trump administration

McALLEN, Texas — The Trump administration said Friday that it would pay migrant children $2,500 to voluntarily return to their home countries, dangling a new incentive in efforts to persuade people to self-deport.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t say how much migrants would get or when the offer would take effect, but the Associated Press obtained an email to migrant shelters saying children 14 years of age and older would get $2,500 each. Children were given 24 hours to respond.

The notice to shelters from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Administration for Families and Children did not indicate any consequences for children who decline the offer. It asked shelter directors to acknowledge the offer within four hours.

ICE said in a statement that the offer would initially be for 17-year-olds.

“Any payment to support a return home would be provided after an immigration judge grants the request and the individual arrives in their country of origin,” ICE said. “Access to financial support when returning home would assist should they choose that option.”

Advocates said the sizable sum may prevent children from making informed decisions.

“For a child, $2,500 might be the most money they’ve ever seen in their life, and that may make it very, very difficult for them to accurately weigh the long-term risks of taking voluntary departure versus trying to stay in the United States and going through the immigration court process to get relief that they may be legally entitled to,” Melissa Adamson, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, said in response to the plans Friday.

ICE dismissed widespread reports among immigration lawyers and advocates that it was launching a much broader crackdown Friday to deport migrant children who entered the country without their parents, called “Freaky Friday.”

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

Of all the finger-pointing and recriminations that come with the current federal government shutdown, one of the most striking elements is that the Trump administration blames it on Democratic support for granting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants. The White House has called out California specifically, saying the state exploits a legal “loophole” to pay for that coverage with federal dollars, and other states have followed suit.

“California utilized an egregious loophole — since employed by several other states — to draw down federal matching funds used to provide Medicaid benefits for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a policy memo released Wednesday as a budget stalemate forced a shutdown of the U.S. government.

The administration said that the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which goes into effect in October 2026, closes the loophole by prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to provide healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants and other noncitizens.

In the memo, the White House accused congressional Democrats of wanting to repeal those policy reforms as a condition to keep the government running.

Izzy Gardon, a spokeswoman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said there’s nothing to the administration’s underlying assertion that California and other states have found some sort of loophole that enables them to funnel Medicaid money to noncitizens.

“This is false — CA does not do this,” Gardon said in a one-line email to the L.A. Times.

Healthcare policy experts agree. California is not exploiting a “loophole,” said Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto, a senior policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that studies inequality.

“The state is making lawful, transparent budget choices to invest in health coverage with its own dollars,” Ramos-Yamamoto said in a statement to The Times. “These investments improve health outcomes, strengthen communities, and lower health care costs in the long run.”

At issue is Section 71117 of the Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which imposes nearly $1 trillion in reductions to federal Medicaid healthcare spending for low-income Americans over the next 10 years. The provision allows states “to finance the non-federal share of Medicaid spending through multiple sources, including state general funds, healthcare related taxes (or ‘provider taxes’), and local government funds,” as long as taxes on healthcare providers are imposed uniformly so as not to unfairly burden providers of Medicaid services.

The bottom line, analysts said, is the administration is citing a problem with the law that doesn’t seem to exist, at least not in California.

“The so-called California loophole references a provision in the law that ends a waiver of the uniformity requirements for provider taxes — this provision has nothing to do with using federal funds to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a healthcare expert at the nonprofit healthcare research, polling and news organization KFF.

“But the White House makes the claim that California uses the money they get from the provider tax to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” Tolbert said.

Fact-checking the administration’s claim is all the more difficult because there are no official data on how states spend money collected from provider taxes, Alice Burns, another KFF analyst, added. What’s more, California is among several states that offer some level of Medicaid coverage to all immigrants regardless of status. And because California cannot be federally reimbursed for healthcare spending on people who are not in the country legally, those expenses must be covered at the state level.

The White House memo goes on to claim that if Democrats were to succeed at repealing the provisions in the Working Families Tax Act, the federal government would have to spend an additional $34.6 billion in taxpayer money “that would continue to primarily be abused by California to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

This assertion also misconstrues the facts, according to KFF.

“What we do know is that the $35 billion in savings that is referenced in the White House Fact Sheet refers to the federal government’s estimated savings … resulting from states making changes to their provider tax systems,” KFF spokesperson Tammie Smith said. That is, the projected savings aren’t connected to healthcare for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Political squabbling aside, California’s approach to medical coverage for low-income, undocumented immigrants is set to undergo a major shift thanks to provisions in the 2025-26 state budget that the Democrat-led legislature and Newsom approved in June.

Starting on Jan. 1, adults “who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS)” will no longer be able to enroll in Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, according to the state’s Department of Health Care Services webpage. Those who already have this coverage can keep it and continue to renew their enrollment. And starting on July 1, Medi-Cal enrollees who are age 19-59, undocumented and not pregnant will have to pay a $30 monthly premium to keep their coverage.

The changes, which Newsom called for in the spring to offset a ballooning Medi-Cal budget deficit, drew criticism from some immigrant rights groups, with the California Immigrant Policy Center describing the moves as “discriminatory.”

“In light of the militarized mass immigration raids and arrests causing fear and chaos across California, we are disappointed that the governor and the leadership in the Legislature chose to adopt a state budget that makes our communities even more vulnerable,” Masih Fouladi, the center’s executive director said at the time.

Everyone in California who qualifies for Medi-Cal will still be eligible to receive emergency medical and dental care, no matter their immigration status.

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers took a significant risk this week by choosing to fight the Trump administration over the extension of healthcare credits.

A stalemate over the matter led to the federal shutdown on Tuesday night, when Democrats denied Republicans the votes needed to continue funding the government, forcing hundreds of thousands of federal workers into furloughs or to work without pay.

It’s a gamble for a party facing its lowest approval numbers since the Reagan era — and a calculated risk Democratic leaders felt feel compelled to take.

“I am proud to be fighting to preserve healthcare for millions of people, ” Sen. Adam Schiff of California said in an interview Wednesday. “I think this is a very necessary fight.”

The healthcare tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year, and if Democrats are unsuccessful in securing an extension as part of a shutdown deal, then premiums for millions of Americans are expected to skyrocket, Schiff said.

“There’s really not much that can be done to mitigate these dramatic health premium increases people are going to see unless the president and Republicans are willing to work with us on it,” he said.

Entering the shutdown, polls indicated the country was split over who would be to blame, with 19% of Americans faulting Democrats and 26% charging Republicans, according to a New York Times poll. A plurality of respondents — 33% — said both parties were responsible.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat and the Senate minority leader, is leading the charge with his worst favorability numbers among his home state residents in over 20 years — and with the highest disapproval ratings of any congressional leader, according a recent Pew survey.

Schumer faced widespread ridicule from within his party in March after reversing course during the last government funding deadline, choosing then to support the Trump administration’s continuing resolution proposal.

That showdown came at the height of an aggressive purge by President Trump of the federal workforce. A government shutdown would only enable more mass firings, Schumer said at the time.

But the current shutdown is already giving Trump administration officials license to resume mass layoffs, this time specifically targeting Democratic states and priorities.

“We’d be laying off a lot of people who are going to be very affected,” Trump said in the hours before the shutdown, adding: “They’re going to be Democrats.”

On Wednesday, Russ Vought, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime advocate of concentrated presidential power, wrote on social media that $8 billion in “Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda” would be canceled to 16 Democratic-majority states, including California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii.

Hours earlier, the Trump administration had frozen roughly $18 billion for infrastructure projects in New York City pending a review that Vought said would “ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans at a news conference Wednesday discussing the shutdown.

(Mariam Zuhaib / Associated Press)

Seeing these actions, Schiff worries about further punitive measures against California.

“California, I’m sure, won’t be far behind in the kind of vindictive actions of the president,” he said.

At a White House press briefing Wednesday afternoon, Vice President JD Vance denied that the administration was planning to structure layoffs based on politics.

“We’re going to have to make things work, and that means that we’re going to have to triage some certain things,” he said. “That means certain people are going to have to get laid off, and we’re going to try to make sure that the American people suffer as little as possible from the shutdown.”

Vance placed the blame squarely on Schumer and other Democrats, saying repeatedly that Democrats had shut down the government because Republicans refused to give billions of dollars in healthcare funding to immigrants in the country illegally. Immigrants without legal status are not eligible for any federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid and health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

“To the American people who are watching: The reason your government is shut down at this very minute is because, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of congressional Republicans — and even a few moderate Democrats — supported opening the government, the Chuck Schumer-AOC wing of the Democratic Party shut down the government,” the vice president said.

Vance said policy disagreements should not serve as the basis for keeping hostage essential services that Americans need. But before those discussions can happen, the government must be reopened.

“I’d invite Chuck Schumer to join the moderate Democrats and 52 Senate Republicans. Do the right thing, open up the People’s Government, and then let’s fix healthcare policy for the American people,” he said.

Some senators, including Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona, are exploring a bipartisan offramp from the crisis, including a potential continuing resolution that would reopen the government for roughly a week to provide room for negotiations.

While that option is on the table, less than 24 hours into the shutdown, some Democrats think a short-term solution is contingent on Trump being willing to negotiate with Democrats in good faith.

“It really just depends on whether the president decides he’s going to try to resolve this conflict and negotiate,” Schiff said. “Until he makes that decision that he wants the shutdown to end, it will continue.”

Vance described two categories of demands from congressional Democrats: those acting in good faith who want to make sure the administration engages in a conversation about critical issues such as healthcare, and those who refuse to reopen the government until every demand is met.

“We just write those people off because they’re not negotiating in good faith — and frankly, we don’t need it,” he said, noting that three senators who vote Democratic — John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Angus King (I-Maine) — had already broken ranks to vote to fund the government.

“Three moderate Democrats joined 52 Republicans last night,” he said, adding: “We need five more in order to reopen the government, and that’s really where we’re going to focus.”

President Trump warned the country’s top ranking military officials Tuesday that they could be headed to “war” with U.S. citizens, signaling a major escalation in the ongoing legal battle over his authority to deploy soldiers to police American streets.

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one-by-one,” Trump said in an address to top brass in Quantico, Va. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

Commanders should use American cities as “training grounds,” the president said.

Trump’s words provoked instant pushback. Oregon has already filed a legal challenge, and experts expressed concern that what the president described is against the law.

“He is suggesting that they learn how to become warriors in American cities,” said Daniel C. Schwartz, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, who heads the legal team at National Security Leaders for America. “That should scare everybody. It’s also boldly illegal.”

The use of soldiers to assist with federal immigration raids and crowd control at protests and otherwise enforce civilian laws has been a point of contention with big city mayors and blue state governors for months, beginning with the deployment of thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles in early June.

That deployment was illegal, a federal judge ruled last month. In a scorching 52-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer barred soldiers under Trump’s command from carrying out law enforcement duties across California, warning of a “national police force with the President as its chief.”

Yet hundreds of troops remained on the streets of Los Angeles while the matter was under litigation. With the case still moving through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, hundreds more are now set to arrive in Portland, Ore., with another hundred reportedly enroute to Chicago — all over the objections of state and local leaders.

“Isolated threats to federal property should not be enough to warrant this kind of response,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The threat has to be really serious, and I don’t think the Trump administration has made that case.”

Others agreed.

“I’m tremendously worried,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Using the military for domestic law enforcement is something that’s characteristic of authoritarian regimes.”

Oregon’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Monday alleging the president had applied a “baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext” to send in the troops. Officials in Illinois, where the Trump administration has made Chicago a focal point of immigration enforcement, are also poised to file a challenge.

Although the facts on the ground are different legally, the Oregon suit is a near copy-paste of the California battle making its way through the courts, experts said.

“That’s exactly the model that they’re following,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

Unlike the controversial decision to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in August, the Los Angeles and Portland deployments have relied on an esoteric subsection of the law, which allows the president to federalize troops over the objection of state governments in certain limited cases.

California’s challenge to those justifications has so far floundered in court, with the 9th Circuit finding in June that judges must be “highly deferential” to the president’s interpretation of facts on the ground. That case is under review by a larger panel of judges.

In a memo filed Monday, California Deputy Solicitor General Christopher D. Hu warned that the decision had emboldened the administration to deploy troops elsewhere, citing Portland as an example.

“Defendants apparently believe that the June 7 memorandum — issued in response to events in Los Angeles — indefinitely authorizes the deployment of National Guard troops anywhere in the country, for virtually any reason,” Hu wrote. “It is time to end this unprecedented experiment in militarized law enforcement and conscription of state National Guard troops outside the narrow conditions allowed by Congress.”

Experts warn the obscure 19th century law at the heart of the debate is vague and “full of loopholes,” worrying some who see repeated deployment as a slippery slope to widespread, long-term military occupations.

“That has not been our experience at least since the Civil War,” Schwartz said. “If we become accustomed to seeing armed uniformed service personnel in our cities, we risk not objecting to it, and when we stop objecting to it, it becomes a norm.”

The joint address to military leaders in Virginia on Tuesday further stoked those fears.

“We’re under invasion from within,” the president admonished generals and admirals gathered in the auditorium. “No different from a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.”

He touted the move in August to create a “quick reaction force” to “quell civil disturbances” — a decree folded into his executive order expanding the D.C. troop deployment.

“George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush and others all used the armed forces to keep domestic order and peace,” Trump said. “Now they like to say, oh, you’re not allowed to use the military.”

Those historic cases have some important differences with 2025, experts say.

When President Cleveland sent troops to break up a railroad strike and tamp down mob violence against Chinese immigrants, he invoked the Insurrection Act. So did 15 other presidents, including Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush.

Experts stress that Trump has pointedly not used the act, despite name-checking it often in his first term.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday largely avoided the theme of “enemies within,” instead extolling the “warrior ethos” at the heart of his military reform project. He railed against what he saw as the corrupted culture of the modern military — as well as its aesthetic shortcomings.

“It’s tiring to look out at combat formations and see fat troops,” Hegseth said. “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon. It’s a bad look.”

As deployments multiply across the country, experts said they were watching what the appellate division and ultimately the Supreme Court will decide.

“It will be a test for the Supreme Court,” Schwartz said. “Whether they are willing to continue to allow this president to do whatever he wants to do in clear violation of constitutional principles, or whether they will restrain him.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Wednesday that it was putting a hold on roughly $18 billion to fund a new rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey and the city’s expanded Second Avenue subway project because of the government shutdown.

The White House budget director, Russ Vought, said on a post on X that the step was taken due to the Republican administration’s belief that the money was “based on unconstitutional DEI principles,” a reference to diversity, equity and inclusion.

But an administration official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and insisted on anonymity to discuss the hold, said the government shutdown that started at midnight meant that the Transportation Department employees responsible for reimbursing workers on the projects had been furloughed, so the money was being withheld.

The suspension of funds is likely meant to target Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York, whom the White House is blaming for the shutdown.

In a 2023 interview with the Associated Press, Schumer said he and then-President Biden were both “giddy” over the rail tunnel project, adding that it was all they talked about in the presidential limousine as they rode to the site.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, reacting to the news at a news conference about the federal government shutdown, told reporters, “The bad news just keeps coming” and that “they’re trying to make culture wars be the reason why.”

“That’s what a partnership with Washington looks like as we’re standing here. We’ve done our part, we’re ready to build, it’s underway,” she said. “And now we realize that they’ve decided to put their own interpretation of proper culture ahead of our needs, the needs of a nation.”

The Hudson River rail tunnel is a long-delayed project whose path toward construction has been full of political and funding switchbacks. It’s intended to ease the strain on a 110-year-old tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey. Hundreds of Amtrak and commuter trains carry hundreds of thousands of passengers per day through the tunnel, and delays can ripple up and down the East Coast between Boston and Washington

The Second Avenue subway was first envisioned in the 1920s. The subway line along Manhattan’s Second Avenue was an on-again, off-again grail until the first section opened on Jan. 1, 2017. The state-controlled Metropolitan Transportation Authority is working toward starting construction on the line’s second phase of the line, which is to extend into East Harlem.

Boak writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y., and Jennifer Peltz in New York contributed to this report.

BOSTON — The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted non-U.S. citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel, a federal judged said Tuesday in a scathing ruling directly and sharply criticizing President Trump and his policies as serious threats to free speech.

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston agreed with several university associations that the policy they described as ideological deportation violates the 1st Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Young also found the policy was “arbitrary or capricious because it reverses prior policy without reasoned explanation.”

“This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do,’” Young, a nominee of Republican President Reagan, wrote.

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

Plaintiffs in the case welcomed the ruling.

“The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Assn. of University Professors union. “This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out.”

The ruling came after a trial during which lawyers for the associations presented witnesses who testified that the Trump administration had launched a coordinated effort to target students and scholars who had criticized Israel or showed sympathy for Palestinians.

“Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech,” Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. “The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment.”

The student detentions, primarily on the East Coast, had caused widespread concern at California universities, which host the largest international student population in the nation and were home to major pro-Palestinian encampments in 2024. At UCLA, faculty earlier this year set up a 24-hour hotline for students who feared being potentially detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — although there were no high-profile targeted removals of international student activists.

In separate actions this year, the government also temporarily revoked visas and immigration statuses for students across the UC system and at other U.S. campuses based on minor violations such as traffic tickets. Revocations were reversed nationwide after a federal suit was filed.

In the Boston case, lawyers for the Trump administration put up witnesses who testified there was no ideological deportation policy as the plaintiffs contended.

“There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech,” Victoria Santora told the court. “The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws.”

John Armstrong, the senior bureau official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that visa revocations were based on long-standing immigration law. Armstrong acknowledged he played a role in the visa revocation of several high-profile activists, including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, and was shown memos endorsing their removal.

Armstrong also insisted that visa revocations were not based on protected speech and rejected accusations that there was a policy of targeting someone for their ideology.

One witness testified that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Out of the 5,000 names reviewed, investigators wrote reports on about 200 who had potentially violated U.S. law, Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit testified. Until this year, Hatch said, he could not recall a student protester being referred for a visa revocation.

Among the report subjects was Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Khalil, who was released last month after 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown on the protests.

Another was Tufts University student Ozturk, who was released in May from six weeks in detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained after an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to the war in Gaza.

Casey writes for the Associated Press. Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

Responding to the Trump administration‘s hampering of federal regulators, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a bill greatly expanding California’s power over workplace disputes and union elections.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 288, gives the state authority to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other disputes between private employers and workers in the event the National Labor Relations Board fails to respond.

As Newsom signed the worker rights bill, his office drew a sharp contrast with the gridlock in Washington, D.C., where a government shutdown looms.

“With the federal government not only asleep at the wheel, but driving into incoming traffic, it is more important than ever that states stand up to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is a proud labor state — and we will continue standing up for the workers that keep our state running and our economy booming.”

The NLRB, which is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions, has been functionally paralyzed since it lost quorum in January, when Trump fired one of its board members.

The Trump administration has also proposed sweeping cuts to the agency’s staff and canceled leases for regional offices in many states, while Amazon, SpaceX and other companies brought lodged challenges to the 90-year-old federal agency’s constitutionality in court.

With this law in place, workers unable to get a timely response at the federal level can petition the California Public Employment Relations Board to enforce their rights.

The law creates a Public Employee Relations Board Enforcement Fund, financed by civil penalties paid by employers cited for labor violations to help pay for the added responsibilities for the state labor board.

“This is the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “California workers will no longer be forced to rely on a failing federal agency when they join together to unionize.”

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 hampered in other ways.

The law could draw legal challenges over whether the bill infringes on federal law.

It was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, which warned that the bill improperly attempts to give California’s labor board authority even as the federal agency’s regional offices continuing to process elections as well as charges filed by workers and employers.

The chamber argued that “courts have repeatedly held that states are prohibited from regulating this space.”

Catherine Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law counters, however, that in the first few decades of the NLRB’s functioning, state labor agencies had much more leeway to enforce federal labor rights.

She said the law “simply proposes going back to the system that existed for three decades.”

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) said the bill will ensure California workers can continue to unionize and bargain.

“The current President is attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees’ fundamental right to join a union,”McKinnor said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and frankly, un-American. California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize.”

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily halted a Trump administration plan to reduce disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding for states with so-called sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants.

U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy granted the temporary restraining order curtailing the cuts at the request of California, 10 other states and the District of Columbia, which argued in a lawsuit Monday that the policy appeared to have illegally cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

The states said they were first notified of the cuts over the weekend. McElroy made her decision during an emergency hearing on the states’ motion in Rhode Island District Court on Tuesday afternoon.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta cheered the decision as the state’s latest win in pushing back against what he described as a series of unlawful, funding-related power grabs by the Trump administration.

“Over and over, the courts have stopped the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to tie unrelated grant funding to state policies,” Bonta said. “It’s a little thing called state sovereignty, but given the President’s propensity to violate the Constitution, it’s unsurprising that he’s unfamiliar with it.”

Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the funding and notified the states of the cuts, immediately responded to a request for comment Tuesday.

Sanctuary policies are not uniform and the term is imprecise, but it generally refers to policies that bar states and localities — and their local law enforcement agencies — from participating in federal immigration raids or other enforcement initiatives.

The Trump administration and other Republicans have cast such policies as undermining law and order. Democrats and progressives including in California say instead that states and cities have finite public safety resources and that engaging in immigration enforcement serves only to undermine the trust they and their law enforcement agencies need to maintain with the public in order to prevent and solve crime, including in large immigrant communities.

In their lawsuit Monday, the states said the funding being reduced was part of billions in federal dollars annually distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and which administrations of both political parties distributed “evenhandedly” for decades before Trump.

Authorized by Congress after events such as Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the funding covers the salaries of first responders, testing of state computer networks for cyberattack vulnerabilities, mutual aid compacts between regional partners and emergency responses after disasters, the states said.

Bonta’s office said California was informed over the weekend by Homeland Security officials that it would be receiving $110 million instead of $165 million, a reduction of its budget by about a third. The states’ lawsuit said other blue states saw even more dramatic cuts, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, while red states saw substantial funding increases.

Bonta on Tuesday said the administration’s reshuffling of funds based on state compliance with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities was illegal and needed to be halted — and restored to previous levels based on risk assessment — in order to keep everyone in the country safe.

“California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters — meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death,” he said. “This is not something to play politics with. I’m grateful to the court for seeing the urgency of this dangerous diversion of homeland security funding.”

Homeland Security officials have previously argued that the agency should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining its core mission of defending the nation from threats, including the threat it sees from illegal immigration.

Other judges have also ruled against the administration conditioning disaster and public safety funding on states and localities complying with federal immigration policies.

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

California and other Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday for allegedly stripping them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funding based on their unwillingness to aid in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case barred the administration from conditioning similar federal grant funding on states rescinding their so-called “sanctuary” policies protecting immigrants.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the latest funding reduction — which the states were notified of over the weekend — flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democratic states into complying with a federal immigration campaign they have no legal obligation to support.

“Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities.”

The White House referred questions on the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The agency has previously argued that its core mission is to defend the nation’s security against threats, including from illegal immigration, and therefore that it should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining that mission.

The funding in question — billions of dollars annually — is distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and have been distributed “evenhandedly” for decades by administrations of both political parties, the states’ lawsuit argues.

The funding, authorized by Congress in part after disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, pays for things such as the salaries and training of first responders, testing of state computer systems for vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, mutual aid compacts among regional partners and emergency responses to disasters, the states said in their lawsuit.

Bonta’s office said California expected about $165 million, but was notified it would receive $110 million, a cut of $55 million, or a third of its funding. Other blue states saw even greater reductions, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, it said.

Other states that are supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies received large increases, and some more than 100% increases, the suing states said.

They said the notifications provided no justification for the reductions, noting only that they were made at the direction of Homeland Security. And yet, the reason was clear, they said, including because of recent comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials who have stated outright that states who do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and that maintain sanctuary policies would see reduced funding.

“The explanation for DHS and FEMA’s last-minute decision to reallocate $233 million in homeland security funds — the Reallocation Decision — is apparent. Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current Administration is taking money from its enemies,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Or, as defendant Secretary Noem put it succinctly in a February 19 internal memorandum, States whose policies she dislikes ‘should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money.’”

The states also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the funding cuts — and prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency from disbursing any related funds that could not be recouped later — as the case proceeds.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration setting immigration-related conditions on similar emergency funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” and unconstitutional.

“DHS justifies the conditions by pointing to its broad homeland security mission, but the grants at issue fund programs such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, and emergency preparedness,” the judge in that case wrote. “Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring.”

Last month, another judge ruled in a third case that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles or other local jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies.

In their lawsuit Monday, California and the other states argued that the Trump administration appeared “undeterred” by last week’s ruling against pre-conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

After being “frustrated in its first attempt to coerce [the states] into enforcing federal civil immigration law,” the states wrote, “DHS took yet another lawless action” by simply reallocating funding to “more favored jurisdictions” willing to support the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Bonta said the law requires such funding to be distributed based on objective assessments of “threat and risk,” but the weekend notifications showed the Trump administration doing little more than “rushing to work around last week’s order” and “force and coerce” blue states into compliance in a new way.

“This is a lawless, repeat offender administration that keeps breaking the law,” he said.

Bonta said the lawsuit is the 40th his office has filed against the current Trump administration to date. He said his office was in conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and that they both believe that “we deserve all the funding that has been appropriated to us.”

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. All were also party to the litigation challenging preconditions on such funding that was decided last week.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Monday 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 as President Trump continues his efforts to reverse the yearlong decline in the U.S. coal industry.

Actions by the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency follow executive orders Trump issued in April to revive coal, a reliable but polluting energy source that’s long been shrinking amid environmental regulations and competition from cheaper natural gas.

Environmental groups denounced the announcement, which comes as the Trump administration has clamped down on renewable energy, including freezing permits for offshore wind projects, ending clean energy tax credits and blocking wind and solar projects on federal lands.

Under Trump’s orders, the Energy Department has required fossil-fueled power plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania to keep operating past their retirement dates to meet rising U.S. power demand amid growth in data centers, artificial intelligence and electric cars. The latest announcement would allow those efforts to expand as a precaution against possible electricity shortfalls.

Trump also has directed federal agencies to identify coal resources on federal lands, lift barriers to coal mining and prioritize coal leasing on U.S. lands. A sweeping tax bill approved by Republicans and signed by Trump reduces royalty rates for coal mining from 12.5% to 7%, a significant decrease that officials said will help ensure U.S. coal producers can compete in global markets.

‘Mine baby, mine’

The new law also mandates increased availability for coal mining on federal lands and streamlines federal reviews of coal leases.

“Everybody likes to say, ‘drill baby, drill.’ I know that President Trump has another initiative for us, which is ‘mine baby, mine,’” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at a news conference Monday at Interior headquarters. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Undersecretary Wells Griffith also spoke at the event. All three agencies signed orders boosting coal.

“By reducing the royalty rate for coal, increasing coal acres available for leasing and unlocking critical minerals from mine waste, we are strengthening our economy, protecting national security and ensuring that communities from Montana to Alabama benefit from good-paying jobs,” Burgum said.

Zeldin called coal a reliable energy source that has supported American communities and economic growth for generations.

“Americans are suffering because the past administration attempted to apply heavy-handed regulations to coal and other forms of energy it deemed unfavorable,” he said.

Trump has clamped down on renewable energy

Environmental groups said Trump was wasting federal tax dollars by handing them to owners of the oldest, most expensive and dirtiest source of electricity.

“Subsidizing coal means propping up dirty, uncompetitive plants from last century — and saddling families with their high costs and pollution,” said Ted Kelly, clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “We need modern, affordable clean energy solutions to power a modern economy, but the Trump administration wants to drag us back to a 1950s electric grid.’’

Solar, wind and battery storage are the cheapest and fastest ways to bring new power to the grid, Kelly and other advocates said. “It makes no sense to cut off your best, most affordable options while doubling down on the most expensive ones,” Kelly said.

The EPA said Monday that it will open a 60-day public comment period on potential changes to a regional haze rule that has helped reduce pollution-fueled haze hanging over national parks, wilderness areas and tribal reservations. Zeldin announced in March that the haze rule would be among dozens of landmark environmental regulations that he plans to roll back or eliminate, including a 2009 finding that climate change harms human health and the environment.

Coal production has dropped steeply

Burgum, who also chairs Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council, said the actions announced Monday, along with the tax law and previous presidential and secretarial orders, will ensure “abundant, affordable energy while reducing reliance on foreign sources of coal and minerals.’’

The Republican president has long promised to boost what he calls “beautiful” coal to fire power plants and for other uses, but the industry has been in decline for decades.

Coal once provided more than half of U.S. electricity production, but its share dropped to about 15% in 2024, down from about 45% as recently as 2010. Natural gas provides about 43% of U.S. electricity, with the remainder from nuclear energy and renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower.

Energy experts say any bump for coal under Trump is likely to be temporary because natural gas is cheaper, and there’s a durable market for wind and solar power no matter who holds the White House.

Daly writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Todd Richmond in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

NASHVILLE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported from the United States to his native El Salvador and whose case became an intensely watched focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown, has been moved from a Virginia detention center to a facility in Pennsylvania.

Court records show Immigration and Customs Enforcement notified Abrego Garcia’s lawyers Friday that he was transferred to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg. It said the location would make it easier for the attorneys to access him.

But his attorneys raised concerns about conditions at Moshannon, saying there have been recent reports of “assaults, inadequate medical care, and insufficient food,” according to a federal court filing.

The Trump administration has claimed that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that he denies and for which he was not charged.

The administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, but only to face human smuggling charges. His lawyers have called the case preposterous and vindictive.

Three women opposed to President Trump’s intense immigration raids in Los Angeles were indicted Friday on charges of illegally “doxing” a U.S. Customs and Immigration agent, authorities said.

Ashleigh Brown, Cynthia Raygoza and Sandra Carmona Samane face charges of disclosing the personal information of a federal agent and conspiracy, according to an indictment unsealed late Friday.

Brown, who is from Colorado and goes by the nickname “AK,” has been described as one of the founders of “ice_out_ofla” an Instagram page with more than 28,000 followers that plays a role in organizing demonstrations against immigration enforcement, according to the social media page and an email reviewed by The Times.

According to the indictment, the three women followed an ICE agent from the federal building on 300 North Los Angeles Street in downtown L.A. to the agent’s residence in Baldwin Park.

They live-streamed the entire event, according to the indictment. Once they arrived at the agent’s home, prosecutors allege the women got out and shouted “la migra lives here,” and “ICE lives on your street and you should know,” according to the indictment.

“Our brave federal agents put their lives on the line every day to keep our nation safe,” Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli said in a statement. “The conduct of these defendants are deeply offensive to law enforcement officers and their families. If you threaten, dox, or harm in any manner one of our agents or employees, you will face prosecution and prison time.”

An attorney for Samane, 25, of Los Angeles, said she intends to plead not guilty at an arraignment next month and declined further comment.

The Federal Public Defender’s Office, which is representing Brown, 38, of Aurora, Colo., did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Court records did not list an attorney for Raygoza, 37, of Riverside.

Footage published to the ice_out_ofla Instagram page seemed to capture Brown’s arrest earlier this week. The video shows a man in green fatigues and body armor saying he has a warrant for her arrest, while reaching through what appears to be the shattered driver’s side window of her car. Brown asks what the warrant is for while the man can be seen holding a collapsible baton. Then the video cuts out.

Posts on the Instagram page describe Brown as a “political prisoner.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not immediately respond to questions about whether the women specifically shouted out the agent’s address online or what the defendants specifically did to “incite the commission of a crime of violence against a federal agent,” as the indictment alleges.

Federal law enforcement leaders have repeatedly expressed concern about the “doxing” of agents with ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol as residents of Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities continue to protest the Trump administration’s sprawling deportation efforts.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem threatened to prosecute people for publishing agents’ personal information last month in response to fliers in Portland that called for people to collect intel on ICE.

But the indictment returned Friday appeared to be the first prosecution related to such tactics.

Critics of the Trump administration’s operations have expressed outrage over ICE and CBP agents wearing masks and refusing to identify themselves in public while hunting undocumented immigrants throughout Southern California.

Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that forbids federal law enforcement from wearing masks while operating in California. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether state officials can actually enforce the legislation.

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling agencies to prepare large-scale firings of federal workers if the government shuts down next week.

In a memo released Wednesday night, the Office of Management and Budget said agencies should consider a reduction in force for federal programs whose funding would lapse next week, are not otherwise funded and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” That would be a much more aggressive step than in previous shutdowns, when federal workers not deemed essential were furloughed but returned to their jobs once Congress approved government spending.

A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but eliminate their positions, which would trigger yet another massive upheaval in a federal workforce that has already faced major rounds of cuts this year due to efforts from the White House’s cost-cutting team the Department of Government Efficiency, and elsewhere in the Trump administration.

Once any potential government shutdown ends, agencies are asked to revise their reduction in force plans “as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions,” according to the memo, which was first reported by Politico.

This move from OMB significantly increases the consequences of a potential government shutdown next week and escalates pressure on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The two leaders have kept nearly all of their Democratic lawmakers united against a clean funding bill pushed by President Trump and congressional Republicans that would keep the federal government operating for seven more weeks, demanding immediate improvements to healthcare in exchange for their votes.

In statements issued shortly after the memo was released, the two Democrats showed no signs of budging.

“We will not be intimidated by your threat to engage in mass firings,” Jeffries wrote in a post on X. “Get lost.”

Jeffries called Russ Vought, the head of OMB, a “malignant political hack.”

Schumer said in a statement that the OMB memo is an “attempt at intimidation” and predicted the “unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back.”

OMB noted that it held its first planning call with other federal agencies earlier this week to plan for a shutdown. The budget office plays point in managing federal government shutdowns, particularly planning for them ahead of time. Past budget offices have also posted shutdown contingency plans — which would outline which agency workers would stay on the job during a government shutdown and which would be furloughed — on its website, but this one has not.

The memo noted that congressional Democrats are refusing to support a clean government funding bill “due to their partisan demands,” which include an extension of enhanced health insurance subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, plus a reversal of Medicaid cuts that were included in Republicans’ big tax and spending cuts law.

“As such, it has never been more important for the Administration to be prepared for a shutdown if the Democrats choose to pursue one,” the memo reads, which also notes that the GOP’s signature law, a major tax and border spending package, gives “ample resources to ensure that many core Trump administration priorities will continue uninterrupted.”

OMB noted that it had asked all agencies to submit their plans in case of a government shutdown by Aug. 1.

“OMB has received many, but not all, of your submissions,” it added. “Please send us your updated lapse plans ASAP.”

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEXICO CITY — To help justify a sweeping deportation campaign, an extraordinary U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean and unprecedented strikes on boats allegedly trafficking drugs, President Trump has repeated a mantra: Tren de Aragua.

He insists that the street gang, which was founded about a decade ago in Venezuela, is attempting an “invasion” of the United States and threatens “the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere.” Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump described the group as “an enemy of all humanity” and an arm of Venezuela’s authoritarian government.

According to experts who study the gang and Trump’s own intelligence officials, none of that is true.

While Tren de Aragua has been linked to cases of human trafficking, extortion and kidnapping and has expanded its footprint as Venezuela’s diaspora has spread throughout the Americas, there is little evidence that it poses a threat to the U.S.

“Tren de Aragua does not have the capacity to invade any country, especially the most powerful nation on Earth,” said Ronna Rísquez, a Venezuelan journalist who wrote a book about the gang. The group’s prowess, she said, had been vastly exaggerated by the Trump administration in order to rationalize the deportation of migrants, the militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, and perhaps even an effort to drive Venezuela’s president from power.

“It is being instrumentalized to justify political actions,” she said of the gang. “In no way does it endanger the national security of the United States.”

Before last year, few Americans had heard of Tren de Aragua.

The group formed inside a prison in Venezuela’s Aragua state then spread as nearly 8 million Venezuelans fled poverty and political repression under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. Gang members were accused of sex trafficking, drug sales, homicides and other crimes in countries including Chile, Brazil and Colombia.

As large numbers of Venezuelan migrants began entering the United States after requesting political asylum at the southern border, authorities in a handful of states tied crimes to members of the gang.

It was Trump who put the group on the map.

While campaigning for reelection last year, he appeared at an event in Aurora, Colo., where law enforcement blamed members of Tren de Aragua for several crimes, including murder. Trump stood next to large posters featuring mugshots of Venezuelan immigrants.

“Occupied America. TDA Gang Members,” they read. Banners said: “Deport Illegals Now.”

Shortly after he took office, Trump declared an “invasion” by Tren de Aragua and invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th century law that allows the president to deport immigrants during wartime. His administration flew 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they were housed in a notorious prison, even though few of the men had documented links to Tren de Aragua and most had no criminal records in the United States.

In recent months, Trump has again evoked the threat of Tren de Aragua to explain the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean.

In July, his administration declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro. That same month, he ordered the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American cartels that his government has labeled terrorists.

Three times in recent weeks, U.S. troops have struck boats off the coast of Venezuela that it said carried Tren de Aragua members who were trafficking drugs.

The administration offered no proof of those claims. Fourteen people have been killed.

Trump has warned that more strikes are to come. “To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence,” he said in his address to the United Nations.

While he insists the strikes are aimed at disrupting the drug trade — claiming without evidence that each boat was carrying enough drugs to kill 25,000 Americans — analysts say there is little evidence that Tren de Aragua is engaged in high-level drug trafficking, and no evidence that it is involved in the movement of fentanyl, which is produced in Mexico by chemicals imported from China. The DEA estimates that just 8% of cocaine that is trafficked into the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.

That has fueled speculation about whether the real goal may be regime change.

“Everybody is wondering about Trump’s end game,” said Irene Mia, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank focused on global security.

She said that while there are officials within the White House who appear eager to work with Venezuela, others, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are open about their desire to topple Maduro and other leftist strongmen in the region.

“We’re not going to have a cartel operating or masquerading as a government operating in our own hemisphere,” Rubio told Fox News this month.

Top U.S. intelligence officials have said they don’t believe Maduro has links to Tren de Aragua.

A declassified memo produced by the Office of Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between his regime and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.: “The small size of TDA’s cells, its focus on low-skill criminal activities and its decentralized structure make it highly unlikely that TDA coordinates large volumes of human trafficking or migrant smuggling.”

Michael Paarlberg, a political scientist who studies Latin America at Virginia Commonwealth University, said he believes Trump is using the gang to achieve political goals — and distract from domestic controversies such as his decision to close the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Tren de Aragua, he said, is much less powerful than other gangs in Latin America. “But it has been a convenient boogeyman for the Trump administration.”

This week, the Trump administration announced that it was taking “bold action” to address the “epidemic” of autism spectrum disorder — starting with a new safety label on Tylenol and other acetaminophen products that suggests a link to autism. The scientific evidence for doing so is weak, researchers said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said federal officials “will be uncompromising and relentless in our search for answers” and that they soon would be “closely examining” the role of vaccines, whose alleged link to autism has been widely discredited.

Kennedy has long argued that rising diagnoses among U.S. children must mean more exposure to some outside influence: a drug, a chemical, a toxin, a vaccine.

“One of the things that I think that we need to move away from today is this ideology that … the autism prevalence increase, the relentless increases, are simply artifacts of better diagnoses, better recognition or changing diagnostic criteria,” Kennedy said in April.

Kennedy is correct that autism spectrum disorder rates have risen steadily in the U.S. since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control began tracking them, from 1 in 150 8-year-olds in 2000, to 1 in 31 in 2022, the most recent year for which numbers are available.

But physicians, researchers and psychologists say it is impossible to interpret this increase without acknowledging two essential facts: The diagnostic definition of autism has greatly expanded to include a much broader range of human behaviors, and we look for it more often than we used to.

“People haven’t changed that much,” said Alan Gerber, a pediatric neuropsychologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., “but how we talk about them, how we describe them, how we categorize them has actually changed a lot over the years.”

Defining ‘autism’

The term “autism” first appeared in the scientific literature around World War II, when two psychiatrists in different countries independently chose that word to describe two different groups of children.

In 1938, Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger used it to describe child patients at his Vienna clinic who were verbal, often fluently so, with unusual social behaviors and at-times obsessive focus on very specific subjects.

Five years later, U.S. psychiatrist Leo Kanner published a paper about a group of children at his clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore who were socially withdrawn, rigid in their thinking and extremely sensitive to stimuli like bright lights or loud noises. Most also had limited verbal language ability.

Both Asperger and Kanner chose the same word to describe these overlapping behaviors: autism. (They borrowed the term from an earlier psychiatrist’s description of extreme social withdrawal in schizophrenic patients.)

This doesn’t mean children never acted this way before. It was just the first time doctors started using that word to describe a particular set of child behaviors.

For the next few decades, many children who exhibited what we understand today to be autistic traits were labeled as having conditions that have ceased to exist as formal diagnoses, like “mental retardation,” “childhood psychosis” or “schizophrenia, childhood type.”

Autism debuted as its own diagnosis in the 1980 third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Assn.’s diagnostic bible. It described an autistic child as one who, by the age of 2½, showed impaired communication, unusual responses to their environment and a lack of interest in other people.

As the decades went on, the DSM definition of autism broadened.

The fourth edition, published in 1994, named additional behaviors: impaired relationships, struggles with nonverbal communication and speech patterns different from those of non-autistic, or neurotypical, peers.

It also included a typo that would turn out to be a crucial driver of diagnoses, wrote cultural anthropologist Roy Richard Grinker in his book “Unstrange Minds: Remapping the World of Autism.”

The DSM’s printed definition of autism included any child who displayed impairments in social interaction, communication “or” behavior. It was supposed to say social interaction, communication “and” behavior.

The error went uncorrected for six years, and the impact appeared profound. In 1995 an estimated 1 in every 500 children was diagnosed with autism. By 2000, when the CDC formally began tracking diagnoses (and the text was corrected), it was 1 in every 150.

Reaching underserved communities

In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended for the first time that all children be screened for autism between the ages of 18 and 24 months as part of their regular checkups. Prior to that, autism was diagnosed somewhat haphazardly. Not all pediatricians were familiar with the earliest indicators or used the same criteria to determine whether a child should be further evaluated.

Then in 2013, the fifth edition of the DSM took what had previously been four separate conditions — autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder — and collapsed them all into a single diagnosis: autism spectrum disorder.

The diagnostic criteria for ASD included a broad range of social, communication and sensory interpretation differences that, crucially, could be identified at any time in a child’s life. The term was no longer limited only to children whose development lagged noticeably behind that of their peers.

Since that definition was adopted, U.S. schools have become more proactive about referring a greater range of children for neurodevelopmental evaluations. The new DSM language also helped educators and clinicians better understand what was keeping some kids in disadvantaged communities from thriving.

“In the past, [autism was] referred to as a ‘white child’s disability,’ because you found so few Black and brown children being identified,” said Shanter Alexander, an assistant professor of school psychology at Howard University. Children of color who struggled with things like behavioral disruptions, attention deficits or language delays, she said, were often diagnosed with intellectual disabilities or behavioral disorders.

In a sign that things have shifted, the most recent CDC survey for the first time found a higher prevalence of autism in kids of color than in white children: 3.66%, 3.82% and 3.30% for Black, Asian and Latino children, respectively, compared with 2.77% of white children.

“A lot of people think, ‘Oh, no, what does this mean? This is terrible.’ But it’s actually really positive. It means that we have been better at diagnosing Latino children [and] other groups too,” said Kristina Lopez, an associate professor at Arizona State University who studies autism in underserved communities.

The severity issue

An autism diagnosis today can apply to people who are able to graduate from college, hold professional positions and speak eloquently about their autism, as well as people who require 24-hour care and are not able to speak at all.

It includes people who were diagnosed when they were toddlers developing at a noticeably different pace from their peers, and people who embraced a diagnosis of autism in adulthood as the best description of how they relate to the world. Diagnoses for U.S. adults ages 26 to 34 alone increased by 450% between 2011 and 2022, according to one large study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

Kennedy was not correct when he said in April that “most cases now are severe.”

A 2016 review of CDC data found that approximately 26.7% of 8-year-olds with autism had what some advocates refer to as “profound autism,” the end of the spectrum that often includes seriously disabling behaviors such as seizures, self-injurious behavior and intellectual disability.

The rate of children with profound autism has remained virtually unchanged since the CDC started tracking it, said Maureen Durkin, a professor of population health science and pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Indeed, the highest rate of new diagnoses has been among children with mild limitations, she said.

For many researchers and advocates, the Trump administration’s focus on autism has provoked mixed emotions. Many have lobbied for years for more attention for this condition and the people whose lives it affects.

Now it has arrived, thanks to an administration that has played up false information while cutting support for science.

“They have attempted to panic the public with the notion of an autism epidemic as a threat to the nation, when no such epidemic actually exists — rather, more people are being diagnosed with autism today because we have broader diagnostic criteria and do a better job detecting it,” said Colin Killick, executive director of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “It is high time that this administration stops spreading misinformation about autism, and starts enacting policies that would actually benefit our community.”

This article was reported with the support of the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism’s National Fellowship’s Kristy Hammam Fund for Health Journalism.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has harnessed the weight of his office in recent days to accelerate a campaign of retribution against his perceived political enemies and attacks on 1st Amendment protections.

In the last week alone, Trump replaced a U.S. attorney investigating two of his political adversaries with a loyalist and openly directed the attorney general to find charges to file against them.

His Federal Communications Commission chairman hinted at punitive actions against networks whose journalists and comedians run afoul of the president.

Trump filed a $15-billion lawsuit against the New York Times, only to have it thrown out by a judge.

The acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles asked the Secret Service to investigate a social media post by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office.

The Pentagon announced it was imposing new restrictions on reporters who cover the U.S. military.

The White House officially labeled “antifa,” a loose affiliation of far-left extremists, as “domestic terrorists” — a designation with no basis in U.S. law — posing a direct challenge to free speech protections. And it said lawmakers concerned with the legal predicate for strikes on boats in the Caribbean should simply get over it.

An active investigation into the president’s border advisor over an alleged bribery scheme involving a $50,000 payout was quashed by the White House itself.

Trump emphasized his partisan-fueled dislike of his political opponents during a Sunday memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who he said “did not hate his opponents.”

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them.”

It has been an extraordinary run of attacks using levers of power that have been seen as sacred arbiters of the public trust for decades, scholars and historians say.

The assault is exclusively targeting Democrats, liberal groups and establishment institutions, just as the administration moves to shield its allies.

Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney in Virginia, resigned Friday after facing pressure from the Trump administration to bring criminal charges against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud. In a social media post later that day, Trump claimed he had “fired” Siebert.

A few hours later, on Saturday, Trump said he nominated White House aide Lindsey Halligan to take over Siebert’s top prosecutorial role in Virginia, saying she was “tough” and “loyal.”

Later that day, Trump demanded in a social media post addressed to “Pam” — in reference to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi — that she prosecute James, former FBI Director James Comey and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump wrote. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump’s remarks, saying Monday that the president is “rightfully frustrated” and that he “wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abuse their power, who abuse their oath of office, to target the former president and then candidate for the highest office in the land.”

“It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump,” Leavitt told reporters.

As the president called for prosecution of his political opponents, it was reported that Tom Homan, the White House border advisor, was the subject of an undercover FBI case that was later shut down by Trump administration officials. Homan, according to MSNBC, accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover agents after he indicated to them he could get them government contracts.

At Monday’s news briefing, Leavitt said that Homan did not take the money and that the investigation was “another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump’s strongest and most vocal supporters.”

“The White House and the president stand by Tom Homan 100% because he did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said.

Some see the recent actions as an erosion of an expected firewall between the Department of Justice and the White House, as well as a shift in the idea of how criminal investigation should be launched.

“If the Department of Justice and any prosecution entity is functioning properly, then that entity is investigating crimes and not people,” said John Hasnas, a law professor at Georgetown University.

The Trump administration has also begun a military campaign against vessels crossing the Caribbean Sea departing from Venezuela that it says are carrying narcotics and drug traffickers. But the targeted killing of individuals at sea is raising concern among legal scholars that the administration’s operation is extrajudicial, and Democratic lawmakers, including Schiff, have introduced a bill in recent days asserting the ongoing campaign violates the War Powers Resolution.

Political influence has long played a role with federal prosecutors who are political appointees, Hasnas said, but under “the current situation it’s magnified greatly.”

“The interesting thing about the current situation is that the Trump administration is not even trying to hide it,” he said.

Schiff said he sees it as an effort to “try to silence and intimidate.” In July, Trump accused Schiff — who led the first impeachment inquiry into Trump — of committing mortgage fraud, which Schiff has denied.

“What he wants to try to do is not just go after me and Letitia James or Lisa Cook, but rather send a message that anyone who stands up to him on anything, anyone who has the audacity to call out his corruption will be a target, and they will go after you,” Schiff said in an interview Sunday.

Trump campaigned in part on protecting free speech, especially that of conservatives, who he claimed had been broadly censored by the Biden administration and “woke” leftist culture in the U.S. Many of his most ardent supporters — including billionaire Elon Musk and now-Vice President JD Vance — praised Trump as a champion of free speech.

However, since Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly sought to silence his critics, including in the media, and crack down on speech that does not align with his politics.

And in the wake of Kirk’s killing on Sept. 10, those efforts have escalated into an unprecedented attack on free speech and expression, according to constitutional scholars and media experts.

“The administration is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st Amendment,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School.

“We are at an unprecedented place in American history in terms of the targeting of free press and the exercise of free speech,” said Ken Paulson, former editor in chief of USA Today and now director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

“We’ve had periods in American history like the Red Scare, in which Americans were to turn in neighbors who they thought leaned left, but this is a nonstop, multifaceted, multiplatform attack on all of our free speech rights,” Paulson said. “I’m actually quite stunned at the velocity of this and the boldness of it.”

Bondi recently railed against “hate speech” — which the Supreme Court has previously defended — in an online post, suggesting the Justice Department will investigate those who speak out against conservatives.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened ABC and its parent company, Disney, with repercussions if they did not yank Jimmy Kimmel off the air after Kimmel made comments about Kirk’s alleged killer that Carr found distasteful. ABC swiftly suspended Kimmel’s show, though Disney announced Monday that it would return Tuesday.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, said it will require news organizations to agree not to disclose any information the government has not approved for release and revoke the press credentials of those who publish sensitive material without approval.

Critics of the administration, free speech organizations and even some conservative pundits who have long criticized the “cancel culture” of the progressive left have spoken out against some of those policies. Scholars have too, saying the amalgam of actions by the administration represent a dangerous departure from U.S. law and tradition.

“What unites all of this is how blatantly inconsistent it is with the 1st Amendment,” Chemerinsky said.

Chemerinsky said lower courts have consistently pushed back against the administration’s overreaches when it comes to protected speech, and he expects they will continue to do so.

He also said that, although the Supreme Court has frequently sided with the president in disputes over his policy decisions, it has also consistently defended freedom of speech, and he hopes it will continue to do so if some of the free speech policies above reach the high court.

“If there’s anything this court has said repeatedly, it’s that the government can’t prevent or stop speech based on the viewpoint expressed,” Chemerinsky said.

Paulson said that American media companies must refuse to obey and continue to cover the Trump administration and the Pentagon as aggressively as ever, and that average Americans must recognize the severity of the threat posed by such censorship and speak out against it, no matter their political persuasion.

“This is real — a full-throttle assault on free speech in America,” Paulson said. “And it’s going to be up to the citizenry to do something about it.”

Chemerinsky said defending free speech should be an issue that unites all Americans, not least because political power changes hands.

“It’s understandable that those in power want to silence the speech that they don’t like, but the whole point of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech we don’t like,” he said. “We don’t need the 1st Amendment to protect the speech we like.”

President Trump’s new sky-high visa fees have shaken Silicon Valley’s tech giants as they contemplate a surge in the cost of hiring global talent and a new tactic the White House can use to keep Silicon Valley in line.

The tech industry was already navigating an economy with higher and unpredictable tariffs, when last week the Trump administration threw another curveball aimed directly at its bottom line: a $100,000 fee for the visas used to hire certain skilled foreign workers. The industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program to bring in a wide range of engineers, coders, and other top talent to the United States.

The rollout has sparked confusion among businesses, immigration lawyers and current H-1B visa holders.

Over the weekend, the Trump administration clarified that the new fee will apply to new visas, isn’t annual and doesn’t prevent current H-1B visa holders from traveling in and outside of the country. Companies would have to pay the fee with any new H-1B visa petitions submitted after a specific time on Sept. 21, the White House said.

On Monday, the Trump administration also clarified that certain professions, such as doctors, may be exempt from the fee. Some observers are concerned that a selective application of the fee could be a way the White House can reward its friends and punish its detractors.

Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft have been strengthening their ties with the Trump administration by committing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States.

Still, immigration has long been a contentious issue between the Trump administration and tech executives, some of whom were on a H-1B visa before they co-founded or led some of the world’s largest tech companies.

One of the most vocal supporters of the H-1B visas: Elon Musk, who backed Trump but has publicly sparred with him after he led the federal government’s efforts to slash spending. Musk, who runs multiple companies, including Tesla, SpaceX and xAI, is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in South Africa and has held an H-1B visa.

Tech executives have said the H-1B visa program has been crucial for hiring skilled workers. Competition to attract the world’s best talent has been intensifying since the popularity of OpenAI’s ChatGPT sparked a fierce race to rapidly advance artificial intelligence.

The new fee could slow California’s development and the United States’ position in the AI race by making it tougher for companies — especially startups with less money — to bring in international employees, experts said.

So far this fiscal year, more than 7,500 companies in Californiahave applied forH-1B visas and 61,841 have been approved, data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shows.

Tech companies use the visa program to hire computer scientists and engineers because the U.S. isn’t producing enough workers with the skills needed, said Darrell West, a senior fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution.

Trump “likes to talk tough on immigration, but he fails to recognize how important immigrants are to our economy,” he said. “Companies in technology, agriculture, hotels, restaurants and construction rely heavily on immigrants, and slowing that flow is going to be devastating for companies in those areas.”

In his executive order, the Trump administration noted that some companies, such as information technology firms, have allegedly misused the program, citing mass layoffs in the tech industry and the difficulty young college graduates face in landing jobs.

“President Trump promised to put American workers first, and this commonsense action does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down American wages,” Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.

Economists and tech executives, though, have pointed to other factors affecting hiring, including economic uncertainty from tariffs, a shift in investments and the rise of AI tools that could complete tasks typically filled by entry-level workers.

California’s unemployment rate of 5.5% in August was higher than the U.S. unemployment rate of 4.3%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The rollout of the new changes has been “extremely chaotic,” and while the White House has tried to clear up some of the confusion, tech companies still have a lot of questions about how the fee would work, said Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of the Chamber of Progress, a center-left tech industry policy coalition.

“You never know what you’re gonna end up with the final policy in Trump world,” he said. “Somebody within the administration drives an announcement, there’s blowback, and then they end up modifying their plans.”

Tech companies have been trying to navigate a fine line in their relationship with Trump.

During Trump’s first term, high-profile tech executives, including those from Meta, Amazon, Google and Apple, spoke out about his administration’s order to restrict travel from several majority-Muslim countries. But in his second term, those same executives have cozied up to the Trump administration as they seek to influence AI policy and strike lucrative partnerships with the government.

They’ve contributed to his inauguration fund, appeared at high-profile press events, and attended a White House dinner, where Trump asked them how much they’re investing in the United States.

Microsoft declined to comment. Meta, Google and Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Changes to the H-1B program could also worsen relations with other countries, such as India, that send skilled tech workers to the U.S., experts said.

Indian nationals are the largest beneficiaries of the H-1B visa program, accounting for 71% of approved petitions, followed by those from China, at approximately 12%.

Some Indian venture capitalists and research institutes see a silver lining in this murky future. On social media, some have posted that the uncertainty surrounding H-1B visa rules could encourage talented engineers to return home to build startups, thereby fueling India’s tech sector. That would mean more competition for U.S. tech companies.

Kunal Bahl, an Indian tech investor and entrepreneur, posted “Come, build in India!” on social media. His firm, Titan Capital, launched a seed funding and mentorship program aimed at attracting students and professionals rethinking their future in the U.S. after the visa troubles.

Global tech companies might also consider opening more centers abroad where workers can work remotely and not have to move to the U.S., said Phil Fersht, the founder and chief executive of HFS Research.

“The more the U.S. makes itself a less attractive place to bring in talent,” he said, “the more it is going to harm its economy.”

Another pair of influencers might be joining President Trump’s effort to preserve TikTok in the U.S.: Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.

The Trump administration has been working on a deal that would keep the wildly popular social video service operational for millions of Americans. Under a law signed by President Biden, TikTok’s U.S. service must separate from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face going dark.

Congress passed the law out of security concerns over TikTok’s ties to China and worries that the app would give the communist government access to sensitive user data, which TikTok has denied doing.

Trump revealed more details about the plan over the weekend. The president on Sunday told Fox News that people involved in the deal include Oracle Corp. cofounder Larry Ellison, Dell Technologies Chief Executive Michael Dell and, probably, Rupert Murdoch and his eldest son, Lachlan.

“I think they’re going to be in the group, a couple of others, really great people, very prominent people,” Trump said on “The Sunday Briefing” on Fox News. “They’re also American patriots. They love this country, so I think they’re going to do a really good job.”

If the Murdochs were to be involved, it could be through their media company Fox Corp. investing in the deal, according to a source familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly. Fox Corp. owns Fox News, Fox Business and the Fox broadcast network. Fox News’ opinion hosts are vocally supportive of Trump.

The pending agreement would hand over TikTok’s U.S. operations to a majority-American investor group, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News on Saturday. The app’s data and privacy in the U.S. would be led by Texas-based cloud computing company Oracle, she added.

Oracle’s cofounder and chief technology officer Ellison is a Trump ally who is the world’s second-richest person, according to Forbes. TikTok already works with Oracle. Since October 2022, “all new protected U.S. user data has been stored in the secure Oracle infrastructure, not on TikTok or ByteDance servers,” TikTok says on its website.

Leavitt told Fox News that six out of the seven board seats controlling the TikTok app in the U.S. would be held by Americans and that the app’s algorithm would be controlled by America.

“We are 100% confident that a deal is done,” Leavitt said.

In a Monday news briefing, Leavitt said Trump expected to sign the deal later this week.

ByteDance would retain a less than 20% stake in TikTok U.S. The investor group is still being sorted out, reported CNN, citing a White House official.

The White House, Dell Technologies and Oracle did not immediately return a request for comment. Fox Corp. declined to comment.

TikTok’s future has been uncertain for months since the law was signed. After Biden had signed the 2024 law, ByteDance was initially given a deadline of Jan. 19, which has since been extended several times by Trump. The current deadline is Dec. 16.

Any deal would also need the approval of the Chinese government.

On Friday, Trump suggested on his social media platform Truth Social that China’s president, Xi Jinping, had approved the pact during a call between the two leaders.

Reports cited Xinhua, China’s state-run news agency, which quoted Xi as saying the Chinese government “respects the wishes of companies and welcomes them to conduct commercial negotiations based on market rules and reach solutions that comply with Chinese laws and regulations and balance interests.”

ByteDance in a statement on Friday thanked President Xi and President Trump “for their efforts to preserve TikTok in the United States.”

“ByteDance will work in accordance with applicable laws to ensure TikTok remains available to American users through TikTok U.S.,” the company said.

Trump has said he believes TikTok played a key role in helping him reach younger voters and win the 2024 presidential election. During his first term, he was a prominent voice calling for TikTok to be banned during his broader campaign against China over trade and COVID-19.

In the push to expand as quickly as possible, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is aggressively wooing recruits with experience slapping handcuffs on suspects: sheriff’s deputies, state troopers and local cops.

The agency even shelled out for airtime during an NFL game with an ad explicitly targeting officers.

“In sanctuary cities, dangerous illegals walk free as police are forced to stand down,” the August recruitment ad warned over a sunset panorama of the Los Angeles skyline. “Join ICE and help us catch the worst of the worst.”

To meet its hiring goal, the Trump administration is offering hefty signing bonuses, student loan forgiveness and six-figure salaries to would-be deportation officers.

ICE has also broadened its pool of potential applicants by dropping age requirements, eliminating Spanish-language proficiency requirements and cutting back on training for new hires with law enforcement experience.

Along the way, the agency has walked a delicate line, seeking to maintain cordial relations with local department leaders while also trying to poach their officers.

“We’re not trying to pillage a bunch of officers from other agencies,” said Tim Oberle, an ICE spokesman. “If you see opportunities to move up, make more money to take care of your family, of course you’re going to want it.”

But despite the generous new compensation packages, experts said ICE is still coming up short in some of the places it needs agents the most.

“The pay in California is incredible,” said Jason Litchney of All-Star Talent, a recruiting firm. “Some of these Bay Area agencies are $200,000 a year without overtime.”

Even entry level base pay for a Los Angeles Police Department officer is more than $90,000 year. In San Francisco, it’s close to $120,000. While ICE pays far more in California than in most other states, cash alone is less likely to induce many local cops to swap their dress blues for fatigues and a neck gaiter.

“If you were a state police officer who’s harbored a desire to become a federal agent, I don’t know if you want to join ICE at this time,” said John Sandweg, who headed ICE under President Obama.

Police agencies nationwide have struggled for years to recruit and retain qualified officers. The LAPD has only graduated an average of 31 recruits in its past 10 academy classes, about half the number needed to keep pace with the city’s plan to grow the force to 9,500 officers.

“That is a tremendous issue for us,” said Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, a professional advocacy organization.

A person walks near the stage during a hiring fair by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Aug. 26 in Arlington, Texas.

(Julio Cortez / Associated Press)

ICE, too, has long failed to meet its staffing targets. As of a year ago, the agency’s Enforcement and Removal Operations — it’s dedicated deportation force — had 6,050 officers, barely more than in 2021.

As of Sep. 16, the Department of Homeland Security said it has sent out more than 18,000 tentative job offers after a summer recruitment campaign that drew more than 150,000 applications.

It did not specify how many applicants were working cops.

At an ICE career expo in Texas last month, the agency at times turned away anyone who didn’t already have authorization to carry a badge or an honorable discharge from the military.

“We have so many people who are current police officers who are trying to get on the job right now and that’s who we’ve been prioritizing,” one ICE official at the event said.

But the spirited pursuit of rank-and-file officers has sparked anger and resentment among top cops around the country.

“Agencies are short-staffed,” said David J. Bier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute. “They are complaining constantly about recruitment and retention and looking every which way to maintain their workforce — and here comes along ICE — trying to pull those officers away.”

Law enforcement experts say that outside of California, especially in lower income states, many young officers take home about as much as public school teachers, making the opportunity for newer hires to jump ship for a federal gig even more enticing.

Some fear the ICE hiring spree will attract problematic candidates.

“The scariest part keeping me up at night is you hear agencies say we’re lowering standards because we can’t hire,” said Justin Biedinger, head of Guardian Alliance Technologies, which streamlines background checks, applicant testing and other qualifications for law enforcement agencies.

At the same time, the Trump administration is finding ways to deputize local cops without actually hiring them.

The Department of Homeland Security has dramatically overhauled a controversial cooperation program called 287(g) that enlists local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to do the work of ICE agents.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks at a news conference at the Wilshire Federal Building in June in Los Angeles.

(Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times)

As of early September, according to the program website, 474 agencies in 32 states were participating, up from 141 agencies in March.

Some states such as Georgia and Florida require their agencies to apply for the program. Others, including California, forbid it.

But that, too, could soon change.

The administration is exploring ways to force holdouts to comply, including by conditioning millions of dollars of funding for domestic violence shelters, rape crisis hotlines and child abuse centers on compliance with its immigration directives. In response, California and several other states have sued.

Even in so-called sanctuary jurisdictions such as Los Angeles, where local laws prohibit cops from participating in civil immigration enforcement, police officers have found themselves tangled up in federal operations. The LAPD has drawn criticism for officers responding to the scenes of ICE arrests where confrontations have erupted.

“We get called a lot to come out and assist in providing security or making sure that it doesn’t turn violent,” said Marvel, the police advocacy organization president.

“The vast majority of peace officers do not want to do immigration enforcement because that’s not the job they signed up for,” Marvel said. “We want to protect the community.”

Among the agency’s most vocal critics, the push to beef up ICE is viewed as both dangerous and counterproductive.

“Punishing violent criminals is the work of local and state law enforcement,” said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute. “If we were to abolish ICE and devote the money to those things, we’d have lower violence and crime.”

The cash and perks ICE is dangling will inevitably draw more people, experts said, but some warned that newly minted deportation officers should be careful about mortgaging their future.

The potential $50,000 hiring bonus is paid out in installments over several years — and the role may lack job security.

At the same time Trump is doubling ICE’s headcount, he’s also rewriting the rules to make it far easier to ax federal workers, said Sandweg, the former Obama official.

That could come back to haunt many agency recruits four years from now, he said: “I think there’s a very good chance a future Democratic administration is going to eliminate a lot of these positions.”

Zurie Pope, a Times fellow with the Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting, contributed to this report.