WASHINGTON — President Trump’s chief of staff is defending herself after granting an extraordinarily candid series of interviews with Vanity Fair in which she offers stinging judgments of the president and blunt assessments about his administration’s shortcomings.
The profile of Susie Wiles, Trump’s reserved, influential top aide since he resumed office, caused a scandal in Washington and prompted a crisis response from the White House that involved nearly every single figure in Trump’s orbit issuing a public defense.
In 11 interviews conducted over lunches and meetings in the West Wing, Wiles described early failures and drug use by billionaire Elon Musk during his time in government and mistakes by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in her public handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Wiles also acknowledged that Trump had launched a retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies.
“I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” Wiles told Chris Whipple, the Vanity Fair writer who has written extensively on past chiefs of staff, “but when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.”
Wiles also cited missteps in the administration’s immigration crackdown, contradicted a claim Trump makes about financier and convicted sex offender Epstein and former President Clinton and described Vice President JD Vance as a “conspiracy theorist.”
Within hours of the Vanity Fair tell-all’s publication Tuesday, Wiles and key members of Trump’s inner circle mounted a robust defense of her tenure, calling the story a “hit piece” that left out exculpatory context.
“The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history,” Wiles said in a post on X, her first in more than a year. “Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story.”
The profile was reported with the knowledge and participation of other senior staff, and illustrated with a photograph of Wiles and some of Trump’s closest aides, including Vance, Bondi and advisor Stephen Miller.
The profile revealed much about a chief of staff who has kept a discreet profile in the West Wing, continuing her management philosophy carried through the 2024 election when she served as Trump’s last campaign manager: She let Trump be Trump. “Sir, remember that I am the chief of staff, not the chief of you,” she recalled telling the president.
Trump has publicly emphasized how much he values Wiles as a trusted aide. He did so at a rally last week where he referred to her as “Susie Trump.” In an interview with Whipple, she talked about having difficult conversations with Trump on a daily basis, but that she picks her battles.
“So no, I’m not an enabler. I’m also not a bitch. I try to be thoughtful about what I even engage in,” Wiles said. “I guess time will tell whether I’ve been effective.”
Despite her passive style, Wiles shared concern over Trump’s initial approach to tariff policy, calling the levies “more painful than I had expected.” She had urged him, unsuccessfully, to get his retribution campaign out of the way within his first 90 days in office, in order to enable the administration to move on to more important matters. And she had opposed Trump’s blanket pardon of Jan. 6 defendants, including those convicted of violent crimes.
Wiles also acknowledged the administration needs to “look harder at our process for deportation,” adding that in at least one instance mistakes were made when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested and deported two mothers and their American children to Honduras. One of the children was being treated for Stage 4 cancer.
“I can’t understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did,” she said.
In foreign policy, Wiles defended the administration’s attack on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and said the president “wants to keep on blowing up boats up until [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro cries uncle,” suggesting the goal is to seek a change of governments.
As Trump has talked about potential land strikes in Venezuela, Wiles acknowledged that such a move would require congressional authorization.
“If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then [we’d need] Congress,” she said.
In one exchange with Whipple, she characterized Trump, who abstains from liquor, as having an “alcoholic’s personality,” explaining that “high-functioning alcoholics, or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink.”
He “operates [with] a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing,” she said.
But Trump, in an interview with the New York Post, defended Wiles and her comments, saying that he would indeed be an alcoholic if he drank alcohol.
“She’s done a fantastic job,” Trump said. “I think from what I hear, the facts were wrong, and it was a very misguided interviewer — purposely misguided.”
Wiles also blamed the persistence of the Epstein saga on members of Trump’s Cabinet, noting that the president’s chosen FBI director, Kash Patel, had advocated for the release of all Justice Department files related to the investigation for many years. Despite Trump’s claims that Clinton visited Epstein’s private island, Wiles acknowledged, Trump is “wrong about that.”
Wiles added that Bondi had “completely whiffed” on how she handled the Epstein files, an issue that has created a rift within MAGA.
“First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk,” Wiles said.
Wiles added that she has read the investigative files about Epstein and acknowledged that Trump is mentioned in them, but said “he’s not in the file doing anything awful.”
Vance, who she said had been a “conspiracy theorist for a decade,” said he had joked with Wiles about conspiracies in private before offering her praise.
“I’ve never seen Susie Wiles say something to the president and then go and counteract him or subvert his will behind the scenes. And that’s what you want in a staffer,” Vance told reporters. “I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States and that makes her the best White House chief of staff that the president could ask for.”
Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Wiles described to Whipple as a “right-wing absolute zealot,” said in a social media post that she is an “exceptional chief of staff.” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the “entire administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”
Wiles told Vanity Fair that she would be happy to stay in the role for as long as the president wanted her to stay, noting that she has time to devote to the job, being divorced and with her kids out of the house.
Trump had a troubled relationship with his chiefs of staff in his first term, cycling through four in four years. His longest-serving chief of staff, former Gen. John F. Kelly, served a year and a half.
WASHINGTON — Sophia Nyazi’s husband, Milad, shook her awake at 8 a.m. “ICE is here,” he told her.
Three uniformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were downstairs at the family’s home on Long Island, N.Y., on Tuesday, according to a video reviewed by The Times that she captured from atop the staircase.
Nyazi said the agents asked whether her husband was applying for a green card. They told her they would have to detain him because of the shooting of two National Guard members a week earlier in Washington, D.C.
“He has nothing to do with that shooting,” Nyazi, 27, recalled answering. “We don’t even know that person.”
Her protests didn’t matter. The Trump administration has put into motion a broad and unprecedented set of policy changes aimed at substantially limiting legal immigration avenues, including for immigrants long considered the most vulnerable.
Unfortunately, I think the administration took this one very tragic incident and politicized it as a way to shut down even legal immigration
— Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.
Milad Nyazi, 28, was detained because, like the man charged in the shooting which left one National Guard member dead, he is from Afghanistan.
The administration has paused decisions on all applications filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, by people seeking asylum. The visa and immigration applications of Afghans, whom the U.S. had welcomed in 2021 as it pulled all troops from the country, have been halted.
Officials also froze the processing of immigration cases of people from 19 countries the administration considers “high-risk” and will conduct case-by-case reviews of green cards and other immigration benefits given to people from those countries since former President Biden took office in 2021.
Immigration lawyers say they learned that dozens of naturalization ceremonies and interviews for green cards are being canceled for immigrants from Haiti, Iran, Guinea and other countries on the list.
In a couple of cases, immigration officers told immigrants that they had been prepared to grant a green card, but were unable to do so because of the new guidance, said Gregory Chen, government relations director at American Immigration Lawyers Assn.
Although it is unclear exactly how many people could be affected by the new rules, 1.5 million immigrants have asylum cases pending with USCIS.
“These are sweeping changes that exact collective punishment on a wide swath of people who are trying to do things the right way,” said Amanda Baran, former chief of policy and strategy at USCIS under the Biden administration. “I worry about all the people who have dutifully filed applications and whose lives are now on hold.”
Administration officials called the Nov. 26 shooting a “terrorist attack” and defended the changes as necessary to protect the country. Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, faces charges stemming from the shooting that killed Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and critically wounded Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24.
“The protection of this country and of the American people remains paramount, and the American people will not bear the cost of the prior administration’s reckless resettlement policies,” Joseph Edlow, director of USCIS, said in a message posted Nov. 27 on X. “American safety is non-negotiable.”
Lakanwal pleaded not guilty last week and his motive remains under investigation. In Afghanistan, he served in a counterterrorism unit operated by the CIA.
Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 through a Biden administration program that resettled nearly 200,000 Afghans in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal, officials said. He applied for asylum in December 2024 and it was approved under the Trump administration in April, according to a statement by the nonprofit #AfghanEvac.
Afghans who worked with U.S. troops were believed to face danger if left behind under the Taliban-run government. Along with undergoing routine security screening, they submitted to additional “rigorous” vetting, which included biometric and biographic checks by counterterrorism and intelligence professionals, the Department of Homeland Security said at the time.
Two federal reports from 2024 and this year pointed to some failings of the screening, including data inaccuracies and the presence of 55 evacuees who were later identified on terrorism watch lists, though the latter report noted that the FBI had then followed all required processes to mitigate any potential threat.
It’s unclear exactly how the administration will carry out reviews of thousands of people who already live legally in the U.S. The federal government can’t easily strip people of permanent legal status. The threat of reopening cases, however, has sparked alarm in immigrant communities across the country.
About 58,600 Afghan immigrants call California home as of 2023, far more than any other state,according to the Migration Policy Institute. Interviews with a dozen local community advocates, immigration attorneys and family members of those detained paint an aggressive effort by the federal government to round up recent Afghan immigrants in the wake of the D.C. shooting.
“Unfortunately, I think the administration took this one very tragic incident and politicized it as a way to shut down even legal immigration. And it’s definitely gone much broader than the Afghan community,” said Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, the director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.
Trump administration officials cited the shooting in a spate of policy changes last week.
On Friday, USCIS announced it had established a new center to strengthen screening with supplemental reviews of immigration applications, in part using artificial intelligence. The USCIS Vetting Center, based in Atlanta, will “centralize enhanced vetting of aliens and allow the agency to respond more nimbly to changes in a shifting threat landscape,” the agency said.
On Thursday, USCIS said work permits granted to immigrants would expire after 18 months, not five years. The change includes work permits for those admitted as refugees, with pending green card applications and with pending asylum applications.
In a memorandum Tuesday outlining the pause on asylum applications and the immigration cases of people from the 19 countries also subject to a travel ban, USCIS acknowledged that the changes could result in processing delays but had determined it was “necessary and appropriate” when weighed “against the agency’s obligation to protect and preserve national security.”
Immigrants already had been on high alert as the Trump administration canceled temporary humanitarian programs, cut back refugee admissions — except for a limited number of white South African Afrikaners — and increased attempts to send those with deportation orders to countries where they have no personal connection.
Before the Washington shooting, a Nov. 21 memo showed that the administration planned to review the cases of more than 200,000 refugees admitted under the Biden administration. Although asylum seekers apply after arriving in the U.S., refugees apply for admission from outside the country.
Nyazi questioned why Afghans are being singled out, noting that a white person allegedly assassinated Charlie Kirk, but “I don’t see any ICE agents going into white people’s houses.”
Asked why Milad Nyazi was detained, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant public affairs secretary for Homeland Security, called him a criminal, citing two arrests on suspicion of domestic violence.
“Under Secretary [Kristi] Noem, DHS has been going full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and criminal illegal aliens that came in through Biden’s fraudulent parole programs and working to get the criminals and public safety threats OUT of our country,” McLaughlin said in a statement.
Nyazi said the charges, which did not stem from incidents of physical violence, were dropped and his record was later expunged.
She and her husband got engaged in 2019 in Afghanistan and applied for a fiance visa, because Nyazi is a U.S. citizen. Their application was approved in 2021. Soon after, with the Taliban takeover in full force, the U.S. government allowed Milad Nyazi to fly to the U.S. He has a pending green card application, Nyazi said.
On Tuesday, the couple’s 3-year-old daughter screamed and cried as her father was handcuffed and taken away. He has a court hearing this week.
Zahra Billoo, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and others say Afghans in various stages of their legal immigration process — not only those with deportation orders — have been targeted. She said at least 17 Afghans in the Bay Area have been detained since Monday.
Lawyers said many of the Afghans detained last week had arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border, where they had sought asylum.
Paris Etemadi Scott, legal director of the Pars Equality Center in San José, said three of her clients, an Afghan mother and her two sons who are both in their early 20s, were detained Dec. 1 during a routine check-in with ICE. All have pending asylum applications, she said.
Rebecca Olszewski, managing attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said her Afghan client, who also has a pending asylum case, reported for his monthly virtual check-in Friday and was told to show up in person the next day, where he was detained.
Since the shooting, administration officials and the president have used dehumanizing language to describe immigrants. In announcing the 19-country travel ban Dec. 1, Noem posted on X that she was recommending a “a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.”
In a Cabinet meeting the next day, Trump referred to Somali immigrants as “garbage” who “contribute nothing.” (A few days later, Noem said the administration would expand the travel ban to more than 30 countries.)
On Thanksgiving Day, Trump had said on his social media platform that he intends to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries” and deport those who are “non-compatible with Western Civilization.”
In recent days, a ghostly quiet has overtaken Shafiullah Hotak’s regular haunts in North Sacramento, where the Afghan population in the city is especially dense. Hotak, 38, is an Afghan immigrant who served as a program manager at refugee resettlement organization Lao Family Community Development until layoffs due to federal cuts forced him out of work in May.
On Thursday, immigration agents banged on doors at an apartment complex on Marconi Avenue, where hundreds of Afghans have resettled. Just one employee sat in an Afghan-owned tax and bookkeeping business that was typically buzzing with clients. A nearby park, where teenagers kick around soccer balls and giggling packs of children roam after school, was empty. And the lines at a halal market known for its sesame-topped Afghan bread had disappeared.
“The situation we have in our community reminds me of when we used to go to work in Afghanistan,” Hotak said. “We had to take different routes every day because people who were against the U.S. mission in Afghanistan were targeting people. There were bombings and shootings.”
Hotak said “Kill the eyes,” is what the enemies of the U.S. in Afghanistan used to advise as to how to deal with local Afghans aiding the military, in order to blind their operations.
“But nowadays those ‘eyes’ are here in the U.S. and the U.S. government is looking to pick them up and put them in jail,” Hotak said.
Timesstaff writers Castillo reported from Washington and Hussain and Uranga from Los Angeles.
The U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF , because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.
The U.S. military carried out a follow–up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.
While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.
The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.
Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.
“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility], because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”
People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.
“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”
Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”
“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.
The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.
The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.
It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.
In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”
The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.
Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.
Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.
But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.
That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.
Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.
Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.
The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.
President Donald Trump announced the death of one National Guard member on Thanksgiving and said another is still “fighting for his life.” Police say both soldiers were shot while on patrol down the street from the White House on Wednesday. Trump announced the death of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, a 20-year-old from West Virginia, during a call with troops on Thursday night. The White House says the president spoke with Beckstrom’s parents later that evening.”She was savagely attacked. She’s dead, not with us. An incredible person, outstanding in every single way, in every department. It’s horrible,” Trump said on the call with troops. The charges against the alleged shooter are now expected to be upgraded to first-degree murder. The Justice Department has also suggested that it will seek the death penalty. “The death penalty is back,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted Thursday night. FBI Director Kash Patel said the shooting is also being investigated as an act of terrorism. Authorities say Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, were shot in a targeted attack, although a motive has not been revealed. The alleged shooter has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old from Afghanistan. “What we know about him is that he drove his vehicle across the country from the state of Washington with the intended target of coming to our nation’s capital,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said at a press conference on Thursday morning.The Associated Press reports that Lakanwal was approved for asylum under the Trump administration, but officials say he first entered the country through a Biden administration resettlement program after the U.S. withdrew from the war in Afghanistan. Before arriving in America, Lakanwal worked with the CIA, according to John Ratcliffe, the spy agency’s director. Ratcliffe said the relationship ended shortly after the evacuation of U.S. service members.”We are fully investigating that aspect of his background as well to include any known associates that are either overseas or here in the United States of America,” FBI Director Kash Patel said Thursday. Asked about the CIA connection and the screening procedures involved with that, President Trump continued to insist that the alleged shooter entered the U.S. unvetted.”He went nuts,” Trump said. “It happens too often with these people.”In a statement, the group #AfghanEvac, which assists with the resettlement process, said Afghan immigrants and wartime allies “undergo some of the most extensive security vetting of any population entering the country.” “This individual’s isolated and violent act should not be used as an excuse to define or diminish an entire community,” #AfghanEvac president Shawn VanDiver said. After the shooting, Trump said his administration would be reviewing every Afghan who entered the country under the Biden administration. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has indefinitely paused processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals, “pending further review of security and vetting protocols.” On Thursday, USCIS also said there would be “a full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.” Additionally, the agency released new guidance outlining new vetting standards for prospective immigrants from “19 high-risk countries.”Meanwhile, Trump ramped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric in a social media post just before midnight Thursday, promising to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.”Trump said he would terminate what he described as illegal admissions under the Biden administration, end all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens, and “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.” “HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long,” Trump said.
WASHINGTON —
President Donald Trump announced the death of one National Guard member on Thanksgiving and said another is still “fighting for his life.” Police say both soldiers were shot while on patrol down the street from the White House on Wednesday.
Trump announced the death of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, a 20-year-old from West Virginia, during a call with troops on Thursday night. The White House says the president spoke with Beckstrom’s parents later that evening.
“She was savagely attacked. She’s dead, not with us. An incredible person, outstanding in every single way, in every department. It’s horrible,” Trump said on the call with troops.
The charges against the alleged shooter are now expected to be upgraded to first-degree murder. The Justice Department has also suggested that it will seek the death penalty.
FBI Director Kash Patel said the shooting is also being investigated as an act of terrorism.
Authorities say Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, were shot in a targeted attack, although a motive has not been revealed.
The alleged shooter has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old from Afghanistan.
“What we know about him is that he drove his vehicle across the country from the state of Washington with the intended target of coming to our nation’s capital,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said at a press conference on Thursday morning.
The Associated Press reports that Lakanwal was approved for asylum under the Trump administration, but officials say he first entered the country through a Biden administration resettlement program after the U.S. withdrew from the war in Afghanistan.
Before arriving in America, Lakanwal worked with the CIA, according to John Ratcliffe, the spy agency’s director. Ratcliffe said the relationship ended shortly after the evacuation of U.S. service members.
“We are fully investigating that aspect of his background as well to include any known associates that are either overseas or here in the United States of America,” FBI Director Kash Patel said Thursday.
Asked about the CIA connection and the screening procedures involved with that, President Trump continued to insist that the alleged shooter entered the U.S. unvetted.
“He went nuts,” Trump said. “It happens too often with these people.”
In a statement, the group #AfghanEvac, which assists with the resettlement process, said Afghan immigrants and wartime allies “undergo some of the most extensive security vetting of any population entering the country.”
“This individual’s isolated and violent act should not be used as an excuse to define or diminish an entire community,” #AfghanEvac president Shawn VanDiver said.
After the shooting, Trump said his administration would be reviewing every Afghan who entered the country under the Biden administration. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has indefinitely paused processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals, “pending further review of security and vetting protocols.”
On Thursday, USCIS also said there would be “a full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.” Additionally, the agency released new guidance outlining new vetting standards for prospective immigrants from “19 high-risk countries.”
Meanwhile, Trump ramped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric in a social media post just before midnight Thursday, promising to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.”
Trump said he would terminate what he described as illegal admissions under the Biden administration, end all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens, and “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”
“HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long,” Trump said.
The U.S. Department of Education announced new steps Tuesday in President Donald Trump’s push to downsize the federal agency. Trump signed an executive order in March that called for eliminating the Education Department, but his administration has previously acknowledged that dissolving it entirely would require an act of Congress, which created the agency in 1979. For now, the department is moving forward with plans to shift key services to other parts of the federal government through six new interagency agreements. “The Trump Administration is taking bold action to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission.”The announcement is already facing pushback. Critics fear that the Education Department shakeup will disrupt critical services that students rely on.The National Education Association called it an “illegal plan to further abandon students.”Minnetonka Public Schools Superintendent David Law, who serves as president of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said the reorganization could prove counterproductive. “It talks about streamlining and efficiency, and yet it’s counterintuitive to me that multiple agencies having their hand on something is more efficient,” Law said.Under the plan, the Labor Department will co-manage the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers K-12 grant programs and Title 1 funding for low-income schools, as well as the Office of Postsecondary Education, which oversees grants for institutions of higher education.The Department of the Interior will take on a greater role in administering Indian Education programs. The Department of Health and Human Services will co-manage the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program and Foreign Medical Accreditation. The State Department will help oversee international education and foreign language studies programs. In the past, the Trump administration has also talked about moving management of other Education Department services, like the student loan portfolio and civil rights enforcement. The administration is still “exploring options,” according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on Tuesday ahead of the official rollout. Tuesday’s announcement builds on a sweeping downsizing effort that started earlier this year. The Trump administration has already launched an interagency partnership with the Labor Department to manage adult education and career and technical education programs.In July, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Education Department to move forward with roughly 1,400 layoffs.The Education Department said in an email on Tuesday that no additional layoffs are expected at this time as a result of the new interagency agreements.
Trump signed an executive order in March that called for eliminating the Education Department, but his administration has previously acknowledged that dissolving it entirely would require an act of Congress, which created the agency in 1979.
For now, the department is moving forward with plans to shift key services to other parts of the federal government through six new interagency agreements.
“The Trump Administration is taking bold action to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission.”
The announcement is already facing pushback. Critics fear that the Education Department shakeup will disrupt critical services that students rely on.
The National Education Association called it an “illegal plan to further abandon students.”
Minnetonka Public Schools Superintendent David Law, who serves as president of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said the reorganization could prove counterproductive.
“It talks about streamlining and efficiency, and yet it’s counterintuitive to me that multiple agencies having their hand on something is more efficient,” Law said.
Under the plan, the Labor Department will co-manage the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers K-12 grant programs and Title 1 funding for low-income schools, as well as the Office of Postsecondary Education, which oversees grants for institutions of higher education.
The Department of the Interior will take on a greater role in administering Indian Education programs. The Department of Health and Human Services will co-manage the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program and Foreign Medical Accreditation. The State Department will help oversee international education and foreign language studies programs.
In the past, the Trump administration has also talked about moving management of other Education Department services, like the student loan portfolio and civil rights enforcement. The administration is still “exploring options,” according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on Tuesday ahead of the official rollout.
Tuesday’s announcement builds on a sweeping downsizing effort that started earlier this year.
The Trump administration has already launched an interagency partnership with the Labor Department to manage adult education and career and technical education programs.
In July, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Education Department to move forward with roughly 1,400 layoffs.
The Education Department said in an email on Tuesday that no additional layoffs are expected at this time as a result of the new interagency agreements.
WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Donald Trump was unapologetic about putting America first. He promised to secure the nation’s borders, strengthen the domestic workforce and be tough on countries he thought were taking advantage of the United States.
Now, 10 months into his second term, the president is facing backlash from some conservatives who say he is too focused on matters abroad, whether it’s seeking regime change in Venezuela, brokering peace deals in Ukraine and Gaza or extending a $20-billion currency swap for Argentina. The criticism has grown in recent days after Trump expressed support for granting more visas to foreign students and skilled immigrant workers.
The cracks in the MAGA movement, which have been more pronounced in recent weeks, underscore how Trump’s once impenetrable political base is wavering as the president appears to embrace a more global approach to governing.
“I have to view the presidency as a worldwide situation, not locally,” Trump said this week when asked to address the criticism at an Oval Office event. “We could have a world that’s on fire where wars come to our shores very easily if you had a bad president.”
For backers of Trump’s MAGA movement, the conflict is forcing some to weigh loyalty to an “America first” ideology over a president they have long supported and who, in some cases, inspired them to get involved in the political process.
“I am against foreign aid, foreign wars, and sending a single dollar to foreign countries,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who in recent weeks has become more critical of Trump’s policies, said in a social media post Wednesday. “I am America First and America Only. This is my way and there is no other way to be.”
Beyond America-first concerns, some Trump supporters are frustrated with him for resisting the disclosures about the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his network of powerful friends — including Trump. A group of Republicans in the House, for instance, helped lead an effort to force a vote to demand further disclosures on the Epstein files from the Justice Department.
“When they are protecting pedophiles, when they are blowing our budget, when they are starting wars overseas, I’m sorry, I can’t go along with that,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a CNN interview. “And back home, people agree with me. They understand, even the most ardent Trump supporters understand.”
When asked to respond to the criticism Trump has faced in recent weeks, the White House said the president was focused on implementing “economic policies that are cutting costs, raising real wages, and securing trillions in investments to make and hire in America.”
Mike Madrid, a “never Trump” Republican consultant, believes the Epstein scandal has sped up a Republican backlash that has been brewing as a result of Trump deviating from his campaign promises.
“They are turning on him, and it’s a sign of the inviolable trust being gone,” Madrid said.
The MAGA movement was not led by a policy ideology, but rather “fealty to the leader,” Madrid said. Once the trust in Trump fades, “everything is gone.”
Criticism of Trump goes mainstream
The intraparty tension also has played out on conservative and mainstream news outlets, where the president has been challenged on his policies.
In a recent Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, Trump was pressed on a plan to give student visas to hundreds of thousands of Chinese students, a move that would mark a departure from actions taken by his administration this year to crack down on foreign students.
“I think it is good to have outside countries,” Trump said. “Look, I want to be able to get along with the world.”
In that same interview, Trump said he supports giving H-1B visas to skilled foreign workers because the U.S. doesn’t have workers with “certain talents.”
“You can’t take people off an unemployment line and say, ‘I’m going to put you into a factory where we’re going to make missiles,’” Trump argued.
A day after Trump expressed support for the visa program, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem added fuel to the immigration debate by saying the administration is fast-tracking immigrants’ pathway to citizenship.
“More people are becoming naturalized under this administration than ever before,” Noem told Fox News this week.
Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and close ally of Trump, said the administration’s position was “disappointing.”
“How is that a good thing? We are supposed to be kicking foreigners out, not letting them stay,” Loomer said.
Greene, the Georgia Republican, said on “The Sean Spicer Show” Thursday that Trump and his administration are “gaslighting” people when they say prices are going down.
“It’s actually infuriating people because people know what they’re paying at the grocery store,” she said, while urging Republicans to “show we are in the trenches with them” rather than denying their experience.
While Trump has maintained that the economy is strong, administration officials have begun talking about pushing new economic policies. White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said this week that the administration would be working to provide consumers with more purchasing power, saying that “we’re going to fix it right away.”
“We understand that people understand, as people look at their pocketbooks to go to the grocery store, that there’s still work to do,” Hassett said.
As Republicans try to refocus on addressing affordability, Trump has continued to blame the economic problems on former President Biden.
“Cost, and INFLATION, were higher under the Sleepy Joe Biden administration, than they are now,” Trump said in a social media post Friday. He insisted that under his administration costs are “tumbling down.”
The longest government shutdown in history could conclude as soon as today, Day 43, with almost no one happy with the final result.Democrats didn’t get the health insurance provisions they demanded added to the spending deal. And Republicans, who control the levers of power in Washington, didn’t escape blame, according to polls and some state and local elections that went poorly for them.The fallout of the shutdown landed on millions of Americans, including federal workers who went without paychecks and airline passengers who had their trips delayed or canceled. An interruption in nutrition assistance programs contributed to long lines at food banks and added emotional distress going into the holiday season.The agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things. All other funding would be extended until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish additional spending bills.Here’s a look at how the shutdown started and is likely to end.What led to the shutdownDemocrats made several demands to win their support for a short-term funding bill, but the central one was an extension of an enhanced tax credit that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.The tax credit was boosted during the COVID response, again through Joe Biden’s big energy and health care bill, and it’s set to expire at the end of December. Without it, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.“Never have American families faced a situation where their health care costs are set to double — double in the blink of an eye,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.While Democrats called for negotiations on the matter, Republicans said a funding bill would need to be passed first.“Republicans are ready to sit down with Democrats just as soon as they stop holding the government hostage to their partisan demands,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.Thune eventually promised Democrats a December vote on the tax credit extension to help resolve the standoff, but many Democrats demanded a guaranteed fix, not just a vote that is likely to fail.Thune’s position was much the same as the one Schumer took back in October 2013, when Republicans unsuccessfully sought to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for funding the government. “Open up all of the government, and then we can have a fruitful discussion,” Schumer said then.Democratic leaders under pressureThe first year of President Donald Trump’s second term has seen more than 200,000 federal workers leave their job through firings, forced relocations or the administration’s deferred resignation program, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Whole agencies that don’t align with the administration’s priorities have been dismantled. And billions of dollars previously approved by Congress have been frozen or canceled.Democrats have had to rely on the courts to block some of Trump’s efforts, but they have been unable to do it through legislation. They were also powerless to stop Trump’s big tax cut and immigration crackdown bill that Republicans helped pay for by cutting future spending on safety net programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.The Democrats’ struggles to blunt the Trump administration’s priorities has prompted calls for the party’s congressional leadership to take a more forceful response.Schumer experienced that firsthand after announcing in March that he would support moving ahead with a funding bill for the 2025 budget year. There was a protest at his office, calls from progressives that he be primaried in 2028 and suggestions that the Democratic Party would soon be looking for new leaders.This time around, Schumer demanded that Republicans negotiate with Democrats to get their votes on a spending bill. The Senate rules, he noted, requires bipartisan support to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance a spending bill.But those negotiations did not occur, at least not with Schumer. Republicans instead worked with a small group of eight Democrats to tee up a short-term bill to fund the government generally at current levels and accused Schumer of catering to the party’s left flank when he refused to go along.“The Senate Democrats are afraid that the radicals in their party will say that they caved,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at one of his many daily press conferences.The blame gameThe political stakes in the shutdown are huge, which is why leaders in both parties have held nearly daily press briefings to shape public opinion.Roughly 6 in 10 Americans say Trump and Republicans in Congress have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown, while 54% say the same about Democrats in Congress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.At least three-quarters of Americans believe each deserves at least a “moderate” share of blame, underscoring that no one was successfully evading responsibility.Both parties looked to the Nov. 4 elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere for signs of how the shutdown was influencing public opinion. Democrats took comfort in their overwhelming successes. Trump called it a “big factor, negative” for Republicans. But it did not change the GOP’s stance on negotiating. Instead, Trump ramped up calls for Republicans to end the filibuster in the Senate, which would pretty much eliminate the need for the majority party to ever negotiate with the minority.Damage of the shutdownThe Congressional Budget Office says that the negative impact on the economy will be mostly recovered once the shutdown ends, but not entirely. It estimated the permanent economic loss at about $11 billion for a six-week shutdown.Beyond the numbers, though, the shutdown created a cascade of troubles for many Americans. Federal workers missed paychecks, causing financial and emotional stress. Travelers had their flights delayed and at times canceled. People who rely on safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program saw their benefits stopped, and Americans throughout the country lined up for meals at food banks.”This dysfunction is damaging enough to our constituents and economy here at home, but it also sends a dangerous message to the watching world,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. “It demonstrates to our allies that we are an unreliable partner, and it signals to our adversaries that we can’t work together to meet even the most fundamental responsibilities of Congress.”
WASHINGTON —
The longest government shutdown in history could conclude as soon as today, Day 43, with almost no one happy with the final result.
Democrats didn’t get the health insurance provisions they demanded added to the spending deal. And Republicans, who control the levers of power in Washington, didn’t escape blame, according to polls and some state and local elections that went poorly for them.
The fallout of the shutdown landed on millions of Americans, including federal workers who went without paychecks and airline passengers who had their trips delayed or canceled. An interruption in nutrition assistance programs contributed to long lines at food banks and added emotional distress going into the holiday season.
The agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things. All other funding would be extended until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish additional spending bills.
Here’s a look at how the shutdown started and is likely to end.
What led to the shutdown
Democrats made several demands to win their support for a short-term funding bill, but the central one was an extension of an enhanced tax credit that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
The tax credit was boosted during the COVID response, again through Joe Biden’s big energy and health care bill, and it’s set to expire at the end of December. Without it, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.
“Never have American families faced a situation where their health care costs are set to double — double in the blink of an eye,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
While Democrats called for negotiations on the matter, Republicans said a funding bill would need to be passed first.
“Republicans are ready to sit down with Democrats just as soon as they stop holding the government hostage to their partisan demands,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.
Thune eventually promised Democrats a December vote on the tax credit extension to help resolve the standoff, but many Democrats demanded a guaranteed fix, not just a vote that is likely to fail.
Thune’s position was much the same as the one Schumer took back in October 2013, when Republicans unsuccessfully sought to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for funding the government. “Open up all of the government, and then we can have a fruitful discussion,” Schumer said then.
Democratic leaders under pressure
The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term has seen more than 200,000 federal workers leave their job through firings, forced relocations or the administration’s deferred resignation program, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Whole agencies that don’t align with the administration’s priorities have been dismantled. And billions of dollars previously approved by Congress have been frozen or canceled.
Democrats have had to rely on the courts to block some of Trump’s efforts, but they have been unable to do it through legislation. They were also powerless to stop Trump’s big tax cut and immigration crackdown bill that Republicans helped pay for by cutting future spending on safety net programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.
The Democrats’ struggles to blunt the Trump administration’s priorities has prompted calls for the party’s congressional leadership to take a more forceful response.
Schumer experienced that firsthand after announcing in March that he would support moving ahead with a funding bill for the 2025 budget year. There was a protest at his office, calls from progressives that he be primaried in 2028 and suggestions that the Democratic Party would soon be looking for new leaders.
This time around, Schumer demanded that Republicans negotiate with Democrats to get their votes on a spending bill. The Senate rules, he noted, requires bipartisan support to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance a spending bill.
But those negotiations did not occur, at least not with Schumer. Republicans instead worked with a small group of eight Democrats to tee up a short-term bill to fund the government generally at current levels and accused Schumer of catering to the party’s left flank when he refused to go along.
“The Senate Democrats are afraid that the radicals in their party will say that they caved,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at one of his many daily press conferences.
The blame game
The political stakes in the shutdown are huge, which is why leaders in both parties have held nearly daily press briefings to shape public opinion.
Roughly 6 in 10 Americans say Trump and Republicans in Congress have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown, while 54% say the same about Democrats in Congress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
At least three-quarters of Americans believe each deserves at least a “moderate” share of blame, underscoring that no one was successfully evading responsibility.
Both parties looked to the Nov. 4 elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere for signs of how the shutdown was influencing public opinion. Democrats took comfort in their overwhelming successes. Trump called it a “big factor, negative” for Republicans. But it did not change the GOP’s stance on negotiating. Instead, Trump ramped up calls for Republicans to end the filibuster in the Senate, which would pretty much eliminate the need for the majority party to ever negotiate with the minority.
Damage of the shutdown
The Congressional Budget Office says that the negative impact on the economy will be mostly recovered once the shutdown ends, but not entirely. It estimated the permanent economic loss at about $11 billion for a six-week shutdown.
Beyond the numbers, though, the shutdown created a cascade of troubles for many Americans. Federal workers missed paychecks, causing financial and emotional stress. Travelers had their flights delayed and at times canceled. People who rely on safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program saw their benefits stopped, and Americans throughout the country lined up for meals at food banks.
“This dysfunction is damaging enough to our constituents and economy here at home, but it also sends a dangerous message to the watching world,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. “It demonstrates to our allies that we are an unreliable partner, and it signals to our adversaries that we can’t work together to meet even the most fundamental responsibilities of Congress.”
The Trump administration reportedly has plans to open the waters off California’s coast to new oil and gas drilling for the first time in four decades, drawing swift condemnation from Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers and environmental groups who say it would be disastrous for the state’s environment, economy and clean energy targets.
Whether energy companies would be interested in such leases is another question. Experts say the resources are limited and oil majors may not clamor for leases that could ensnare them in the Golden State’s stringent environmental policies.
Trump has focused heavily on increasing fossil fuel production in the United States, yet some say offering the opportunity to drill in the Pacific is more likely a political move from an administration that has repeatedly targeted California’s green ambitions.
Details of the administration’s plan are still emerging, but maps from the Bureau of Ocean Energy identify four West Coast planning areas, three off the coast of California and one off Oregon and Washington. The administration is planning to propose up to six offshore lease sales off the coast of California between 2027 and 2030, according to internal documents first reported by the Washington Post.
Officials with the U.S. Interior Department declined to comment, citing the U.S. government shutdown. Last month, the administration also announced plans to open the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing, which Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said would create jobs and strengthen U.S. energy independence.
California has about two dozen operating oil platforms in state and federal waters, some of which are visible from the shore in different parts of Southern California. But new leases have not been granted in federal waters since 1984, in part due to strong opposition stemming from a 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara that spewed an estimated 100,000 barrels of crude oil into the water and helped jumpstart the modern environmental movement.
The years that followed saw a string of actions to protect the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas development, including bipartisan actions from the state, Congress and presidents including George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama. In January, President Biden signed an executive order protecting more than 625 million acres of the U.S. ocean from offshore drilling, which Trump repealed on his first day back in office.
Oil companies have expressed some interest in new offshore leases. The American Petroleum Institute and other leading oil and gas trade groups encouraged the Trump administration in a June letter to evaluate and consider all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas drilling, noting that “continuous exploration and drilling will be needed” to ensure long-term energy security and meet U.S. energy demands into 2050.
But the opposition from California could be strong. The state has set ambitious climate goals, including reaching 100% carbon neutrality by 2045.
“Nobody really wants offshore oil, except for maybe Texas and Louisiana,” said Clark Williams-Derry, an energy industry analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “In my mind, this is at least in part politically motivated rather than substantively motivated.”
Trump — who received record donations from oil and gas companies during his 2024 presidential campaign — has moved to block clean energy projects in the state and repeal its authority to set strict tailpipe emissions standards, among other challenges.
Williams-Derry noted that offshore oil drilling is a speculative and risk-laden venture for oil companies, and prospects are better in fracking basins in Texas and New Mexico.
The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s most recent federal assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf estimates there are about 9.8 billion barrels of untapped oil off the coast of California — the majority off Southern California — compared with about 29.6 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico.
Offshore oil platforms often send oil ashore, requiring pipelines and other infrastructure. California isn’t likely to cooperate with that onshore work, and in fact has built up something of a “blue wall” of opposition to offshore drilling through local resolutions and legislative efforts, according to Richard Charter, senior fellow with the nonprofit Ocean Foundation.
A network of state laws such as the longstanding California Coastal Sanctuary law, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and a 2025 assembly bill would effectively prevent oil companies from using existing oil and gas infrastructure in state waters to export or bring ashore new production from federal offshore leases, Charter said. State waters are the first three miles offshore.
“I think we have as many layers of protection as it is possible to get — certainly more than any other state,” he said, adding that “the limited petroleum potential is not worth the effort and the risk.”
However, it’s possible that interested oil companies could bypass the state altogether by loading crude onto tankers and shipping it elsewhere, something the Sable Offshore Corp. is now considering for its controversial project to restart oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara.
Energy companies have also been making use of floating oil processing centers that dramatically reduce the need for pipelines.
Rumors of the Trump administration’s plans drew sharp criticism from state leaders, including Sen. Alex Padilla, who led an Oct. 30 letter signed by more than 100 lawmakers demanding the administration reverse course to open up the Outer Continental Shelf.
“This is a matter of national consequence for coastal communities across the country, regardless of political affiliation,” the letter said. “It puts our economies, national security, and our most vulnerable ecosystems at severe risk.”
The lawmakers noted that the U.S. already leads the world in oil and gas production, and the industry already holds more than 2,000 offshore leases covering more than 12 million acres of federal waters, but fewer than 500 of those leases are actively producing oil and gas.
“There is no justification for opening vast swaths of our oceans to leasing when existing leases remain largely unused, while imposing mounting environmental and economic costs on coastal communities,” they wrote.
At the same time, any expanded drilling would meet with weakened oil spill prevention and response programs at the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which have lost about 30% of its staff to layoffs and buyouts and face a potential 50% budget cut.
The Trump administration has caved to at least some political pressure on the issue: The administration largely backed off plans to open the Atlantic Ocean for drilling after reports drew the ire of Republican coastal state leaders.
But advocacy groups say the administration is less likely to give favor to California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom — a 2028 presidential contender — has repeatedly sparred with Trump over energy and the environment. Newsom is currently at the United Nations climate conference in Brazil, which Trump opted not to attend.
A federal appeals court leaves an order in place that requires President Donald Trump ‘s administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November amid a U.S. government shutdown.The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.After the appeals court declined to do so, the Trump administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its request.The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.Officials in at least a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday.Which states issued SNAP payments”Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.Officials in Kansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.Many SNAP recipients face uncertaintyThe court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.”Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.”If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”Franklin said later Friday that she had received at least some of her normal SNAP benefits.The legal battle over SNAP takes another twistBecause of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.”This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”States are taking different approaches to food aidSome states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.Massachusetts said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. And Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the next several days.Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.___Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
BOSTON —
A federal appeals court leaves an order in place that requires President Donald Trump ‘s administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November amid a U.S. government shutdown.
The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.
After the appeals court declined to do so, the Trump administration quickly asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its request.
The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.
The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.
Officials in at least a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday.
Which states issued SNAP payments
“Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.
In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.
Officials in Kansas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.
Many SNAP recipients face uncertainty
The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.
An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.
For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.
Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.
“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.
Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.
Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.
“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”
Franklin said later Friday that she had received at least some of her normal SNAP benefits.
The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist
Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.
In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.
On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.
Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.
In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.
In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”
States are taking different approaches to food aid
Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.
Massachusetts said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. And Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the next several days.
Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.
Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.
___
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
BOSTON (AP) — Two federal judges ruled nearly simultaneously on Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration must to continue to fund SNAP, the nation’s biggest food aid program, using contingency funds during the government shutdown.
The rulings came a day before the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown.
The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. Word in October that it would be a Nov. 1 casualty of the shutdown sent states, food banks and SNAP recipients scrambling to figure out how to secure food. Some states said they would spend their own funds to keep versions of the program going.
The program costs around $8 billion per month nationally.
Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions.
The administration said it wasn’t allowed to use a contingency fund with about $5 billion in it for the program, which reversed a USDA plan from before the shutdown that said money would be tapped to keep SNAP running. The Democratic officials argued that not only could that money be used, it must be. They also said a separate fund with around $23 billion is available for the cause.
A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled from a bench that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds – and asked for an update on progress by Monday.
A Massachusetts-based judge also gave the administration until Monday to say whether it would partially pay for the benefits for November with contingency money or fund them fully with additional funds
It wasn’t immediately clear how quickly the debit cards that beneficiaries use to buy groceries could be reloaded after the ruling. That process often takes one to two weeks.
The rulings are likely to face appeals.
In a hearing in Boston Thursday on a legal challenge filed by the Democratic officials from 25 states, one federal judge seemed skeptical of the administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be halted.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford to cover the cost, there’s a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits,” said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama.
Talwani seemed to be leaning toward requiring the government to put billions of dollars in emergency funds toward SNAP. That, she said, is her interpretation of what Congress intended when an agency’s funding runs out.
“If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt,” she said in court. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”
Government lawyers say a contingency fund containing some $5 billion cannot legally be used to maintain SNAP, a program that costs about $8 billion a month. The states say it must be used for that purpose and point to more money available in a second federal account with around $23 billion.
Talwani said her ruling would apply nationwide, not just in the states that are part of the challenge. That could defy the intentions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has limited the use of nationwide injunctions, though it hasn’t prohibited them.
Meanwhile, states, food banks and recipients have been bracing for an abrupt shift in how low-income people can get groceries.
The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the debit cards used in the program.
Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills.
At a Washington news conference Friday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, whose department runs SNAP, said the contingency funds in question would not cover the cost of SNAP for long. Speaking at a press conference with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the Capitol, she blamed Democrats for conducting a “disgusting dereliction of duty” by refusing to end their Senate filibuster as they hold out for an extension of health care funds.
A push this week to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown failed in Congress.
To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line, which is about $31,000 per year. Last year, SNAP provided assistance to 41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children, according to the lawsuit.
On an overcast morning in September, Hector Alessandro Negrete left his beloved Los Angeles — the city he was brought to at 3 months old — and headed down Interstate 5 to Mexico, the only country where he held a passport.
It was a place that, to him, had “always felt like both a wound and a possibility.”
Negrete, 43, sat in the passenger seat as a friend steered the car south and two more friends in another car followed. He had condensed his life to three full suitcases and his dachshund mix, Lorca.
They pulled over at the beach in San Clemente. Angel Martinez, his soon-to-be former roommate, is deeply spiritual, and his favorite prayer spot is the ocean, so he prayed that Negrete would be blessed and protected — and Lorca too — as they began a new stage in their lives.
On the near-empty beach, the friends embraced and wiped away tears. Martinez handed Negrete a small watermelon.
As instructed, Negrete walked to the edge of the water, said his own prayer and, as a gift of thanks to the cosmos, plopped it into a crashing wave.
Negrete, holding a drink, embraces his friend Angel Martinez as they visit a drag club in Tijuana after leaving Los Angeles a day earlier.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Negrete doesn’t call it self-deportation.
“Self-repatriation,” he said. “I refuse to use this administration’s language.”
President Trump had been in office just over a month when Negrete decided he would return to Mexico. Methodical by nature, he approached the decision like any other — by researching, organizing and planning.
He registered Lorca as an emotional support animal, paid for a vaccine card and a certificate of good health, and crate-trained her in a TSA-approved carrier.
He announced his decision to leave in June on his Substack newsletter: “If you’re thinking, ‘Alessandro’s giving up,’ look deeper. I am choosing freedom. For the first time, I feel unshackled from the expectations of waiting.”
Negrete walks the streets of Boyle Heights while shopping for moving supplies after deciding he would leave the U.S. on his own terms.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Negrete had grown tired of wishing for immigration reform. He had built his career advocating for immigrants such as himself, including stints as statewide coordinator for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, and as executive director for the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance.
He said his work had helped legalize street vending in Los Angeles and he assisted the office of then-California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris in securing the release of a young woman from immigration detention. He was the first openly undocumented and LGBTQ+ person on the Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council.
Under previous administrations, Negrete’s political work had felt like a shield against deportation. Even during Trump’s first term, Negrete had marched at rallies denouncing his immigration policies.
But that was before the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement patrols that tore into Southern California during Trump’s second term. On June 6, as anti-ICE protesters took to the streets, Negrete rushed to downtown Los Angeles when fellow activists told him street medics were needed.
“One of my homies said, ‘Hey fool, what are you doing here?’” he recalled. Seeing Los Angeles police officers advancing on the crowd, he realized that no amount of public support could protect him.
He fled. “Thank God I left.”
Negrete, in red, with his friends and colleagues at a farewell party and yard sale in August.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
In mid-August, Negrete hosted a yard sale and going away party. The flier was tongue-in-cheek: “Everything must go! Including me!”
His red T-shirt stated plainly, “I AM UNDOCUMENTED,” and his aviator sunglasses hid the occasional tears. Tattoos dotted his extremities, including an anchor on his right leg with the words “I refuse to sink.”
“I think it hit me when I started packing my stuff today,” he told a former colleague, Shruti Garg, who had arrived early.
“But the way you’ve invited everyone to join you is so beautiful,” she replied.
One table held American pop-culture knickknacks — sippy cups with Ghostface from the movie “Scream,” collectible Mickey Mouse ears, a Detective Batman purse shaped like a comic book, another purse shaped like the locker from the ‘90s cartoon “Daria.”
Share via
Negrete said the items reminded him of his youth and represented the gothic, quirky aspects of his personality.
“I was born in Mexico, but I don’t know Mexico,” he said. “So I’m leaving the American parts of me that are no longer going to serve me.”
The back yard slowly filled with loved ones from Negrete’s various social circles. There was his mostly queer softball team — the Peacocks — his running group, his chosen family and his blood family.
Negrete’s close friend Joel Menjivar looked solemn.
“I’m scared it’s going to start a movement,” he said. “Undocumented or DACA friends who are talented and integral to the fabric of L.A. might get ideas to leave.”
Another friend, Mario Mariscal, said he took Negrete’s decision the hardest, though at first he didn’t believe Negrete was serious. More than once he asked, “You really want to give up everything you’ve built here for a new start in Mexico?”
Eventually, Negrete had to tell Mariscal that his questions weren’t helpful. During a deeper conversation about his decision, Negrete shared that he was tired of living with the constant fear of getting picked up, herded into an unmarked van and taken away.
“I just kept telling him, ‘That’s not going to happen to you,’” Mariscal said. “But the more this administration keeps doing it, the more it’s in our face, the more we’re seeing every horror story about that, it became clear that, you know what, you do have a point. You do have to do what’s right for you.”
Negrete continues packing for his move to Mexico as roommate Martinez works at their Boyle Heights home.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Negrete is cognizant of the privilege that makes his departure different from that of many other immigrants. He is white-passing, fluent in Spanish and English, and moved with $10,000 in savings.
In June, he was hired as executive director of a U.S.-based nonprofit, Old School Hub, that works to combat ageism around the world. The role allowed him to live wherever he wanted.
He decided to settle in Guadalajara, a growing technology hub, with historic buildings featuring Gothic architecture that he found beautiful. It also helped that Guadalajara has one of the country’s most vibrant LGBTQ+ scenes and is a four-hour drive from Puerto Vallarta, a renowned queer resort destination.
As Negrete began his new job while still in L.A., he picked a moving date — Sept. 4 — and booked a two-week Airbnb near the baseball stadium.
That Guadalajara’s team, the Charros de Jalisco, wore Dodger blue felt like a good omen.
On the day he left the United States, Negrete and Martinez hold a prayer at the beach in San Clemente in which Negrete offers thanks to the universe with an offering of a watermelon.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
On the drive toward the border, messages poured into Negrete’s phone.
“I’m sending you all my love Alessandro,” one read. “Cuídate. [Take care.] Know that even though you’re far away from home, you carry us with you.”
“Todo te va a salir bien,” read another. Everything will go well for you, it said. “Spread your wings and flyyyyy.”
Afraid of being stopped and detained at the airport, as has happened to other immigrants attempting to leave the country, Negrete preferred to drive to Tijuana and then fly to Guadalajara.
Negrete’s driver, his friend Jorge Leonardo, turned into a parking lot at the sign reading “LAST USA EXIT.”
Negrete put on his black felt tejana hat and called Iris Rodriguez, who was in the companion car. He asked her to cross on foot with him.
Negrete walks his last few steps on American soil as he enters Mexico en route to Guadalajara, his new home.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
“I don’t want to go alone,” he said.
“We’re still on American soil,” Leonardo said. “You can still change your mind.”
Negrete ignored him.
“See y’all on the other side,” he said as he hopped out of the car.
He and Rodriguez stopped for photos in front of a sign with an arrow pointing “To Mexico.” Around a corner, the border came into full view — a metal turnstile with layers of concertina wire above it.
The line for Mexicanos was unceremoniously quick. The immigration agent barely glanced at Negrete’s passport before waving him through.
On the other side, a busker sang “Piano Man” by Billy Joel in perfect English.
“Welcome to the motherland,” Rodriguez told him. Negrete let out a deep breath.
Negrete tours downtown Guadalajara, where he now lives.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Negrete’s immediate family members, and almost all of his extended family, live in the U.S.
He was born in Manzanillo, Colima, in 1982. Three months later, the family relocated to Los Angeles, where his parents had two more children.
At 17, Negrete was one of two students in his graduating class at Roosevelt High School to get into UC Berkeley. That’s when he found out he didn’t have papers.
His parents had divorced and his father married a U.S. citizen, obtaining a green card when Negrete was at Roosevelt. They began the legalization process for Negrete in 1999, he said, but two years later he came out to his family as gay.
His father was unsupportive and refused to continue seeking to adjust his immigration status. By the time they mended their relationship, it was too late. Negrete had aged out of the pathway at 21.
In 2008, Negrete said, he was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Four years later, President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program to protect immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. Negrete failed to qualify because of the DUI.
He said he got his record expunged in 2016, but — again — it was too late.
Negrete waited until his last night in the U.S. to tell his mother, who now lives in Colorado, that he was leaving. He had grown tired of friends and other family members begging him to change his mind.
He had partially hinged his decision on the fact that his mom was in remission from her third bout with cancer and had just obtained legal residency. With life more stable for her, he could finally seek stability for himself.
“You taught me to dream,” Negrete recalled telling her. “This is me dreaming. I want to see the world.”
She cried and scolded him, promising to visit and repeating what she had said when he came out to her all those years before: “I wish you told me sooner.”
At a hotel in Tijuana, Negrete’s emotions finally caught up with him.
The day after Negrete and his three friends left L.A., three more friends surprised him by arriving in Tijuana for a final Friday night out together. One of them presented a gift he had put together with help from Negrete’s entire social circle — a video with loved ones sharing messages of encouragement.
In Negrete’s hotel room, as he and his friends watched, the mood grew sentimental.
“You’re basically the one that formed the family friend tree,” one friend said in her clip. “Friendships do not die out in distance.”
Negrete sobbed. “Yes! Friendships don’t have borders,” he said.
“Every single one of you has said this hasn’t hit y’all, like it’s a mini vacation,” he said. “I want to think of it as an extended vacation.”
“This isn’t goodbye, this is we’ll see each other soon,” he continued.
Off his soapbox, Negrete then chided his friends for making him cry before heading to a drag show.
Negrete had a habit of leaving social gatherings abruptly. His friends joked that they would refer to him as “catch me on the 101” because every time he disappeared during a night out, they would open Apple’s Find My app and see him on the freeway heading home.
“We’re not gonna catch him on the 101 no more,” Martinez said.
The last few flights of stairs lead Iris Rodriguez and Negrete to his Airbnb apartment in Guadalajara.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
On the flight to Guadalajara, Negrete’s heart raced and he began to hyperventilate. The anxiety attack caught him off guard.
Negrete had worked hard to show his friends and family that he was happy, because he didn’t want them to think he had doubts — and he had none. But he began to worry about the unknown and to mourn his former dreams of gaining legal status and running for public office.
“It hit me all at once,” he recounted. “I am three hours away from a whole new life that I don’t know. I left everything and I don’t know what’s next.”
Many deep breaths by Negrete later, the plane descended through the clouds, revealing vibrant green fields and a cantaloupe-hued sunset.
Negrete tests the bed at his temporary home in Guadalajara.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Inside the Airbnb, he was surprised to find a clothesline instead of a dryer. Noticing the blue 5-gallon jug of water in the kitchen, he remarked that he would have to remember tap water wasn’t safe to cook with. But alongside the new was something familiar: The view from his 11–story apartment showed off a sprawling metropolis dotted with trees, some of them palms.
The next day started off like any Sunday, with a trip to Walmart and drag brunch.
Negrete marveled at the cost of a large carton of egg whites ($1) and was shocked to see eggs stored at room temperature, liquid laundry detergent in bags and only single-ply toilet paper. He treated himself to a Darth Vader coffee mug and a teapot featuring characters from “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”
After brunch, it was time to play tourist. Negrete was accompanied by Rodriguez, who stayed with him for the first two weeks, and a new friend, Alejandro Preciado, whom he had met at Coachella in April and happened to be a Guadajalara local.
Negrete tours downtown Guadalajara. He was drawn to the city, in part, by its Gothic architecture.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Their first stop was the city’s Spanish Renaissance cathedral, where Negrete said a quick prayer to the Virgin Mary at his mother’s request. Negrete treated his friends to an electric carriage ride around the historic buildings, where he excitedly pointed out the Gothic architecture, then they bought aguas frescas and walked through an open-air market, chatting in an English-heavy Spanglish.
“I’m trying to look at how people dress,” Negrete said, suddenly self-conscious about his short shorts. “I’m pretty sure I stand out.”
After dinner, Negrete was booking an Uber back to his Airbnb when a message popped up: “We’ve detected unusual activity.”
The app didn’t know he had moved.
Before he arrived in Guadalajara, Negrete had already joined an intramural baseball team and a running club. Practices began days after his arrival.
Negrete enjoys a view of the sprawling hills of Guadalajara.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Within a month, he moved into an apartment, visited Mexico City and reconnected with aunts in Mexico City and Guadalajara he hadn’t seen in decades.
He reflected on the small joys of greeting neighborhood señoras on morning dog walks, discovering the depths of Mexican cuisine and the peace of mind that came with no longer feeling like a target — though he’ll still freeze at the sight of police lights.
Still, Negrete remained glued to U.S. politics. In late September, the federal government detailed plans to begin processing initial DACA applications for the first time in four years. Had Negrete stayed in the U.S., he would have finally qualified for a reprieve.
He isn’t regretful.
Lorca greets Negrete as he arrives home after touring Guadalajara.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
His new dreams are wide-ranging. He wants to buy a house in Rosarito, where friends and family from L.A. could visit him. He wants to travel the world, starting with a trip to Spain. And he wants to help U.S. organizations build resources for other immigrants who are considering repatriating.
The goal isn’t to encourage people to leave, he said, but to show them they have agency.
“I actually did it,” he said. “I did it, and I’m OK.”
Now, he said, Mexico feels like an estranged relative that he’s getting to know again.
WASHINGTON — President Trump faces the most important international meeting of his second term so far on Thursday: face-to-face negotiations with Xi Jinping, who has made China a formidable economic and military challenger to the United States.
The two presidents face a vast agenda during their meeting in Seoul, beginning with the two countries’ escalating trade war over tariffs and high-tech exports. The list also includes U.S. demands for a Chinese crackdown on fentanyl, China’s aid to Russia in its war with Ukraine, the future of Taiwan and China’s growing nuclear arsenal.
Trump has already promised, characteristically, that the meeting will be a major success.
“It’s going to be fantastic for both countries, and it’s going to be fantastic for the entire world,” he said last week.
But it isn’t yet clear that the summit’s concrete results will measure up to that high standard.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that the two sides have agreed to a “framework” under which China would delay implementing tight controls on rare earth elements, minerals crucial for the production of high-tech products from smartphones and electric vehicles to military aircraft and missiles. He said China has also agreed to resume buying soybeans from U.S. farmers and to crack down on fentanyl components.
In return, Bessent said, the United States will back down from its stinging tariffs on Chinese goods.
Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador in Beijing under then-President Biden, said that kind of deal would amount to “an uneasy trade truce rather than a comprehensive trade deal.”
“That may be the best we can expect,” he said in an interview Monday. Still, he added, “it will be a positive step to stabilize world markets and allow the continuation of U.S.-China trade for the time being.”
But U.S. and Chinese officials have been close-mouthed on what, if anything, has been agreed on regarding Xi’s other big trade demand: easier U.S. restrictions on high-tech exports to China, especially advanced semiconductor chips used for artificial intelligence.
Burns said the two superpowers’ technology competition is “the most sensitive … in terms of where this relationship will head, which country will emerge more powerful.”
Giving China easy access to advanced semiconductors “would only help [the Chinese army] in its competition with the U.S. military for power in the Indo-Pacific,” he warned.
Other former officials and China hawks outside the administration have said, even more pointedly, that they worry that Trump may be too willing to trade long-term technology assets for short-term trade deals.
In August, Trump eased export controls to allow Nvidia, the world leader in AI chips, to sell more semiconductors to China — in an unusual deal under which the U.S. company would pay 15% of its revenue from the sales to the U.S. Treasury.
Matthew Pottinger, Trump’s top China advisor in his first term, protested in a recent podcast interview that the deal risked trading a strategic technology advantage “for $20 billion and Nvidia’s bottom line.”
Underlying the controversy over technology, some China watchers warn, is a basic mismatch between the two presidents: Trump is focused almost entirely on trade and commercial deals, while Xi is focused on displacing the United States as the biggest economic and military power in Asia.
“I don’t think the administration has a strategy toward China,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It has a trade strategy, not a China strategy.”
“The administration does not seem to be focused on competition with China,” said Jonathan Czin, a former CIA analyst now at Washington’s Brookings Institution. “It’s focused on deal making. … It’s tactics without strategy.”
“We’ve fallen into a kind of trade and technology myopia,” he added. “We’re not talking about issues like China’s coercion [of smaller countries] in the South China Sea. … China doesn’t want to have that bigger, broader conversation.”
It isn’t clear that Trump and Xi will have either the time or inclination to talk in detail about anything other than trade.
And even on the front-burner economic issues, this week’s ceasefire is unlikely to produce a permanent peace.
“As with all such agreements, the devil will be in the details,” Burns, the former ambassador, said. “The two countries will remain fierce trade rivals. Expect friction ahead and further trade duels well into 2026.”
“Buckle up,” Czin said. “There are likely more sudden moves from Beijing ahead.”
In the long run, Trump’s legacy in U.S.-China relations will rest not only on trade deals but on the larger competition for economic and military power in the Pacific Rim. No matter how this week’s meetings go, those challenges still lie ahead.
When millions of demonstrators took to the streets in June for “No Kings Day” — depicting President Trump as a wannabe monarch intent on violating American democratic norms — it was still fairly early in his administration.
The immigration raids in Los Angeles were just getting under way and Trump had deployed military troops to the city to clamp down on protests.
But four months later, many Americans feel Trump’s threats and norm-shattering actions have only gotten more intense as protesters prepare to take part Saturday in more than 2,700 “No Kings” demonstrations scheduled across the country.
In that period, the Trump administration has ramped up immigration raids across L.A. and Chicago and deployed National Guard troops to Washington D.C. It has also pressured universities to comply with his agenda or lose funding, fired government officials he deems insufficiently loyal and embarked on an aggressive sweep of prosecutions of political opponents.
“We’re seeing an escalation, right?,” said Hunter Dunn, a spokesman for 50501, one of the “No Kings” coalition’s core organizing partners. “We are watching as ICE’s mass deportation program is speeding up and becoming even more aggressive than it was. What happened in Los Angeles is now happening in Memphis, in D.C., in Chicago.”
But the second “No Kings” protest comes with some existential questions for organizers who trying to mount a sustained protest movement. What is the most effective way to challenge Trump? And how do you make noise without playing into the president’s hands?
Saturday’s revival of the massive series of demonstrations — organized around the slogan “No Thrones. No Crowns. No Kings” — will voice left-wing concerns that the Trump administration is embracing authoritarian tactics and unraveling U.S. democracy. But it will also include a broader range of issues, including rising prices and rollbacks of environmental protections.
For Dunn, a 22-year-old organizer in Los Angeles County who is part of a coalition of thousands of groups, the threat Trump poses goes beyond immigration. Trump, he noted, had used the Federal Communications Commission to try to silence broadcasters he does not like, brought “spurious” charges against protesters and demonstrators outside of ICE facilities and signed a so-called “big, beautiful bill” that Dunn said had funneled trillions of dollars from the average American to billionaires who supported the Trump regime.
“We’re seeing the Trump administration repeatedly try and fail to shake the pillars of democracy, and in doing so, escalate the threat level,” Dunn said.
The June 14 event inspired more than five million people to rally against Trump. One test will be whether they can increase that number on Saturday.
In both Los Angeles and Chicago, Trump has tried to use protests — many of them peaceful — to claim that the streets are unsafe and in need of military troops. Trump pushed back against the underlying premise of the protest in an interview with Fox News Friday.
“They’re referring to me as a king,” he said. “I’m not a king.”
Protesters also face increasing attacks from Trump’s allies on the right, some of whom are branding their demonstrations as anti-American.
“We call it the ‘hate America’ rally,” U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday at a news conference. “Let’s see who shows up for that. I bet you you’ll see Hamas supporters, I bet you’ll see Antifa types, I bet you’ll see the Marxists on full display, the people who don’t want to stand and defend the foundational truths of this republic.”
Organizers expect a broad and diverse group of Americans to attend Saturday’s “No Kings” demonstrations. About 600 more events are scheduled than the 2,100 demonstrations that took place in June, and slightly more people have signed up, even though the organization is discouraging registrations.
David S. Meyer, a professor of sociology at UC Irvine who studies social movements, said that people’s opinions about the Trump administration have not changed too much since June. Rather, he argued, people felt a higher level of urgency about the danger of the Trump administration.
“What’s increased is the willingness of people to take more action, to do something,” he said. “I think there’s a hunger for action.”
Meyer said he was surprised to see key GOP leaders falling into line with Trump and pushing the idea that “No Kings” is anti-American.
“There are plenty of presidents who’ve encountered protests against their policies,” Meyer said. “That’s part of what America is all about. And usually presidents say, ‘I have to represent everybody and do what I think is best for the country. And I understand that there are other Americans who disagree with me.’”
In an attempt to broaden the scope of “No Kings,” Meyer noted, organizers are appealing to Americans upset over the rising cost of living, gutting of environmental protections, sweeping overhauls of federal agencies and the government shutdown over looming healthcare cuts. These issues, Meyer argued, are connected to the theme of American democracy.
“Trump doesn’t consult with people who disagree with him … and the people surrounding him, and this is by design, are explicitly chosen because of their loyalty rather than their specific competencies,” Meyer said. “The strategy of the ‘No Kings’ organizers is to provide a kind of large and inclusive bucket for all the grievances to fit into and for people with all kinds of different gripes to show up.”
Another reason “No Kings” touches on so many issues, Dunn said, is in response to the Republican tactic — articulated by Trump’s former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon as “flooding the zone” — of overwhelming the public with a barrage of information, disinformation and controversy.
“Republicans’ strategy is to worsen the economy for everyone, to worsen the cost of living for the average American… to try to weaken the American people and make it harder for them to stand up against this administration’s abuses,” Dunn said. “So that’s why we’re standing up on all those fronts, because we have to meet them at every front that they’re using to harm the American people.”
The goal of “No Kings” goes beyond just getting Americans out on the streets together in solidarity against Trump. They want to connect people who are upset and frustrated with the Trump administration to local organizing groups.
“Getting involved in those groups, making those face to face connections and joining them will have a much larger impact over the next few days, the next few weeks, next few months, the next few years, than just one day of protest,” Dunn said.
Going forward, Dunn said, one of the key questions facing the Trump resistance movement is how to pressure leading Democratic elected officials to get on board.
While legislators such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen had done a lot to resist the Trump administration, he said, he wanted to put more pressure on mainstream Democrats across the country.
“How do we get support from what is supposed to be the opposition party?”
Dunn said he was not worried about the prospect of violence Saturday when millions take to the streets. The rallies and demonstrations that took place on the June demonstrations were overwhelmingly peaceful, he noted. Organizers put a major emphasis on de-escalation and protest safety, bringing in community and faith leaders and training tens of thousands of volunteers across the country in de-escalation. He scoffed at the idea extremists might hijack any of the demonstrations.
“The biggest threat to safety at every protest I’ve ever been at — unless law enforcement gets involved — is always dehydration and heat exhaustion,” Dunn said.
Olivia Negron, 73, an organizer with Studio City Rising who has protested in that L.A. neighborhood every weekend since April, said she was alarmed not just by the president’s rhetoric, but by the Trump administration’s actions against immigrants through the courts and in the streets.
“The president doesn’t know what it is to be American,” said Negron, a Latina and the child of a U.S. Navy officer. “The American dream is about inclusivity and making sure that immigrants are welcomed into the United States.”
Negron, who marched against the war in Vietnam, said she felt the people in power have taken away what it means to be American and made it difficult to fly the American flag. But she said she was hopeful that the Trump administration’s actions since the last “No Kings” day would push more people to protest.
“We need to turn the ship of state around and get this democracy heading in the right direction,” Negron said. “Absolutely more inclusion, more equity, more diversity. Diversity is our strength and empathy is our superpower.”
In the early days of President Trump’s second term, the U.S. appeared keen to cooperate with Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s authoritarian leader. Special envoy Ric Grenell met Maduro, working with him to coordinate deportation flights to Caracas, a prisoner exchange deal and an agreement allowing Chevron to drill Venezuelan oil.
Grenell told disappointed members of Venezuela’s opposition that Trump’s domestic goals took priority over efforts to promote democracy. “We’re not interested in regime change,” Grenell told the group, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.
But Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State, had a different vision.
In a parallel call with María Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, two leaders of the opposition, Rubio affirmed U.S. support “for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela” and called González “the rightful president” of the beleaguered nation after Maduro rigged last year’s election in his favor.
Rubio, now also serving as national security advisor, has grown closer to Trump and crafted an aggressive new policy toward Maduro that has brought Venezuela and the United States to the brink of military confrontation.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio whispers to President Trump during a roundtable meeting at the White House on Oct. 8, 2025.
(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)
I think Venezuela is feeling the heat
— President Trump
Grenell has been sidelined, two sources told The Times, as the U.S. conducts an unprecedented campaign of deadly strikes on suspected Venezuelan drug boats — and builds up military assets in the Caribbean. Trump said Wednesday that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in the South American nation, and that strikes on land targets could be next.
“I think Venezuela is feeling the heat,” he said.
The pressure campaign marks a major victory for Rubio, the son of Cuban emigres and an unexpected power player in the administration who has managed to sway top leaders of the isolationist MAGA movement to his lifelong effort to topple Latin America’s leftist authoritarians.
“It’s very clear that Rubio has won,” said James B. Story, who served as ambassador to Venezuela under President Biden. “The administration is applying military pressure in the hope that somebody inside of the regime renders Maduro to justice, either by exiling him, sending him to the United States or sending him to his maker.”
In a recent public message to Trump, Maduro acknowledged that Rubio is now driving White House policy: “You have to be careful because Marco Rubio wants your hands stained with blood, with South American blood, Caribbean blood, Venezuelan blood,” Maduro said.
As a senator from Florida, Rubio represented exiles from three leftist autocracies — Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and for years he has made it his mission to weaken their governments. He says his family could not return to Cuba after Fidel Castro’s revolution seven decades ago. He has long maintained that eliminating Maduro would deal a fatal blow to Cuba, whose economy has been buoyed by billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil in the face of punishing U.S. sanctions.
In 2019, Rubio pushed Trump to back Juan Guaidó, a Venezuelan opposition leader who sought unsuccessfully to topple Maduro.
Rubio later encouraged Trump to publicly support Machado, who was barred from the ballot in Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, and who last week was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her pro-democracy efforts. González, who ran in Machado’s place, won the election, according to vote tallies gathered by the opposition, yet Maduro declared victory.
Rubio was convinced that only military might would bring change to Venezuela, which has been plunged into crisis under Maduro’s rule, with a quarter of the population fleeing poverty, violence and political repression.
But there was a hitch. Trump has repeatedly vowed to not intervene in the politics of other nations, telling a Middle Eastern audience in May that the U.S. “would no longer be giving you lectures on how to live.”
Denouncing decades of U.S. foreign policy, Trump complained that “the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”
To counter that sentiment, Rubio painted Maduro in a new light that he hoped would spark interest from Trump, who has been fixated on combating immigration, illegal drugs and Latin American cartels since his first presidential campaign.
Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, right, and opposition leader María Corina Machado greet supporters during a campaign rally in Valencia before the country’s presidential election in 2024.
(Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)
Going after Maduro, Rubio argued, was not about promoting democracy or a change of governments. It was striking a drug kingpin fueling crime in American streets, an epidemic of American overdoses, and a flood of illegal migration to America’s borders.
Rubio tied Maduro to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang whose members the secretary of State says are “worse than Al Qaeda.”
“Venezuela is governed by a narco-trafficking organization that has empowered itself as a nation state,” he said during his Senate confirmation hearing.
Meanwhile, prominent members of Venezuela’s opposition pushed the same message. “Maduro is the head of a narco-terrorist structure,” Machado told Fox News last month.
Security analysts and U.S. intelligence officials suggest that the links between Maduro and Tren de Aragua are overblown.
A declassified memo by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between Maduro’s government and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.
The gang does not traffic fentanyl, and the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that just 8% of cocaine that reaches the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.
Still, Rubio’s strategy appears to have worked.
In July, Trump declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro — and then ordered the Pentagon to use military force against cartels that the U.S. government had labeled terrorists.
Trump deployed thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean and has ordered strikes on five boats off the coast of Venezuela, resulting in 24 deaths. The administration says the victims were “narco-terrorists” but has provided no evidence.
Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat who served as special envoy to Venezuela in Trump’s first term, said he believes the White House will carry out limited strikes in Venezuela.
“I think the next step is that they’re going to hit something in Venezuela — and I don’t mean boots on the ground. That’s not Trump,” Abrams said. “It’s a strike, and then it’s over. That’s very low risk to the United States.”
He continued: “Now, would it be nice if that kind of activity spurred a colonel to lead a coup? Yeah, it would be nice. But the administration is never going to say that.”
Even if Trump refrains from a ground invasion, there are major risks.
“If it’s a war, then what is the war’s aim? Is it to overthrow Maduro? Is it more than Maduro? Is it to get a democratically elected president and a democratic regime in power?” said John Yoo, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who served as a top legal advisor to the George W. Bush administration. “The American people will want to know what’s the end state, what’s the goal of all of this.”
“Whenever you have two militaries bristling that close together, there could be real action,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the think tank Chatham House. “Trump is trying to do this on the cheap. He’s hoping maybe he won’t have to commit. But it’s a slippery slope. This could draw the United States into a war.”
Sabatini and others added that even if the U.S. pressure drives out Maduro, what follows is far from certain.
Venezuela is dominated by a patchwork of guerrilla and paramilitary groups that have enriched themselves with gold smuggling, drug trafficking and other illicit activities. None have incentive to lay down arms.
And the country’s opposition is far from unified.
Machado, who dedicated her Nobel Prize to Trump in a clear effort to gain his support, says she is prepared to govern Venezuela. But there are others — both in exile and in Maduro’s administration — who would like to lead the country.
Machado supporter Juan Fernandez said anything would be better than maintaining the status quo.
“Some say we’re not prepared, that a transition would cause instability,” he said. “How can Maduro be the secure choice when 8 million Venezuelans have left, when there is no gasoline, political persecution and rampant inflation?”
Fernandez praised Rubio for pushing the Venezuela issue toward “an inflection point.”
What a difference, he said, to have a decision-maker in the White House with family roots in another country long oppressed by an authoritarian regime.
“He perfectly understands our situation,” Fernandez said. “And now he has one of the highest positions in the United States.”
Linthicum reported from Mexico City, Wilner from Dallas and Ceballos from Washington. Special correspondent Mery Mogollón in Caracas contributed to this report.
There are few laws President Trump name-checks more frequently than the Insurrection Act.
A 200-year-old constellation of statutes, the act grants emergency powers to thrust active-duty soldiers into civilian police duty, something otherwise barred by federal law.
Trump and his team have threatened to invoke it almost daily for weeks — most recently on Monday, after a reporter pressed the president about his escalating efforts to dispatch federalized troops to Democrat-led cities.
“Insurrection Act — yeah, I mean, I could do that,” Trump said. “Many presidents have.”
Roughly a third of U.S. presidents have called on the statutes at some point — but history also shows the law has been used only in moments of extraordinary crisis and political upheaval.
The Insurrection Act was Abraham Lincoln’s sword against secessionists and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s shield around the Little Rock Nine, the young Black students who were the first to desegregate schools in Arkansas.
Ulysses S. Grant invoked it more than half a dozen times to thwart statehouse coups, stem race massacres and smother the Ku Klux Klan in its South Carolina cradle.
But it has just as often been wielded to crush labor strikes and strangle protest movements. The last time it was invoked, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in elementary school and most U.S. soldiers had not yet been born.
Now, many fear Trump could call on the law to quell opposition to his agenda.
“The Democrats were fools not to amend the Insurrection Act in 2021,” said Kevin Carroll, former senior counsel in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. “It gives the president almost untrammeled power.”
It also precludes most judicial review.
“It can’t even be challenged,” Trump boasted Monday. “I don’t have to go there yet, because I’m winning on appeal.”
If that winning streak cools, as legal experts say it soon could, some fear the Insurrection Act would be the administration’s next move.
“The Insurrection Act is very broadly worded, but there is a history of even the executive branch interpreting it narrowly,” said John C. Dehn, an associate professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
The president first floated using the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020. But members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move, as they did efforts to use the National Guard for immigration enforcement and the military to patrol the border.
“They have this real fixation on using the military domestically,” Carroll said. “It’s sinister.”
In his second term, Trump has instead relied on an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to surge federalized soldiers into blue cities, claiming it confers many of the same powers as the Insurrection Act.
Federal judges disagreed. Challenges to deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago have since clogged the appellate courts, with three West Coast cases before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois.
The result is a growing knot of litigation that experts say will fall to the Supreme Court to unwind.
As of Wednesday, troops in Oregon and Illinois are activated but can’t be deployed. The Oregon case is further complicated by precedent from California, where federalized soldiers have patrolled the streets since June with the 9th Circuit’s blessing. That ruling is set to be reheard by the circuit on Oct. 22 and could be reversed.
Meanwhile, what California soldiers are legally allowed to do while they’re federalized is also under review, meaning even if Trump retains the authority to call up troops, he might not be able to use them.
Scholars are split over how the Supreme Court might rule on any of those issues.
“At this point, no court … has expressed any sympathy to these arguments, because they’re so weak,” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School.
Koh listed the high court’s most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as unlikely to push back against the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, but said even some of Trump’s appointees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — might be skeptical, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
“I don’t think Thomas and Alito are going to stand up to Trump, but I’m not sure that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts can read this statute to give him [those] powers.”
The Insurrection Act sidesteps those fights almost entirely.
It “would change not only the legal state of play, but fundamentally change the facts we have on the ground, because what the military would be authorized to do would be so much broader,” said Christopher Mirasola, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
Congress created the Insurrection Act as a fail-safe in response to armed mobs attacking their neighbors and organized militias seeking to overthrow elected officials. But experts caution that the military is not trained to keep law and order, and that the country has a strong tradition against domestic deployments dating to the Revolutionary War.
“The uniformed military leadership in general does not like getting involved in the domestic law enforcement issue at all,” Carroll said. “The only similarities between police and military is that they have uniforms and guns.”
Today, the commander in chief can invoke the law in response to a call for help from state leaders, as George H.W. Bush did to quell the 1992 Rodney King uprising in L.A.
The statute can also be used to make an end-run around elected officials who refuse to enforce the law, or mobs who make it impossible — something Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Jr. did in defense of school integration.
Still, modern presidents have generally shied from using the Insurrection Act even in circumstances with strong legal justification. George W. Bush weighed invoking the law after Hurricane Katrina created chaos in New Orleans but ultimately declined over fears it would intensify the already bitter power struggle between the state and federal government.
“There are any number of Justice Department internal opinions where attorneys general like Robert Kennedy or Nicholas Katzenbach said, ‘We cannot invoke the Insurrection Act because the courts are open,’” Koh said.
Despite its extraordinary power, Koh and other experts said the law has guardrails that may make it more difficult for the president to invoke it in the face of naked bicyclists or protesters in inflatable frog suits, whom federal forces have faced down recently in Portland.
“There are still statutory requirements that have to be met,” said Dehn, the Loyola professor. “The problem the Trump administration would have in invoking [the law] is that very practically, they are able to arrest people who break the law and prosecute people who break the law.”
That may be why Trump and his administration have yet to invoke the act.
“It reminds me of the run-up to Jan. 6,” Carroll said. “It’s a similar feeling that people have, a sense that an illegal or immoral and unwise order is about to be given.”
He and others say an invocation of the Insurrection Act would shift widespread concern about military policing of American streets into existential territory.
“If there’s a bad faith invocation of the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to go beat up anti-ICE protesters, there should be a general strike in the United States,” Carroll said. “It’s a real break-the-glass moment.”
At that point, the best defense may come from the military.
“If a really unwise and immoral order comes out … 17-year generals need to say no,” Carroll said. “They have to have the guts to put their stars on the table.”
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Wednesday from firing thousands of government workers based on the ongoing federal shutdown, granting a request from employee unions in California.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the temporary restraining order after concluding that the unions “will demonstrate ultimately that what’s being done here is both illegal and is in excess of authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”
Illston slammed the Trump administration for failing to provide her with clear information about what cuts are actually occurring, for repeatedly changing its description and estimates of job cuts in filings before the court, and for failing — including during Wednesday’s hearing in San Francisco — to articulate an argument for why such cuts are not in violation of federal law.
“The evidence suggests that the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore,” Illston said — which she said was not the case.
She said the government justified providing inaccurate figures for the number of jobs being eliminated under its “reduction in force” orders by calling it a “fluid situation” — which she did not find convincing.
“What it is is a situation where things are being done before they are being thought through. It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” she said. “And it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”
Illston also ran through a string of recent comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the firings and their intentionally targeting programs and agencies supported by Democrats, saying, “By all appearances, they’re politically motivated.”
The Trump administration has acknowledged dismissing about 4,000 workers under the orders, while Trump and other officials have signaled that more would come Friday.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Wednesday on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that the number of jobs cut could “probably end up being north of 10,000,” as the administration wants to be “very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding,” and the shutdown provided that opportunity.
Attorneys for the unions, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, said that the figures were unreliable and that they feared additional reduction in force orders resulting in more layoffs, as promised by administration officials, if the court did not step in and block such actions.
Illston, an appointee of President Clinton, did just that.
She barred the Trump administration and its various agencies “from taking any action to issue any reduction in force notices to federal employees in any program, project or activity” involving union members “during or because of the federal shutdown.”
She also barred the administration from “taking any further action to administer or implement” existing reduction notices involving union members.
Illston demanded that the administration provide within two days a full accounting of all existing or “imminent” reduction in force orders that would be blocked by her order, as well as the specific number of federal jobs affected.
Elizabeth Hedges, an attorney for the Trump administration, had argued during the hearing that the order should not be granted for several procedural reasons — including that the alleged harm to federal employees from loss of employment or benefits was not “irreparable” and could be addressed through other avenues, including civil litigation.
Additionally, she argued that federal employment claims should be adjudicated administratively, not in district court; and that the reduction in force orders included 60-day notice periods, meaning the layoffs were not immediate and therefore the challenge to them was not yet “ripe” legally.
However, Hedges would not discuss the case on its actual merits — which is to say, whether the cuts were actually legal or not, which did not seem to sit well with Illston.
“You don’t have a position on whether it’s OK that they do what they’re doing?” Illston asked.
“I am not prepared to discuss that today, your honor,” Hedges said.
“Well — but it’s happening. This hatchet is falling on the heads of employees all across the nation, and you’re not even prepared to address whether that’s legal, even though that’s what this motion challenges?” Illston said.
“That’s right,” Hedges said — stressing again that there were “threshold” arguments for why the case shouldn’t even be allowed to continue to the merits stage.
Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the unions, suggested the government’s positions were indefensible and directly in conflict with public statements by the administration — including remarks by Trump on Tuesday that more cuts are coming Friday.
“How do we know this? Because OMB and the president relentlessly are telling us, and other members of the administration,” Leonard said.
Leonard said the harm from the administration’s actions is obvious and laid out in the union’s filings — showing how employees have at times been left in the dark as to their employment status because they don’t have access to work communication channels during the shutdown, or how others have been called in to “work without pay to fire their fellow employees” — only to then be fired themselves.
“There are multiple types of harm that are caused exactly right now — emotional trauma. That’s not my word, your honor, that is the word of OMB Director Vought. Let’s cause ‘trauma’ to the federal workforce,” Leonard said. “And that’s exactly what they are doing. Trauma. The emotional distress of being told you are being fired after an already exceptionally difficult year for federal employees.”
Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which is co-counsel for the unions, praised Illston’s decision in a statement after the hearing.
“The statements today by the court make clear that the President’s targeting of federal workers — a move straight out of Project 2025’s playbook — is unlawful,” Perryman said. “Our civil servants do the work of the people, and playing games with their livelihoods is cruel and unlawful and a threat to everyone in our nation.”
Illston asked the two parties to confer on the best date, probably later this month, for a fuller hearing on whether she should issue a more lasting preliminary injunction in the case.
“It would be wonderful to know what the government’s position is on the merits of this case — and my breath is bated until we find that,” Illston said.
After the hearing, during a White House news conference, Trump said his administration was paying federal employees whom “we want paid” while Vought uses the shutdown to dismiss employees perceived as supporting Democratic initiatives.
“Russell Vought is really terminating tremendous numbers of Democrat projects — not only jobs,” Trump said.
WASHINGTON — Sidelined by political appointees, targeted over deep state conspiracies and derided by the president, career public servants have grown used to life in Washington under a constant state of assault.
But President Trump’s latest threat, to withhold back pay due to workers furloughed by an ongoing government shutdown, is adding fresh uncertainty to the beleaguered workforce.
Whether federal workers will ultimately receive retroactive paychecks after the government reopens, Trump told reporters on Tuesday, “really depends on who you’re talking about.” The law requires federal employees receive their expected compensation in the event of a shutdown.
“For the most part, we’re going to take care of our people,” the president said, while adding: “There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of, and we’ll take care of them in a different way.”
It is yet another peril facing public servants, who, according to Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, may also be the target of mass layoffs if the shutdown continues.
The government has been shut since Oct. 1, when Republican and Democratic lawmakers came to an impasse over whether to extend government funding at existing levels, or account for a significant increase in healthcare premiums facing millions of Americans at the start of next year.
White House officials say that, on the one hand, Democrats are to blame for extending a shutdown that will give the administration no other choice but to initiate firings of agency employees working on “nonessential” projects. On the other hand, the president has referred to the moment as an opportunity to root out Democrats working in career roles throughout the federal system.
Legal scholars and public policy experts have roundly dismissed Trump’s latest efforts — both to use the shutdown as a predicate to cut the workforce, and to withhold back pay — as plainly illegal.
And Democrats in Congress, who continue to vote against reopening the government, are counting on them being right, hoping that courts will reject the administration’s moves while they attempt to secure an extension of healthcare tax credits in the shutdown negotiations.
If the experts are wrong, thousands of government workers could face a profound cost.
“Senior leaders of the Trump administration promised to put federal employees in trauma, and they certainly seem intent on keeping that promise,” said Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.
“According to a law that Trump himself has signed, furloughed employees are entitled to back pay,” Moynihan said. “There is no real ambiguity about this, and the idea only some employees in agencies that Trump likes would receive back pay is an illegal abuse of presidential power.”
A day after the shutdown began, Trump wrote on social media that he planned on meeting with Vought, “of Project 2025 fame,” to discuss what he called the “unprecedented opportunity” of making “permanent” cuts to agencies during the ongoing funding lapse.
A lawsuit brought in California against Vought and the OMB, by a coalition of labor unions representing over 2 million federal workers, is challenging the premise of that claim, arguing the government is “deviating from historic practice and violating applicable laws” by using government employees “as a pawn in congressional deliberations.” But whether courts can or will stop the effort is unclear.
Sen. John Thune, the majority leader and a Republican from South Dakota, said last week that Democrats should have known the risk they were running by “shutting down the government and handing the keys to Russ Vought.”
“We don’t control what he’s going to do,” he told Politico.
The White House has sent mixed messages on its willingness to negotiate with Democrats since the shutdown began. Within a matter of hours earlier this week, the president’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters that there was nothing to negotiate, before Trump said that dialogue had opened with Democratic leadership over a potential agreement on healthcare.
Donald Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, taught and trained prospective public servants for 45 years.
“What is happening is profoundly discouraging for young students seeking careers in the federal public service,” he said. “Many of the students are going to state and local governments, nonprofits, and think tanks, but increasingly don’t see the federal government as a place where they can make a difference or make a career.”
“All of us depend on the government, and the government depends on a pipeline of skilled workers,” Kettl added. “The administration’s efforts have blown up the pipeline, and the costs will continue for years — probably decades — to come.”
WASHINGTON — Chicago is emerging as the latest testing ground for President Trump’s domestic deployment of military force as hundreds of National Guard troops were expected to descend on the city.
The president said Wednesday that Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson should be jailed for failing to support federal agents, and continued to paint a dark and violent picture of both Chicago and Portland, Ore., where Trump is trying to send federal troops but has so far been stonewalled by the courts.
“It’s so bad,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday. “It’s so crazy. It’s like the movies … where you have these bombed-out cities and these bombed-out people. It’s worse than that. I don’t think they can make a movie as bad.”
Pritzker this week characterized Trump’s depiction of Chicago as “deranged” and untrue. Federal agents are making the community “less safe,” the governor said, noting that residents do not want “Donald Trump to occupy their communities” and that people of color are fearful of being profiled during immigration crackdowns.
Trump has taken issue with Democrats in Illinois and Oregon who are fighting his efforts, and has twice said this week that he is willing to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 if local leaders and the courts try to stop him. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller also contended this week that a court ruling blocking Trump’s deployments to Portland amounted to a “legal insurrection” as well as “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”
In a televised interview Monday, Miller was asked about his remarks and asked whether the administration would abide by court rulings that stop the deployment of troops to Illinois and Portland. Miller responded by saying the president has “plenary authority” before going silent midsentence — a moment that the host said may have been a technical issue.
“Plenary authority” is a legal term that indicates someone has limitless power.
The legality of deployments to Portland and Chicago will face scrutiny in two federal courts Thursday.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal by the Trump administration in the Portland matter. A Trump-appointed judge, Karin Immergut, found the White House had not only violated the law in activating the Oregon National Guard, but it also had further defied the law by attempting to circumvent her order, sending the California National Guard in its place.
That three-judge appellate panel consists of two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee.
Meanwhile, in Illinois, U.S. District Judge April Perry declined Monday to block the deployment of National Guard members on an emergency basis, allowing a buildup of forces to proceed. She will hear arguments Thursday on the legality of the operation.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of Trump’s top political foes, has joined the fight against the president’s deployment efforts.
The Trump administration sent 14 members of California’s National Guard to Illinois to train troops from other states, according to court records filed Tuesday. Federal officials have also told California they intend to extend Trump’s federalization of 300 members of the state’s Guard through next year.
“Trump is going on a cross-country crusade to sow chaos and division,” Newsom said Wednesday. “His actions — and those of his Cabinet — are against our deeply held American values. He needs to stop this illegal charade now.”
In anticipation of the deployment, Pritzker warned that if the president’s efforts went unchecked, it would put the United States on a “the path to full-blown authoritarianism.”
The Democratic governor also said the president’s calls to jail him were “unhinged” and said Trump was a “wannabe dictator.”
“There is one thing I really want to say to Donald Trump: If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me,” Pritzker said in an interview with MSNBC.
As tensions grew in Chicago, Trump hosted an event at the White House to address how he intends to crack down on antifa, a nebulous left-wing anti-facist movement that he recently designated as a domestic terrorist organization.
At the event, the president said many of the people involved in the movement are active in Chicago and Portland — and he once again attacked the local and state leaders in both cities and states.
“You can say of Portland and you can say certainly of Chicago, it is not lawful what they are doing,” Trump said about the left-wing protests. “They are going to have to be very careful.”
Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, slammed Trump for saying he should be jailed for his actions.
“This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested,” Johnson posted on social media. “I’m not going anywhere.”
Pritzker continued to attack Trump’s efforts into the evening, accusing the president of “breaching the Constitution and breaking the law.”
“We need to stand up together and speak up,” the governor said on social media.
Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez in Sacramento contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.
In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.
“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”
It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.
That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.
“I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”
In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.
“They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”
She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”
“It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.
Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”
Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”
“In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”
