repeated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first time they came for her, in May 2023, Lubabatu Ibrahim was preparing to sleep. Terrorists broke into her home in Gana village, Zamfara State, North West Nigeria, and found her alone. Her husband, the community’s traditional ruler, was away in Mecca for the Islamic pilgrimage.

“They didn’t beat me, but they asked for money, and I told them I had none,” the 46-year-old recounted. 

That night, she narrowly escaped abduction. But the terrorists did not forget her, as they were acting under the instruction of their leader, Kachalla Falando.

For years, Nigeria’s North West has been at the centre of the country’s kidnapping crisis, where armed groups prey on rural communities, abducting residents for ransom and forcing thousands to abandon their homes. Women like Lubabatu, married to a local monarch, are prime targets, not only because of their symbolic status but also because of the assumption that their families can raise huge sums. Her story reflects a broader reality in which ordinary life has been eroded by fear, extortion, and the absence of state protection.

Her escape did not end the threat; it only delayed it. 

Months later, in June 2024, they returned, this time seizing her only son, 15-year-old Bilyaminu, the very day he came home from boarding school. 

“I missed Bilyaminu. It was his first time away from home for secondary education,” she said. “We were jubilating for Bilyaminu’s long-awaited return home as he reunited with his family and siblings from the school he had dreamed of attending,” she said. “As a mother with only one boy, I prepared so much for him and his friends during the festive period. I got him a lot of confectionery and his favourite local dishes, which he had missed.”

That evening, after a warm reunion, he came to her room to say goodnight. He sat by her legs as she patted his head. “Why have you let your hair grow so much?” she teased. He laughed and promised to cut it the next day.

But at about 1:30 a.m., terrorists stormed the village. They demanded to know the whereabouts of the matan maigari—the monarch’s wife.

“I immediately smuggled her out of her room into one of our local silos meant for preserving our assorted grains in the backyard. Only for me to return, I heard Bilyaminu crying in the hands of the terrorists. They were beating him to find out where Lubabatu, his mother, was hiding. Bilyaminu replied that he had no idea where his mother was,” Sani Maigari, the village head of the Gana community, told HumAngle.

The boy insisted he had just returned from school and did not know. His pleas were ignored. He was taken away, along with other villagers. Houses were set ablaze, including that of the community’s Imam. 

After four months in captivity, Bilyaminu was released when a ransom of ₦1.5 million was paid. By then, many residents had fled their homes. 

“There was no security official to rescue the victims,” Sani added. “We are all displaced. As I speak, we do not sleep in our homes. We spend our daytime in Gana and our night in Nasarawar Burkullu. We have been in transit daily since Jan. 6.”

Months after Bilyaminu was released, on Monday, Jan. 6, the terrorists invaded again. It was raining heavily when three armed men broke into the monarch’s house at about 11:00 p.m. This time, they mistook the monarch’s sick second wife, Sadiya, for Lubabatu.

“They forced me to place Sadiya on the bike,” Lubabatu recounted. “She was sick with a stroke. So they tried to load her onto the bike several times, unsuccessfully. One of the terrorists instructed me to hold her legs for him, as he held her by the arm and shifted the sick woman beside a tree, fearing that she could die.”

When it became clear she could not be taken, Lubabatu recalled that one of the attackers declared, “Since we can’t abduct the sick woman, Lubabatu. We will take her instead.”

This time, they had their real target, but they were unaware. 

Alongside more than 50 women and children, Lubabatu was marched through the night to Rijiyar Yarbugaje, on the outskirts of Gana. She overheard teenage fighters arguing about whether they had truly captured her. One insisted they had failed; another said they had already taken someone from her household.

The journey into captivity was brutal. The terrorists led the captives into the forest up to the Kaiwaye riverbank. “We all stopped there. Another fear of the unknown knocked on my heart, and I felt too sad again and again, as all hope was lost. I looked at the river, looked back, and I prayed to God again,” said Jamila Rabiu, another victim of the same attack.

“We trekked through that night until the following day. We neither ate food nor drank water throughout the movements across the forests. We finally reached our destination and stayed there until ₦6 million was paid as ransom for the five of us only,” Lubabatu told HumAngle.

Two days after they arrived at the camp, Kachalla Falando summoned five women among the captives from Gana and asked who among them was Lubabatu. They claimed she had escaped in the forest.

He nodded in dismay, unaware that the woman he sought was among them.

“I was the youngest among the captives. Falando walked toward me and whispered, ‘I love you.’ My chest and heart beat excessively. He asked the rest of the women to go back to the tents. I asked him to fear God and let me go with the rest,” Lubabatu said.

Falando ordered his gang to chain her. She spent three days in chains, exposed to sunshine, and only given a cup of water twice every day.

“I tried to understand why they wanted me abducted, specifically as a wife to the family of the Gana District Head. The only explanation I could arrive at was that Falando is an ambitious terrorist, driven by a desire to expand his territorial influence over communities he labelled as non-compliant,” Lubabatu said. 

HumAngle learnt from locals that Gana, unlike neighbouring Gando and Baruba, was among the few villages in Bukuyum LGA whose leaders had refused to submit to the terrorists’ impunity, including the sexual abuse of women.

Lubabatu remained in captivity for two months and ten days until a ₦6 million ransom was paid. 

She confirmed to HumAngle that neither Falando nor his gang realised that she was in their custody. “None of the women that we were abducted together disclosed my identity to the terrorists, despite the intimidation, abuse and violent actions against almost every one of us,” Lubabatu said.

Falando is a notorious kingpin in Nigeria’s North West. Locals familiar with his group estimate its strength at about 200 fighters. Beyond terrorising communities, they extort from them, sometimes under the guise of peace. On several occasions, Falando has compelled rural populations to pool resources for so-called “ransom-for-peace” agreements. But these deals rarely last. In Adabka, a farming settlement in Zamfara, residents raised and paid ₦20 million in the hope of buying safety. Three years later, Falando’s gang struck again, abducting and killing residents and security operatives.

The shadow Falando casts stretches across communities like Gana, where Lubabatu was seized. The village had long been under siege. Residents say the first major attack was recorded six years ago, when armed groups began their incursions into the community, which has led to assaults that have battered families.

Since she returned, fear and trauma have become Lubabatu’s worst nightmare. “The sounds of guns knocking on my ears are always my greatest fear. Anytime I hear the reverberation of gun sounds, I get tensed,” she said. “We look like wanderers, always on the move, so restless. My son is no longer in school because we are paupers and cannot afford to sponsor his education.”

Her voice carried both exhaustion and resolve. What she wanted, she said, was simple: safety, food for her family, and financial support to rebuild their lives. But until the government breaks the grip of men like Falando, residents, especially women like Lubabatu, will remain trapped by fear, their lives suspended between survival and despair.

The clashes between National Guard troops, police and protesters in recent days have evoked memories for some Angelenos of the deadly riots that erupted after LAPD officers were acquitted of brutally assaulting Black motorist Rodney King in 1992.

But leaders who were involved in dealing with the uprising more than three decades ago say what has unfolded with President Trump’s deployment of soldiers to Los Angeles and surrounding communities bears no resemblance to the coordinated response that took place then.

“It’s not even close,” said former LAPD chief and city councilman Bernard Parks, who was a deputy chief in the police department during the 1992 unrest. “You get a sense that this is all theatrics, and it is really trying to show a bad light on Los Angeles, as though people are overwhelmed.”

Protesters continue to gather in downtown Los Angeles due to the immigration raids in L.A. on Tuesday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The chaos of 1992 unfolded after four LAPD officers who were videotaped beating King the prior year were not convicted. It took place at a time of deep distrust and animosity between minority communities and the city’s police department.

Federal troops and California National Guard units joined forces with local law enforcement officers to quell the turmoil, but not without harrowing results. More than 60 people were killed, thousands were injured and arrested, and there was property damage that some estimate exceeded $1 billion.

What has played out recently on the city’s streets is significantly more limited in scope, Mayor Karen Bass said.

“There was massive civil unrest [then]. Nothing like that is happening here,” Bass said on CNN on Sunday. “So there is no need for there to be federal troops on our ground right now.”

1

2

3

4

1. A demonstrator is arrested as protesters and police clash downtown Monday . (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 2. Los Angeles police officers in riot gear prepare to clear a street in Downtown Los Angeles on Monday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 3. Blood spots on the ground near the Metropolitan Detention Center, in Los Angeles on Sunday. (Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times) 4. National Guard are stationed at the Metropolitan Detention Center, on Sunday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

As of Wednesday evening, several hundred people had been arrested or detained because of their alleged actions during the protests, or taken into custody by federal officials because of their immigration status. On Tuesday, after the 101 Freeway was blocked by protesters, buildings in downtown Los Angeles were vandalized and businesses ransacked, Bass imposed a curfew in the city’s civic core from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. that is expected to last several days.

Zev Yaroslavsky, who served on the City Council in 1992, recalled that year as “one of the most significant, tragic events in the city’s history.”

He described the riots as “a massive citywide uprising,” with “thousands of people who were on the streets in various parts of the city, some burning down buildings.”

Yaroslavsky, who was later on the county Board of Supervisors for two decades, said that while some actions protesters are currently taking are inappropriate, the swath of Los Angeles impacted is a small sliver of a sprawling city.

“All you’re seeing is what is happening at 2nd and Alameda,” he said. “There’s a whole other city, a whole other county that is going about its business.”

Another significant distinction from 1992, according to people who lived through it, was the bipartisan coordination among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley requested assistance from then-President George H.W. Bush.

That’s a stark contrast from what started unfolding last week, when Trump’s administration sent ICE agents to Los Angeles and federalized the state’s National Guard without request by the state’s governor, which last happened in the United States in the 1960s.

“The biggest difference is that the governor requested federal help rather than having it imposed over his objection,” said Dan Schnur, a political professor and veteran strategist who served as Wilson’s communication’s director in 1992. “There were some political tensions between state and local elected officials. But both the governor and the mayor set those aside very quickly, given the urgency of the situation.”

Loren Kaye, Wilson’s cabinet secretary at the time, noted times have changed since then.

1

2

1. Critics say police gave up when the rioting erupted in 1992, letting big chunks of the city burn while looters and hoodlums ruled. Street cops say commanders held them back, fearing violent clashes would produce an endless stream of Rodney Kings. (Kirk McKoy / Los Angeles Times) 2. A National Guardsman stands at alert near graffiti that spells out support for Rodney King, April 30, 1992. (Los Angeles Times)

“What I’m worried about is that there aren’t the same incentives for resolving the contention in this situation as there were in ’92,” he said. Then, “everyone had incentives to resolve the violence and the issues. It’s just different. The context is different.”

Parks, a Democrat, argued that the lack of federal communication with California and Los Angeles officials inflamed the situation by creating a lag in local law enforcement response that made the situation worse.

“You have spontaneous multiple events, which is the Achilles heel of any operation,” he said.

“It’s not that they’re ill-equipped, and it’s not that they’re under-deployed,” Parks said. “It takes a minute. You just don’t have a large number of people idly sitting there saying, okay, we are waiting for the next event, and particularly if it’s spontaneous.”

Protests can start peacefully, but those who wish to create chaos can use the moment to seek attention, such as by burning cars, Park said. The end result is images viewed by people across the country who don’t realize how localized the protests and how limited the damage was in recent days.

“The visuals they show on TV are exactly what the folks in Washington want to be seen,” Parks said.

On Monday, the president deployed hundreds of Marines from Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms. State leaders have asked for a temporary restraining order blocking the military and state National Guard deployments, which is expected to be heard in federal court on Thursday.

Trump, speaking to U.S. Army troops at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina on Tuesday, said that he deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles “to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.”

The president descried protesters as leftists pursuing a “foreign invasion” of the United States, bent on destroying the nation’s sovereignty.

“If we didn’t do it, there wouldn’t be a Los Angeles,” Trump said. “It would be burning today, just like their houses were burning a number of months ago.”

Newsom responded that the president was intentionally provoking protesters.

“Donald Trump’s government isn’t protecting our communities — they’re traumatizing our communities,” Newsom said. “And that seems to be the entire point.”

Activists who witnessed the 1992 riots said the current turmoil, despite being much smaller and less violent, is viewed differently because of images and video seen around the world on social media as well as the plethora of cable outlets that didn’t exist previously.

“They keep looping the same damn video of a car burning. It gives the impression cars are burning everywhere, businesses are being looted everywhere,” said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable.

Hutchinson, an activist from South L.A. who raised money to rebuild businesses during the 1992 riots, said he was concerned about the city’s reputation.

“L.A. is getting a bad name,” he said.

JANNIK SINNER had two hands on the French Open crown – or at least nine fingers…

But fans reckon he was then hit by the very same curse that struck Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final six years ago.

5

5

Nothing less than that of “The Cursed Finger”.

Sinner was leading Carlos Alcaraz 2-1 in sets and 5-3 in the fourth, before earning three match points at love-40 on the Spaniard’s serve.

And it was then that some Sinner fans gleefully raised a finger in anticipation of the World No1 clinching his first Roland Garros title.

That’s also what happened to Federer in the SW19 seats when he had two match points on his own serve against big rival Novak Djokovic back in 2019.

Both times fingers went up. Both times fortunes went down for the man on top.

Djokovic clinched a five-set epic, then Alcaraz did just that too on Sunday – retaining his French crown via the longest-ever Roland Garros final.

Naturally, fans couldn’t resist making creepy comparisons.

One wrote: “If it’s not a cursed finger again” – cruelly adding crying-with-laughter emojis.

5

BEST FREE BETS AND BETTING SIGN UP OFFERS

Others taunted Sinner fans – as the Italian went on to lose 4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6, 7-6 in five hours and 29 minutes.

The 23-year-old might also have thought the spirits were against him for another reason – during the fourth set.

He sportingly gave up a point after telling the chair umpire an Alcaraz shot had wrongly been called out.

But replays showed line judges had been right to call it long.

Three-time Slam winner Sinner admitted afterwards it was tough to speak after losing from such a strong position.

The rueful runner-up said: “It’s easier to play than talk now.

“I’m still happy with this trophy – I won’t sleep very well tonight but it is OK.”

Alcaraz praised his beaten rival – perhaps knowing the pair are way ahead of the world’s rest in the men’s game.

He told Sinner: “The level you have is amazing.

“It is a privilege to share a court with you in every tournament and in making history.”

5

5