program

WASHINGTON — It has been four months since Elon Musk, President Trump’s bureaucratic demolition man, abandoned Washington in a flurry of recriminations and chaos.

But the Trump administration’s crusade to dismantle much of the federal government never ended. It’s merely under new management: the less colorful but more methodical Russell Vought, director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.

Vought has become the backroom architect of Trump’s aggressive strategy — slashing the federal workforce, freezing billions in congressionally approved spending in actions his critics often call illegal.

Now Vought has proposed using the current government shutdown as an opportunity to fire thousands of bureaucrats permanently instead of merely furloughing them temporarily. If any do return to work, he has suggested that the government need not give them back pay — contrary to a law Trump signed in 2019.

Those threats may prove merely to be pressure tactics as Trump tries to persuade Democrats to accept spending cuts on Medicaid, Obamacare and other programs.

But the shutdown battle is the current phase of a much larger one. Vought’s long-term goals, he says, are to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” and “deconstruct the administrative state.”

He’s still only partway done.

“I’d estimate that Vought has implemented maybe 10% or 15% of his program,” said Donald F. Kettl, former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland. “There may be as much as 90% to go. If this were a baseball game, we’d be in the top of the second inning.”

Along the way, Vought (pronounced “vote”) has chipped relentlessly at Congress’ ability to control the use of federal funds, massively expanding the power of the president.

“He has waged the most serious attack on separation of powers in American history,” said Elaine Kamarck, an expert on federal management at the Brookings Institution.

He’s done that mainly by using OMB, the White House office that oversees spending, to control the day-to-day purse strings of federal agencies — and deliberately keeping Congress in the dark along the way.

“If Congress has given us authority that is too broad, then we’re going to use that authority aggressively,” Vought said last month.

Federal judges have ruled some of the administration’s actions illegal, but they have allowed others to stand. Vought’s proposal to use the shutdown to fire thousands of bureaucrats hasn’t been tested in court.

Vought developed his aggressive approach during two decades as a conservative budget expert, culminating in his appointment as director of OMB in Trump’s first term.

In 2019, he stretched the limits of presidential power by helping Trump get around a congressional ban on funding for a border wall, by declaring an emergency and transferring military funds. He froze congressionally mandated aid for Ukraine, the action that led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Even so, Vought complained that Trump had been needlessly restrained by cautious first-term aides.

“The lawyers come in and say, ‘It’s not legal. You can’t do that,’” he said in 2023. “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office over whether something is legal.”

Vought is a proponent of the “unitary executive” theory, the argument that the president should have unfettered control over every tentacle of the executive branch, including independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve.

When Congress designates money for federal programs, he has argued, “It’s a ceiling. It is not a floor. It’s not the notion that you have to spend every dollar.”

Most legal experts disagree; a 1974 law prohibits the president from unilaterally withholding money Congress has appropriated.

Vought told conservative activists in 2023 that if Trump returned to power, he would deliberately seek to inflict “trauma” on federal employees.

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work.”

When Vought returned to OMB for Trump’s second term, he appeared to be in Musk’s shadow. But once the flamboyant Tesla chief executive flamed out, the OMB director got to work to make DOGE’s work the foundation for lasting changes.

He extended many of DOGE’s funding cuts by slowing down OMB’s approval of disbursements — turning them into de facto freezes.

He helped persuade Republicans in Congress to cancel $9 billion in previously approved foreign aid and public broadcasting support, a process known as “rescission.”

To cancel an additional $4.9 billion, he revived a rarely used gambit called a “pocket rescission,” freezing the funds until they expired.

Along the way, he quietly stopped providing Congress with information on spending, leaving legislators in the dark on whether programs were being axed.

DOGE and OMB eliminated jobs so quickly that the federal government stopped publishing its ongoing tally of federal employees. (Any number would only be approximate; some layoffs are tied up in court, and thousands of employees who opted for voluntary retirement are technically still on the payroll.)

The result was a significant erosion of Congress’ “power of the purse,” which has historically included not only approving money but also monitoring how it was spent.

Even some Republican members of Congress seethed. “They would like a blank check … and I don’t think that’s appropriate,” said former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

But the GOP majorities in both the House and Senate, pleased to see spending cut by any means, let Vought have his way. Even McConnell voted to approve the $9-billion rescission request.

Vought’s newest innovation, the mid-shutdown layoffs, would be another big step toward reducing Congress’ role.

“The result would be a dramatic, instantaneous shift in the separation of powers,” Kettl said. “The Trump team could kill programs unilaterally without the inconvenience of going to Congress.”

Some of the consequences could be catastrophic, Kettl and other scholars warned. Kamarck calls them “time bombs.”

“One or more of these decisions is going to blow up in Trump’s face,” she said.

“FEMA won’t be capable of reacting to the next hurricane. The National Weather Service won’t have the forecasters it needs to analyze the data from weather balloons.”

Even before the government shutdown, she noted, the FAA was grappling with a shortage of air traffic controllers. This week the FAA slowed takeoffs at several airports in response to growing shortages, including at air traffic control centers in Atlanta, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.

In theory, a future Congress could undo many of Vought’s actions, especially if Democrats win control of the House or, less likely, the Senate.

But rebuilding agencies that have been radically shrunken would take much longer than cutting them down, the scholars said.

“Much of this will be difficult to reverse when Democrats come back into fashion,” Kamarck said.

Indeed, that’s part of Vought’s plan.

“We want to make sure that the bureaucracy can’t reconstitute itself later in future administrations,” he said in April in a podcast with Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who was slain on Sept. 10.

He’s pleased with the progress he’s made, he told reporters in July.

“We’re having fun,” he said.

You have to look long and hard for stability and continuity in this era of transfer mania, but Beaumont football coach Jeff Steinberg is proud to point out that 26 of his 27 players in the starting rotation have been at Beaumont since their freshman seasons. The only one that didn’t came as a sophomore.

That kind of loyalty and confidence in a program produces community pride and helps build community support every time Beaumont plays.

The team is 5-1 and is favored to win the Citrus Belt League and be a factor in the Southern Section Division 2 playoffs.

Linebacker Matt Casas is a tackling machine with 52 tackles. Beaumont owns wins over Cathedral and Chaminade. Its only loss was 21-14 to Vista Murrieta.

Imagine how many fans from the Beaumont area will show up to playoff games. Can you say sellout?

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email [email protected].

Right above the shores of Huntington Beach, a retired American subsonic T-33 fighter jet darted across the blue canvas of a clear afternoon sky, leaving a spiraling plume of smoke in its wake.

The aeronautical scene is a familiar sight in the coastal city this time of year. The Pacific Airshow, an annual three-day civilian and military aerobatic display that touts advanced maneuvers and aerial military might, has drawn thousands of aviation enthusiasts to Huntington Beach and the Australian Gold Coast since its inception in 2016.

Janet Cardena, who has attended every Pacific Airshow, said experiencing the raw physical power of the planes keeps her coming back.

“I’m down by the water and I feel the jets while they do their flyover, and the rumble — your body shakes like a building when there’s an earthquake,” Cardena said. “Then the smell of the gas. …It’s amazing for me.”

However, this year, there was a notable force of nature and technology missing from the spectacle.

Due to the congressional deadlock over the budget and subsequent federal shutdown, the U.S. military — perhaps the most prominent Pacific Airshow draw — would not be in attendance over the October 3-5 weekend.

“We have been advised that U.S. military assets will not be able to participate in this year’s event,” Airshow Director Kevin Elliott said in a statement. “While this is certainly disappointing news, we are excited to share that Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach will continue as scheduled.”

To some, the sky might as well have fallen.

“When we’re trying to bring our kids out here to have fun, and I’m like, ‘well, sorry, no Marine Corps planes,’ it’s pretty disappointing,” said Ryan, a former Marine who chose not to share his last name out of privacy concerns. “I was in the invasion of Iraq, and so we had a lot of fixed wings coming over, dropping bombs, so I tend to get kind of emotional.”

The Pacific Airshow has had its fair share of hitches before — many outside of organizer’s control. Last year, viewers were subject to a thick marine layer that clouded the skies and nearly obstructed the view of the few planes that still went up. In 2021, an oil spill off the coast of Huntington Beach forced a cancellation of the last day of the weekend.

This year, the show went on, though without what many believe is the main attraction. There was still a beachful of attendees, staring at the sky in anxious anticipation of the intestine-rattling blast of plane engines from not-so-far above.

The British Royal Air Force and Canadian Armed Forces acted as substitutes for the U.S. Air Force, some members of which strolled around the event uniformed and at booths hosting pull-up challenges and recruitment efforts near the food vendors.

“That’s one thing I do miss, is the scene where the F-35s and the Thunderbirds play,” said Janet Kondos, an Air Force veteran. “It is what it is, they got to do what they have to do.”

Royal Air Force paratroopers drew a grand applause after a coordinated display of parachute work that saw them float down to the shores. After a Red Bull aerobatic helicopter improbably flipped over its rotor and pulled itself out of a dive at the last second, a group of children near the shore started imitating the maneuver in somersaults.

Emma McDonald, an Australian pilot who flew a petite Extra 300L aerobatics plane, darted directly into the sky at a near-90-degree angle about midway through the program, which caused the audience to hold their collective breath as the aircraft plateaued. McDonald yanked the plane from an upright position and tumbled over into a glide, drawing gasps that transformed into cheers.

“That’s it!” one attendee shouted. “Keep it up!”

Although there was little American military spirit in the sky, the patriotic spirit on the ground was indelible, reminiscent of a Fourth of July celebration. Children ran and played in the water, couples with full beach setups caught a slight buzz in the sweltering heat and American flags decorated the sands like a planet conquered.

“We did the Miramar Air Show before and they had a whole Marine Corps infantry display where they get off the helicopters and then they do the whole attack,” Ryan said. “It would be pretty cool with our equipment here, as opposed to the Royal Air Force.”

Despite not having the most current U.S. fleets, crowds were still privy to a history lesson in American aviationthroughout the program. A World War II B-29 Superfortress, a B-25 Mitchell bomber and Vietnam-era Grumman Albatross all made impressionable appearances.

To some, the opportunity to be so close to some of the crowning achievements in aeronautics was personal.

“Out of all the dreams that I had as a kid, that’s the one thing I wanted to do, like I want to fly an Apache, I wanted to fly a jet,” said Cardena. “But growing up, there weren’t women that were pilots and so this is as good as it gets for me — this is as close as I can get to them.”

Cardena still found herself slightly disappointed with the consequences of a federal shutdown. She had looked forward to seeing the planes and helicopters she grew up wishing she could fly, but unfortunately, it was not her year.

As Cardena reflected, a Royal Air Force C-17 temporarily blotted out the sun and covered the beachgoers with a gargantuan shadow as it passed over Huntington.

President Clinton’s Mexican financial rescue package, which once looked so solid that it even had the support of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and other leading Republicans, is in trouble. It’s stalled in a House committee, and Gingrich is warning that it could be defeated if it is brought to a vote too quickly.

Everyone is blaming somebody else for this impasse. Gingrich faults Clinton for poor leadership of balky Democrats. White House spokesmen ask why Dole and Gingrich can’t keep the Republicans in line.

In fact, both sides share the blame. They clearly underestimated the ability of demagogues like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan to turn the Mexican loan guarantees into a symbolic issue. By railing against the proposal as a “bailout” of Wall Street and corrupt Mexican officials, these demagogues play to popular prejudices against both Mexico and big business.

So saving the Mexican loan guarantees won’t be easy, but it’s important that it be done. If you think that problems like illegal immigration are bad now, wait and see how tough things will get along our southern border if the Mexican economy goes into the tank for a decade rather than the couple of years most experts estimate it will take Mexico to recover if the loan guarantees are approved.

What could the White House offer skeptics in Congress to sell the loan guarantees? How about a plan to end illegal immigration on the Mexican border?

It wouldn’t be easy, of course, but control of our southern border can be achieved over time, and with the cooperation of the Mexican government. But it would not be done in the way envisioned by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and other members of Congress who are demanding that Mexico send more police to the border to stop emigration in exchange for the loan guarantees. That would be politically unpalatable in Mexico.

But controlling illegal immigration could be done if we negotiated an agreement with the Mexican government that would open U.S. borders to a flow of Mexican workers, as long as they register with the appropriate authorities and agree to leave once they are done working here. Their return could be guaranteed by withholding part of their pay, say 25%, until they are back home.

This idea will sound familiar to anyone who has studied the history of the Mexican border. It’s an updated version of the bracero program, which brought Mexicans into this country to meet the farm labor shortage during World War II; more than 4 1/2 million had been admitted legally by the time the program ended in 1964.

There were, unfortunately, many abuses in the bracero program. Corrupt officials on the Mexican side gave preference to workers who paid them bribes. And some U.S. farmers treated Mexican workers little better than slaves, paying low wages and forcing them to live and work under miserable conditions. Such abuses would have to be avoided this time around, but that could be more easily done than in the past. For one thing, even the poorest Mexican peasant is much more sophisticated about his labor rights nowadays. The Mexican government is also more sophisticated, and has experts in think tanks like Tijuana’s Colegio de la Frontera Norte who have been researching the flow of Mexican migrants for years and could advise both Washington and Mexico City on how to set up a viable guest-worker program. And, with all the focus on immigration issues in the United States these days, the news media and Latino activists would surely raise a hue and cry over any abuses that did creep in.

In fact, the only real roadblock one can imagine to such a reasonable proposal might come from some of the more ardent immigration restrictionists in this country. But, if arrest statistics are any indication, 50% to 60% of the illegal immigrants they keep screaming about are Mexican. So if they are legalized, we eliminate half of the “illegal alien problem” in one fell swoop.

Such a program might even find such unlikely champions as Harold Ezell, a former immigration official and co-author of Proposition 187, and Gov. Pete Wilson, its biggest champion. Both have suggested a guest-worker program as a means of meeting any labor shortages that can’t be filled by U.S. workers.

Let’s face it, Mexican workers are going to keep coming here despite Proposition 187 and other anti-immigrant measures, because jobs are waiting for them in certain sectors of the U.S. economy, like agriculture and light manufacturing. So why not put aside any pretense that we don’t want them and cut a deal with Mexico that will benefit both countries?

Oct. 2 (UPI) — The United States is blacklisting 44 individuals and firms accused of being involved in Iran’s nuclear program and weapons procurement network, as the Trump administration continues to increase its so-called maximum pressure strategy on Tehran.

The sanctions were announced by the U.S. State and Treasury departments on Wednesday, days after the restoration of United Nations sanctions and other punitive measures on Iran.

Among sanctions announced Wednesday, the State Department hit five individuals and one entity connected to Iran’s Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, the successor of Iran’s pre-2004 nuclear program and originally sanctioned by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2014.

Known by the initials SPND, the Tehran-based entity, founded in February 2011, is responsible for nuclear weapons development research.

The State Department said it blacklisted Reza Mozaffarinia, director of SPND, Ali Fuladvand, head of the Research Directorate at SPND, and Mohammad Reza Ghadir Zare Zaghalchi, longtime SPND-affiliated official and head of U.S.-designated Shahid Fakhar Moghaddam Group.

Andisheh Damavand International Technologies was also blacklisted for facilitating the travel of Iranian nuclear experts to Russia to pursue sensitive duel-use technologies as was its CEO, Ali Kalvand.

The sanctions comes after the State Department blacklisted three Iranian officials and one entity linked to SPND in May.

Coinciding with the State Department action was the Treasury designating 21 entities and 17 individuals accused of facilitating the acquisition of “sensitive goods and technology” for Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces, it said.

“The Iranian regime’s support of terrorist proxies and its pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the security of the Middle East, the United States and our allies around the world,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

Among those targeted Wednesday were individuals accused of being part of a network operating out of Iran, Germany, Turkey, Portugal and Uruguay that was procuring military aircraft equipment for Tehran, including U.S.-manufactured helicopters.

The Treasury said its sanctions were part of President Donald Trump‘s February memorandum reinstating the maximum pressure campaign of his first administration.

In 2018, Trump unilaterally pulled the United States from an Obama-era accord, which aimed to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon. Calling the multinational joint Comprehension Plan of Action “defective at its core,” he then reinstated sanctions against Iran in hopes of coercing it back to the negotiation table on a new deal.

Instead, the reclusive regime advanced its nuclear program.

The United Nations last week reinstated sanctions under a so-called snapback mechanism that had been terminated when the JCPOA was implemented in 2016, and which Trump had sought to have reimpose since 2018.

The U.S. State Department said Wednesday’s sanctions were in support of those “snapback” punitive measures.

“The United States is committed to denying Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.

“We will not hesitate to hold accountable anyone who supports Tehran’s proliferation activities.”

WASHINGTON — For the first time in four years, the federal government plans to begin processing initial applications for DACA, the Obama-era program that grants deportation protection and work permits to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

The move, outlined in a proposal Monday by the Justice Department, would reopen DACA to first-time applicants in every state except Texas. The proposal was filed in response to an ongoing lawsuit in U.S. district court in Brownsville, Tex.

According to the filing, Texas residents who already have DACA could continue receiving protection from deportation but would no longer qualify for employment authorization.

Lawsuits over DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, have been ongoing since President Trump moved to end the program during his first term.

Under the government’s proposal, DACA recipients who move into Texas would risk losing their legal ability to work, while moving out of Texas could allow them to resume qualifying for a two-year work permit.

The proposal is pending a final decision by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen.

“These proposals do not limit DHS from undertaking any future lawful changes to DACA,” the filing states.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream, said misinformation was circulating Tuesday on social media.

“We’ve seen a lot of folks saying initial applications will start right away. That’s not true,” she said. “The status quo stays. If you are a DACA recipient right now, even in Texas, if you can renew you should renew as soon as possible because then you have another two years.”

Other advocacy groups, such as the nonprofit Dreamers2gether, urged DACA recipients and hopeful applicants to leave Texas and file a change of address form with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

More than 525,000 immigrants are currently enrolled in DACA. Texas follows California in the ranking of states with the highest number of program enrollees, according to USCIS.

To qualify, applicants must prove they came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and have graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military. Applicants also cannot have serious criminal records.

But for years the program has sat in a state of uncertainty, stoking anxiety for many recipients, amid court battles that stopped applications from being processed and left many younger people who would have aged into qualifying for DACA instead vulnerable to deportation.

In this first term, Trump attempted to shut down the program, but the Supreme Court concluded in 2020 that his administration had acted improperly. The court did not rule on the program’s legality.

Because of the court battle, the program has been closed to new applicants since 2021, though current recipients could still renew their work permits.

Los Angeles resident Atziri Peña, 27, runs a clothing company called Barrio Drive that donates proceeds toward helping DACA recipients renew their applications.

Peña, who also has DACA, said she knows many people in Texas who are thinking about moving out of state. The latest news is another example of how the immigration system breaks families apart, she said.

“A lot of us who are DACA recipients, we don’t necessarily know what it was like to be undocumented before DACA, so most of us have careers that we won’t be able to continue,” Peña said.

United We Dream has recorded at least 19 current DACA recipients detained by immigration agents in recent months. In one case in Texas, immigration authorities have kept Catalina “Xochitl” Santiago detained despite an immigration judge saying she cannot be deported.

“It’s a way of making sure she can’t renew her DACA and then she becomes deportable,” said Macedo do Nascimento. In her view, the Department of Homeland Security’s attitude toward DACA recipients lately has diminished the protections it offers.

“The bigger picture here is DHS is moving onto a new policy on DACA anyway — without having to go through the courts, the rulemaking process or taking DACA away altogether,” she said. “They’re really trying to end the program piece by piece, recipient by recipient.”

Even so, immigrants across the country are looking forward to applying for DACA for the first time.

“While we could still get detained, it’s a little bit of a sense of safety and hope,” Peña said. “I have heard of people who are just waiting for DACA to reopen. But let’s see what happens and let’s hope they don’t use this as a way to catch more of us.”

WASHINGTON — Washington is hours away from another federal government shutdown, with prospects looking bleak for a last-minute compromise in Congress to avoid closures beginning at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday.

Republicans have crafted a short-term measure to fund the government through Nov. 21, but Democrats have insisted the measure address their concerns on health care. They want to reverse the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s mega-bill passed this summer and extend tax credits that make health insurance premiums more affordable for millions of people who purchase through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act. Republicans call the Democratic proposal a nonstarter.

Neither side shows any signs of budging, with the House not even expected to have votes this week.

Here’s a look at how a shutdown would occur:

What happens in a shutdown?

When a lapse in funding occurs, the law requires agencies to cease activity and furlough “non-excepted” employees. Excepted employees include those who work to protect life and property. They stay on the job but don’t get paid until after the shutdown ends.

During the 35-day partial shutdown in Trump’s first term, 340,000 of the 800,000 federal workers at affected agencies were furloughed. The remainder were “excepted” and required to work.

What government work continues during a shutdown?

A great deal, actually.

FBI investigators, CIA officers, air traffic controllers and agents operating airport checkpoints keep working. So do members of the Armed Forces.

Those programs that rely on mandatory spending also generally continue during a shutdown. Social Security payments continue going out. Seniors relying on Medicare coverage can still see their doctors and health care providers and submit claims for payment and be reimbursed.

Veteran health care also continues during a shutdown. Veterans Affairs medical centers and outpatient clinics will be open, and VA benefits will continue to be processed and delivered. Burials will continue at VA national cemeteries.

Will furloughed federal workers get paid?

Yes. In 2019, Congress passed a bill enshrining into law the requirement that furloughed employees get retroactive pay once operations resume.

While they’ll eventually get paid, the furloughed workers and those who remain on the job may have to go without one or more of their regular paychecks, depending upon how long the shutdown lasts, creating financial stress for many families.

Service members would also receive back pay for any missed paychecks once federal funding resumes.

Will I still get mail?

Yes. The U.S. Postal Service is unaffected by a government shutdown. It’s an independent entity funded through the sale of its products and services, not by tax dollars.

What closes during a shutdown?

All administrations get some leeway to choose which services to freeze and which to maintain in a shutdown.

The first Trump administration worked to blunt the impact of what became the country’s longest partial shutdown in 2018 and 2019. But in the selective reopening of offices, experts say they saw a willingness to cut corners, scrap prior plans and wade into legally dubious territory to mitigate the pain.

Each federal agency develops its own shutdown plan. The plans outline which agency workers would stay on the job during a shutdown and which would be furloughed.

In a provocative move, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget has threatened the mass firing of federal workers in a shutdown. An OMB memo said those programs that didn’t get funding through Trump’s mega-bill this summer would bear the brunt of a shutdown.

Agencies should consider issuing reduction-in-force notices for those programs whose funding expires Wednesday, that don’t have alternative funding sources and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities,” the memo said.

That’d be a much more aggressive step than in previous shutdowns, when furloughed federal workers returned to their jobs once Congress approved government spending. A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but eliminate their positions, which would trigger another massive upheaval in a federal workforce that’s already faced major rounds of cuts this year due to efforts from the Department of Government Efficiency and elsewhere in Trump’s Republican administration.

Shutdown practices in the past

Some agencies have recently updated plans on their websites. Others still have plans that were last updated months or years ago, providing an indication of past precedent that could guide the Trump administration.

Here are some excerpts from those plans:

— Health and Human Services will furlough about 41% of its staff out of nearly 80,000 employees, according to a contingency plan posted on its website. The remaining employees will keep up activities needed to protect human life and property.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will continue monitoring for disease outbreaks. Direct medical services through the Indian Health Service and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center will remain available. However, the CDC communications to the public will be hampered and NIH will not admit new patients to the Clinical Center, except those for whom it’s medically necessary.

At the Food and Drug Administration, its “ability to protect and promote public health and safety would be significantly impacted, with many activities delayed or paused.” For example, the agency would not accept new drug applications or medical device submissions that require payment of a user fee.

— The Education Department will furlough about 1,500 of 1,700 employees, excluding federal student aid workers. The department will continue to disburse student aid such as Pell Grants and Federal Direct Student Loans. Student loan borrowers will still be required to make payments on their outstanding debt.

— National Park Service: As a general rule if a facility or area is inaccessible during nonbusiness hours, it’ll be locked for the duration of the lapse in funding, said a March 2024 plan. At parks where it’s impractical or impossible to restrict public access, staffing will vary by park: “Generally, where parks have accessible park areas, including park roads, lookouts, trails, campgrounds, and open-air memorials, these areas will remain physically accessible to the public.”

— Transportation Department: Air traffic controller hiring and field training would cease, as would routine personnel security background checks and air traffic performance analysis, a March 2025 update says.

— Smithsonian Institution: “The Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, like all Smithsonian museums, receives federal funding. Thus, during a government shutdown, the Zoo — and the rest of the Smithsonian museums — must close to the public.”

Impact on the economy

Phillip Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said a short shutdown doesn’t have a huge impact on the economy, especially since federal workers, by law, are paid retroactively. But “if a shutdown continues, then that can give rise to uncertainties about what is the role of government in our society, and what’s the financial impact on all the programs that the government funds.”

“The impact is not immediate, but over time, there is a negative impact of a shutdown on the economy,” he added.

Markets haven’t reacted strongly to past shutdowns, according to Goldman Sachs Research. At the close of the three prolonged shutdowns since the early 1990s, equity markets finished flat or up even after dipping initially.

A governmentwide shutdown would directly reduce growth by around 0.15 percentage points for each week it lasted, or about 0.2 percentage points per week once private-sector effects were included, and growth would rise by the same cumulative amount in the quarter following reopening, writes Alec Phillips, chief U.S. political economist at Goldman Sachs.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report.

USC women’s basketball star JuJu Watkins will miss the upcoming college basketball season as she recovers from the serious knee injury she sustained during the NCAA tournament in March.

Watkins said in an announcement on social media that she planned to take the 2025-26 season to “fully focus on continuing to recover so I can come back to the game I love.”

“The last few months have been filled with a lot of healing, rest and reflection,” Watkins said in a statement. “Recovering from this injury hasn’t been easy, and I want to say thank you — your love, support and kind words have truly lifted me up during one of the most challenging times in my life.”

Watkins was in the midst of a stellar sophomore season when her knee buckled on a breakaway during the second round of the NCAA tournament. The injury proved to be a devastating blow to USC’s title hopes, as the Trojans eventually lost in the Elite Eight to Connecticut.

There was a glimmer of hope that Watkins might be able to return for a potential postseason run in March 2026, a full year after her injury. Two orthopedic surgeons told The Times at the time that she’d require upwards of 12 months to recover.

“There’s going to be a lot of differences from person to person in that recovery process,” said Dr. Gabriella Ode, an orthopedic surgeon who serves as the team physician for the New York Liberty. “There’s nothing wrong even with a 12-month recovery. I want to be very explicit about that. There are many people who it takes 12 months.”

Any speculation that Watkins might return sooner than that ended Sunday, more than a month before the start of the women’s college basketball season.

USC coach Lindsay Gottlieb said in a statement that the program would “fully support her decision to focus on recovery this season.”

“While we will certainly miss her impact on the court, she continues to play a vital role in our program as a leader and teammate. The strength and maturity she has shown through this process is a reflection of who she is.”

Her impact won’t be easily replaced. But the arrival of another top prospect, Jazzy Davidson, should help fill some of the void.

“No one is filling JuJu’s shoes,” Gottlieb said earlier this month. “Those are unique shoes. But the fact that Jazzy can step into our program and already just make a really unique and incredible impression on everybody is pretty wild. She’s really, really good.”

In two seasons at USC, Watkins has been nothing short of a phenomenon, both on and off the court.

A Compton native, Watkins arrived at USC in 2023 intent on helping build the program back up, and within one season had helped turn the Trojans into national title contenders. As a sophomore, she won the Wooden Award, the Naismith Trophy, Big Ten Player of the Year and became the first USC player ever named the Associated Press player of the year. She also powered USC to a Big Ten title in its first season in the conference, all while becoming the fastest Trojan ever to 1,000 career points, a mark that she surpassed early in her sophomore year.

Upon her return as a senior, Watkins technically would still have two years of eligibility remaining. But the Trojan superstar is almost certain to declare for the WNBA draft when she’s first eligible in 2027.

Soldiers carrying the coffin of slain Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh during funeral procession inside the Iranian defense ministry in Tehran, Iran, in 2020. European nations imposed “snapback” sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. File photo by Iranian Defense Ministry/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 28 (UPI) — A decade after they were lifted, economic and military sanctions were reimposed on Iran Sunday over its nuclear program.

Britain, France and Germany have accused Iran of “continued nuclear escalation,” and reactivated what is known as a “snapback mechanism” over Iran’s lack of cooperation to de-escalate the country’s nuclear program.

Iran suspended inspections of its nuclear facilities under terms of a 2015 deal after Israel and the United States bombed several of the country’s nuclear sites in June.

Iranian President Masound Pezeshkian has continued to maintain that his country has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons, and made the claim again last week.

Pezeshkian has called the reimposition of sanctions “unfair, unjust and illegal,” and a setback to Iran’s fledgling relations with the West.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action limits Iran’s nuclear facilities, stockpiles of enriched uranium and the amount of research it is allowed to undertake. It allows Iran to develop nuclear infrastructure, but not weapons.

Iran escalated its nuclear program after President Donald Trump pulled out of the JCPOA during his first term in 2018.

European negotiators told the U.N. Security Council in August that Iran had violated “the near entirety of its JCPOA commitments,” and gave the country a month’s warning to scale back its nuclear program before Russia assumed control of the Security Council in October.

Several meetings with Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi have produced no progress in meeting key European demands, including evidence that Iran is working on a diplomatic solution, complying with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and disclosing the whereabouts of more than 400 kg of highly enriched uranium.

The European nations have also called for resumed talks between Iran and the United States.

Sinclair Broadcast Group is ending its preemption of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

The Maryland-based owner of several major ABC network affiliates said Friday the late night program will return to its airwaves immediately. The station group pulled Kimmel off the air Sept. 17 following a backlash over the host’s comments related to the killing of right-wing activist Charile Kirk.

Sinclair’s ABC stations include WJLA in Washington, D.C., and KOMO in Seattle.

Kimmel was pulled off the air by Sinclair and another station group, Nexstar, the same day Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr took aim at the host’s Sept. 15 monologue, in which Kimmel said MAGA Republicans were using Kirk’s death to “score political points” and were trying to categorize shooting suspect Tyler Robinson as “anything other than one of them.”

In a statement, Sinclair did not cite a specific reason for returning the program, which has not aired on its stations since Sept. 17. The company had initially demanded that the host make a personal apology to the family of Kirk and a significant contribution to the his organization Turning Point USA.

A person briefed on the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly said no such concessions were made to get the program back on the air.

Carr, who oversees regulations for broadcast stations, called Kimmel’s remarks “the sickest conduct possible” and called for ABC to act. He threatened to go after TV stations’ licenses if it failed to do so.

ABC pulled the program from the network, but returned it to the air on Tuesday. Kimmel’s first episode back scored 6.26 million viewers — a record for its regular 11:35 p.m. time slot — while his opening monologue was watched by more than 26 million people on YouTube and social media.

This is a developing story.

Jimmy Kimmel’s emotional Tuesday return to his late-night hosting perch at ABC gave his program its largest audience ever in its regular 11:35 p.m. time period, despite not airing for nearly a quarter of U.S. households.

An average of 6.26 million viewers tuned in to watch “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” as the comedian addressed his suspension that became a free speech cause celebre, according to Nielsen. ABC had pulled the show “indefinitely” starting Sept. 17 following blowback over Kimmel’s remarks about the shooting death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The only times “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has scored higher ratings were when it aired special episodes after the Oscars and the Super Bowl. Preliminary numbers for Tuesday’s show didn’t include streaming.

The program delivered strong numbers despite not airing on 60 network affiliates covering 23% of U.S. television households. Television station ownership groups Nexstar and Sinclair kept the program off their ABC-affiliated outlets even as Walt Disney Co.-owned ABC resumed production.

By late Wednesday, 15 million people had watched Kimmel’s monologue and a comedy bit with actor Robert De Niro on YouTube, where ABC made it available shortly after it aired on TV. ABC said a total of 26 million people watched the monologue across YouTube and social media platforms.

Kimmel clearly grasped that his return would be a historic moment in the annals of late-night TV, as his network-imposed hiatus became a global news story and sparked a widespread debate about free speech and the role of government regulators.

He opened with the line, “Before I was interrupted” — the same words “Tonight” show host Jack Paar used in 1960 when he returned from a monthlong walkout. Paar left his program after NBC censors cut a water closet joke from his monologue, which became one of the biggest TV industry controversies of that era.

Kimmel was pulled off the air the same day Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr took aim at the host’s Sept. 15 monologue, in which Kimmel said MAGA Republicans were using Kirk’s death to “score political points” and were trying to categorize suspected shooter Tyler Robinson as “anything other than one of them.”

Carr, who oversees regulations for broadcast stations, called Kimmel’s remarks “the sickest conduct possible” and called for ABC to act. He threatened to go after TV stations’ licenses if it failed to do so.

During his opening monologue, Kimmel got choked up when he told viewers it was “never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man” when he discussed the right wing’s response to the shooting.

But Kimmel went on to chastise Carr, showing his social media postings in recent years that gave unequivocal support to the 1st Amendment and condemning the censorship of TV hosts and commentators.

Since becoming FCC chair under the Trump administration, Carr has joined the president in denouncing his late-night critics.

While Kimmel was contrite regarding Kirk, he showed no mercy for Trump in the monologue addressing the matter that took much of the show, a clear indication that he won’t be changing his tone. He also continued to promote free speech, saying the government attempts to stifle voices such as his are “un-American” and “so dangerous.”

Kimmel also expressed gratitude to politically-right-leaning politicians and commentators who expressed dismay over his removal from the air, including Ted Cruz and Joe Rogan.

Trump reacted harshly to Kimmel’s return. In a Truth Social post, he said he may file another lawsuit against ABC. The network paid a $16-million settlement last year after “Good Morning America” co-host George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said Trump was found liable of of sexual assault instead of sexual abuse.

A letter signed by several dozen former employees of ABC, which was obtained by The Times, praised Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger’s decision to return Kimmel to the air, but warned “it must be the first step in a concerted effort to defend free speech and press freedom against political intimidation.”

“The $16 million settlement with Donald Trump, combined with the absence of a strong public defense of ABC News journalists under attack, has emboldened Administration efforts to intimidate the press,” said the letter, which included the signatures of former ABC News correspondents Sam Donaldson, Chris Bury, Ned Potter, Judy Muller and Brian Rooney.

Nexstar is still keeping “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off its ABC affiliates. A Nexstar representative said Wednesday the company is having “productive discussions with executives at the Walt Disney Company, with a focus on ensuring the program reflects and respects the diverse interests of the communities we serve.”

A representative for Sinclair, which preempted “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in markets such as Seattle and Washington, D.C., said in a statement that the company is also monitoring the situation before deciding to return the program to its ABC station program lineups.

President Trump took his most extensive step yet toward overhauling the U.S. legal migration system, with a pair of proclamations that explicitly favor the wealthiest of the world’s prospective expat workers.

Trump on Friday imposed a $100,000 application fee on the widely used H-1B visa program, a move that would drastically increase the cost of visas heavily coveted by some of America’s largest companies — including in the Silicon Valley — seeking to bring in skilled workers from abroad.

The president also unveiled a “Trump Gold Card” visa program — under which, for the price of $1 million, immigrants could get U.S. residency. Businesses could buy residency permits for $2 million per employee, while a new “platinum”-level card set to be issued soon would cost $5 million and allow the holder to come to the U.S. for up to 270 days a year without being subject to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.

The restrictions and fees go into effect on Sunday.

It all amounts to a plan for a new gilded age of immigration to America, where those with the resources to invest are welcomed along with their wallets — while at the same time new barriers to entry are erected for those with lesser means and others seen as taking away jobs that could be occupied by U.S. citizens.

The pomp with which Trump announced the programs echoed the theme — over his right shoulder as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office was an image of a gold card with his face on it along with traditional American images including a bald eagle, all in gold.

It’s a stark shift from America’s stance toward immigration historically, which welcomed those of various economic backgrounds coming to the country legally in search of a better life and more freedom.

‘Significant disadvantage’

Yet even while Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick mused about the prospects of a windfall for the U.S. Treasury that could total $100 billion or more, immigration attorneys cautioned that a move of this magnitude would cause major disruptions — several of them potentially very expensive to the U.S. economy.

Cleveland-based lawyer David Leopold warned that Trump’s H-1B changes, including the $100,000 fee, would “effectively kill the program.”

“Who’s going to pay $100,000 for a petition? Unless you want to make this an exclusive program for extremely rich people,” said Leopold, a partner at UB Greensfelder, whose clients include physicians on H-1Bs.

Accenture, Cognizant Technology and other IT consulting stocks hit session lows on Friday on the news of the visa fee.

“This is a senseless, terrible policy for financial services firms that makes American firms less competitive in the global market for talent,” said Alexis DuFresne, founder of recruiting firm Archer Search Partners.

DuFresne warned that while some mega funds won’t be daunted by the prospect of a new six-figure fee to import top talent, “it will have a substantial impact at the margins — with mid-sized firms, smaller firms, and up-and-coming, younger talent at a significant disadvantage.”

“We have had clients who have said in the past, prior to this announcement, that they do not want to have to sponsor a visa. We anticipate that that will become a more prevalent part of our conversations with clients and their goalposts going forward.”

A feature, not a bug

Some of that sentiment, if it comes to pass, may be seen by this administration as an asset rather than a problem.

Senior members of Trump’s administration have repeatedly complained — in blunt terms — that too many immigrants are taking American jobs.

In a fact sheet, the White House said American workers are being replaced with lower-paid foreign labor and called it a national security threat. The dynamic is suppressing wages and disincentivizing Americans from choosing careers in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), the White House said.

Trump’s proclamation does anticipate a scenario whereby it can work around the new costs if they became a major burden, allowing for case-by-case exemptions if deemed to be in the national interest. That provision opens a potential window for certain companies or industries to seek an exception to the new fee.

Nonetheless, the intention to skew the H-1B program toward higher-paying jobs is clear.

Trump also plans to order the Labor secretary to undertake a rule-making process to revise prevailing-wage levels for the program, a move intended to limit the use of visas to undercut wages that would otherwise be paid to workers who are U.S. citizens.

Legal risks

Courts may also scrutinize the expansive new fees.

The H-1B $100,000 application fee in particular is at risk of being struck down as “excessive,” said Becky Fu von Trapp, an immigration lawyer in Stowe, Vt. That’s because federal law allows agencies to charge enough to recoup reasonable costs, and most work visa applications currently cost about $5,000. Even the most complex ones, for certain investment visas, usually run less than $10,000 in total.

The move could also incentivize technology firms and other companies reliant on foreign workers to set up offices outside the U.S. to avoid the application fee and associated hassles.

“Companies will reassess the need of who they really need to bring to U.S. and who can be based in Canada or Singapore, where they still have good technology infrastructure and can work remotely,” she said.

The move may also have a chilling effect on international students seeking admission to U.S. universities, since many of them hope to find jobs through the H-1B process upon graduation, she said.

Congress will also weigh in, Lutnick said, noting that lawmakers must also approve the planned platinum card program. He predicted that could happen later this year.

That’s easier said than done.

Republicans only narrowly control the House and the Senate. Immigration has been a particularly challenging issue to legislate for the GOP in years past, sparking clashes between the pro-business wing of the party that wants more high-skilled immigrants to come in, and another group far more skeptical of immigration as a whole who’ve sought to limit new arrivals no matter where they come from.

What’s more, Democrats are broadly furious about the president’s stepped-up immigration enforcement including aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in major U.S. cities including Los Angeles. As such, they have little incentive to cooperate without demanding wholesale reversals of Trump’s existing immigration policies, which he almost surely wouldn’t accept.

Wingrove and Soper write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg reporters Katia Porzecanski and Hema Parmar contributed to this report.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., arrives before a Senate Committee on Finance hearing on President Donald Trump’s health care agenda at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, on September 4. Kennedy’s agency announced Thursday that it will decertify a major organ donation and transplant program. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 18 (UPI) — The Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will decertify an organ procurement organization following an investigation that found years of unsafe practices in a number of areas.

A report from the HHS found poor training, chronic underperformance, understaffing and paperwork errors.

“In one 2024 case, a mistake led a surgeon to decline a donated heart for a patient awaiting transplant surgery,” a release from the agency said.

The desertification of the Life Alliance Organ Recovery Agency, which is part of the University of Miami Health System, is among HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ‘s reform efforts announced in July.

The investigation found that in one organ recovery program, at least 28 patients may have still been alive while organs were already being prepared for transplant, the release said.

“73 patients showed neurological signs incompatible with donation, and the Biden administration had closed its own investigation without action,” the release continued.

The release claimed a “disregard for the sanctity of human life” within the transplant system, and said that poses a threat to prospective donors and recipients.

“Nearly 100,000 Americans are currently on transplant waitlists, and an average of 13 patients die each day waiting for an organ, even as more than 28,000 donated organs go unmatched every year,” the release said.

HHS said it aims to restore integrity in the Organ Procurement and Translation Network by preventing line-skipping in organ allocation, creating an independent board to oversee organ procurement and transplant procedures, strengthening the misconduct reporting system by providing a channel for patients and providers to report safety concerns quickly.

It also said a new transparency tool will show when organs are donated outside of a standard match list, and has proposed removing DEI guidelines to ensure fairness.