trump administration

WASHINGTON — Late last month, an immigrant seeking asylum in the U.S. came across social media posts urging her to pay a new fee imposed by the Trump administration before Oct. 1, or else risk her case being dismissed.

Paula, a 40-year-old Los Angeles-area immigrant from Mexico, whose full name The Times is withholding because she fears retribution, applied for asylum in 2021 and her case is now on appeal.

But when Paula tried to pay the $100 annual fee, she couldn’t find an option on the immigration court’s website that accepted fees for pending asylum cases. Afraid of deportation — and with just five hours before the payment deadline — she selected the closest approximation she could find, $110 for an appeal filed before July 7.

She knew it was likely incorrect. Still, she felt it was better to pay for something, rather than nothing at all, as a show of good faith. Unable to come up with the money on such short notice, Paula, who works in a warehouse repairing purses, paid the fee with a credit card.

“I hope that money isn’t wasted,” she said.

That remains unclear because of confusion and misinformation surrounding the rollout of a host of new fees or fee increases for a variety of immigration services. The fees are part of the sweeping budget bill President Trump signed into law in July.

Paula was one of thousands of asylum seekers across the country who panicked after seeing messages on social media urging them to pay the new fee before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

But government messaging about the fees has sometimes been chaotic and contradictory, immigration attorneys say. Some asylum seekers have received notice about the fees, while others have not. Misinformation surged as immigrants scrambled to figure out whether, and how, to pay.

Advocates worry the confusion serves as a way for immigration officials to dismiss more asylum cases, which would render the applicants deportable.

The fees vary. For those seeking asylum, there is a $100 fee for new applications, as well as a yearly fee of $100 for pending applications. The fee for an initial work permit is $550 and work permit renewals can be as much as $795.

Amy Grenier, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that not having a clear way to pay a fee might seem like a small government misstep, but the legal consequences are substantial.

For new asylum applications, she said, some immigration judges set a payment deadline of Sept. 30, even though the Executive Office for Immigration Review only updated the payment portal in the last week of September.

“The lack of coherent guidance and structure to pay the fee only compounded the inefficiency of our immigration courts,” Grenier said. “There are very real consequences for asylum-seekers navigating this completely unnecessary bureaucratic mess.”

Two agencies collect the asylum fees: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, which operates immigration courts.

Both agencies initially released different instructions regarding the fees, and only USCIS has provided an avenue for payment.

The departments of Homeland Security and Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment. The White House deferred to USCIS.

USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser said the asylum fee is being implemented consistent with the law.

“The real losers in this are the unscrupulous and incompetent immigration attorneys who exploit their clients and bog down the system with baseless asylum claims,” he said.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), a national membership organization, sued the Trump administration earlier this month after thousands of members shared their confusion over the new fees, arguing that the federal agencies involved “threaten to deprive asylum seekers of full and fair consideration of their claims.”

The organization also argued the fees shouldn’t apply to people whose cases were pending before Trump signed the budget package into law.

In a U.S. district court filing Monday, Justice Department lawyers defended the fees, saying, “Congress made clear that these new asylum fees were long overdue and necessary to recover the growing costs of adjudicating the millions of pending asylum applications.”

Some of the confusion resulted from contradictory information.

A notice by USCIS in the July 22 Federal Register confused immigrants and legal practitioners alike because of a reference to Sept. 30. Anyone who had applied for asylum as of Oct. 1, 2024, and whose application was still pending by Sept. 30, was instructed to pay a fee. Some thought the notice meant that Sept. 30 was the deadline to pay the yearly asylum fee.

By this month, USCIS clarified on its website that it will “issue personal notices” alerting asylum applicants when their annual fee is due, how to pay it and the consequences for failing to do so.

The agency created a payment portal and began sending out notices Oct. 1, instructing recipients to pay within 30 days.

But many asylum seekers are still waiting to be notified by USCIS, according to ASAP, the advocacy organization. Some have received texts or physical mail telling them to check their USCIS account, while others have resorted to checking their accounts daily.

Meanwhile the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) didn’t add a mechanism for paying the $100 fee for pending asylum cases — the one Paula hoped to pay — until Thursday.

In its Oct. 3 complaint, lawyers for ASAP wrote: “Troublingly, ASAP has received reports that some immigration judges at EOIR are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual asylum fee, and in at least one case even rejected an asylum application and ordered an asylum seeker removed for non-payment of the annual asylum fee, despite the agency providing no way to pay this fee.”

An immigration lawyer in San Diego, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution, said an immigration judge denied his client’s asylum petition because the client had not paid the new fee, even though there was no way to pay it.

The judge issued an order, which was shared with The Times, that read, “Despite this mandatory requirement, to date the respondents have not filed proof of payment for the annual asylum fee.”

The lawyer called the decision a due process violation. He said he now plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though another fee increase under Trump’s spending package raised that cost from $110 to $1,010. He is litigating the case pro bono.

Justice Department lawyers said Monday that EOIR had eliminated the initial inconsistency by revising its position to reflect that of USCIS and will soon send out official notices to applicants, giving them 30 days to make the payment.

“There was no unreasonable delay here in EOIR’s implementation,” the filing said. “…The record shows several steps were required to finalize EOIR’s process, including coordination with USCIS. Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is now moot.”

Immigrants like Paula, who is a member of ASAP, recently got some reassurance. In a court declaration, EOIR Director Daren Margolin wrote that for anyone who made anticipatory or advance payments for the annual asylum fee, “those payments will be applied to the alien’s owed fees, as appropriate.”

The Trump administration is sending federal agents to San Francisco following weeks of threats from the president to deploy the National Guard to the Bay Area.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement on X confirming and criticizing the agents’ upcoming arrival. He called deployment a “page right out of the dictator’s handbook” intended to create the conditions of unrest necessary to then send in the National Guard.

“He sends out masked men, he sends out Border Patrol, he sends out ICE, he creates anxiety and fear in the community so that he can lay claim to solving that by sending in the [National] Guard,” said Newsom. “This is no different than the arsonist putting out the fire.”

Around 100 federal agents, including members of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, are en route to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Alameda base, according to reporting from the San Francisco Chronicle. The Coast Guard and DHS did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Trump has suggested for weeks that San Francisco is next on his list for National Guard deployment, after the administration sent troops to Los Angeles and Chicago and is battling in court to send them to Portland, Ore.

On Sunday, Trump told Fox News, “We’re going to San Francisco and we’ll make it great. It’ll be great again.”

Trump has suggested that the role of the National Guard in San Francisco would be to address crime rates. However, the National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.

In September, he said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”

Trump said he told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard.”

Newsom urged Californians to remain peaceful in the face of the arrival of federal agents.

“President Trump and [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller’s authoritarian playbook is coming for another of our cities, and violence and vandalism are exactly what they’re looking for to invoke chaos,” said Newsom on X.

The sending of federal agents to San Francisco comes as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration across the nation in an attempt to carry out what the president has proclaimed is the largest deportation effort in U.S. history.

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

In a rare public rebuke, the Los Angeles City Council pressed the city’s top lawyer to abandon her attempt to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

One day before “No Kings” demonstrations against the Trump administration were set to launch in L.A. and elsewhere, the council voted 12-0 to direct City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to withdraw her request to lift the order.

Hours later, Feldstein Soto’s legal team did just that, informing the judge it was pulling back its request — around the same time the judge rejected it.

Since June, the city has been hit with dozens of legal claims from protesters and journalists who reported that LAPD officers used excessive force against them during protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit that prompted the judge’s ban was brought by the Los Angeles Press Club and the news outlet Status Coup, who pointed to video evidence and testimonials suggesting that LAPD officers violated their own guidelines, as well as state law, by shooting journalists and others in sensitive parts of the body, such as the head, with weapons that launch projectiles the size of a mini soda can at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour.

“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the motion opposing Feldstein Soto’s legal filing, said in a statement. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”

In a motion filed Wednesday, Feldstein Soto’s legal team sought a temporary stay of the order issued by U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera. She reiterated her earlier argument that Vera’s ban was overly broad, extending protections to “any journalist covering a protest in [the City of] Los Angeles.”

The city’s lawyers also argued that the ban, which bars the LAPD from using so-called less lethal munitions against journalists and nonviolent protesters, creates “ambiguous mandates” that jeopardize “good-faith conduct” by officers and pose “immediate and concrete risk to officer and public safety.”

In addition to Feldstein Soto’s request for a temporary stay, the city has filed an appeal of Vera’s injunction. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking up the appeal, with a hearing tentatively set for mid-November.

Council members have become increasingly vocal about their frustrations with the city attorney’s office. Two months ago, they voiced alarm that an outside law firm billed the city $1.8 million in just two weeks — double the amount authorized by the council. They have also grown exasperated over the rising cost of legal payouts, which have consumed a steadily larger portion of the city budget.

After Feldstein Soto’s motion was reported by LAist, several city council members publicly distanced themselves from her and condemned her decision.

In a sternly worded statement before Friday’s vote, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wrote that the city attorney’s “position does not speak for the full City Council.”

“The LAPD should NEVER be permitted to use force against journalists or anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights,” said the statement from Soto-Martínez, who signed Hernandez’s proposal along with Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Monica Rodriguez.

On Friday, the council also asked the city attorney’s office to report back within 30 days on “all proactive litigation the Office has moved forward without explicit direction from the City Council or Mayor since July 1, 2024.”

Rodriguez said that Friday’s vote should send a message that the city council needs “to be consulted as a legislative body that is independently elected by the people.”

“What I hope is that this becomes a more permanent act of this body — to exercise its role in oversight,” she said.

Carol Sobel, the civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, welcomed the council’s action. Still, she said Feldstein Soto’s filings in the case raise questions about whose interests the city attorney is representing.

“Sometimes you say ‘Mea culpa, we were wrong. We shouldn’t have shot people in the head, despite our policies,’” she said.

WASHINGTON — The United States took survivors into custody after its military struck a suspected drug-carrying vessel in the Caribbean — the first attack that anyone escaped alive since President Trump began launching assaults in the region last month, a defense official and another person familiar with the matter said Friday.

The strike Thursday brought the death toll from the Trump administration’s military action against vessels in the region to at least 28.

It is believed to be at least the sixth strike in the waters off Venezuela since early September, and the first to result in survivors who were picked up by the U.S. military. It was not immediately clear what would be done with the survivors, who the people said were being held on a U.S. Navy vessel.

They confirmed the strike on condition of anonymity because it had not yet been publicly acknowledged by Trump’s administration.

Trump has justified the strikes by asserting that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, relying on the same legal authority used by President George W. Bush‘s administration when it declared a war on terror after the 9/11 attacks. That includes the ability to capture and detain combatants and to use lethal force against their leadership.

Some legal experts have questioned the legality of the approach. The president’s use of overwhelming military force to combat the cartels, along with his authorization of covert action inside Venezuela, possibly to oust President Nicolás Maduro, stretches the bounds of international law, legal scholars said this week.

Meanwhile, the Navy admiral who oversees military operations in the region will retire in December, he and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Thursday.

Adm. Alvin Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command only in November, overseeing an area that encompasses the Caribbean Sea and waters off South America. These types of postings typically last between three and four years.

Holsey said in a statement posted on the command’s Facebook page that it had “been an honor to serve our nation, the American people and support and defend our Constitution for over 37 years.”

“The SOUTHCOM team has made lasting contributions to the defense of our nation and will continue to do so,” he said. “I am confident that you will forge ahead, focused on your mission that strengthens our nation and ensures its longevity as a beacon of freedom around the globe.”

U.S. Southern Command did not provide any further information beyond the admiral’s statement.

For the survivors of Thursday’s strike, the saga is hardly over. They now face an unclear future and legal landscape, including questions about whether they are now considered to be prisoners of war or defendants in a criminal case. The White House did not comment on the strike.

Reuters was first to report news of the strike late Thursday.

The strikes in the Caribbean have caused unease among both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, with some Republicans saying they have not received sufficient information on how the strikes are being conducted. A classified briefing for members of the Senate Armed Services Committee this month did not include representatives from intelligence agencies or the military command structure for South and Central America.

However, most Senate Republicans stood behind the administration last week when a vote on a War Powers Resolution was brought up, which would have required the administration to gain approval from Congress before conducting more strikes.

Their willingness to back the administration will be tested again. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, along with Sens. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, is bringing another resolution that would prevent Trump from outright attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Toropin and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

A group of Democratic state governors has launched a new alliance aimed at coordinating their public health efforts.

They’re framing it as a way to share data, messages about threats, emergency preparedness and public health policy — and as a rebuke to President Trump’s administration, which they say isn’t doing its job in public health.

“At a time when the federal government is telling the states, ‘you’re on your own,’ governors are banding together,” Maryland Governor Wes Moore said in a statement.

The formation of the group touches off a new chapter in a partisan battle over public health measures that has been heightened by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s advisers declining to recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, instead leaving the choice to the individual.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in an email that Democratic governors who imposed school closures and mask mandates, including for toddlers, at the height of the pandemic, are the ones who “destroyed public trust in public health.”

“The Trump Administration and Secretary Kennedy are rebuilding that trust by grounding every policy in rigorous evidence and Gold Standard Science – not the failed politics of the pandemic,” Nixon said.

The initial members are all Democrats

The Governors Public Health Alliance bills itself as a “nonpartisan coordinating hub,” but the initial members are all Democrats — the governors of 14 states plus Guam.

Among them are governors of the most populous blue states, California and New York, and several governors who are considered possible 2028 presidential candidates, including California’s Gavin Newsom, Illinois’ JB Pritzker and Maryland’s Moore.

The idea of banding together for public health isn’t new for Democratic governors. They formed regional groups to address the pandemic during Trump’s first term and launched new ones in recent months amid uncertainty on federal vaccine policy. States have also taken steps to preserve access to COVID-19 vaccines.

The new alliance isn’t intended to supplant those efforts, or the coordination already done by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, its organizers say.

A former CDC director is among the advisers

Dr. Mandy Cohen, who was CDC director under former President Biden and before that the head of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, is part of a bipartisan group of advisers to the alliance.

“The CDC did provide an important backstop for expertise and support,” she said. “And I think now with some of that gone, it’s important for states to make sure that they are sharing best practices, and that they are coordinating, because the problems have not gone away. The health threats have not gone away.”

Other efforts have also sprung up to try to fill roles that the CDC performed before the ouster of a director, along with other restructuring and downsizing.

The Governors Public Health Alliance has support from GovAct, a nonprofit, nonpartisan donor-funded initiative that also has projects aimed at protecting democracy and another partisan hot-button issue, reproductive freedom.

Mulvihill and Stobbe write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

Days before the Trump administration was supposed to file its response to a California lawsuit challenging its targeting of gender-affirming care providers, attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge to temporarily halt the proceedings.

Given the federal shutdown, they argued, they just didn’t have the lawyers to do the work.

“Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,’” they wrote in their filing Oct. 1, the first day of the shutdown.

The district judge presiding over the case, which California filed in federal court in Massachusetts along with a coalition of other Democrat-led states, agreed, and promptly granted the request.

It was just one example of the now weeks-old federal shutdown grinding to a halt important litigation between California and the Trump administration, in policy battles with major implications for people’s lives.

The same day, in the same Massachusetts court, Justice Department attorneys were granted a pause in a lawsuit in which California and other states are challenging mass firings at the U.S. Department of Education, after noting that department funding had been suspended and it didn’t know “when such funding will be restored by Congress.”

The same day in U.S. District Court in Central California, the Trump administration asked for a similar pause in a lawsuit that it had brought against California, challenging the state’s refusal to provide its voter registration rolls to the administration.

Justice Department attorneys wrote that they “greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the other litigants,” but needed to pause the proceedings until they were “permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions.”

Since then, the court in Central California has advised the parties of alternative dispute resolution options and outside groups — including the NAACP — have filed motions to intervene in the case, but no major developments have occurred.

The pauses in litigation — only a portion of those that have occurred in courts across the country — were an example of sweeping, real-world, high-stakes effects of the federal government shutdown that average Americans may not consider when thinking about the shutdown’s impact on their lives.

Federal employees working in safety and other crucial roles — such as air traffic controllers — have remained on the job, even without pay, but many others have been forced to stay home. The Justice Department did not spell out which of its attorneys had been benched by the shutdown, but made clear that some who had been working on the cases in question were no longer doing so.

Federal litigation often takes years to resolve, and brief pauses in proceedings are not uncommon. However, extended disruptions — such as one that could occur if the shutdown drags on — would take a toll, forestalling legal answers in some of the most important policy battles in the country.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has sued the Trump administration more than 40 times since January, has not challenged every request for a pause by the Trump administration — especially in cases where the status quo favors the state.

However, it has challenged pauses in other cases, with some success.

For example, in that same Massachusetts federal courthouse Oct. 1, Justice Department attorneys asked a judge to temporarily halt proceedings in a case in which California and other states are suing to block the administration’s targeted defunding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Their arguments were the same as in the other cases: Given the shutdown, they didn’t have the attorneys to do the necessary legal work.

In response, attorneys for California and the other states pushed back, noting that the shutdown had not stopped Department of Health and Human Services officials from moving forward with the measure to defund Planned Parenthood — so the states’ residents remained at imminent risk of losing necessary healthcare.

“The risks of irreparable harms are especially high because it is unclear how long the lapse in appropriations will continue, meaning relief may not be available for months at which point numerous health centers will likely be forced to close due to a lack of funds,” the states argued.

On Oct. 8, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the government’s request for a pause, finding that the states’ interest in proceeding with the case “outweighs” the administration’s interest in pausing it.

Talwani’s argument, in part, was that her order denying a pause would provide Justice Department officials the legal authority to continue litigating the case despite the shutdown.

Bonta said in a statement that “Trump owns this shutdown” and “the devastation it’s causing to hardworking everyday Americans,” adding that his office will not let Trump use it to cause even more harm by delaying relief in court cases.

“We’re not letting his Administration use this shutdown as an excuse to continue implementing his unlawful agenda unchecked. Until we get relief for Californians, we’re not backing down — and neither are the courts,” Bonta said. “We can’t wait for Trump to finally let our government reopen before these cases are heard.”

Trump and Republicans in Congress have blamed the shutdown on Democrats.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Argentina’s libertarian leader is lavishing praise on President Trump ahead of his first White House visit on Tuesday. It’s a tactic that has helped transform President Javier Milei ’s cash-strapped country into one of the Trump administration’s closest allies.

The effusive declarations are nothing new for Milei — whose dramatic cuts to state spending and attacks on “woke leftists” have won him a following among U.S. conservatives.

“Your commitment to life, freedom and peace has restored hope to the world,” Milei wrote on social media Monday, congratulating the U.S. president on securing a ceasefire deal in Gaza, where a truce is holding after a devastating, two-year Israel-Hamas war.

“It is an honor to consider you not only an ally in the defense of those values, but also a dear friend and an example of leadership that inspires all those who believe in freedom,” he said.

The Trump-Milei bromance has already paid off for Argentina — most recently, to the tune of a $20 billion bailout.

Experts say Milei comes to the White House with two clear objectives. One is to negotiate U.S. tariff exemptions or reductions for Argentine products.

The other is to see how the United States will implement a $20 billion currency swap line to prop up Argentina’s peso and replenish its depleted foreign currency reserves ahead of crucial midterm elections later this month.

In a crisis, turning to Trump

The Trump administration made a highly unusual decision to intervene in Argentina’s currency market after Milei’s party suffered a landslide loss in a local election last month.

Along with setbacks in the opposition-dominated Congress, the party’s crushing defeat created a crisis of confidence as voters in Buenos Aires Province registered their frustration with rising unemployment, contracting economic activity and brewing corruption scandals.

Alarmed that this could herald the end of popular support for Milei’s free-market program, investors dumped Argentine bonds and sold off the peso.

Argentina’s Treasury began hemorrhaging precious dollar reserves at a feverish pace, trying shore up the currency and keep its exchange rate within the trading band set as part of the country’s recent $20 billion deal with the International Monetary Fund.

But as the peso continued to slide, Milei grew desperate.

He met with Trump on Sept. 23 while in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. A flurry of back-slapping, hand-shaking and mutual flattery between the two quickly gave way to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly promising Argentina a lifeline of $20 billion.

Markets cheered, and investors breathed a sigh of relief.

Timing is everything

In the days that followed, Argentine Economy Minister Luis Caputo spent hours in meetings in Washington trying to seal the deal.

Reassurance came last Thursday, when Bessent announced that the U.S. would allow Argentina to exchange up to $20 billion worth of pesos for an equal sum in dollars. Saying that the success of Milei’s program was “of systemic importance,” Bessent added that the U.S. Treasury directly purchased an unspecified amount of pesos.

For the Trump administration, the timing was awkward as it struggles to manage the optics of bailing out a nine-time serial defaulter in the middle of a U.S. government shutdown that has led to mass layoffs.

But for Argentina, it came in the nick of time.

Aware of how a weak currency could threaten his flagship achievement of taming inflation and hurt his popularity, Milei hopes to stave off what many economists see as an inescapable currency devaluation until after the the Oct. 26 midterm elections.

A devaluation of the peso would likely fuel a resurgence in inflation.

“Milei is going to the U.S. in a moment of desperation now,” said Marcelo J. García, political analyst and Director for the Americas at the Horizon Engage political risk consultancy firm.

“He needs to recreate market expectations and show that his program can be sustainable,” García added. “The government is trying to win some time to make it to the midterms without major course corrections, like devaluing or floating the peso.”

No strings attached

Milei was vague when pressed for details on his talks with Trump, expected later on Tuesday. Officials say he would have a two-hour meeting with the U.S. president, followed by a working lunch with other top officials.

He was also expected to participate in a ceremony at the White House honoring Charlie Kirk, the prominent right-wing political activist who was fatally shot last month. Milei often crossed paths with Kirk on the speaking circuit of the ascendant global right.

“We don’t have a single-issue agenda, but rather a multi-issue agenda,” Milei told El Observador radio in Buenos Aires Monday. “Things that are already finalized will be announced, and things that still need to be finalized will remain pending.”

It’s not clear what strings, if any, the Trump administration has attached to the currency swap deal, which Democratic lawmakers and other critics have slammed as an example of Trump rewarding loyalists at the expense of American taxpayers.

There has been no word on how Argentina, the IMF’s largest debtor, will end up paying the U.S. back for this $20 billion, which comes on top of IMF’s own loan for the same amount in April. And that one came on top of an earlier IMF loan for $40 billion.

Despite all the help, Milei’s government already missed the IMF’s early targets for rebuilding currency reserves.

“The U.S. should be concerned that Argentina has had to return for $20 billion so quickly after getting $14 billion upfront from the IMF,” said Brad Setser, a former Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I worry that this may prove to just be a short-term bridge and won’t leave Argentina better equipped” to tackle its problems, he added.

But in the radio interview before his flight, Milei was upbeat. He gushed about U.S. support saving Argentina from “the local franchise of 21st-century socialism” and waxed poetic about Argentina’s economic potential.

“There will be an avalanche of dollars,” Milei said. “We’ll have dollars pouring out of our ears.”

Debre writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Troops patrol train stations and streets in the nation’s capital. Masked federal law enforcement agents detain District of Columbia residents. Congress passes bills that further squeeze the city’s autonomy. And the one person who could act as a voice for Washington on Capitol Hill has been a rare sight.

Even longtime allies say Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s nonvoting delegate in the House, has not risen to the challenge of pushing back against the Trump administration’s intervention into her city. They cite her age, 88, and her diminished demeanor.

That has raised questions about the 18-term lawmaker’s future in that office and has led to calls for her to step aside and make way for a new generation of leaders. The race to replace her has began in earnest, with two members of the D.C. Council, including a former Norton aide, announcing campaigns for the 2026 contest.

“D.C. is under attack as at no other time in recent history, and we need a new champion to defend us,” Donna Brazile, a onetime Norton chief of staff, wrote in a Washington Post opinion essay.

Brazile acknowledged Norton’s legendary service and why she might wish to continue. “As I’ve told her in person,” Brazile said, “retirement from Congress is the right next chapter for her — and for the District.”

Norton has so far resisted that call. Her office declined to make her available for an interview, and her campaign office did not respond to requests for comment. The oldest member of the House, Norton came to office in 1991 and has indicated she plans to run next year.

Federal intervention created new demands

Washington is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed by Congress in 1973 that allowed residents to elect a mayor and a city council. But federal political leaders retain ultimate control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by that council.

That freedom came under further restrictions after Republican President Trump issued an emergency order in August. It was meant to combat crime as he federalized the city’s police department and poured federal agents and National Guard troops into the city. Trump’s emergency order expired in September, but the troops and federal officers remain.

While the D.C. delegate position is a nonvoting one, it grants the people of the district, who have no other representation in Congress, a voice through speechmaking on the House floor and bill introduction.

Even without a vote in Congress, “there are so many things that the delegate can do from that position, even if it’s just using the bully pulpit,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a voting rights group. “Even if it’s just giving folks encouragement or showing that fight that a lot of people want to see.”

At public appearances, Norton has seemed unsteady and struggled to read from prepared notes, including at a recent committee hearing focused on stripping some of Washington’s independence on prosecuting crime.

During Trump’s monthlong security emergency and since, Norton has not been as publicly visible as city officials, who attended protests and held media events denouncing the intervention.

Without a push for party unity from congressional leaders on Washington’s interests, the delegate’s role has added importance, said George Derek Musgrove, associate professor of history at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.

“The delegate really has to be a one-person whip operation to try and hold the caucus in line against this Republican onslaught,” Musgrove said.

City leaders step in

It is unclear what a more energetic delegate could have done, given Trump’s expansive view of executive power and Republican control of Congress. Nonetheless, some critics of her performance have suggested it might have helped the city avoid a recent federal budget plan that created a $1.1-billion budget hole earlier this year. Months later, Congress has yet to approve a fix for the shortfall, even though Trump has endorsed one.

With Norton quiet, other leaders in the Democratic-run city have filled the void since Trump’s emergency declaration.

Mayor Muriel Bowser has stepped in as the district’s main mediator with the administration and Congress, joined by the council, although that outreach has been fragmented. D.C. Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb sued the administration in the most combative stance against the federal government’s actions.

As Norton left a recent House hearing about the district, she responded with a strong “no” when asked by reporters whether she would retire.

Among those seeking to challenge her in next year’s Democratic primary are two council members — Robert White Jr., a former Norton aide, and Brooke Pinto. Many others in the city have expressed interest. Allies, including Bowser and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, have declined to publicly endorse another Norton run.

A push for new faces

Norton’s life is a journey through American history.

In 1963, she split her time between Yale Law School and Mississippi, where she volunteered for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. One day during the Freedom Summer, civil rights activist Medgar Evers picked her up at the airport. He was assassinated that night. Norton also helped organize and attended the 1963 March on Washington.

Norton went on to become the first woman to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which helps enforce anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. She ran for office when her predecessor retired to run for Washington mayor.

Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia and a staunch Norton ally who worked with her on a number of bills, said voters should know who she is and what she is capable of, even now.

“She saved the city,” he said, listing off accomplishments such as the 1997 act that spared the city from bankruptcy, as well as improving college access. “She was a great partner.”

Davis said both major political parties are yearning for new faces.

“She’s still very well respected. She’s got a lot seniority,” he said. “I think she’s earned the right to go out on her terms. But that’s gonna be up to the voters.”

Fields, Brown and Khalil write for the Associated Press.

Former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner kicked off his campaign for mayor on Monday with a video launch that hits not just Mayor Karen Bass but President Trump and his immigration crackdown.

Beutner, a philanthropist and former investment banker, uses the four-minute campaign video to describe L.A. as a city that is “under attack” — a message punctuated by footage of U.S. Border Patrol agents.

“I’ll never accept the Trump administration’s assault on our values and our neighbors,” says Beutner, a Democrat, as he stands on a tree-lined residential street. “Targeting people solely based on the color of their skin is unacceptable and un-American.”

“I’ll counter these injustices and work to keep every person safe and build a better Los Angeles,” he adds.

The White House did not immediately respond to an inquiry from The Times about Beutner’s video.

The video opens by describing a major biking accident that upended Beutner’s life about 17 years ago, leading him to enter public service and “take a different path.” Not long after, he became Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s “jobs czar,” taking on the elevated title of first deputy mayor and striking business deals on the mayor’s behalf.

The video casts Beutner, 65, as a pragmatic problem solver, focusing on his nonprofit Vision to Learn, which provides eye exams and glasses to children in low-income communities. It also highlights his work shepherding L.A. Unified through the COVID-19 pandemic and working to pass Proposition 28, the 2022 measure supporting arts education in California public schools.

Beutner, on his video, also turns his aim at City Hall, high housing costs, rising parking meter rates and a big increase in trash pickup fees for homeowners and smaller apartment buildings. Calling L.A. a city that is “adrift,” Beutner criticized the mayor’s push to reduce homelessness — one of her signature initiatives.

“The city spent billions to solve problems that have just become bigger problems,” Beutner says.

Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman pushed back on the criticism, saying the city needs to “move past divisive attacks.” He said violent crime is down across the city, with homicides falling to their lowest levels in 60 years.

“When Karen Bass ran for mayor, homelessness and public safety were the top concerns of Angelenos. And she has delivered in a big way,” he said in a statement. “Today, homelessness has decreased two consecutive years for the first time in Los Angeles. Thousands of people have been moved off our streets and into housing.”

“There’s more work ahead, but this administration has proven it can deliver,” Herman added. “Mayor Bass is committed to building on this historic momentum in her second term.”

Beutner’s video posted two days after he confirmed that he’s planning to run for mayor, leveling blistering criticism at the city’s preparation for, and response to, the Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead.

Beutner’s criticism of Trump’s immigration crackdown in many ways echoes the messages delivered by Bass several months ago, when federal agents were seizing street vendors, day laborers and other workers in L.A.

In June, Bass said the Trump administration was waging an “all-out assault on Los Angeles,” with federal agents “randomly grabbing people” off the street, “chasing Angelenos through parking lots” and arresting immigrants who showed up at court for annual check-ins. Her approach to the issue helped her regain her political footing after she had faltered in the wake of the Palisades fire.

In early September, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, agreeing that immigration agents can stop and detain individuals they suspect may be in the U.S. illegally merely for speaking Spanish or having brown skin.

The high court ruling set aside a Los Angeles judge’s temporary restraining order that barred agents from stopping people based in part on their race or apparent ethnicity.

Illinois urged a judge Thursday to order the National Guard to stand down in the Chicago area, calling the deployment a constitutional crisis and suggesting the Trump administration gave no heed to the pending legal challenge when it sent troops overnight to an immigration enforcement building.

The government “plowed ahead anyway,” attorney Christopher Wells of the state attorney general office said. “Now, troops are here.”

Wells’ arguments opened an extraordinary hearing in federal court in Chicago. The city and the state, run by Democratic elected leaders, say President Trump has vastly exceeded his authority and ignored their pleas to keep the Guard off the streets.

Heavy public turnout at the downtown courthouse caused officials to open an overflow room with a video feed of the hearing. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson got a seat in a corner of the courtroom.

Feds say Guard won’t solve all crime

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton said the Chicago area was rife with “tragic lawlessness.” He pointed to an incident last weekend in which a Border Patrol vehicle was boxed in and an agent shot a woman in response.

“Chicago is seeing a brazen new form of hostility from rioters targeting federal law enforcement,” Hamilton said. “They’re not protesters. There is enough that there is a danger of a rebellion here, which there is.”

He said some people were wearing gas masks, a suggestion they were poised for a fight, but U.S. District Judge April Perry countered it might be justified to avoid tear gas at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Broadview, outside Chicago.

“I, too, would wear a gas mask,” the judge said, “not because I’m trying to be violent but because I’m trying to protect myself.”

Hamilton also tried to narrow the issues. He said the Guard’s mission would be to protect federal properties and government law enforcers in the field — not “solving all of crime in Chicago.”

Guard on the ground at ICE site

Guard members from Texas and Illinois arrived this week at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, southwest of Chicago. All 500 are under the U.S. Northern Command and have been activated for 60 days.

Some Guard troops could be seen behind portable fences at the Broadview ICE building. It has been the site of occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents, but the scene was peaceful, with few people present.

Wells, the lawyer for Illinois, described the impact of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Chicago, noting that U.S. citizens have been temporarily detained. He acknowledged the “president does have the power, and he’s using that power.”

“But that power is not unlimited,” Wells added, referring to the Guard deployment. “And this court can check that power.”

Perry told the parties to return to court late Thursday afternoon.

Guard on court docket elsewhere

Also Thursday, a federal appeals court heard arguments over whether Trump had the authority to take control of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. The president had planned to deploy them in Portland, where there have been mostly small nightly protests outside an ICE building.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut on Sunday granted a temporary restraining order blocking the move. Trump had mobilized California troops for Portland just hours after the judge first blocked him from using Oregon’s Guard.

Two dozen other states with a Democratic attorney general or governor signed a court filing in support of the legal challenge by California and Oregon. Twenty others, led by Iowa, backed the Trump administration.

The nearly 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act limits the military’s role in enforcing domestic laws. However, Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to dispatch active duty military in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.

Troops used in other states

Trump previously sent troops to Los Angeles and Washington. In Memphis, Tenn., Mayor Paul Young said troops would begin patrolling Friday. Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee supports the role.

Police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis said she hoped the Guard would be used to direct traffic and have a presence in retail corridors, but not used for checkpoints or similar activities.

Davis said she doesn’t want Memphis to “feel like there is this over-militarization in our communities.”

The Trump administration’s aggressive use of the Guard was challenged this summer in California, which won and lost a series of court decisions while opposing the policy of putting troops in Los Angeles, where they protected federal buildings and immigration agents.

A judge in September said the deployment was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained on the ground. The judge did not order them to leave. The government later took steps to send them to Oregon.

Fernando and Thanawala write for the Associated Press. AP writers Ed White in Detroit, Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia and Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tenn., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A grand jury has indicted New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James on a fraud charge in the latest Justice Department case against a perceived enemy of President Trump, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

James was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count after a mortgage fraud investigation, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.

James’ office had no immediate comment Thursday.

The indictment, two weeks after a separate criminal case charging former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress, is the latest indication of the Trump administration’s norm-busting determination to use the law enforcement powers of the Justice Department to pursue the president’s political foes and public figures who once investigated him.

The James case remained under seal Thursday, making it impossible to assess what evidence prosecutors have. But as was the case with the Comey charges, the prosecution followed a strikingly unconventional case.

The Trump administration two weeks ago pushed out Erik Siebert, the veteran prosecutor who had overseen the investigation for months but had resisted pressure to file a case, and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who was once Trump’s personal lawyer but who has never worked as a federal prosecutor.

Halligan presented the case to the grand jury herself, as she did in the case against Comey, according to the person familiar with the matter.

Trump has been advocating charging James for months, posting on social media without citing any evidence that she’s “guilty as hell” and telling reporters at the White House, “It looks to me like she’s really guilty of something, but I really don’t know.”

James, a second-term Democrat, has denied wrongdoing. She has said that she made an error while filling out a form related to a home purchase but quickly rectified it and didn’t deceive the lender.

Her lawyer has accused the Justice Department of concocting a bogus criminal case to settle Trump’s personal vendetta against James, who last year won a staggering judgment against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he lied to banks and others about the value of his assets.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage-related allegations against Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, using the probe to demand her ouster, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose lawyer called the allegations against him “transparently false, stale, and long debunked.”

But James is a particularly personal target. As attorney general, she sued the Republican president and his administration dozens of times and oversaw a lawsuit accusing him of defrauding banks by dramatically overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements.

An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

Richer, Sisak and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

On Saturday, a home belonging to a South Carolina Circuit judge burned to the ground. Three people, including the judge’s husband and son, were hospitalized with serious injuries.

The cause of the fire was not immediately clear. An investigation is underway.

Obviously, the harm and destruction were terrible things. But what turned that particular tragedy into something more frightful and ominous is the fact the judge had been targeted with death threats, after ruling against the Trump administration in a lawsuit involving the state’s voter files.

Last month, the judge, Diane Goodstein, temporarily blocked South Carolina from releasing data to the U.S. Department of Retribution, er, Justice, which is turning over tables in search of “facts” to bolster President Trump’s lies about a stolen 2020 election.

Among those who criticized the decision, which was reversed by South Carolina’s Supreme Court, was Harmeet Dhillon, the San Francisco attorney who now heads the Justice Department’s beleaguered Civil Rights Division.

Here’s a short quiz. Using professional norms and human decency as your guide, can you guess what Dhillon did in the aftermath of the fire?

A) Publicly consoled Goodstein and said the Justice Department would throw its full weight behind an urgent investigation into the fire.

B) Drew herself up in righteous anger and issued a ringing statement that denounced political violence, whatever its form, whether perpetrated by those on the left, right or center.

C) Took to social media to troll a political adversary who raised concerns about the targeting of judges and incendiary rhetoric emanating from the Trump administration.

If you selected anything other than “C,” you obviously aren’t familiar with Dhillon. Or perhaps you’ve spent the last many months in a coma, or cut off from the world in the frozen tundra of Antarctica.

The cause of the fire could very well turn out to be something unfortunate and distinctly nonpolitical. Faulty wiring, say, or an unattended pot left on the stove. South Carolina’s top law enforcement official said a preliminary inquiry had so far turned up no evidence that the fire was deliberately set.

What matters, however, is Dhillon’s response.

Not as someone with a shred of sympathy, or as a dogged and scrupulous seeker of truth and justice. But as a fists-up political combatant.

The timing of the blaze, the threats Goodstein received and the country’s hair-trigger political atmosphere all offered more than a little reason for pause and reflection. At the least, Goodstein’s loss and the suffering of her husband and child called for compassion.

Dhillon, however, is a someone who reacted to the 2022 hammer attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband not with concern but rather cruel and baseless conspiracy claims.

By then, Dhillon — a critic of Trump before he won the 2016 Republican nomination — had shape-shifted into one of his most vocal backers, a regular mouthpiece on Fox News and other right-wing media. Her pandering paid off with her appointment to the Justice Department, where Dhillon is supposed to be protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans — not just those in Trump’s good graces.

There’s plenty of tit-for-tat going around in today’s sulfurous climate. Indeed, the jabbing of fingers and laying of blame have become something of a national pastime.

The administration asserts left-wing radicals are responsible for the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a sniper attack on the ICE field office in Dallas. Those on the left blame Trump and his venomous vassal, Stephen Miller, for the incineration of Goodstein’s home.

When Neera Tanden, a liberal think-tank leader and prolific presence on social media, suggested there might be a connection between the blaze and Miller’s hate-filled rhetoric, Dhillon responded like a juvenile in a flame war. “Clown … grow up, girl,” Dhillon wrote on X.

When a spokesman for Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed a finger at Dhillon and her criticism of the South Carolina judge, Dhillon seized on some over-the-top responses and called in the U.S. Marshals Service. “We will tolerate no such threats by woke idiots, including those who work for @GavinNewsom,” Dhillon said.

All around, a sad display of more haste than good judgment.

That said, there is a huge difference between a press staffer getting his jollies on social media and the assistant attorney general of the United States playing politics with personal calamity.

And, really, doesn’t Dhillon have better things to do — and better ways of earning her pay — than constantly curating her social media feed, like a mean girl obsessing over likes and followers?

Worse, though, than such puerile behavior is what Dhillon embodies: an us-vs.-them attitude that permeates the administration and treats those who didn’t vote for Trump — which is more than half the country — as a target.

It’s evident in the talk of shuttering “Democrat” agencies, as if federal programs serve only members of one party. It’s manifest in the federal militarization of Democratic-run cities and the cutting off of funding to blue states, but not red ones, during the current government shutdown.

It’s revealed in the briefings — on military plans, on operations during the shutdown — given to Republican lawmakers but denied to Democrats serving on Capitol Hill.

Dhillon is just one cog in Trump’s malevolent, weaponization of Washington. But her reflexively partisan response to the razing of Judge Goodstein’s home is telling.

When the person in charge of the nation’s civil rights enforcement can’t muster even a modicum of civility, we’re living in some very dark times indeed.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration warned on Tuesday of no guaranteed back pay for federal workers during a government shutdown, reversing what has been long-standing policy for some 750,000 furloughed employees, according to a memo being circulated by the White House.

Trump signed into law after the longest government shutdown in 2019 legislation that ensures federal workers receive back pay during any federal funding lapse. But in the new memo, his Office of Management and Budget says back pay must be provided by Congress, if it chooses to do so, as part of any bill to fund the government.

The move by the Republican administration was widely seen as a strong-arm tactic — a way to pressure lawmakers to reopen the government, now in the seventh day of a shutdown.

“There are some people that don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’ll take care of them in a different way,” Trump said during an event at the White House.

He said back pay “depends on who we’re talking about.”

Refusing retroactive pay to the workers, some of whom must remain on the job as essential employees, would be a stark departure from norms and practices and almost certainly would be met with legal action.

While federal workers — as well as service members of the military — have often missed paychecks during past shutdowns, they are almost always reimbursed once the government reopens.

“That should turn up the urgency and the necessity of the Democrats doing the right thing here,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a news conference at the Capitol.

Johnson, a lawyer, said he hadn’t fully read the memo but “there are some legal analysts who are saying” that it may not be necessary or appropriate to repay the federal workers.

But Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington blasted the Trump administration as defying the law.

“Another baseless attempt to try and scare & intimidate workers by an administration run by crooks and cowards,” said Murray, who is the ranking lawmaker on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “The letter of the law is as plain as can be — federal workers, including furloughed workers, are entitled to their back pay following a shutdown.”

Asked a second time about back pay for furloughed federal workers given that the requirement is spelled out in law, Trump said: “I follow the law, and what the law says is correct.”

In a single-page memo from Trump’s Office of Management and Budget under Russ Vought, first reported by Axios, the office’s general counsel seeks to lay out a legal rationale for no back pay of federal workers.

The memo explains that while the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 says workers shall be paid after federal funding is restored, it argues the action is not self-executing. Instead, the memo says, repaying the federal workers would have to be part of legislation to reopen the government.

The OMB analysis draws on language familiar to budget experts by suggesting that the 2019 bill created an authorization to pay the federal workers but not the actual appropriation.

Congress, it says, is able to decide whether it wants to pay the workers or not.

For now, Congress remains at a standstill, with neither side — nor the White House — appearing willing to budge. Democrats are fighting for healthcare funds to prevent a lapse in federal subsidies that threaten to send insurance rates skyrocketing. Republicans say the issue can be dealt with later.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Will Weissert, Kevin Freking, Joey Cappelletti and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Trump-appointed FBI Director Kash Patel has fired an agent-in-training over an LGBTQIA+ Pride flag.

According to three people close to the situation, the unidentified agent was terminated on the first day of the US government shutdown for displaying the flag in his workspace, per CNN.

The employee, who had previously served as a field office diversity program coordinator and had received several awards, was enrolled in new agent training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, when he received his dismissal letter.

In the letter, Patel cited the 47th president’s claimed Article II powers to dismiss the agent without due process, referring to the flag as “political signage.”

“You are being summarily dismissed from your position as a New Agent Trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, and removed from federal service,” Patel wrote, per MSNBC.

“After reviewing the facts and circumstances and considering your probationary status, I have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment in the Los Angeles Field Office.”

While the FBI has yet to release a statement, several Democratic officials have condemned Patel’s actions.

“LGBTQ+ people should be able to serve their country openly and proudly,” Josh Sorbe, spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, told The Advocate.

Openly gay California Representative Mark Takano, Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, echoed similar sentiments in a separate statement to the outlet.

“Trump and his administration have been obsessively trying to purge our community from the federal workforce since they took power. This firing is just their next attack,” he said.

“It’s not just censorship — they’re also firing people for simply being LGBTQI+ or doing work that supports the LGBTQI+ community. These despicable acts are yet another example of how commonplace anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination is in this administration.”

The recent firing joins a growing list of anti-LGBTQIA+ moves committed by the Trump administration.

From cutting funding for HIV and LGBTQIA+ health care to erasing bisexual and trans people from the National Park Service’s website on the Stonewall National Monument, the community has been ruthlessly targeted by the former reality personality and convicted felon.

For more information on the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community, click here.

Trump-appointed FBI Director Kash Patel has fired an agent-in-training over an LGBTQIA+ Pride flag.

According to three people close to the situation, the unidentified agent was terminated on the first day of the US government shutdown for displaying the flag in his workspace, per CNN.

The employee, who had previously served as a field office diversity program coordinator and had received several awards, was enrolled in new agent training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, when he received his dismissal letter.

In the letter, Patel cited the 47th president’s claimed Article II powers to dismiss the agent without due process, referring to the flag as “political signage.”

“You are being summarily dismissed from your position as a New Agent Trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, and removed from federal service,” Patel wrote, per MSNBC.

“After reviewing the facts and circumstances and considering your probationary status, I have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment in the Los Angeles Field Office.”

While the FBI has yet to release a statement, several Democratic officials have condemned Patel’s actions.

“LGBTQ+ people should be able to serve their country openly and proudly,” Josh Sorbe, spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, told The Advocate.

Openly gay California Representative Mark Takano, Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, echoed similar sentiments in a separate statement to the outlet.

“Trump and his administration have been obsessively trying to purge our community from the federal workforce since they took power. This firing is just their next attack,” he said.

“It’s not just censorship — they’re also firing people for simply being LGBTQI+ or doing work that supports the LGBTQI+ community. These despicable acts are yet another example of how commonplace anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination is in this administration.”

The recent firing joins a growing list of anti-LGBTQIA+ moves committed by the Trump administration.

From cutting funding for HIV and LGBTQIA+ health care to erasing bisexual and trans people from the National Park Service’s website on the Stonewall National Monument, the community has been ruthlessly targeted by the former reality personality and convicted felon.

For more information on the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community, click here.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the case. She said that the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.

After the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis, Tenn. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces, alarming many military analysts.

Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.

The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles and has about 636,000 residents.

The protests grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the Guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and intervenes in the protests only if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd-control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE building.

During his first term, Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bullets and used tear gas.

Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

The government agreed this year to settle an excessive-force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

Rush and Boone write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Boise, Idaho, respectively. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

After weeks of threatening to send federal troops to Chicago, the Trump administration plans to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, Gov. JB Pritzker said Saturday.

Pritzker said the National Guard received word from the Pentagon in the morning that the troops would be called up. He did not specify when or where they would be deployed.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said in a statement, using the name President Trump has adopted for the Department of Defense. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”

The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for addition details. The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to questions about Pritzker’s statement.

The escalation of federal law enforcement in Illinois follows similar deployments in other parts of the country. Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in June in response to protests against immigration raids, and in Washington, D.C., as part of his law enforcement takeover in the capital city. Meanwhile, Tennessee National Guard troops are expected to help Memphis police.

Pritzker called Trump’s move in Illinois a “manufactured performance” that would pull the state’s National Guard troops away from their families and regular jobs.

“For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control,” said the governor, who also noted that state, county and local law enforcement have been coordinating to ensure the safety of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Broadview facility on the outskirts of Chicago.

Federal officials reported the arrests of 13 people protesting Friday near the facility, which has been frequently targeted during the Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement this fall.

Trump also said last month that he was sending federal troops to Portland, Ore., characterizing the city as war-ravaged. But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020, when demonstrations and unrest gripped the city amid mass protests nationwide after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.

City and state officials sued to stop the deployment the next day. U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut heard arguments Friday, and a ruling is expected over the weekend.

Trump has federalized 200 National Guard troops in Oregon, but so far it does not appear that they have moved into Portland. They have been seen training on the coast in anticipation of a deployment.

Peipert writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration this week escalated its efforts against renewable energy when it announced the cancellation of $7.56 billion in funding for projects in 16 states, including California.

The U.S. Department of Energy said the 223 canceled projects — all of which are in states that favored Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election — were terminated because they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

But while the cuts took aim at blue states, they will affect Trump’s base as well: The terminated projects span districts represented by 108 Democratic members of Congress and 28 Republicans. In California, that includes large swaths of the Central Valley and Inland Empire, which largely leaned toward Trump in 2024.

Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a top Trump administration official, said in a post on X that the canceled projects were using “Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda.”

The biggest cut was $1.2 billion for California’s ambitious project to develop clean hydrogen known as the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES. It was awarded by the Biden administration as part of a competitive nationwide effort to develop hydrogen projects. The idea is that the hydrogen, which burns at a very high temperature, will be able to replace planet-warming fossil fuels in some industry and transportation uses.

The ARCHES project is a public-private partnership that would create at least 10 hydrogen production sites around the state, primarily in the Central Valley. It would also help transition two large gas-fired power plants — Scattergood in Los Angeles and the Lodi Energy Center in San Joaquin County — to 100% renewable hydrogen, and develop more than 60 hydrogen fueling stations in areas including Fresno, Riverside, Orange and San Joaquin counties.

In all, it would deliver an estimated 220,000 jobs, including 130,000 construction jobs and 90,000 permanent jobs, according to the state. California is pursuing hydrogen in addition to renewables such as offshore wind, solar power and geothermal energy to help diversify its supply, meet growing demand driven by artificial intelligence data centers, and reach its target of 100% carbon neutrality by 2045.

The Trump administration said terminating the clean energy projects will save taxpayers money.

One district with a project that’s been cut is the northern San Joaquin Valley, represented by Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove). McClintock said he strongly supports the Energy Department’s decision.

“$7.5 billion comes out to about $60 taken from the average earnings of every family in America,” McClintock said. “Call me old fashioned, but I think that companies should make their money by pleasing their customers and not by using government to take money that families have earned.”

The Times also reached out to Reps. Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), Keven Kiley (R-Rocklin), Ken Calvert (R-Corona), Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), whose districts are touched by the ARCHES hub and other terminated projects.

A representative for Fong said his office was dealing with issues related to the U.S. government shutdown and so was unable to comment. None of the others responded.

Jesse Lee, senior advisor with the nonprofit group Climate Power, said the cancellations may not save taxpayers money, but cost them. The administration this year has canceled a $7 billion program to help low-income households install solar panels on their homes and halted the development of off-shore wind projects, among other efforts.

“Having these projects come to fruition is really the only chance we have at insulating people from skyrocketing utility bills year after year,” Lee said — particularly in the face of energy-thirsty AI. “The only way to have a prayer of meeting that demand is through these kinds of clean energy projects.”

Lee believes the actions could come back to haunt the party in the midterm elections. Since Trump took office in January, at least 142 clean energy projects have been canceled affecting what his group estimates is at least 80,500 jobs — not including the latest round of cuts announced this week. About 47% of those jobs were in congressional districts represented by Republicans, according to Clean Power’s energy project tracker.

Democratic officials in California said the Energy Department’s latest cuts amount to political retaliation. They were announced on the first day of the shutdown, which the administration blames on Democrats.

“The cancellation of ARCHES is vindictive, shortsighted, and proof that this Administration is not serious about American energy dominance,” California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla wrote in a joint letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright dated Thursday, in which they urged him to restore its funding.

“The cancellation of this award threatens the future promise of hydrogen energy, leaving us behind the rest of the world,” the senators said. “The ARCHES hub is a key strategic investment into American energy dominance, energy technology prominence, manufacturing job growth, and lowering energy costs for American families.”

The cuts come as the Trump administrations eases the path for production of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal, including this week’s announcement that it will open 13 million acres of federal lands for coal mining and provide $625 million to recommission or modernize coal-fired power plants. Coal has become increasingly uncompetitive with either natural gas or solar power.

Large-scale renewable energy and carbon capture projects in red states such as Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Louisiana and North Dakota that received funding from the Energy Department were not subject to the cuts.

Other canceled awards in California include $630 million to the California Energy Commission for grid resilience upgrades; $500 million to the National Cement Company of California for a carbon-neutral cement production facility; $87 million to Redwood Coast Energy Authority for grid updates benefiting tribal communities; $50 million to Southern California Edison for a battery energy storage project; and $18 million to the Imperial Irrigation District to modernize its electrical grid, bolster resiliency against power outages and catalyze renewable energy usage.

“We are disappointed as we did a great deal of work to win the $18.3 million matching grant from the DOE to help modernize our electrical grid and enhance reliability for our customers,” said Robert Schettler, a spokesman for the Imperial Irrigation District located in southeastern California. “Despite this setback, we will reevaluate the scope as the project is a necessity.”

Officials with ARCHES called the administration’s decision a “short-sighted move that abandons America’s opportunity to lead the global clean energy transition.” They said they hope to keep the project moving forward even without the federal grant; ARCHES has also secured more than $10 billion in private funding agreements.

“Despite the loss of federal funding, we will press forward with our state, private, and international partners to build the infrastructure, train the workforce, and establish the supply chains that will power a modern, resilient energy economy,” ARCHES board chair Theresa Maldonado said in a statement.