Renewal

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) — Every day at 4 a.m., Cesar wakes up to sell burritos on the streets of Los Angeles. He spends a few hours preparing food in his apartment kitchen and later sets up a small canopy tent with a grill, several coolers and a large sign, made by his sister, advertising “burritos for sale.”

He has done this for the last three weeks, after finding out just over a month ago that he was terminated from his human relations job. He lost the job because of renewal delays to his status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, said Tuesday that 32,000 people have lost their DACA status largely as a result of delays. The Department of Homeland Security has not released data on the number of people waiting for renewals.

More than 500,000 people rely on DACA, according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The program requires recipients to renew their status every two years.

“At first, when I was let go, I was feeling devastated, defeated,” said Cesar, who came to the United States when he was 4 and who did not want his last name used for fear of government retribution. “But, after going through those feelings, I knew I couldn’t just sit there.”

Cesar is one of many DACA recipients who have lost their jobs in recent months due to renewal delays, largely caused by increased vetting procedures. The program requires recipients to renew their status every two years.

The Obama-era immigration program provides work authorization to those who qualify, as well as protection from deportation. When their status expires, DACA recipients lose both protections. Many, like Cesar, now have been terminated from their jobs as a result and fear deportation.

Cesar applied for his renewal in early December, nearly six months ago. Like many others, he has received no communication since from USCIS. Previously, renewal applications took one to two months on average, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Last year, the median processing time was 15 days, according to DHS data.

“In its 14 years, we have certainly seen the DACA program face a whole host of attacks,” said Anabel Mendoza, a spokesperson from United We Dream, a youth-led immigrant network. “But what we’re seeing now is truly the most dangerous moment in DACA’s history.

More than 700 people attended a Zoom event hosted by United We Dream last week to help DACA recipients navigate the instability created by these delays. There was a distinct sense of anxiety among the attendees.

Participants flooded the chat feature of the call with anecdotes of losing solid jobs and questions on whether DACA recipients qualified for paid leave or unemployment.

One attendee wrote that, although he would prefer not to use unemployment, he had been waiting five months to receive his renewal. Like many others, he was worried about his ability to pay off significant bills and loans after losing his job.

One person even questioned whether they could sue the current administration.

Another asked whether they could now be deported, with many worrying whether they may even be detained at their immigration appointments.

The two central benefits of DACA, historically, have been legal protection from deportation and work authorization. However, a recent ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, an arm of the Department of Justice, said that judges can no longer stop deportation proceedings simply based on the plaintiff having DACA status. This marked a significant shift in immigration policy.

Organizers at the event stressed that DACA still protects recipients from deportation, but judges now have to consider DACA cases more closely. They later acknowledged that many DACA recipients were detained and deported by ICE last year, even before the ruling.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons confirmed in April that 343 people with DACA status were detained between January and November 2025, while 176 were deported.

Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement in February that most of these people had “criminal histories.” However she did not specify their crimes or whether they had been arrested, charged or convicted.

“It is part of a broader pattern of really trying to undermine DACA and erode the very protections that the program was meant to uphold,” Mendoza said.

This was a sentiment echoed by Maria Fernanda Madrigal, a mother of three who recently lost her job as an immigration attorney after losing her work permit because of the delays.

In an interview, she questioned whether the delays were an intentional strategy by the Trump administration. She explained that the renewal process had previously been very straightforward for many of her clients — sometimes taking just a week.

“I’m still trying to figure out what the goal is,” Madrigal said. “Because it’s hard, do they want us to leave?”

She highlighted Trump’s attempted termination of the DACA program in 2017 during his first term. The Supreme Court blocked him and preserved the program in 2020.

Now, she wonders whether it may be easier for her and her family to leave the United States. She explained that, unlike their parents, “a lot of us [DACA recipients] have degrees and careers, so we know that we’ll be able to build lives somewhere else.”

Madrigal now keeps the doors of her house locked at all times out of fear of being detained while she awaits her renewal. She said she and her husband have had discussions about whether their small children should share a bed with them.

“If I’m ever detained, these are the moments that I’m going to want, right? I’m going to look back and say I wish I would have cuddled with them a little longer,” Madrigal said.

As Cesar’s new business continues to grow, he faces similar fears, worrying whether he might be “taken away at any moment.”

“I know a lot of people say we’re resilient and we’ll figure it out. And that’s very true,” Madrigal said. “But, I think the main thing that our people understand is, even though we might be able to stick together and get over this, we shouldn’t have to.”

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has shown an ability to make a lot of noise at the government agency known in recent years to be a little sleepy.

But his April 28 announcement that the Walt Disney Co.’s eight ABC TV stations will undergo an early review of their broadcast licenses is his loudest action yet taken on behalf of President Trump, who repeatedly threatened media outlets that he believes are critical of him.

Carr is calling for the review two years before any of the station licenses are up, citing the agency’s inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

The timing of Carr’s move is raising eyebrows as it comes after First Lady Melania Trump’s call for the firing of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his April 23 comedy bit on the White House correspondents’ dinner. A tuxedo-clad Kimmel called Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.”

The first lady’s remarks came after a man armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives breached security at the Washington black-tie event on April 25. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president.

Kimmel’s gag became ammunition for right-wing commentators, who claim the left is stoking political violence.

The host said the joke was about the age difference between the 79-year-old president and his wife. Kimmel denied it was a call for violence and has continued to mock the president on his show.

Carr insisted at a Washington news conference last week that his demand for a review is not related to Kimmel’s remarks.

Although many are skeptical, Carr, who was at the April 25 dinner, told The Times there would be an action related to ABC coming soon. The conversation occurred hours before the shots were fired.

The investigation into Disney’s practices began in March 2025, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reverse DEI initiatives across private companies, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.

After the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, companies such as Disney and NBC-owned Comcast aggressively promoted their diversity efforts.

But experts believe Carr is acting on ABC at the behest of Trump, as the chairman has often expressed support on social media whenever the president criticizes one of the broadcast TV news outlets.

“It might be the case that Disney can get some early relief by saying this should be dismissed because this is really a 1st Amendment issue,” said James Speta, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. “We all know what’s going on here — the administration doesn’t like the speech that’s coming out of the talent on the broadcasting airwaves.”

Disney is not commenting on Carr’s DEI investigation, but it earlier defended the record of its TV stations, which are ratings leaders in most markets. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” the company said.

Here’s a primer on what to know and the challenges Disney may face.

Why are TV stations licensed by the government?

Government licensing regulates the spectrum allocated to broadcast channels, largely to prevent interference between TV signals. When renewals come up, the license holder must demonstrate that the station is serving the public interest by providing local news, program diversity and educational and informational shows for children. The procedure once occurred every three years, but deregulation efforts have extended that period to the current span of eight years.

When was the last time a TV station faced a significant license renewal challenge?

The most notable recent example was Fox Corp.’s Philadelphia station WTXF, which was up for a license renewal in October 2023. Activist groups filing the challenge said Fox was unfit to own the outlet after a judge ruled earlier that year that the company’s Fox News Channel had spread falsehoods about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Fox paid $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems that alleged the cable news channel damaged the company’s reputation.

Fox News, which operates on cable and satellite and is therefore not subject to FCC control, has a different management team than the parent company’s local TV stations, which mostly cover their communities and do not typically present political commentary. The FCC rejected the renewal challenge in January 2025, noting that none of the false information on Fox News was heard on the Philadelphia station. WTXF was not cited in Dominion’s lawsuit.

Are there any other examples?

Yes. Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses of three stations then owned by the Washington Post.

Has a company ever lost its broadcast license?

RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.

The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.

But isn’t this case different?

Yes. Although the rule Carr mentioned is legitimate, the FCC has rarely if ever acted on it, according to one veteran TV executive who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. If Disney or any other company was found to violate the nondiscrimination rule, they would in previous eras probably be subjected to a just a fine, not the denial of a license, which would be viewed by many as government censorship.

What happens in the event that ABC licenses are not renewed?

Nothing immediately, as the licenses are in effect through 2028 to 2032, depending on the outlet. If Disney had to sell the stations, the price would probably be depressed due to pressure to unload the properties.

But public communications attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told The Times last month that the bar for denying a renewal is high and any effort would be tied up in court on constitutional grounds.

“The law intentionally sets out a very steep burden for the FCC to deny a license renewal; the process takes many years, during which time the licensee continues to operate normally under ‘continuing operating authority,’” Schwartzman said.

ST. LOUIS — Still smarting from their election loss and scornful of their departing leaders, ranking Republicans met Thursday to select a new party chairman, eyeing five candidates who stress unity but whose links to opposing factions and presidential hopefuls mirror the party’s deep clefts.

On the surface, the three-day meeting of the 165-member Republican National Committee to pick a new leader opened Thursday with a collegial sense of purpose: All five men seeking the post are conservatives who talk of renewing the party at the grass-roots level and loosening ties to the Washington Establishment that called the shots for 12 years.

But the mounting heat produced by this campaign has burnished the differences between the candidates and exposed hints of their ties to the forces buffeting the party–presidential aspirants, religious and anti-abortion elements, even the tattered remains of George Bush’s reelection apparatus.

Party veterans say none of the five–retiring Missouri Gov. John Ashcroft, Mississippi lawyer and political consultant Haley Barbour, Republican Congressional Committee Co-Chairman L. Spencer Abraham, former Army Secretary Howard H. (Bo) Calloway and Oregon party Chairman Craig L. Berkman–appear to have enough support to muster a first-ballot victory this afternoon.

Party regulars described Barbour and Abraham as the perceived front-runners, with Ashcroft, who gained national exposure last fall as a Bush campaign speaker, not far behind. But arriving committee members said up to 40% of the voting members appeared uncommitted.

Committed or not, some of the arriving committee members projected a prickly impatience with the soothing promises made by consultants and cellular phone-wielding floor whips. After 12 years of taking orders from Administration officials, some party officials gleefully flexed their independence.

Outside one reception, a Midwestern committeeman poked a startled staffer in the chest and huffed: “You’re beginning to sound exactly like the dolts we had to endure for the last four years.”

Karen Hughes, the executive director of the Texas Republican Party, said a “strong anti-Washington Establishment” mood pervades the gathering. “I think the deciding factor in the vote is who the members believe will allow them to be part of the process,” she said. “You don’t mind being a rubber stamp body when you win. But when you lose . . . .”

As they lobbied near well-stocked buffet tables in Hyatt Regency hotel hospitality suites and in secluded speeches in spare meeting rooms, the five contestants tried to capitalize on that sense of frustration. They echoed a growing cadre of party regulars who think that Bush’s presidential campaign was fatally flawed by the party’s failure to project a “big tent” image to a diverse nation.

“The sense that the party needs to be inclusionary is playing pretty well here,” said Eddie Mahe, a Republican political consultant who flew in from Washington to lobby for Calloway.

That yearning for a broader, more tolerant Republican Party masks a fear among many stalwarts that they are in danger of a grass-roots takeover by the religious right.

Mary Alice Lair, a national committeewoman from the small southeast Kansas town of Piqua, worries about the “new people,” her hushed description of Christian right volunteers who have swelled party membership rolls in her Republican precinct.

“We need to find ways to show the new people that we’re OK and to teach them how to operate as one group,” Lair said. “We need a chairman who can show the precincts how to organize properly.”

But even as candidates talked earnestly about tinkering with the grass roots, listening to regulars outside the Washington Beltway and turning a deaf ear to well-heeled consultants, they were relying on time-tested Capitol contacts and imported consultants to sway uncommitted members.

And, as they promised a turn in the party’s fortunes by welcoming all of its embittered factions, the five candidates were busy attacking each other for their links to future presidential contenders as varied as former Vice President Dan Quayle and Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, to Christian fundamentalist leaders like Pat Robertson and even to CBS News.

Abraham, a Michigan Republican leader, is selling himself as a leading candidate for change based on his roles in revitalizing his state’s party, in paring consultants’ costs and, as chairman of the congressional campaign committee, in funneling more money last year to Republican House candidates. But his opponents have attacked him for being openly supported by Quayle, who employed him as an aide.

Barbour, one of the earliest to announce his candidacy, has been criticized for his close ties to Gramm–thought to be a presidential possibility–and for representing CBS News against the Bush Administration in a battle over a cable TV bill last year.

Ashcroft has emphasized his recent role as a party spokesman in his bid to do similar work as party chairman. But it is Ashcroft’s very influence that may have prevented him from gaining an edge. His prominence in drafting the party’s platform last year has hurt him, some moderates say. And, like Abraham, he is burdened by his links to some of the powerful influences aiding him. Current RNC Chairman Richard N. Bond is said to favor him, as are a number of influential Christian right figures impressed with his strong anti-abortion stance. That kind of backing hurts the former governor as much as it aids him, party regulars said.

Calloway, who runs a political action committee founded by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is beloved by many committee members. But he is believed to be a long shot because, at 67, “he’s just too old,” one Abraham backer said.

Berkman, an Oregon moderate who prefers that the party move away from its anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights planks, is said to be limited by his regional support.

Every two years for more than a decade, Melani Candia has gotten approved to stay in the U.S. with her husband and two cats and — more recently — continue to work in special education in Florida.

But this year, delays in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program that has shielded her and hundreds of thousands of others from deportation, led to her missing her renewal deadline, losing her job and fearing detention in the country she has called home since she was 6 years old.

She said that as an immigrant in the U.S., fear has become her “new baseline.” “But now, having a new level of vulnerability, it was a very quick increase in the fear,” said Candia.

Renewal wait times for the Obama-era program that allows people who were brought to the U.S. as children to temporarily remain in the country and work have increased to levels not seen since 2016 when there were significant technical issues.

Some of the program’s more than 500,000 beneficiaries, often referred to as “Dreamers,” have waited months for an answer only to see their deadline pass without a decision. Now they’re stuck in a type of limbo in which their work authorization disappears, oftentimes along with their driver’s license, and their ability to stay in the U.S. is at risk.

“It’s not just anecdotal; it’s happening at a larger scale than we’ve ever seen before,” said Greisa Martinez Rosas, executive director of United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led network.

No numbers were available on how many people have recently missed their renewal deadline despite applying 120 to 150 days before their DACA lapses, which is what U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, recommends.

“Under the leadership of President Trump, USCIS is safeguarding the American people by more thoroughly screening and vetting all aliens, which can lengthen processing times,” Zach Kahler, an agency spokesperson, said in a statement.

Wait times nearly 5 times longer

DACA grants those who qualify two-year, renewable permits to live and work in the U.S. It does not confer legal status but is meant to offer protection from deportation.

From October 2025 through the end of February 2026, the median wait time for renewals was about 70 days, compared with about 15 days in fiscal year 2025, according to USCIS. This is the longest median wait time since 2016, when it was about 79 days, according to the agency’s data, which did not include 2020 because of the pandemic.

The Department of Homeland Security attributed the 2016 delays to technical issues that emerged as it transitioned to fully processing DACA renewals in its electronic immigration system.

At the end of April, USCIS was reporting that the majority of renewal requests were being completed within about 122 days. That marked a two-week increase from the processing times listed earlier that month.

Federal lawmakers and immigrant groups say some applicants recently have had to wait six months — about 183 days — or longer.

“The delays that people are concerned about used to be sort of a matter of weeks at a time,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “Now it’s from a few months to many, many months.”

He is one of dozens of lawmakers behind letters sent to federal agencies that question the inflated wait times and whether people who have missed their renewal deadline are being targeted for arrest or deportation.

More than five months after Elsa Sanchez submitted her DACA renewal request, she is still waiting for an answer. When the deadline passed at the beginning of April, she was put on leave at her job at a healthcare IT company and now, as a single mother of a college freshman, has no income.

It’s made her worried about everything from traveling to spending money on pricier household products like shampoo and detergent.

“I’m like, ‘I don’t know, maybe I can cut down on that. Maybe I don’t need this,’” she said. “Because I’m saving every penny.”

Sanchez said something similar happened about a decade ago, but this time she’s scared of the possible repercussions amid Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Since DACA’s introduction in 2012, it’s faced myriad legal battles, including two that made it to the Supreme Court. And now, though the government is still approving renewals, a 2025 federal court decision means it isn’t processing first-time applications and has left the door open for another possible trip to the Supreme Court.

Hundreds of ‘Dreamers’ arrested

In the first 11 months of 2025, more than 250 DACA recipients were arrested and 86 deported, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said earlier this year. She said the majority of those arrested had “criminal histories,” without indicating the nature of the crimes or if they were arrests, charges or convictions.

In a separate response to a Democratic congresswoman’s inquiry, Homeland Security reported conflicting numbers, saying that 270 were arrested and 174 DACA applicants were removed in the first nine months of 2025.

Their eligibility is dependent in part on not having a felony conviction, a significant misdemeanor or three misdemeanors. Previously, if their status was in jeopardy, they would get a warning and still have the chance to fight it before immigration officers detained them and began efforts to deport them.

Kahler of USCIS said that DACA recipients are not automatically protected from deportation.

“Any illegal alien who is a DACA recipient may be subject to arrest and deportation for a number of reasons — including if they committed a crime,” he said, using an outdated term for immigrants widely considered disparaging.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to questions about whether DACA beneficiaries were being targeted after missing their renewal deadlines.

But federal lawmakers have recently noted people picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after their DACA lapsed.

Their protections may have been further eroded with a precedent decision recently in which the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that DACA status alone is not enough to stop deportation.

Losing DACA eligibility, and a job

Experts have suggested the longer wait times could be related to the restarting of biometric appointments, which were paused during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. Some may also not be getting approved by their deadline because they’re not sending it in by the recommended time.

Maria Fernanda Madrigal is an immigration attorney and DACA recipient who submitted her renewal application about a month and a half before the deadline because she said that’s all the processing time that’s been needed in the past. She said she was also waiting for her job to hold a DACA workshop so she could get the more than $550 fee for renewal waived.

Her DACA lapsed recently, and the mother of three was let go from her job.

“My first concern was my cases, to be honest, because I knew I was going to have to hand off everything, and my team is already overworked,” said Madrigal.

Immigration attorneys have also said that USCIS has paused processing renewals for people from dozens of countries the agency described in recent policy memorandums as “high-risk” following presidential proclamations. The National Immigration Law Center estimated that as many as 3,000 to 4,000 people could be impacted.

“This process that has no timeline is leading to people from certain countries experiencing a pause. And we don’t know how long that pause will be in place,” said Ignacia Rodriguez Kmec, attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

Every day, Candia checks on her renewal. She said she’s most afraid of being locked up in bad conditions in an ICE detention facility, but also thinks about what it would be like returning to Bolivia after more than 25 years.

“If God forbid that happened, it would break my heart because I’ve been in this country since I was 6,” she said. “My entire life is here.”

Golden writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance program used by U.S. spy agencies, following a chaotic, post-midnight scramble in the House to keep the authority from expiring.

The measure cleared the Senate by voice vote, without a formal roll call, as Congress raced to meet a Monday deadline. It now heads to President Trump, who had pushed for a clean 18-month extension, for his signature.

GOP leaders in the House rushed lawmakers back into session late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.

First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.

Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.

“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.

But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.

At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.

U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.

Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security

Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.

Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.

Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.

A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”

“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”

The result of days of negotiations

Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.

Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.

Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.

But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.

With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.

“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”

Cappelletti and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.