Strait, while his administration has urged Taiwan to increase its defence budget.

Trump made no mention of Xi’s comments on Taiwan in a later post on Truth Social, where he spoke of a “very good” call with the Chinese leader, which he said covered many topics, including Ukraine, Fentanyl and US farm products.

“Our relationship with China is extremely strong! This call was a follow up to our highly successful meeting in South Korea, three weeks ago. Since then, there has been significant progress on both sides in keeping our agreements current and accurate,” Trump said.

“Now we can set our sights on the big picture,” he said.

The US leader also said that he had accepted Xi’s invitation to visit Beijing in April, and had invited Xi for a state visit to the US later in the year.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Tuesday that Washington had initiated the call between Trump and Xi, which spokesperson Mao Ning called “positive, friendly and constructive”.

Mao also said that “communication between the two heads of state on issues of common concern is crucial for the stable development of China-US relations”.

Additional reporting by Bonnie Liao.

Reporting from Sacramento — Two of California’s leading candidates for governor say they’re going to end the housing shortage, a driver of the state’s affordability crisis.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa both have said they want developers in California to build a half million homes in a year — something that’s never happened, at least in modern history. And they want builders to do it for seven straight years, resulting in 3.5 million new homes from the time the next governor takes office through 2025.

Those numbers are so out of scale with California’s history that they might be impossible to achieve. Practical concerns, including developers lining up enough financing and construction workers to build so many homes so quickly, could stymie the effort. Meeting the goals could also require rolling back decades of popular state policies on growth, taxation and the environment, according to housing academics and economists.

Without specific plans to transform how housing gets approved in California, said Christopher Thornberg, founding partner of Los Angeles-based consulting firm Beacon Economics, Newsom and Villaraigosa’s promises are empty.

“You’re just saying it,” Thornberg said of the homebuilding goals. “You don’t really mean it.”

Newsom and Villaraigosa said in separate statements to The Times that setting the 3.5-million home goal ensures they’ll be held accountable to whatever needs to be done to attain it.

Here’s why the two candidates’ goals will be so difficult to achieve and how they say they’re going to do it.

How many houses are we actually talking about?

For decades, not enough homes have been built in California to accommodate a growing population, leading to a spike in housing costs. Since 2011, for instance, the Bay Area has added about 627,000 new jobs but only 138,000 homes, according to the Building Industry Assn. of the Bay Area.

Newsom and Villaraigosa’s homebuilding goals would address that problem, but they’re without precedent.

Only twice since 1954 — the year the state building industry began tracking permits — have developers built more than 300,000 homes in a year. The highest year on record is 1963, when 322,018 home permits were issued.

To reach 500,000 homes in a year, the state would need to replicate its largest production in modern history plus an additional 178,000 homes, a number the state has surpassed just three times in the past 27 years.

Overall, the state’s rate of homebuilding would have to triple the historical average, quadruple last year’s production and reach nearly seven times the pace of building in the last decade.

Where do these numbers come from?

The goal of 3.5 million homes originated in a 2016 report on California’s housing problems by the McKinsey Global Institute, a private think tank.

The report found that California ranked 49^th in the country in housing production per capita and estimated the state would need 3.5 million new units through 2025 to build homes at a per capita rate equivalent to New Jersey and New York.

California could achieve that goal, the report said, through a dramatic increase in development near transit, increasing building on parcels already zoned for apartments and condominiums and adding some units to single-family parcels.

But there’s a crucial difference between the McKinsey report and the pledges from Newsom and Villaraigosa. The McKinsey report sets a goal for California to build 3.5 million homes from 2015 through 2025, an 11-year period. The gubernatorial candidates want to do it in only seven years, a period that would begin when the new governor takes office in 2019.

How do they plan to get there?

Housing affordability has emerged as one of the most prominent issues in the gubernatorial campaign, and all major candidates have pledged to address the problem. State Treasurer John Chiang, also a Democrat, has set a goal of having developers build 1.6 million homes for low-income Californians by 2030 through a mix of state bond funding, tax credits and other subsidies.

Newsom and Villaraigosa, however, are the only ones to have set the 3.5-million home goal.

Newsom’s proposal relies on spending hundreds of millions of dollars more on low-income homes, approving some development through regional governments rather than solely at the local level and financially rewarding cities and counties that approve housing, especially near transit, and punishing those that don’t.

Villaraigosa emphasizes sequestering property tax dollars to finance low-income housing, making loans to homeowners who want to build a second unit on their lots and making unspecified changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, the 1970 law that requires developers to analyze and lessen a project’s effect on the environment.

Neither of them, though, have specified how many homes they expect each part of their housing plans to produce to add up to 3.5 million homes. Instead, they contend that simply setting a bold goal will require them to allocate funding and reduce the red tape needed to meet it.

“A crisis of this magnitude requires ambitious goal setting matched with focused leadership and bold, innovative policy initiatives,” Newsom said in a statement responding to questions from The Times. “It requires an affordable housing ‘moonshot.’”

“Housing has to be delivered at the local level, and building consensus is the only way to get there,” Villaraigosa said in a statement. “It comes down to having the courage and experience to lead on this issue, and I am committed to getting it done.”

What would it actually take?

As governor, Newsom or Villaraigosa would have to reshape how housing gets permitted to make the process faster and more likely to result in approval.

Doing so, experts said, could require taking on three of the most substantial barriers to large-scale housing production, all of which have had long enjoyed broad support

Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that restricts property tax increases, which gives cities incentives to approve commercial and hotel development instead of housing because those projects generate more local tax revenues. It has also helped protect homeowners from rising taxes.

— The California Environmental Quality Act, which creates a lengthy process for assessing the effects of new housing and leaves projects vulnerable to litigation. Environmental groups also credit the law with preserving the state’s natural beauty.

— Local control over development decisions. Cities and counties determine what is built in their communities, and desirable coastal locales often prefer restrictions on growth. Los Angeles, for instance, had in 1960 zoned enough housing to accommodate 10 million people, a figure that’s since been reduced to a little over 4 million. Residents like to shape how their neighborhoods look.

Michael Lens, an associate professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA, said the candidates would need to make substantial changes to all three policies, potentially even scrapping them, if they wanted to reach the homebuilding targets.

“You could take away one of those pillars and have a wobblier table of housing resistance,” Lens said. “But [removing] all three would be more useful.”

The housing production goal also could conflict with other promises. Newsom and Villaraigosa support California’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, which require concentrating homes near jobs and transit so people drive less. That means the state couldn’t count on large, single-family developments, such as suburban projects built during an early 2000s surge in production, to meet the 3.5-million home target.

Even if it were politically possible to supercharge housing production, there are practical problems that the candidates would have less control over. After a long period of growth, Gov. Jerry Brown has warned that the state economy should expect a slowdown in the coming years, which could also decelerate development.

In addition, it takes time for builders to secure land and financing, no matter how quickly a government approves blueprints and permits. Changes implemented on the first day of a Newsom or Villaraigosa administration might take years before they’d lead to ribbon cuttings for new homes.

“Depending on the size of the project, the stuff that starts in 2019 might not even come online until somewhere around 2025,” Lens said.

There have to be enough construction workers to build all those homes, too. California contractors already are having trouble finding labor, and that’s before spending ramps up on more than $5 billion annually in road repairs and transit upgrades coming after the Legislature approved a gas tax hike last year, said Peter Tateishi, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of California.

“We don’t see a path to building 500,000 homes in one year on top of all the other infrastructure projects that are on the docket,” Tateishi said.

[email protected]

Twitter: @dillonliam

ALSO

Gov. Brown just signed 15 housing bills. Here’s how they’re supposed to help the affordability crisis

California won’t meet its climate change goals without a lot more housing density in its cities

California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the state’s housing crisis. Here’s why they’ve failed

Updates on California politics

Things are getting complicated. In the same week that a black man clinched the Democratic nomination for president, the current white, Republican vice president was forced to apologize for making a crack that played on the myth that poor white folks like having sex with their cousins.

It probably wouldn’t have been a big deal had Dick Cheney not singled out West Virginia, the bluest of the red states. He was talking about having Cheneys on both sides of his family and, he said, “we don’t even live in West Virginia.” As director John Waters said in 1994, talking trash about “white trash” is “the last racist thing you can say and get away with.” After all, there’s no political action committee for hillbillies. (And no, the National Rifle Assn. doesn’t count.)

It turns out that West Virginia officials did protest the vice president’s remarks. Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd lamented Cheney’s evident “contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen.” But he and other politicians were clearly more offended by the targeting of their state than with the fact that Cheney was propagating the old canard that poor white Southerners were biologically tainted by inbreeding. That a generally humorless vice president would dare make such a joke in an election year shows how acceptable it really is to disparage lower-class whites from the South and beyond. But why?

Think of it this way: If a black politician made fun of poor blacks, or a Latino official made fun of poor Latinos, he’d likely be roundly denounced as a sellout. Indeed, politicians and all other upper-middle-class Latinos and blacks are generally assumed to bear a responsibility to improve the lot of the most downtrodden among them. So why do privileged white people like Cheney have greater license to distance themselves from poor whites? Aren’t they also responsible for helping to lift their brothers and sisters up the socioeconomic ladder?

The term “white trash” seems to have emerged in the 1820s in Baltimore. It was slang, used by both free and enslaved blacks, to put down the poor whites with whom they sometimes found themselves in economic competition. Middle-class and elite whites then borrowed and popularized the term for their own purposes, one of which was to solidify their racial dominance.

That process started with the ideology of black inferiority, which emerged as a justification for slavery, and the concomitant ideology of white supremacy. In pre-Civil War Southern society, the presence of poor, uneducated and uncouth whites presented something of a problem for the advocates of slavery: They were living, breathing proof that whiteness and superiority were not the same.

By the 1850s, poor whites found themselves caught in the debate over slavery. In 1854, abolitionist author Harriet Beecher Stowe argued that “white trash” were the victims and byproducts of slavery, in which the planter class monopolized tillable soil and left poor whites struggling to survive. For their part, pro-slavery advocates retorted that the source of the white underclass was not slavery but the tainted blood that ran through these depraved people’s veins.

In other words, in order to maintain the idea of white supremacy, white elites had to de-racialize their poor — remove them from the group. They were “white” in skin color only. Just as the one-drop rule — which held that any person with any amount of African blood would be considered black — kept the white racial category “pure,” so did the creation and disowning of “inferior” whites. “The term ‘white trash’ gave a name to people who were giving ‘whiteness’ a bad name,” said Matt Wray, a Temple University sociologist and the author of “Not Quite White: White Trash and the Boundaries of Whiteness.” “It meant that they were behaving in ways that didn’t suggest that they were the master race.”

By the turn of the century, eugenicists were studying poor rural whites and documenting their social dysfunctions. They eventually made the fatuous connection between Southern white poverty and “consanguinity,” or shared blood — which meant incest. The accusation stuck, and many poor whites were labeled feeble-minded and became the victims of the forced-sterilization programs that began in the 1920s.

Cheney was probably not fully aware of the whole sordid history he conjured. But his casual joke suggests not only that political correctness does not apply to all groups equally but that there are corrosive, nonracial social divisions in this nation that are easily ignored and even tolerated. For too long, we’ve spoken of social tensions almost exclusively in terms of race. Perhaps the nomination of a black man for president will let that story line fade so that we can finally focus on the ever-present, easy-to-miss issues of class.

McALLEN, Texas — Yaakub Vijandre was preparing to go to work as a mechanic when six vehicles appeared outside his Dallas-area home. Federal agents jumped out, one pointed a weapon at him, and they took him into custody.

Vijandre is a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that has shielded hundreds of thousands of people from deportation since 2012 if they were brought to the United States as children and generally stayed out of trouble. The Trump administration said it targeted Vijandre over social media posts. The freelance videographer and pro-Palestinian activist described his early October arrest to his attorneys, who relayed the information to reporters.

His arrest and several others this year signal a change in how the U.S. is handling DACA recipients as President Trump’s administration reshapes immigration policy more broadly. The change comes as immigrants have face increased vetting, including of their social media, when they apply for visas, green cards, citizenship, or to request the release of their children from federal custody. The administration also has sought to deport foreign students for participating in pro-Palestinian activism.

DACA was created to shield recipients, commonly referred to as “Dreamers,” from immigration arrests and deportation. It also allows them to legally work in the U.S. Recipients reapply every two years. Previously if their status was in jeopardy, they would receive a warning and would still have a chance to fight it before immigration officers detained them and began efforts to deport them.

In response to questions about any changes, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin issued a statement saying that people “who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not automatically protected from deportations. DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country.” DACA recipients can lose status “for a number of reasons, including if they’ve committed a crime,” she said.

McLaughlin also claimed in a statement that Vijandre made social media posts “glorifying terrorism,” including one she said celebrated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. strike in 2006.

An attorney for Vijandre, Chris Godshall-Bennett, said Vijandre’s social media activity is “clearly” protected speech. He also said the government has not provided details about the specific posts in court documents.

Vijandre is among about 20 DACA recipients who have been arrested or detained by immigration authorities since Trump took office in January, according to Home is Here, a campaign created by pro-DACA advocacy groups. The administration is seeking to end his DACA status, which could result in his being deported to the Philippines, a home he has not visited since his family came to the U.S. in 2001, when he was 14.

DACA has faced legal challenges

DACA survived the first Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the program when the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the administration did not take the proper steps to end it.

There have been other attempts to end the program or place restrictions on recipients.

This year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that would deny work permits for DACA recipients who live in Texas. The Trump administration recently presented its plans to a federal judge who is determining how it will work.

The administration also has issued new restrictions on commercial driver’s licenses that would prevent DACA recipients and some other immigrants from getting them. Last year, 19 Republican states stripped DACA recipients’ access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. And the number of states where immigrant students can qualify for in-state tuition has dwindled since the Justice Department began suing states this year.

“This administration might not be trying to end DACA altogether the way that they did the first time around, but they are chipping away at it,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, spokesperson for United We Dream, which is part of Home is Here, the coalition keeping track of public cases of DACA recipients who have been detained.

Detained DACA recipients question their arrests

Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago Santiago, a 28-year-old activist from El Paso, was arrested in August despite showing immigration officers a valid work permit obtained through DACA.

Days later, federal officers arrested Paulo Cesar Gamez Lira as the 28-year-old father was arriving at his El Paso home with his children following a doctor’s appointment. Agents dislocated his shoulder, according to his attorneys.

Both Santiago and Gamez Lira were held for over a month while their attorneys petitioned for their release.

Marisa Ong, an attorney for Santiago and Gamez Lira, said the government failed to notify either of her clients of any intention to terminate their DACA status.

“DACA recipients have a constitutionally protected interest in their continued liberty,” Ong said, adding that “the government cannot take away that liberty without providing some valid reason.”

DACA recipients can lose their status if they are convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanors like those involving harming others, driving under the influence or drug distribution, or three or more misdemeanors. They can also lose their status if they pose a threat to national security or public safety.

DHS claimed in a statement that Santiago was previously charged with trespassing, possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia and that Gamez Lira was previously arrested for marijuana possession.

Ong said that when attorneys sought their release “the government presented no evidence of any past misconduct by either individual.”

Vijandre, the Dallas-area man who was arrested in October, remains in a Georgia detention facility. His attorneys say he received notice two weeks before his arrest that the government planned to terminate his DACA status but that he wasn’t given a chance to fight it.

“I think that the administration has drawn a very clear line and at least for right now, between citizen and noncitizens, and their goal is to remove as many noncitizens from the country as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for noncitizens to enter the country,” Godshall-Bennett, Vijandre’s attorney, said.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Washington — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) is the richest member of Congress, topping an annual ranking with an estimated minimum net worth of $254.7 million — nearly $150 million more than the second-richest lawmaker.

Issa made most of his fortune in the 1990s while leading Directed Electronics Inc., a Vista-based manufacturer of vehicle antitheft devices that he created. His is the voice of the Viper car alarm system, which warns, “Please step away from the car.”

He’s perhaps best known to Californians for bankrolling the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, and also emerged on the national stage as he challenged the Obama administration from his role as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

This is the third straight year Issa earned the top position on the annual Roll Call ranking of lawmakers by minimum net worth. The Los Angeles Times is using the data and for the first time has published a deep dive listing every asset and liability disclosed by the 55 members of the state’s congressional delegation.

HOW MUCH is your member of Congress worth? See the list >>

As much as 95% of Issa’s wealth is in investments, including several high-yield bond accounts potentially worth more than $50 million each and seven high-yield bond funds worth between $25 million and $50 million.

Lawmakers are allowed to use broad ranges to classify assets and liabilities on the annual personal financial disclosure reports. The ranges start at between $1 and $1,000 and top out at $50 million or more, giving an imprecise figure.

That means Issa’s net worth could be much larger than estimated. The $254.7-million figure, calculated by subtracting the minimum value of liabilities from the minimum value of assets disclosed for calendar year 2014, is down from last year’s $357 million. That could be attributed more to how data is reported on the forms than to any actual financial loss.

The form appears to double count his biggest liability, a potentially more than $50-million personal loan. Issa appears to have paid off what he owed Merrill Lynch in September 2014, the same day he borrowed the same amount from UBS.

Issa’s office did not respond to an interview request.

Lawmakers are not required to disclose property owned unless it is earning income, and they also do not need to list their $174,000 annual salaries, putting each and every one of them above the average Californian.

[email protected]

Follow @sarahdwire on Twitter

For more, go to latimes.com/politics.

ALSO:

Meet the poorest man in Congress

Pelosi’s vineyard makes her fourth-richest Californian in Congress

Interactive: How much are they worth?

Democrats ask Obama to fund earthquake early warning system

Central Valley Republicans want immigration reform despite speaker’s promise

Congressional Republicans demand plan for collecting El Niño water

Covering the 55

WASHINGTON — A federal judge’s dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, two political foes of President Trump, won’t be the final word on the matter.

The Justice Department says it plans to immediately appeal a pair of rulings that held that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It also has the ability to try to refile the cases, though whether it can successfully secure fresh indictments through a different prosecutor is unclear, as is whether any new indictments could survive the crush of legal challenges that would invariably follow.

A look at the possible next steps:

What exactly did the rulings say?

At issue is the slapdash way the Trump administration raced to put Halligan in charge of one of the Justice Department’s most elite offices. A White House aide with no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, Halligan was named interim U.S. attorney in September after the veteran prosecutor who held the job, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out amid Trump administration pressure to charge Comey and James.

U.S. attorneys, top federal prosecutors who oversee regional Justice Department outposts across the country, are typically nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, though attorneys general do have the authority to directly appoint interim U.S. attorneys who can serve in the job for 120 days.

But lawyers for Comey and James argued that the law empowers only one such temporary appointment and that, after that, federal judges in the district have say over who fills the vacancy until a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney can be installed.

Since Halligan replaced an interim U.S. attorney who had already served for more than 120 days, the lawyers said, her appointment was invalid and the indictments she secured must be dismissed as a result.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie overwhelmingly agreed. Currie, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to hear the dispute despite serving in South Carolina, not only dismissed the cases but also concluded that Halligan had been serving illegally in her position since the day she was sworn in.

Could the Justice Department appeal?

Yes, and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi indicated that the department would do exactly that.

Any appeal would first be considered by the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but theoretically could go all the way up to the Supreme Court and present a fresh constitutional test about the Justice Department’s appointment authority.

Interestingly, Currie implied that her interpretation of the law might be well-received by at least one current conservative member of the Supreme Court.

In a footnote, she cited a 1986 legal memo from Samuel Alito, then a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that concluded that the Justice Department could not make another temporary appointment after a first 120-day period expired.

Can the cases be filed again?

Since the cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” the Justice Department is clearly able to seek a new indictment against James using a different prosecutor with lawful authority to present to the grand jury.

The question, however, is much trickier in Comey’s case. It’s complicated by the fact that the five-year statute of limitations — or the limited time in which charges can be filed — expired at the end of the September, just days after Halligan raced to present to the grand jury.

Federal law allows prosecutors to return a new indictment within six months of dismissal even after the statute of limitations has passed. But Comey’s lawyers said they will argue the judge’s ruling makes the indictment “void,” and therefore “the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment.”

The judge noted in her ruling that the deadline had passed and suggested that the statute of limitations is not tolled — or paused — in the case of an “invalid indictment.” Quoting from an earlier ruling, the judge wrote that “if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which” to extend the deadline.

Regardless, the Justice Department in either case would have to convince a new grand jury to return new indictments, and that may be harder given the intense publicity around the cases. Widespread media coverage of the allegations and the defense claims of improper conduct by prosecutors could make it more difficult to find grand jurors who can view the cases impartially.

What happens to the other challenges to the indictments?

For now, those arguments are all moot as the Justice Department labors to salvage the indictments.

But in the event prosecutors do succeed in getting new indictments, they’ll likely have to fend off some of the same challenges that Comey and James had already raised and that remain pending as of Monday’s rulings.

Comey is charged with lying to Congress about whether he authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source for the news media. James was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in Norfolk, Va., in 2020.

Both have pleaded not guilty and had urged judges to throw out their indictments on grounds that the prosecutions were illegally vindictive and emblematic of a Justice Department that’s been weaponized to pursue the president’s adversaries. Those arguments would presumably be revived in the event of any new indictments.

Comey, for his part, has challenged a series of irregularities in Halligan’s presentation to the grand jury after a different judge who reviewed a record of the proceedings said he had identified a series of flaws — including the fact that the prosecutor apparently suggested to the panel that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right to not testify at trial.

He has also said that the testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee that underpins his criminal case was truthful and that, in any event, the question he was responding to was so vague and ambiguous as to make a false statement prosecution a legal impossibility.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

MOSCOW — Speaker of the House Jim Wright, winding up a weeklong visit to the Soviet Union, said Saturday that he will advise President Reagan that the United States has its best chance in 50 years to make an acceptable agreement with the Kremlin to reduce nuclear arms.

Wright (D-Tex.), who headed a delegation of 20 members of the House of Representatives, made the statement at a news conference.

Later, in a rare address on Soviet television, he declared that the United States and the Soviet Union are each spending nearly $300 billion a year for military purposes.

“What waste that is for both of us when human wants go unmet in both our countries,” he said. “We do have a common enemy–and the enemy is war itself.”

Wright gave highly favorable appraisals of Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev and Yegor K. Ligachev, considered the second most powerful member of the ruling Politburo, both of whom met with the congressional delegation last week.

“We believe they have been frank and honest and open with us,” he told reporters. “We think this moment in history presents the best opportunity we have had in the past 50 years to produce an agreement, mutual and verifiable, on reduction of arms . . . .”

‘An Acceptable Number’

Wright said later that he got “a feeling” after talks with Gorbachev that an agreement could be reached to remove medium-range nuclear missiles from Europe and reduce shorter-range missiles (those with a range of 350 to 1,000 miles) to “an acceptable number” deployed in Europe by the Soviets and the United States.

Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee in the House and ranking GOP member of the delegation, also said prospects are bright for agreement on removing medium-range missiles from Europe.

“We’re close to agreement . . . and should be able to resolve the differences in the next few months,” Cheney said.

Wright and Cheney both said that they pressed hard on human rights issues during their private discussions with Soviet leaders.

“We suggested, for example, that the Soviet Union conduct a re-examination of people refused (an exit visa) for having knowledge of secrets,” Wright said.

Many refuseniks have been barred from emigrating on grounds that they were exposed to state secrets as long as 30 years ago. Wright said that Gorbachev has, in the past, suggested that the visa barrier should not apply for more than five or 10 years after exposure to secret information.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Soviet refusal to give exit visas to Soviet spouses of Americans is undermining efforts to achieve accords in other areas.

Bogota, Colombia – Santiago Uribe, the brother of former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, has been sentenced to 28 years and three months in prison for aggravated homicide and conspiracy to commit a crime while leading a paramilitary group.

In Tuesday’s verdict, a three-judge panel in the northwestern province of Antioquia ruled that, in the early 1990s, Uribe “formed and led an illegal armed group”.

Under Uribe’s leadership, the group allegedly “carried out a plan to systematically murder and exterminate people considered undesirable”.

Uribe has denied having any associations with paramilitary groups. His defence team plans to appeal.

The ruling reverses a lower court’s acquittal last year. The case will now pass to Colombia’s Supreme Court for a final verdict.

The conviction is the latest twist in a longstanding criminal investigation into the Uribe family and its alleged paramilitary ties.

Critics have accused Uribe and his brother, the former president, of maintaining ties to groups involved in grave human rights abuses during Colombia’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

Tuesday’s conviction relates to activities that took place on and around the Uribe family’s La Carolina cattle ranch, located in Antioquia.

In its 307-page ruling, the court detailed how the ranch was used as a base for The 12 Apostles, a far-right paramilitary group formed by ranchers in the early 1990s to combat leftist rebels, notably the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The court described The 12 Apostles as a “death squad”, saying it performed “social cleansing” by killing “undesirables” including sex workers, drug users, people with mental illnesses and suspected leftist sympathisers.

Not only did the paramilitary group hold meetings at La Carolina, but training and weapons distribution were also carried out on site, according to the ruling.

Those were “acts with which crimes against humanity were committed”, the judges wrote.

Describing Uribe as the leader of The 12 Apostles, the court found him responsible for ordering the murder of Camilo Barrientos, a bus driver who was shot near La Carolina in 1994 for being a suspected rebel collaborator.

Tuesday’s ruling also highlighted collusion between paramilitaries and state security forces, saying the militia “enjoyed the cooperation, through action and inaction, of agents of the State”.

Uribe was first investigated for his involvement with The 12 Apostles in the late 1990s, but the investigation was dropped in 1999 due to a lack of evidence.

Colombian authorities resumed their investigation in 2010, detaining Uribe in 2016 on charges of homicide.

While the trial ended in 2020, the lower court announced its verdict years later, in November 2024. The judge overseeing the case at the time, Jaime Herrera Nino, ruled there was insufficient evidence and acquitted Uribe.

Tuesday’s decision overturns that verdict. Human rights advocates applauded the ruling as a step towards accountability, even at the highest levels of power.

“The sentence is extremely important,” said Laura Bonilla, a deputy director at Colombia’s Peace and Reconciliation Foundation (Pares). “It shows the level of penetration that paramilitarism had in Colombian society.”

Gerson Arias, a conflict and security investigator at the Ideas for Peace Foundation, a Colombian think tank, said the complexity of the case reflects the power structures involved.

“Paramilitarism was deeply rooted in the upper echelons of society, and therefore clarifying what happened takes years,” he said.

“It is therefore likely that many of the collective things we know about paramilitarism are still pending resolution and discovery.”

The defendant’s brother, former President Alvaro Uribe, led Colombia from 2002 to 2010.

The ex-president himself was found guilty earlier this year of bribing former paramilitary members not to testify to his involvement with them.

The ruling was overturned in October, after a court ruled the evidence was gathered through an unlawful wiretap. It also cited “structural deficiencies” in the prosecution’s arguments.

The former president remains a powerful figure in right-wing politics in Colombia, and he has pledged to form a coalition to oppose a left-wing government in the 2026 elections.

“I feel deep pain over the sentence against my brother. May God help him,” the ex-president wrote on the social media platform X following Tuesday’s ruling.

WASHINGTON — House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich, in line to become the next Speaker of the House, dismissed as a “nonsense issue” allegations that his political action committee improperly developed and financed a college course he taught last year.

Gingrich confirmed Saturday that the House Ethics Committee is examining questions about whether the course was educational or constituted political activity aimed at helping GOP candidates. The panel is to hold a hearing on the issue Nov. 29.

“This is the most bizarre thing I’ve been involved in in my career,” Gingrich said on CNN’s “Evans & Novak.” But he said his political action committee, GOPAC, did offer “ideas” on the initial financing of the course.

“In order to make the course available on television and . . . on video takes a fairly large amount of financing,” Gingrich said.

“Now, GOPAC provided some initial ideas on who might be interested in financing the course; that’s all they did.”

Gingrich first offered the course at Kennesaw College, a publicly funded school in his Georgia congressional district.

But he said the state Board of Regents acted to “drive me out” by ruling that elected officials were ineligible to teach at state-funded institutions.

Donors who contributed funds for the course were able to take tax deductions because the money went to the college’s educational foundation, which is forbidden to engage in partisan political activity.

Gingrich has said previously that the aim of the course was to offer intellectual underpinnings for a conservative drive to demolish Great Society social welfare programs and that “liberal” ideas opposed to that course were not welcome.

He asserted that while no nonprofit foundation can contribute to GOPAC or any other political action committee, “there’s nothing at all illegal or inappropriate about any political organization” helping such a foundation.

The original allegations were filed with the ethics committee by Democrat Ben Jones, whom Gingrich defeated in last Tuesday’s election.

“The fact is that every lawyer we’ve talked to says it is a nonsense issue,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich led the Republican drive that led to the resignation in 1989 of then-House Speaker Jim Wright on ethics charges, and he asserted that has inspired politically motivated attacks against him ever since.

Gingrich’s 10-week course, entitled “Renewing American Civilization,” was made available to Republican groups and a few other college campuses by satellite relay. Gingrich now teaches it at Reinhardt College, a private school in Waleska, Ga.

In his complaint, Jones said the Gingrich political action committee raised more than $300,000 to finance and distribute the course, which he said violates House rules.

Twenty-six corporations and individual citizens gave more than $300,000 to pay for the project, with large donors given a chance to help develop the content of the course.

Jones asserted that most of the contributors were simply trying to find a way to further help Gingrich financially.

“The fact they found a way to make their contribution tax-deductible only sweetened the pot,” he said.

Reporting from Washington — As they wrestle with how to replace the Affordable Care Act, Senate Republicans face a critical choice between cutting taxes or preserving health coverage for millions of Americans, two competing demands that may yet derail the GOP push to roll back the 2010 healthcare law.

House Republicans, who passed their own Obamacare repeal measure this month, skirted the dilemma by cutting both taxes and coverage.

Their bill — embraced by President Trump — slashed hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes, a key goal of GOP leaders and the White House as they seek to set the stage for a larger tax overhaul later this year.

At the same time, the House legislation cut more than $1 trillion in healthcare assistance to low- and moderate-income Americans, a retrenchment the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would nearly double the ranks of the uninsured over the next decade to more than 50 million.

In the Senate, coverage losses on that scale are worrisome to many rank-and-file Republicans whose states have seen major coverage gains under Obamacare. That makes the preservation of benefits one of the biggest challenges confronting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP leaders.

“Coverage matters,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said last week on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, noting the importance of preserving Medicaid spending in the current law. “To someone [who] is lower-income, you’re going to need those dollars to cover that person.”

Yet moderating cuts to Medicaid and other government health programs without driving up budget deficits could force Republican senators to also dial back the tax cuts that many in the GOP want.

“It’s not that complicated. … If you want to use money for tax reform, you can’t have it for health coverage,” said Gail Wilensky, a veteran Republican health policy expert who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush. “You can’t do both.”

McConnell convened a group of GOP senators — quickly panned for including only white men — to develop Obamacare replacement legislation, though the panel largely excluded Republican lawmakers who are most concerned about coverage, including Cassidy. McConnell has since said that all Senate Republicans would be involved in developing an Obamacare replacement.

The trade-off between cutting taxes and preserving Americans’ health protections reflects, in part, the legislative procedure that congressional Republicans have chosen to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

That process, known as budget reconciliation, allows Senate Republicans to pass their Obamacare repeal with a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote super-majority that is usually required to pass controversial legislation. (Republicans have only a 52-48 majority in the Senate.)

But to qualify for budget reconciliation under Senate rules, the bill must reduce the federal deficit over the next decade.

Tax cuts alone typically do the opposite, driving up budget deficits.

The tax cuts in the House Republican healthcare bill total more than $600 billion over the next decade, according to independent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

They include most of the major taxes enacted in the 2010 health law to fund the law’s program for extending health insurance to more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans.

On the chopping block are taxes on medical device makers and health insurance plans, which together account for about $165 billion in tax cuts over the next decade.

Couples making more than $250,000 a year (and single taxpayers making more than $200,000) would see two tax cuts, including one on investment income, that the budget office estimated would cost the federal government nearly $300 billion over the next decade. (That estimate may be revised down as House Republicans delayed one of the tax cuts in the final version of their bill.)

Also eliminated would be a host of limits on tax-free spending accounts that many Americans use for medical expenses. Republicans argue these taxes are unnecessary and even undermine efforts to control healthcare costs.

“It’s bad for economic growth,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) told Fox News during the House debate.

The tax on health plans, for example, is widely seen as contributing to higher premiums, as insurers customarily pass the costs along to consumers.

But eliminating so many taxes isn’t cheap.

So the Republican healthcare bill — known as the American Health Care Act — slashes hundreds of billions of dollars in federal healthcare spending, including an estimated $880 billion in federal money for Medicaid, the state-run government health plan for the poor that currently covers more than 70 million Americans at any one time.

That would in effect cut federal Medicaid spending by more than a quarter over the next decade, an unprecedented reduction that independent analyses suggest would force states to sharply limit coverage for poor patients.

The House bill would also reduce insurance subsidies now available to low- and moderate-income Americans who get health plans through Obamacare marketplaces such as HealthCare.gov.

The reduction in federal aid would, in turn, dramatically increase the number of uninsured Americans. Overall, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 24 million fewer people would have health coverage by 2026 under the original version of the House bill.

By contrast, the wealthiest Americans stand to get a large tax break. By 2023, families making more than $1 million would see their taxes decrease by an average of more than $50,000, an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center suggests.

That means that in a country of more than 300 million people, nearly half of all the tax breaks in the House healthcare bill would go to only about 780,000 households.

The combination of tax breaks for wealthy Americans and historic reductions in assistance to low-income patients has fueled widespread criticism of the House GOP healthcare legislation, particularly on the left.

“The math is pretty clear,” said Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “They are sharply cutting Medicaid and insurance subsidies to pay for tax cuts.”

Whether GOP senators will be able to moderate the reductions in healthcare assistance remains unclear.

The early version of the House bill was projected to reduce the federal deficit by about $150 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis.

That number has likely shrunk slightly, as House Republicans added more spending to the legislation before it passed last week. An updated budget analysis is expected next week.

But under the budget rules adopted by GOP lawmakers this year, Senate Republicans will not be able to add any spending into their legislation without enacting cuts elsewhere or shrinking the tax cuts further.

That is because according to those rules, their bill must reduce the deficit by as least as much as the House bill.

Obamacare vs. Trumpcare: A side-by-side comparison of the Affordable Care Act and the GOP’s replacement plan »

Obamacare 101: A primer on key issues in the debate over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. »

[email protected]

@noamlevey

President Donald Trump pardoned Thanksgiving turkeys Gobble and Waddle — joking he nearly named them after Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer — while also taking swipes at Joe Biden, stating last year’s turkey pardons were “invalid” because Biden used an autopen to sign them.

Nov. 25 (UPI) — A diplomatic controversy with the United States spilled into Chile’s presidential campaign after the new U.S. ambassador, Brandon Judd, used his first public appearance to level sharp criticism at President Gabriel Boric, prompting a formal protest from the government.

During his initial press conference, Judd directly accused the Chilean president of “damaging the bilateral relationship” and undermining investment and strategic cooperation with the United States.

He said he was “disappointed” by Boric’s criticism of President Donald Trump‘s environmental policy and argued that such remarks “harm the Chilean people.”

He also made an explicit reference to the election, saying that “with governments that are ideologically aligned, it will be easier to work,” a comment widely interpreted as support for far-right candidate José Antonio Kast.

The government of Gabriel Boric responded with a formal note of protest.

Foreign Minister Alberto van Klaveren called the ambassador’s remarks “inappropriate and unfortunate” and said his comments on the political process “amount to interference in our country’s internal affairs,” a message delivered to the U.S. Embassy’s chargé d’affaires.

Regarding the issue, left-wing candidate Jeannette Jara said, “Chile doesn’t need any granddaddy looking after it, and that goes for the Americans, as well as any other country,” Emol reported.

She added that her government would maintain good relations with everyone, but expects “Chile’s sovereignty to be respected, as well.”

Right-wing candidate Kast questioned Judd’s intervention, but focused his criticism on the Chilean government.

“Every time our president leaves Chile, he creates a conflict with some foreign country,” he said. He then directed a message at the administration.

“Spend your time solving problems with other governments instead of sending protest notes,” Kast said.

In the hours that followed, the issue moved into Congress.

Opposition lawmakers urged Boric to receive the new ambassador’s credentials before the end of the month, arguing that the ceremony signals seriousness, stability and a normalization of the bilateral relationship to investors and partners.

The president of the Communist Party, Lautaro Carmona, accused the ambassador of interfering in the election by “indicating that one candidate would be better than another for the United States.”

At the center of the dispute are Chile’s regulatory rules.

Judd has argued that Chilean bureaucracy is delaying U.S. projects ready to invest, linking the political climate to the business environment and the need for clear timelines.

That narrative has seeped into the campaign, where credentials, protocol and signals to investors have become points of dispute and tools for political positioning before the electorate.

Chile’s presidential runoff will be held Dec. 14. Polls show Kast with a wide lead.