Hundreds of people gathered in San Francisco for the California Democratic Party convention this weekend. The purpose of the convention is for the party to determine who it will endorse in upcoming statewide races in California’s primary election June 2. It’s the first state party convention in nearly a decade that has no clear front runner for California governor. Gavin Newsom terms out at the end of this year, and the field to replace him is full of Democrats who either currently or used to serve in public office.In order to win the party’s endorsement, one of the candidates needs to get 60% of the vote from delegates, but none of the candidates reached that threshold according to the endorsement vote results posted Saturday night. Results showed Congressman Eric Swalwell with the most votes at 24% followed by former State Controller Betty Yee with 17.3%. The results are expected to be finalized Sunday. Other candidates eligible for the party’s endorsement are former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Assemblyman Ian Calderon, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer.Each gave a four-minute speech to the convention hall full of delegates on Saturday afternoon. The loudest applause could be heard for Swalwell, who has an edge in polling over the other Democratic candidates. “Raise your right hand if you think this country and California are in trouble,” Swalwell said to the crowd as many raised their hands. “That’s why I’m running for governor.” Party officials said San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan got into the race too late and missed the deadline in order to be eligible for an endorsement. As a new crop of politicians fights for higher office, an iconic veteran of the party’s leadership is preparing to step away. On Saturday night, the party hosted a dinner for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not running for reelection to Congress this year. “I’m always very grateful and very proud of our golden state of California,” Pelosi said. “We have a history of resilience and it’s really a model of the rest of the country… There have been concerns about us, but as I say, that’s their problem.” See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SAN FRANCISCO —
Hundreds of people gathered in San Francisco for the California Democratic Party convention this weekend.
The purpose of the convention is for the party to determine who it will endorse in upcoming statewide races in California’s primary election June 2.
It’s the first state party convention in nearly a decade that has no clear front runner for California governor. Gavin Newsom terms out at the end of this year, and the field to replace him is full of Democrats who either currently or used to serve in public office.
Results showed Congressman Eric Swalwell with the most votes at 24% followed by former State Controller Betty Yee with 17.3%. The results are expected to be finalized Sunday.
Other candidates eligible for the party’s endorsement are former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Assemblyman Ian Calderon, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer.
Each gave a four-minute speech to the convention hall full of delegates on Saturday afternoon. The loudest applause could be heard for Swalwell, who has an edge in polling over the other Democratic candidates.
“Raise your right hand if you think this country and California are in trouble,” Swalwell said to the crowd as many raised their hands. “That’s why I’m running for governor.”
Party officials said San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan got into the race too late and missed the deadline in order to be eligible for an endorsement.
As a new crop of politicians fights for higher office, an iconic veteran of the party’s leadership is preparing to step away.
On Saturday night, the party hosted a dinner for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not running for reelection to Congress this year.
“I’m always very grateful and very proud of our golden state of California,” Pelosi said. “We have a history of resilience and it’s really a model of the rest of the country… There have been concerns about us, but as I say, that’s their problem.”
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore exhibits on slavery that the National Park Service had removed from the President’s House last month.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe’s ruling requires the federal government to restore the site “to its physical status as of January 21, 2026,” the day before the exhibits were removed.
The order did not set a deadline for restoration, but required the National Park Service to take steps to maintain the site and ensure the safety of the exhibits that memorialize the enslaved people who lived in George Washington’s Philadelphia home during his presidency.
Rufe, a George W. Bush appointee, compared the Trump administration’s argument that it can unilaterally control the exhibits in national parks to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” a novel about a dystopian totalitarian regime.
“This Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts,” Rufe wrote. “It does not.”
The administration’s attempt to alter the President’s House is part of a nationwide initiative to remove content displays from national parks that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” under orders issued by President Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last year. For instance, Park Service employees removed signage from the Grand Canyon about the mistreatment of Native Americans.
Philadelphia filed a federal lawsuit against Burgum, acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron and their agencies the day the exhibits were dismantled.
The federal government has the option to appeal the judge’s order. The Interior Department, National Park Service and U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately comment on the ruling, which fell on Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday.
During a hearing last month, Rufe called the argument that a president could unilaterally change the exhibits displayed in national parks “horrifying” and “dangerous.” She ordered the federal government to ensure the panels’ safekeeping after an inspection and a visit to the President’s House earlier this month.
Monday’s ruling followed an updated injunction request from the city that asked for the full restoration of the site — not merely that the exhibits be maintained safely. In response, the federal government’s brief argued that the National Park Service has discretion over the exhibits and that the city’s lawsuit should be dismissed on procedural grounds.
The federal government also argued there could be no irreparable harm from the removal of the exhibits because they are documented online and replacement panels would cost $20,000.
But the judge found the city met its burden.
“If the President’s House is left dismembered throughout this dispute, so too is the history it recounts, and the City’s relationship to that history,” Rufe wrote.
The injunction itself does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, and is in effect for the duration of the litigation.
Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, the main advocacy organization leading the fight to protect the President’s House, was a little less than an hour into its Presidents’ Day event at the site when leaders got wind of their victory.
Michael Coard, a leader of the Black-led advocacy group that helped develop the site before it opened in 2010, told the crowd of about 100 people gathered at the President’s House: “Thanks to you all, your presence and your activism, I have great news: We just won in federal court.”
But the fight is not over, advocates said, with Coard expecting the Trump administration to appeal or ignore any future rulings.
“This is a lawless administration. The people are going to have to take over to force them to do the right thing,” Coard said.
Gutman and Roth write for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi repeatedly sparred with lawmakers on Wednesday as she was pressed over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and faced demands for greater transparency in the high-profile case.
Bondi accused Democrats and at least one Republican on the House Judiciary Committee of engaging in “theatrics” as she fielded questions about redaction errors made by the Justice Department when it released millions of files related to the Epstein case last month.
The attorney general at one point acknowledged that mistakes had been made as the Justice Department tried to comply with a federal law that required it to review, redact and publicize millions of files within a 30-day period. Given the tremendous task at hand, she said the “error rate was very low” and that fixes were made when issues were encountered.
Her testimony on the Epstein files, however, was mostly punctuated by dramatic clashes with lawmakers — exchanges that occurred as eight Epstein survivors attended the hearing.
In one instance, Bondi refused to apologize to Epstein victims in the room, saying she would not “get into the gutter” with partisan requests from Democrats.
In another exchange, Bondi declined to say how many perpetrators tied to the Epstein case are being investigated by the Justice Department. And at one point, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said the Trump administration was engaging in a “cover-up,” prompting Bondi to tell him that he was suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.”
The episodes underscore the extent to which the Epstein saga has roiled members of Congress. It has long been a political cudgel for Democrats, but after millions of files were released last month, offering the most detail yet of Epstein’s crimes, Republicans once unwilling to criticize Trump administration officials are growing more testy, as was put on full display during Wednesday’s hearing.
Among the details uncovered in the files is information that showed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had closer ties to Epstein than he had initially led on.
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) asked Bondi if federal prosecutors have talked to Lutnick about Epstein. Bondi said only that he has “addressed those ties himself.”
Lutnick said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that he visited Epstein’s island, an admission that is at odds with previous statements in which he said he had cut off contact with the disgraced financier after initially meeting him in 2005.
“I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation,” Lutnick told a Senate panel about a trip he took to the island in 2012.
As Balint peppered Bondi about senior administration officials’ ties to Epstein, the back-and-forth between them got increasingly heated as Bondi declined to answer her questions.
“This is not a game, secretary,” Balint told Bondi.
“I’m attorney general,” Bondi responded.
“My apologies,” Balint said. “I couldn’t tell.”
In another testy exchange, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) pressed Bondi on whether the Justice Department has evidence tying President Trump to the sex-trafficking crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.
Bondi dismissed the line of questioning as politically motivated and said there was “no evidence” Trump committed a crime.
Lieu then accused her of misleading Congress, citing a witness statement to the FBI alleging that Trump attended Epstein gatherings with underage girls and describing secondhand claims from a limo driver who claimed that Trump sexually assaulted an underage girl who committed suicide shortly after.
He demanded Bondi’s resignation for failing to interview the witness or hold co-conspirators to account. Other Democrats have floated the possibility of impeaching Bondi over the handling of the Epstein files.
Beyond the Epstein files, Democrats raised broad concerns about the Justice Department increasingly investigating and prosecuting the president’s political foes.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Bondi has turned the agency into “Trump’s instrument of revenge.”
“Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza and you deliver every time,” Raskin said.
As an example, Raskin pointed to the Justice Department’s failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers who urged service members to not comply with unlawful orders in a video posted in November.
“You tried to get a grand jury to indict six members of Congress who are veterans of our armed forces on charges of seditious conspiracy, simply for exercising their 1st Amendment rights,” he said.
During the hearing, Democrats criticized the Justice Department’s prosecution of journalist Don Lemon, who was arrested by federal agents last month after he covered an anti-immigration enforcement protest at a Minnesota church.
Bondi defended Lemon’s prosecution and called him a “blogger.”
“They were gearing for a resistance,” Bondi testified. “They met in a parking lot and they caravanned to a church on a Sunday morning when people were worshipping.”
The protest took place after federal immigration agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis.
Six federal prosecutors resigned last month after Bondi directed them to investigate Good’s widow. Bondi later stated on Fox News that she “fired them all” for being part of the “resistance.” Lemon then hired one of those prosecutors, former U.S. Atty. Joe Thompson, to represent him in the case.
Bondi also faced questions about a Justice Department memo that directed the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” by Jan. 30, and to establish a “cash reward system” that incentivizes individuals to report on their fellow Americans.
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) asked Bondi if the list of groups had been compiled yet.
“I’m not going to answer it yes or no, but I will say, I know that antifa is part of that,” Bondi said.
Asked by Scanlon if she would share such a list with Congress, Bondi said she was “not going to commit anything to you because you won’t let me answer questions.”
Scanlon said she worried that if such a list exists, there is no way for individuals or groups included in it to dispute any charge of being domestic terrorists — and warned Bondi that this was a dangerous move by the federal government.
“Americans have never tolerated political demagogues who use the government to punish people on an enemies list,” Scanlon said. “It brought down McCarthy, Nixon and it will bring down this administration as well.”
Washington Post publisher Will Lewis said Saturday that he’s stepping down, ending a troubled tenure three days after the newspaper said that it was laying off one-third of its staff.Lewis announced his departure in a two-paragraph email to the newspaper’s staff, saying that after two years of transformation, “now is the right time for me to step aside.” The Post’s chief financial officer, Jeff D’Onofrio, was appointed temporary publisher.Neither Lewis nor the newspaper’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos participated in the meeting with staff members announcing the layoffs on Wednesday. While anticipated, the cutbacks were deeper than expected, resulting in the shutdown of the Post’s renowned sports section, the elimination of its photography staff and sharp reductions in personnel responsible for coverage of metropolitan Washington and overseas.They came on top of widespread talent defections in recent years at the newspaper, which lost tens of thousands of subscribers following Bezos’ order late in the 2024 presidential campaign pulling back from a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and a subsequent reorienting of its opinion section in a more conservative direction.Martin Baron, the Post’s first editor under Bezos, condemned his former boss this week for attempting to curry favor with President Donald Trump and called what has happened at the newspaper “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”The British-born Lewis was a former top executive at The Wall Street Journal before taking over at The Post in January 2024. His tenure has been rocky from the start, marked by layoffs and a failed reorganization plan that led to the departure of former top editor Sally Buzbee.His initial choice to take over for Buzbee, Robert Winnett, withdrew from the job after ethical questions were raised about both he and Lewis’ actions while working in England. They including paying for information that produced major stories, actions that would be considered unethical in American journalism. The current executive editor, Matt Murray, took over shortly thereafter.Lewis didn’t endear himself to Washington Post journalists with blunt talk about their work, at one point saying in a staff meeting that they needed to make changes because not enough people were reading their work.This week’s layoffs have led to some calls for Bezos to either increase his investment in The Post or sell it to someone who will take a more active role. Lewis, in his note, praised Bezos: “The institution could not have had a better owner,” he said.“During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customer each day,” Lewis said.D’Onofrio, who joined the paper last June after serving as the financial chief for the digital ad management company Raptive, said in a note to staff that “we are ending a hard week of change with more change.“This is a challenging time across all media organizations, and The Post is unfortunately no exception,” he wrote. “I’ve had the privilege of helping chart the course of disrupters and cultural stalwarts alike. All faced economic headwinds in changing industry landscapes, and we rose to meet those moments. I have no doubt we will do just that, together.”
Washington Post publisher Will Lewis said Saturday that he’s stepping down, ending a troubled tenure three days after the newspaper said that it was laying off one-third of its staff.
Lewis announced his departure in a two-paragraph email to the newspaper’s staff, saying that after two years of transformation, “now is the right time for me to step aside.” The Post’s chief financial officer, Jeff D’Onofrio, was appointed temporary publisher.
Neither Lewis nor the newspaper’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos participated in the meeting with staff members announcing the layoffs on Wednesday. While anticipated, the cutbacks were deeper than expected, resulting in the shutdown of the Post’s renowned sports section, the elimination of its photography staff and sharp reductions in personnel responsible for coverage of metropolitan Washington and overseas.
They came on top of widespread talent defections in recent years at the newspaper, which lost tens of thousands of subscribers following Bezos’ order late in the 2024 presidential campaign pulling back from a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and a subsequent reorienting of its opinion section in a more conservative direction.
Martin Baron, the Post’s first editor under Bezos, condemned his former boss this week for attempting to curry favor with President Donald Trump and called what has happened at the newspaper “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”
The British-born Lewis was a former top executive at The Wall Street Journal before taking over at The Post in January 2024. His tenure has been rocky from the start, marked by layoffs and a failed reorganization plan that led to the departure of former top editor Sally Buzbee.
ALLISON ROBBERT
A protester holds a cutout of Jeff Bezos’ face outside of the Washington Post office following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026.
His initial choice to take over for Buzbee, Robert Winnett, withdrew from the job after ethical questions were raised about both he and Lewis’ actions while working in England. They including paying for information that produced major stories, actions that would be considered unethical in American journalism. The current executive editor, Matt Murray, took over shortly thereafter.
Lewis didn’t endear himself to Washington Post journalists with blunt talk about their work, at one point saying in a staff meeting that they needed to make changes because not enough people were reading their work.
This week’s layoffs have led to some calls for Bezos to either increase his investment in The Post or sell it to someone who will take a more active role. Lewis, in his note, praised Bezos: “The institution could not have had a better owner,” he said.
“During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customer each day,” Lewis said.
D’Onofrio, who joined the paper last June after serving as the financial chief for the digital ad management company Raptive, said in a note to staff that “we are ending a hard week of change with more change.
“This is a challenging time across all media organizations, and The Post is unfortunately no exception,” he wrote. “I’ve had the privilege of helping chart the course of disrupters and cultural stalwarts alike. All faced economic headwinds in changing industry landscapes, and we rose to meet those moments. I have no doubt we will do just that, together.”
I’M KATE AMARA WBAL TV 11 NEWS. THANK YOU. A CHOCOLATE LAB IS RECOVERING AFTER A BITTER COLD BRUSH WITH DANGER EARLY THIS MORNING. THIS LAB NAMED GIZMO GOT STUCK ON A FROZEN CREEK FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER HE SLID DOWN A HILL WHILE GOING FOR HIS MORNING POTTY BREAK. FIRST RESPONDERS WERE ABLE TO GET GIZMO BACK ON LAND BY USING A SPECIALIZED BASKET. THEY SAY HE WAS HYPOTHERMIC, BUT WAS ABLE TO EAT AND GOT TREATED IN THE AMBULANCE. GIZMO WA
Crews were called to a frozen creek in Maryland to help rescue a dog that was trapped on the ice. According to the Anne Arundel County Fire Department, Monday morning, crews from their department, along with the Annapolis Fire Department, were called to Luce Creek for a reported chocolate lab stuck on the ice in Parole, Maryland, which is outside Annapolis and is around 27 miles from Baltimore.Crews arrived at the area and were able to locate the dog. They carefully went on the ice and used a Stokes basket in order to rescue the dog. Officials remind the public that the ice on area waterways is dangerously thin. Stay off the ice and if a person or pet falls through the ice, do not attempt a rescue on their own.
Crews were called to a frozen creek in Maryland to help rescue a dog that was trapped on the ice.
According to the Anne Arundel County Fire Department, Monday morning, crews from their department, along with the Annapolis Fire Department, were called to Luce Creek for a reported chocolate lab stuck on the ice in Parole, Maryland, which is outside Annapolis and is around 27 miles from Baltimore.
Crews arrived at the area and were able to locate the dog. They carefully went on the ice and used a Stokes basket in order to rescue the dog. Officials remind the public that the ice on area waterways is dangerously thin. Stay off the ice and if a person or pet falls through the ice, do not attempt a rescue on their own.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will be shutting down its operations with a final edition slated for May 3, the newspaper’s owner, Block Communications, announced Wednesday.”We deeply regret the impact this decision will have on Pittsburgh and the surrounding region,” the announcement states.The Post-Gazette is the largest newspaper representing the Pittsburgh metropolitan area and traces its roots to 1786, forming under its current name in 1927.Block Communications said the closure comes after losing “more than $350 million in cash operating the Post-Gazette” over the past 20 years. In addition, Pittsburghsister station WTAE reports that they cited a November decision that ruled in favor of the paper’s union, restoring the terms of its 2014-17 contract. Workers represented by the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh had been on strike for more than three years, then the longest active strike in the country.On Wednesday morning, the Post-Gazette’s publisher asked a court to freeze an order requiring the company to change its health insurance for union workers. Shortly after they were denied, the announcement came that the newspaper would close.In the announcement on Wednesday, Block Communications said the decision would require them to work under a contract that was “outdated and inflexible operational practices unsuited for today’s local journalism.””We deeply regret the impact this decision will have on Pittsburgh and the surrounding region,” the announcement stated.The Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh released a statement about the Post-Gazette shutdown, saying in part, “Instead of simply following the law, the owners chose to punish local journalists and the city of Pittsburgh.”Post-Gazette staff learned about the closure during a Zoom meeting. In the video, which Pittsburgh’s Action News 4 has seen, the president of Block Communications called it extremely difficult news as she made the virtual announcement that will end nearly two centuries of the P-G in Pittsburgh.”This is a seismic change for the entire region,” said Andrew Conte, managing director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University. “We often talk about the local news crisis as a problem of the media, but really, it’s a crisis for all of us. It’s a community challenge because it affects how people interact with local news and information, and when something as large as the Post-Gazette goes away, it creates a huge void.”Conte worked as a journalist in the Pittsburgh area for decades. Like many Pittsburghers, he has watched the yearslong battle between Post-Gazette journalists and Block Communications and the recent end to a three-year strike.”People have been thinking about what it would mean to lose the Post-Gazette for a long time,” he said. “But when it actually happened today, it felt like a gut punch.”The Post-Gazette started out in 1786 as a weekly called The Pittsburgh Gazette and was the first newspaper published west of the Allegheny Mountains. As one of its first major stories, the Gazette published the newly adopted Constitution of the United States.Pittsburgh is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. County Executive Sara Innamorato called the decision to close “a major loss” for the area.”I’m deeply worried about the public’s ability to access trustworthy and fact-checked information at a time when misinformation is running rampant online,” she said in a statement.It is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the United States.Conte said it’s tough news for the journalists losing their jobs, as well as the community.”The real challenge is the work that journalists do that is accurate, objective, relevant to lots of people, that trained people are going out and asking these questions and finding out what’s going on and telling people, and that’s what’s being lost here is that we have fewer people doing that work,” he said.Announcement follows Supreme Court denial of bid to halt order Also on Jan. 7, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the Post-Gazette’s request to freeze a temporary injunction that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had issued more than nine months ago. In a November 2025 decision, the appeals court held that the company had bargained in bad faith and improperly declared an impasse in the bargaining process. It ordered the company to comply with remedies ordered by the National Labor Relations Board.PG Publishing Co. filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court to stay the order in response. In the Jan. 7 decision, which vacated a Dec. 22 stay from Justice Samuel Alito’s that had paused the 3rd Circuit’s injunction, justices did not explain their reasoning, Bloomberg Law reported.Second Pittsburgh paper to announce closing in one weekBlock Communications is the same company that owned the Pittsburgh City Paper, a free alt-weekly that announced it was closing on Dec. 31, 2025, after 34 years serving the city.In a statement to sister station WTAE’s news partners at the Trib, owner Block Communications said, in part, “The City Paper business model has not reached a level of financial performance that allows Block Communications to continue operating it responsibly.”Block Communications also owns The Blade, a newspaper in Toledo, Ohio.
PITTSBURGH —
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will be shutting down its operations with a final edition slated for May 3, the newspaper’s owner, Block Communications, announced Wednesday.
“We deeply regret the impact this decision will have on Pittsburgh and the surrounding region,” the announcement states.
The Post-Gazette is the largest newspaper representing the Pittsburgh metropolitan area and traces its roots to 1786, forming under its current name in 1927.
Block Communications said the closure comes after losing “more than $350 million in cash operating the Post-Gazette” over the past 20 years. In addition, Pittsburghsister station WTAE reports that they cited a November decision that ruled in favor of the paper’s union, restoring the terms of its 2014-17 contract. Workers represented by the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh had been on strike for more than three years, then the longest active strike in the country.
On Wednesday morning, the Post-Gazette’s publisher asked a court to freeze an order requiring the company to change its health insurance for union workers. Shortly after they were denied, the announcement came that the newspaper would close.
In the announcement on Wednesday, Block Communications said the decision would require them to work under a contract that was “outdated and inflexible operational practices unsuited for today’s local journalism.”
“We deeply regret the impact this decision will have on Pittsburgh and the surrounding region,” the announcement stated.
The Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh released a statement about the Post-Gazette shutdown, saying in part, “Instead of simply following the law, the owners chose to punish local journalists and the city of Pittsburgh.”
Post-Gazette staff learned about the closure during a Zoom meeting. In the video, which Pittsburgh’s Action News 4 has seen, the president of Block Communications called it extremely difficult news as she made the virtual announcement that will end nearly two centuries of the P-G in Pittsburgh.
“This is a seismic change for the entire region,” said Andrew Conte, managing director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University. “We often talk about the local news crisis as a problem of the media, but really, it’s a crisis for all of us. It’s a community challenge because it affects how people interact with local news and information, and when something as large as the Post-Gazette goes away, it creates a huge void.”
Conte worked as a journalist in the Pittsburgh area for decades. Like many Pittsburghers, he has watched the yearslong battle between Post-Gazette journalists and Block Communications and the recent end to a three-year strike.
“People have been thinking about what it would mean to lose the Post-Gazette for a long time,” he said. “But when it actually happened today, it felt like a gut punch.”
The Post-Gazette started out in 1786 as a weekly called The Pittsburgh Gazette and was the first newspaper published west of the Allegheny Mountains. As one of its first major stories, the Gazette published the newly adopted Constitution of the United States.
Pittsburgh is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. County Executive Sara Innamorato called the decision to close “a major loss” for the area.
“I’m deeply worried about the public’s ability to access trustworthy and fact-checked information at a time when misinformation is running rampant online,” she said in a statement.
It is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the United States.
Conte said it’s tough news for the journalists losing their jobs, as well as the community.
“The real challenge is the work that journalists do that is accurate, objective, relevant to lots of people, that trained people are going out and asking these questions and finding out what’s going on and telling people, and that’s what’s being lost here is that we have fewer people doing that work,” he said.
Announcement follows Supreme Court denial of bid to halt order
Also on Jan. 7, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the Post-Gazette’s request to freeze a temporary injunction that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had issued more than nine months ago.
In a November 2025 decision, the appeals court held that the company had bargained in bad faith and improperly declared an impasse in the bargaining process. It ordered the company to comply with remedies ordered by the National Labor Relations Board.
PG Publishing Co. filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court to stay the order in response.
In the Jan. 7 decision, which vacated a Dec. 22 stay from Justice Samuel Alito’s that had paused the 3rd Circuit’s injunction, justices did not explain their reasoning, Bloomberg Law reported.
Second Pittsburgh paper to announce closing in one week
Block Communications is the same company that owned the Pittsburgh City Paper, a free alt-weekly that announced it was closing on Dec. 31, 2025, after 34 years serving the city.
In a statement to sister station WTAE’s news partners at the Trib, owner Block Communications said, in part, “The City Paper business model has not reached a level of financial performance that allows Block Communications to continue operating it responsibly.”
Block Communications also owns The Blade, a newspaper in Toledo, Ohio.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.
In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.
Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.
Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang. Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.
They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.
And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.
Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.
The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.
In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.
It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.
Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.
Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.
But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”
That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.
Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.
“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”
For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.
That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.
The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.
Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.
A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”
Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.
Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.
In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.
The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.
The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.
Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.
Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.
In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.
In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.
Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.
The battle between California and the White House escalated as President Trump signed an executive order to block state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
The president’s power move to try to take over control of the regulation of the technology behind ChatGPT through an executive order Thursday was applauded by his allies in Silicon Valley, who have been warning that many layers of heavy-handed rules and regulations were holding them back and could put the U.S. behind in the battle to benefit most from AI.
The order directs the attorney general to create a task force to challenge some state AI laws. States with “onerous AI laws” could lose federal funding from a broadband deployment program and other grants, the order said.
The Trump administration said the order will help U.S. companies win the AI race against countries such as China by removing “cumbersome regulation.” It also pushes for a “minimally burdensome” national standard rather than a patchwork of laws across 50 states that the administration said makes compliance challenging, especially for startups.
“You have to have a central source of approval when they need approval. So things have to come to one source. They can’t go to California, New York and various other places,” Trump told reporters at the Oval Office on Thursday.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed back against the order, stating it “advances corruption, not innovation.”
“They’re running a con. And every day, they push the limits to see how far they can take it,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is working on behalf of Americans by building the strongest innovation economy in the nation while implementing commonsense safeguards and leading the way forward.”
The dueling remarks between Newsom and Trump underscore how the tech industry’s influence over regulation has increased tensions between the federal government and state lawmakers trying to place more guardrails around AI.
While AI chatbots can help people quickly find answers to questions and generate text, code, and images, the increasing role the technology plays in people’s daily lives has also sparked greater anxiety about job displacement, equity, and mental health harms.
The order heavily impacts California, home to some of the world’s largest tech companies such as OpenAI, Google, Nvidia and Meta. It also jeopardizes the $1.8 billion in federal funding California has received to expand high-speed internet throughout the state.
Some analysts said Trump’s order is a win for tech giants that have vowed to invest trillions of dollars to build data centers and in research and development.
“We believe that more organizations are expected to head down the AI roadmap through strategic deployments over time, but this executive order takes away more questions around future AI buildouts and removes a major overhang moving forward,” said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives in a statement.
Facing lobbying from tech companies, Newsom has vetoed some AI legislation while signing others into law this year.
One new law requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.
He also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content, though child safety groups removed support for that legislation because they said the tech industry successfully pushed for changes that weakened protections.
States and consumer advocacy groups are expected to legally challenge Trump’s order.
“Trump is not our king, and he cannot simply wave a pen to unilaterally invalidate state law,” state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), who introduced the chatbot safety legislation that Newsom signed into law, said in a statement.
In addition to California, three other states — Colorado, Texas and Utah — have passed laws that set some rules for AI across the private sector, according to the International Assn. of Privacy Professionals. Those laws include limiting the collection of certain personal information and requiring more transparency from companies.
The more ambitious AI regulation proposals from states require private companies to provide transparency and assess the possible risks of discrimination from their AI programs. Many have regulated parts of AI: barring the use of deepfakes in elections and to create nonconsensual porn, for example, or putting rules in place around the government’s own use of AI.
The order drew both praise and criticism from the tech industry.
Collin McCune, the head of government affairs at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, said on social media site X that the executive order is an “incredibly important first step.”
“But the vacuum for federal AI legislation remains,” he wrote. “Congress needs to come together to create a clear set of rules that protect the millions of Americans using AI and the Little Tech builders driving it forward.”
Omidyar Network Chief Executive Mike Kubzansky said in a statement that he is aware of the risks posed by poorly drafted rules, but the solution isn’t to preempt state and local laws.
“Americans are rightly concerned about AI’s impact on kids, jobs, and the costs imposed on consumers and communities by the rapid development of data centers,” he said. “Ignoring these issues through a blanket moratorium is an abdication of what elected officials owe their constituents — which is why we strongly oppose the Administration’s recent executive action.”
Investors seemed unimpressed by the possible boost the sector could get from the White House.
The stock market fell sharply on Friday, led by AI shares.
Bloomberg and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
A federal judge ordered Friday that U.S. immigration officials could not detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release from immigration detention.Abrego Garcia was appearing Friday morning for a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, some 14 hours after he was released from detention on a judge’s orders. His lawyers asked the judge to block authorities from detaining him again.Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.“For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”“I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”He urged people to keep fighting.“I stand here today with my head held high and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws and I believe that this injustice will come to an end.”After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.Mistakenly deported and then returnedAbrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.A lawsuit to block removal from the USThe 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.Immigration check-inCheck-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.Charges in TennesseeAbrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.
BALTIMORE —
A federal judge ordered Friday that U.S. immigration officials could not detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release from immigration detention.
Abrego Garcia was appearing Friday morning for a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, some 14 hours after he was released from detention on a judge’s orders. His lawyers asked the judge to block authorities from detaining him again.
Officials cannot re-detain him until the court conducts a hearing on the motion for the temporary restraining order, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said. She wrote that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further request for relief from ICE detention.
“For the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration,” she wrote.
Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown earlier this year when he was wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He was last taken into custody in August during a similar check-in.
Abrego Garcia on Friday stopped at a news conference outside the building, escorted by a group of supporters chanting “We are all Kilmar!”
“I stand before you a free man and I want you to remember me this way, with my head held up high,” Abrego Garcia said through a translator. “I come here today with so much hope and I thank God who has been with me since the start with my family.”
He urged people to keep fighting.
“I stand here today with my head held high and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws and I believe that this injustice will come to an end.”
After Abrego Garcia spoke, he went through security at the field office, escorted by supporters.
The agency freed him just before 5 p.m. on Thursday in response to a ruling from Xinis, who wrote federal authorities detained him after his return to the United States without any legal basis.
Mistakenly deported and then returned
Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country, where he faces danger from a gang that targeted his family.
While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under ICE supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported and held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.
Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, Trump’s Republican administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges and asked a federal judge there to dismiss them.
A lawsuit to block removal from the US
The 2019 settlement found he had a “well founded fear” of danger in El Salvador if he was deported there. So instead ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. Abrego Garcia has sued, claiming the Trump administration is illegally using the removal process to punish him for the public embarrassment caused by his deportation.
In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene on a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, because she found no final order had been filed.
ICE freed Abrego Garcia from Moshannon Valley Processing Center, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday just before the deadline Xinis gave the government to provide an update on Abrego Garcia’s release.
He returned home to Maryland a few hours later.
Immigration check-in
Check-ins are how ICE keeps track of some people who are released by the government to pursue asylum or other immigration cases as they make their way through a backlogged court system. The appointments were once routine but many people have been detained at their check-ins since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he’s prepared to defend his client against further deportation efforts.
“The government still has plenty of tools in their toolbox, plenty of tricks up their sleeve,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said, adding he fully expects the government to again take steps to deport his client. “We’re going to be there to fight to make sure there is a fair trial.”
The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Xinis’ order and vowed to appeal, calling the ruling “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration.
“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge made it clear that the government can’t detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”
Abrego Garcia has also applied for asylum in the U.S. in immigration court.
Charges in Tennessee
Abrego Garcia was hit with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling charges when the U.S. government brought him back from El Salvador. Prosecutors alleged he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.
The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
A Department of Homeland Security agent testified at an earlier hearing that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.
An Afghan national has been accused of shooting two West Virginia National Guard members just blocks from the White House in a brazen act of violence at a time when the presence of troops in the nation’s capital and other cities around the country has become a political flashpoint.Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said at a Thursday news briefing that the guard members shot were Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24. The guard members were hospitalized in critical condition after Wednesday afternoon’s shooting.Pirro said that the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, drove across the country to launch an “ambush-style” attack with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver. The suspect currently faces charges of assault with intent to kill while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Pirro said that “it’s too soon to say” what the suspect’s motives were.The charges could be upgraded, Pirro said, adding, “We are praying that they survive and that the highest charge will not have to be murder in the first degree. But make no mistake, if they do not, that will certainly be the charge.”The rare shooting of National Guard members on American soil, on the day before Thanksgiving, comes amid court fights and a broader public policy debate about the Trump administration’s use of the military to combat what officials cast as an out-of-control crime problem.The Trump administration quickly ordered 500 more National Guard members to Washington.Video below: Trump condemned National Guard shooting as ‘heinous assault’The suspect who was in custody also was shot and had wounds that were not believed to be life-threatening, according to a law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.Attack being investigated as terrorist actFBI Director Kash Patel said the shooting is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Agents have served a series of search warrants, with Patel calling it a “coast-to-coast investigation.”Pirro said: “We have been in constant contact with their families and have provided them with every resource needed during this difficult time.”Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser interpreted the shooting as a direct assault on America itself, rather than specifically on Trump’s policies.“Somebody drove across the country and came to Washington, D.C., to attack America,” Bower said. “That person will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”Suspect worked with CIA during Afghanistan WarThe 29-year-old suspect, an Afghan national, entered the U.S. in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration program that evacuated and resettled tens of thousands of Afghans after the U.S. withdrawal from the country, officials said.The initiative brought roughly 76,000 people to the U.S., many of whom had worked alongside U.S. troops and diplomats as interpreters and translators. It has since faced intense scrutiny from Trump and his allies, congressional Republicans and some government watchdogs over allegations of gaps in the vetting process and the speed of admissions, even as advocates say it offered a lifeline to people at risk of Taliban reprisals.Lakamal has been living in Bellingham, Washington, about 79 miles north of Seattle, with his wife and five children, said his former landlord, Kristina Widman.Prior to his 2021 arrival in the United States, the suspect worked with the U.S. government, including the CIA, “as a member of a partner force in Kandahar,” John Ratcliffe, the spy agency’s director, said in a statement. He did not specify what work Lakamal did, but said the relationship “ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation” of U.S. servicemembers from Afghanistan.Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is in the Taliban heartland of the country. It saw fierce fighting between the Taliban and NATO forces after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 following the al-Qaida attacks on Sept. 11. The CIA relied on Afghan staff for translation, administrative and front-line fighting with their own paramilitary officers in the war.Wednesday night, in a video message released on social media, President Donald Trump called for the reinvestigation of all Afghan refugees who entered under the Biden administration.“If they can’t love our country, we don’t want them,” he said, adding that the shooting was “a crime against our entire nation.”Jeffery Carroll, an executive assistant D.C. police chief, said on Wednesday that investigators had no information on a motive. He said the assailant “came around the corner” and immediately started firing at the troops, citing video reviewed by investigators.Troops held down the shooterThe shooting happened roughly two blocks northwest of the White House near a metro station. Hearing gunfire, other troops in the area ran over and held down the gunman after he was shot, Carroll said. “It appears to be a lone gunman that raised a firearm and ambushed these members of the National Guard,” Carroll said, adding that it was not clear whether one of the guard members or a law enforcement officer shot the suspect.“At this point, we have no other suspects,” Carroll said at a news conference.At least one of the guard members exchanged gunfire with the shooter, said another law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.Social media video shared in the immediate aftermath showed first responders performing CPR on one of the troops and treating the other on a sidewalk covered in broken glass.
WASHINGTON —
An Afghan national has been accused of shooting two West Virginia National Guard members just blocks from the White House in a brazen act of violence at a time when the presence of troops in the nation’s capital and other cities around the country has become a political flashpoint.
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said at a Thursday news briefing that the guard members shot were Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24. The guard members were hospitalized in critical condition after Wednesday afternoon’s shooting.
Pirro said that the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, drove across the country to launch an “ambush-style” attack with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver. The suspect currently faces charges of assault with intent to kill while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Pirro said that “it’s too soon to say” what the suspect’s motives were.
The charges could be upgraded, Pirro said, adding, “We are praying that they survive and that the highest charge will not have to be murder in the first degree. But make no mistake, if they do not, that will certainly be the charge.”
The rare shooting of National Guard members on American soil, on the day before Thanksgiving, comes amid court fights and a broader public policy debate about the Trump administration’s use of the military to combat what officials cast as an out-of-control crime problem.
The Trump administration quickly ordered 500 more National Guard members to Washington.
Video below: Trump condemned National Guard shooting as ‘heinous assault’
The suspect who was in custody also was shot and had wounds that were not believed to be life-threatening, according to a law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.
Attack being investigated as terrorist act
FBI Director Kash Patel said the shooting is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Agents have served a series of search warrants, with Patel calling it a “coast-to-coast investigation.”
Pirro said: “We have been in constant contact with their families and have provided them with every resource needed during this difficult time.”
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser interpreted the shooting as a direct assault on America itself, rather than specifically on Trump’s policies.
“Somebody drove across the country and came to Washington, D.C., to attack America,” Bower said. “That person will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
Suspect worked with CIA during Afghanistan War
The 29-year-old suspect, an Afghan national, entered the U.S. in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration program that evacuated and resettled tens of thousands of Afghans after the U.S. withdrawal from the country, officials said.
The initiative brought roughly 76,000 people to the U.S., many of whom had worked alongside U.S. troops and diplomats as interpreters and translators. It has since faced intense scrutiny from Trump and his allies, congressional Republicans and some government watchdogs over allegations of gaps in the vetting process and the speed of admissions, even as advocates say it offered a lifeline to people at risk of Taliban reprisals.
Lakamal has been living in Bellingham, Washington, about 79 miles north of Seattle, with his wife and five children, said his former landlord, Kristina Widman.
Prior to his 2021 arrival in the United States, the suspect worked with the U.S. government, including the CIA, “as a member of a partner force in Kandahar,” John Ratcliffe, the spy agency’s director, said in a statement. He did not specify what work Lakamal did, but said the relationship “ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation” of U.S. servicemembers from Afghanistan.
Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is in the Taliban heartland of the country. It saw fierce fighting between the Taliban and NATO forces after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 following the al-Qaida attacks on Sept. 11. The CIA relied on Afghan staff for translation, administrative and front-line fighting with their own paramilitary officers in the war.
Wednesday night, in a video message released on social media, President Donald Trump called for the reinvestigation of all Afghan refugees who entered under the Biden administration.
“If they can’t love our country, we don’t want them,” he said, adding that the shooting was “a crime against our entire nation.”
Jeffery Carroll, an executive assistant D.C. police chief, said on Wednesday that investigators had no information on a motive. He said the assailant “came around the corner” and immediately started firing at the troops, citing video reviewed by investigators.
Troops held down the shooter
The shooting happened roughly two blocks northwest of the White House near a metro station. Hearing gunfire, other troops in the area ran over and held down the gunman after he was shot, Carroll said.
“It appears to be a lone gunman that raised a firearm and ambushed these members of the National Guard,” Carroll said, adding that it was not clear whether one of the guard members or a law enforcement officer shot the suspect.
“At this point, we have no other suspects,” Carroll said at a news conference.
At least one of the guard members exchanged gunfire with the shooter, said another law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Social media video shared in the immediate aftermath showed first responders performing CPR on one of the troops and treating the other on a sidewalk covered in broken glass.
The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.
The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.
“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.
The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.
On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.
SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.
Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.
The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.
But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.
Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.
“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.
“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.
“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.
“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”
The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.
But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.
While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.
More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.
But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.
“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.
In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.
“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.
“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances — even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.
“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”
Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.
The Supreme Court put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.
In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and nonbinary persons.
Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, who blocked the new policy from taking effect.
The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to the Supreme Court last month.
They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.
“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely… [It] undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.
But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.
“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.
A senior Border Patrol official who has become the face of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles and Chicago is due in court Tuesday to take questions about the enforcement operation in the Chicago area, which has produced more than 1,800 arrests and complaints of excessive force.The hearing comes after a judge earlier this month ordered uniformed immigration agents to wear body cameras, the latest step in a lawsuit by news outlets and protesters who say federal agents used excessive force, including using tear gas, during protests against immigration operations.Greg Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, one of nine sectors on the Mexican border, is himself accused of throwing tear gas canisters at protesters.U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis initially said agents must wear badges, and she banned them from using certain riot control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists. She later said she was concerned agents were not following her order after seeing footage of street confrontations involving tear gas during the administration’s Operation Midway Blitz, and she modified the order to also require body cameras.Ellis last week extended questioning of Bovino from two hours to five because she wants to hear about agents’ recent use of force in the city’s Mexican enclave of Little Village. During an enforcement operation last week in Little Village and the adjacent suburb of Cicero, at least eight people, including four U.S. citizens, were detained before protesters gathered at the scene, local officials said.The attorneys representing a coalition of news outlets and protesters claim Bovino himself violated the order in Little Village and filed a still image of video footage where he was allegedly “throwing tear gas into a crowd without justification.”Over the weekend, masked federal agents and unmarked SUVs were spotted on the city’s wealthier, predominantly white North side neighborhoods of Lakeview and Lincoln Park, where footage showed chemical agents deployed on a residential street. Federal agents have been seen and videotaped deploying tear gas in residential streets a number of times over the past few weeks.Bovino also led the immigration operation in Los Angeles in recent months, leading to thousands of arrests. Agents smashed car windows, blew open a door to a house and patrolled MacArthur Park on horseback. In Chicago, similar Border Patrol operations have led to viral footage of tense confrontations with protesters.At a previous hearing, Ellis questioned Kyle Harvick, deputy incident commander with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Shawn Byers, deputy field office director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, about their agencies’ use of force policies and the distribution of body cameras. Harvick said there are about 200 Border Patrol employees in the Chicago area, and those who are part of Operation Midway Blitz have cameras. But Byers said more money from Congress would be needed to expand camera use beyond two of that agency’s field offices.
CHICAGO —
A senior Border Patrol official who has become the face of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles and Chicago is due in court Tuesday to take questions about the enforcement operation in the Chicago area, which has produced more than 1,800 arrests and complaints of excessive force.
The hearing comes after a judge earlier this month ordered uniformed immigration agents to wear body cameras, the latest step in a lawsuit by news outlets and protesters who say federal agents used excessive force, including using tear gas, during protests against immigration operations.
Greg Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, one of nine sectors on the Mexican border, is himself accused of throwing tear gas canisters at protesters.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis initially said agents must wear badges, and she banned them from using certain riot control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists. She later said she was concerned agents were not following her order after seeing footage of street confrontations involving tear gas during the administration’s Operation Midway Blitz, and she modified the order to also require body cameras.
Ellis last week extended questioning of Bovino from two hours to five because she wants to hear about agents’ recent use of force in the city’s Mexican enclave of Little Village. During an enforcement operation last week in Little Village and the adjacent suburb of Cicero, at least eight people, including four U.S. citizens, were detained before protesters gathered at the scene, local officials said.
The attorneys representing a coalition of news outlets and protesters claim Bovino himself violated the order in Little Village and filed a still image of video footage where he was allegedly “throwing tear gas into a crowd without justification.”
Over the weekend, masked federal agents and unmarked SUVs were spotted on the city’s wealthier, predominantly white North side neighborhoods of Lakeview and Lincoln Park, where footage showed chemical agents deployed on a residential street. Federal agents have been seen and videotaped deploying tear gas in residential streets a number of times over the past few weeks.
Bovino also led the immigration operation in Los Angeles in recent months, leading to thousands of arrests. Agents smashed car windows, blew open a door to a house and patrolled MacArthur Park on horseback. In Chicago, similar Border Patrol operations have led to viral footage of tense confrontations with protesters.
At a previous hearing, Ellis questioned Kyle Harvick, deputy incident commander with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Shawn Byers, deputy field office director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, about their agencies’ use of force policies and the distribution of body cameras. Harvick said there are about 200 Border Patrol employees in the Chicago area, and those who are part of Operation Midway Blitz have cameras. But Byers said more money from Congress would be needed to expand camera use beyond two of that agency’s field offices.
PORTLAND, Ore. – Temporary restraining orders blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland are being extended.
U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued the ruling Wednesday as the two orders were set to expire this week.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering a stay from the federal government that could allow the troops to be deployed.
The temporary restraining order has been extended another two weeks with the three-day trial set for October 29th. If the Court of Appeals rules against the orders they would be dissolved.
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.
On a recent Sunday morning in Provo, Utah, a small congregation of about two dozen people gathered in a church hall for ward services. At the front of the room stood the bishop, who blessed the bread and water in Spanish before passing the trays around for the congregation. The melodic sounds of the piano reverberated across the room as members sang “Welcome Home” — a new hymn for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Ward services like this have brought a consistent comfort and sense of community for Izzy, who came to Provo to study at Brigham Young University a few years ago. But lately, the increased possibility of ICE raids across the country has made him nervous.
“I just couldn’t focus. Just instant anxiety and fear. I worried about my family, and how I was gonna get through this year or the next four or three,” Izzy said. The prospect of an ICE recruitment fair nearby also disturbed him.
When he was just a toddler, Izzy and his parents came from Venezuela to the United States in search of a better life. Then one Christmas, Mormon missionaries brought gifts to their home in West Valley. He and his family were sealed in Utah. He was accepted into the DACA program, Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, years ago.
For many Latino members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is an ambivalent sense of the Church’s stance on immigrants. There is discontent about how explicit the Church has been in condemning ongoing ICE raids, compared to Catholic leaders for example, while others have focused on providing individual help to those in need.
The church has previously issued statements regarding immigration in 2011 and 2018 about the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border. But its most recent statement published in January listed three points in order. While it reads similarly to past statements on loving thy neighbor and concern about keeping families together, the first point this time notably focused on “obeying the law.”
When The Times reached out to ask about why the new statement was numbered and in this order, the Church declined to comment.
The Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.
(Isaac Hale / For The Times)
Dr. David-James Gonzales, a ward leader and history professor at BYU who studies Latino civil rights and migration, notes that the political climate has shifted on immigration in 2025.
“This issue is one of the most polarizing issues nationally and it has split the Church,” he said, adding that it’s fair to question the way the statement is written. “If I’m analyzing it as a historian, it’s speaking to this moment that the Church needs to make clear to this administration that it’s not a sanctuary church.”
The Church does not release publicly any demographic data, but according to a 2009 Pew Research Center report, 86% of the Church’s membership is white. Latinos are some of the fastest growing members worldwide, thanks to missionary work in countries like Mexico, Brazil and Peru.
Yet despite the growth in Spanish-speaking wards and a more diverse Mormon community, many interviewed for this story still feel they face challenges of racism and belonging.
This January, Brigham Young University shut down its “Dreamers” resource hub for undocumented students, after facing backlash from state leaders who complained that their tithings — or 10% obligated donations to the Church — were being used for illegal immigrants. Nori Gomez, the founding member of the Dreamer resource center, said the program’s offices started receiving threatening phone calls. The university eventually removed the resource page.
“It was the highlight of my BYU experience,” she said. “But with how much universities are being attacked right now, I don’t agree with it, but I see why.”
Students like Izzy had found a sense of community among other DACA recipients through these online resources. Shutting the center down added another chilling effect for church members.
For former LDS leaders like Dr. Ignacio Garcia, a retired Latino studies professor and former bishop at a local Spanish-speaking ward, the Church’s silence has been disappointing.
“The Church’s struggle has a lot to do with some of its members, some of its very conservative white members,” Garcia said. “[These congregants] will love you as an individual member in your ward, but then go out and condemn all immigrants.”
In July, following hours of public comment from more than 100 community members opposing ICE’s presence in Utah, the Utah County Commission voted unanimously to enter a cooperative agreement with ICE to share data and work on a joint task force with local police. The county sheriff argued that a collaboration would allow more leeway for local officials to inject “Utah County values” into enforcement and public safety rather than allowing complete federal oversight.
Evelyn R. has worked as a trainer in Provo for young Mormons who are about to embark on their 18 to 24-month missions domestically and abroad. As a DACA recipient herself who previously served a Spanish-speaking mission in Georgia, she has overheard mixed feelings from attendees at the center about how undocumented people can even be baptized.
“[One girl said] you’re not really going to get anywhere with these people because they can’t get baptized. Because in order to be a member of the Church, you need to be abiding by the laws of the land, which is Article 12 of the faith,” Evelyn said.
Article 12 refers to a revelation written by Joseph Smith, stating, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” The article has guided members to be good citizens in their communities.
Evelyn said she had to ask her mission president if this was true. He reassured her that being undocumented did not gatekeep someone from belonging. It’s a stance that the First Presidency, the Church’s highest officials, also affirmed, saying that being undocumented should not itself prevent “an otherwise worthy Church member” from entering the temple or being ordained to priesthood, and calling upon congregation members to avoid being judgmental. As a convert to the Church and someone who comes from a diverse background, she said mixed responses like this were really hard to hear.
“God doesn’t care about our status or who we are, where we came from in order to be a member of the Church,” she said. Some days, she feels that she can identify as a member of the Church, but not necessarily as part of larger “Mormon culture” — one that might be predominantly white and more conservative on politics in Utah.
“We’re teaching principles and the doctrine of Christ,” she said. “I don’t think we’re necessarily learning how to apply those things.”
People pass portraits of previous members of the First Presidency before the 195th Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Oct. 4.
(Isaac Hale / Associated Press)
Luna Alvarez-Sproul, 25, works as a school teacher in Draper, Utah, where she often translates documents into Spanish for parents. She spent 18 months serving a Spanish-speaking mission in Salmon, Idaho, where many ranch hands were seasonal employees from Latin America.
“As a missionary, we didn’t have to receive special permission from somebody in order to baptize an undocumented individual,” she recalled. “But there [are] so many members of our church that don’t believe that they should be here with their families, which I feel is contradictory in and of itself.”
When guidance can vary so much, some church leaders have taken a more locally-focused ward approach — such as delivering food aid to members, helping out with rent or even sharing personal contacts with immigration lawyers. But addressing topics like the ICE raids during a service is likely taboo.
“Leaders are trained and asked to be very careful about how they address it. And I think that puts them in a really hard situation, especially when they have members of their congregation that are affected by this,” Izzy said.
The frustration may also have to do with reconciling religious principles with the views that are held by many people in the Church.
Other members disagree about an institution-wide response. Julia, who asked to use a pseudonym due to her undocumented status, has seen firsthand the ways that individual actions have been kind to her.
“I don’t think the Mormon Church should be responsible for us. The gospel teaches us to be independent,” she said.
Utah also has infrastructure for many undocumented people to succeed in their daily life, she noted; it was the first state in 2005 to implement the “driver’s privilege card,” a driver’s license specifically for those who were undocumented, allowing them to commute to work and obtain insurance.
People wear “We Are Charlie” shirts at a vigil for political activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 12 in Provo, Utah.
(Michael Ciaglo / Getty Images)
Just a few miles away in Orem, conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was shot at Utah Valley University during a debate less than a week before I conducted these interviews. Hundreds of students and local community members attended vigils, laying bouquets of fresh flowers and American flags alongside crosses and the Book of Mormon on university lawns. “If you want unity, say his name UV,” one poster said. Others were adorned with Bible verses as the air echoed with different Mormon hymns.
The LDS Church released a statement condemning the violence and lawless behavior.
Isa Benjamin Garcia spent some time reflecting on the week’s tragic events after the Sunday ward service. As a daughter of a Mexican immigrant, she became more worried when President Trump rescinded a Biden-era policy that excluded churches and schools from immigration raids.
“There’s a lot of rhetoric around violence, but it’s not acknowledged all the other violence that has been and is,” she said, referring to ICE raids, including an incident where a day laborer died after running away from ICE in California.
Other members echoed this sentiment. “Something I’ve been wrestling with over the last few months is why the Church doesn’t say, ‘This is wrong.’ Like this isn’t what Christ would have us do,” said Benjamin Garcia.
People visit a memorial honoring Charlie Kirk at Timpanogos Regional Hospital in Orem, Utah, on Sept. 11.
(Laura Seitz / Associated Press)
In August, BYU’s Office of Belonging launched an immigration-focused eight-week course to help people gain a “basic understanding of complex immigration policies.” The goal is to equip more nonprofit workers to become partially accredited to represent clients in front of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Gonzales, the ward leader and professor at BYU, believes this step speaks volumes about the Church’s efforts, despite challenges earlier this year with the takedown of its Dreamer center.
“My heart was warmed seeing that,” he said. “BYU is a part of the Church and is a university that stands to help promote the Church’s ecclesiastical mission. I think that’s a form of messaging through one of its institutions.”
Ultimately, when facing these hurdles and different interpretations of what the Book of Mormon or the Church says, members focus on their relationship to the gospel.
“We also believe that we are the Church, and we believe that it is our responsibility to make it better. And that is what God is asking of us, and that’s what Christ is asking of us,” Benjamin Garcia said. She then paused.
“Despite feelings of frustration or questions, what keeps a lot of us here, despite any of that, is that we have a conviction.”
Padilla, you may remember, was tackled and cuffed by federal officers after attempting to ask a question of Homeland Security Czarina Kristi Noem at an L.A. news conference in June, when the National Guard first made its appearance on our streets. Noem later claimed Padilla “lunged” at her — which he did not — using the classic Trumpian technique of erasing reality with blame, especially when it comes to brown people.
Padilla told me that “from day one of this administration, I have tried to speak truth to power,” and if getting tackled forced people to “have no choice but to now start paying attention … that could be helpful, because the general public knows it’s wrong.”
U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi recycled the incident on Tuesday when Padilla attempted to question her during a congressional hearing, voicing concern about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. Bondi refused to answer multiple questions, instead invoking the Noem defense.
“I find it interesting that you want order … in this proceeding now,” Bondi said. “You sure didn’t have order when you stormed Secretary Noem at a press conference in California, did you?”
Again, no storming, no lunging, not even a feint. Really, if anything can be said of Padilla, it’s that he’s a guy who likes order. An MIT-trained engineer, he’s known for being calm to the point of boring — in the best of ways. Who wouldn’t want a bit of boring in their politics today, if it’s seasoned with compassion and common sense?
Calm, of course, does not mean a lack of conviction. As the government shutdown limps to the end of its first full week, Padilla took a few minutes to fill me in on why Democrats shouldn’t back down, and why he won’t — whether the issue is healthcare, immigration or the collision of the two, which is at the heart of this shutdown.
Republicans would like voters to believe that undocumented immigrants are throwing parties in our emergency rooms, racking up free services while shoving U.S. citizens out to the sidewalk. In reality, there’s not a lot of good data on how many ER visits involve undocumented folks because doctors are more focused on saving lives than checking immigration status. But one Texas study found that about 2% of all hospital visits in a three-month period involved people without documentation. That’s in a state with a high number of undocumented folks, so take it for what it’s worth — hardly a scourge.
Padilla and Democrats would like to stay focused on an actual crisis — healthcare premiums for low- and middle-income folks are about to skyrocket in coming weeks if Congress doesn’t keep the Obama-era subsidies that make the premiums affordable. Padilla wants voters to understand how dire this is.
“This is not a what-might-happen-next-year concern … this is a now concern,” Padilla told me.
“Open enrollment is opening,” he said. “People are setting their premiums and have to make choices of where to sign up for healthcare and at the cost right now, and so it does need to be immediately addressed.”
In case you think this is partisan show, far-right MAGA cheerleader Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) agrees with Padilla. That’s when you know things are getting weird.
“Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!” Greene wrote on social media, breaking with her party on the issue.
That’s about the only thing that Padilla and Greene may ever agree on. Padilla is the son of immigrants who met in L.A. and later obtained legal status. He was born in Southern California, making birthright citizenship core to his identity at a moment when Trump is asking the Supreme Court to end it. His isn’t just an immigrant story, it’s a California story, and it’s never far from his mind.
He was recently asked if he regretted fighting with the Biden administration over proposed immigration reform that lacked pathways for immigrants, especially Dreamers and others who have been in the United States for years if not decades, to become citizens. Would it have been better to sell them out, leave them in limbo, but fix the border before Trump could exploit it?
“Of course not,” Padilla told me. Rather than shrink under attack, Padilla said he’s holding his ground.
California is one of a handful of states that does in fact offer healthcare to undocumented people, though budget shortfalls forced Gov. Gavin Newsom to scale back that plan.
No federal dollars are used for that undocumented healthcare — it’s solely state money. And Padilla supports it.
“There are some states that choose to use state funding to provide that care, and I agree with that, because it’s much smarter, from a public health standpoint, to help prevent people from getting sick or treat people early on, not administer healthcare, certainly not primary care, through emergency rooms,” he said.
Padilla said it’s rich that the very workers deemed essential during the coronavirus pandemic, the workers who kept food on tables, deliveries going, and cared for our young and our elderly, are now “the primary target of Trump’s massive deportation agenda. So whether it’s in the vein of the healthcare question, whether it’s in the vein of the indiscriminate raids by ICE and other federal agencies, that’s the cruel irony.”
The Trump administration raised Padilla’s profile inadvertently, but the newfound fame has had a somewhat unexpected consequence: Frequent speculation that he may run for governor when Newsom terms out in 2026.
Padilla said he hasn’t “made a decision on that and not making any announcements right now.”
Instead, he’s focusing on helping to pass California’s Proposition 50, which would rig election maps to potentially create five more Democratic seats in the midterm elections, with the hopes of taking control of at least one house of Congress, an effort he says is “critical to reining in this out-of-control administration.”
CRIME STOPPERS. WELL, THEY’RE NOT JUST FIGHTING FIRES TODAY. THEY’RE DELIVERING PIZZA. DOMINO’S PIZZA TEAMS UP WITH THE PAPILLION FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PROMOTE FIRE SAFETY. KETV NEWSWATCH SEVEN’S PETE CUDDIHY WENT ON THE DELIVERY ROUTE AND FOUND OUT THEY WERE BRINGING MORE THAN JUST YOUR FAVORITE SLICE. WHEN CUSTOMERS IN PAPILLION ORDERED THEIR DOMINO’S TODAY, THEIR DELIVERY CAME WITH A SURPRISE VISIT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND A CHECK ON THEIR SMOKE DETECTORS TO ENSURE THEIR SAFETY. A NORMAL DAY IN DOMINO’S KITCHEN IS FILLED WITH SPRINKLING GARLIC KNOTS WITH PARMESAN, CUTTING UP PIZZAS INTO SLICES AND FOLDING THEIR FAMOUS BOXES UP READY FOR DELIVERY. BUT SUNDAY WAS NO ORDINARY DAY FOR DOMINO’S PAPILLION STORE. THE PIZZA CHAIN TEAMED UP WITH THE PAPILLION FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FIRE PREVENTION WEEK, ADDING A NEW VEHICLE TO THEIR DELIVERY TEAM. NOW FOLLOWING BEHIND THEIR FAMOUS DELIVERY CARS MARKED WITH THE RED AND BLUE GAME PIECE WAS A PAPILLION FIRE ENGINE TEAMED UP WITH DOMINO’S PIZZA THIS YEAR. TO CHECK RESIDENTS FOR SMOKE DETECTORS IF THEY HAVE WORKING SMOKE DETECTORS. CREDIT TO THEM, THEY GOT A FREE PIZZA WHILE EMPLOYEES IN THE KITCHEN PRESSED THE DOUGH AND LAID THE TOPPINGS. FIREFIGHTERS BRIAN O’SHEA AND TODD CREWS WAITED FOR THEIR MOMENT TO DELIVER CUSTOMERS ORDERS WITH A SIDE OF SAFETY. GIVE US ABOUT 15 MINUTES. WHEN EVERYTHING WAS BAGGED, IT WAS TIME FOR PAPILLION FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ROLL OUT. HI. HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? GOOD. HOW ARE YOU? NOT TOO BAD. IS THAT FOR YOU? THANK YOU. HELLO. HI. HOW ARE YOU? GOOD. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A WORKING SMOKE DETECTOR. YEAH. FIRE THE DELIVERY. RESULTING IN A WIN WIN SCENARIO. WORKING ALARMS. IT’S GOOD. MEANING? FREE PIZZA FOR THE CUSTOMER. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. A POSITIVE DAY TEAM LEAD AT DOMINO’S JONATHAN GLENN IS HAPPY HE WAS A PART OF. I GREW UP HERE MY WHOLE LIFE, SO BEING ABLE TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY YOU GREW UP IN IS ALWAYS SPECIAL. TO DO AN EVENT, REWARDING THE COMMUNITY FOR TAKING PRECAUTIONS. ONE FREE PIZZA AT A TIME. WE APPLAUD PEOPLE FOR TAKING STEPS TO MAKE SURE TO KEEP THEIR FAMILY AND THEIR HOMES SAFE. THE PAPILLION FIRE DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT IF YOU DON’T HAVE A WORKING SMOKE DETECTOR OR IF YOU NEED ONE REPLACED, YOU CAN CONTACT THE MAYOR’S HOTLINE AND THEY’LL COME OUT AND INSTALL ONE FOR YOU. REPORTING FROM PAPI
Fire department in Nebraska teams up with Domino’s to deliver fire safety
When customers in Papillion, Nebraska, ordered their Domino’s Sunday afternoon, their delivery came with a surprise visit from the Papillion Fire Department and a check on their smoke detectors to ensure their safety.A normal day in a Domino’s kitchen is filled with sprinkling garlic knots with parmesan, cutting up pizzas into slices, and folding their famous boxes up ready for delivery. But Sunday was no ordinary day for the Domino’s store in Papillion, which is a suburb of Omaha.The pizza chain teamed up with the Papillion Fire Department for Fire Prevention Week, adding a new vehicle to their delivery team. Now following behind their famous delivery cars — marked with the red and blue game piece — was a Papillion fire engine.”Teamed up with Domino’s Pizza this year to check residents for smoke detectors. If they have working smoke detectors, credit to them — they got a free pizza,” said Battalion Chief of Papillion Fire Department Brian Oshey.While employees in the kitchen pressed the dough and laid the toppings, firefighters Brian Oshey and Todd Groose waited for their moment to deliver customers’ orders with a side of safety. When orders were bagged, it was time for the Papillion Fire Department to roll out, knocking at the door with pizza in hand, ready to check the customer’s smoke alarms.The delivery resulted in a win-win scenario: working alarms meant free pizza for the customer — a positive day.Team lead at Domino’s, Jonathan Glynn, is happy he was a part of it.”I lived in Papillion my whole life, so doing this is really cool,” said team lead at Papillion Domino’s, Jonathan Glynn.Rewarding the community for taking precautions, Oshey said, “We applaud people for taking steps to make sure they’re keeping their family and their home safe.”
PAPILLION, Neb. —
When customers in Papillion, Nebraska, ordered their Domino’s Sunday afternoon, their delivery came with a surprise visit from the Papillion Fire Department and a check on their smoke detectors to ensure their safety.
A normal day in a Domino’s kitchen is filled with sprinkling garlic knots with parmesan, cutting up pizzas into slices, and folding their famous boxes up ready for delivery. But Sunday was no ordinary day for the Domino’s store in Papillion, which is a suburb of Omaha.
The pizza chain teamed up with the Papillion Fire Department for Fire Prevention Week, adding a new vehicle to their delivery team. Now following behind their famous delivery cars — marked with the red and blue game piece — was a Papillion fire engine.
“Teamed up with Domino’s Pizza this year to check residents for smoke detectors. If they have working smoke detectors, credit to them — they got a free pizza,” said Battalion Chief of Papillion Fire Department Brian Oshey.
While employees in the kitchen pressed the dough and laid the toppings, firefighters Brian Oshey and Todd Groose waited for their moment to deliver customers’ orders with a side of safety.
When orders were bagged, it was time for the Papillion Fire Department to roll out, knocking at the door with pizza in hand, ready to check the customer’s smoke alarms.
The delivery resulted in a win-win scenario: working alarms meant free pizza for the customer — a positive day.
Team lead at Domino’s, Jonathan Glynn, is happy he was a part of it.
“I lived in Papillion my whole life, so doing this is really cool,” said team lead at Papillion Domino’s, Jonathan Glynn.
Rewarding the community for taking precautions, Oshey said, “We applaud people for taking steps to make sure they’re keeping their family and their home safe.”
For more than a month, federal immigration officials surveilled Bayron Rovidio Marin in a hospital bed at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, where he lay recuperating from serious injuries to his leg after an encounter with agents at a Carson car wash they raided. He was never charged and his lawyers say he was shackled to his bed for several days and couldn’t speak privately with doctors or legal counsel.
Over the weekend, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring immigration officials to remove the guards watching over Bayron Rovidio Marin, take off the handcuffs and leave him unrestrained.
“He is presently detained under restrictions that limit his access to counsel, medical providers, and family,” U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela wrote in her Oct. 4 order. “He has been questioned by government officials while in pain and under the influence of medication. He cannot place phone calls and remains handcuffed to a hospital bed despite a broken leg that prevents him from walking. He has received no more than a vague explanation for his detention, and Respondents’ proffered excuses for delaying a formal notice are unsupported by facts.”
Despite Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s insistence on holding the man, Valenzuela said the government failed to provide any proof that he had “violated any law or regulation” or show that he was a “flight risk.”
To date, ICE has not placed Rovidio Marin in removal proceedings, charged him with violating immigration law, set bond, issued a Notice to Appear or otherwise processed him, according to the order. The government told the court that they would determine the immigration status of Rovidio Marin once he was released from the hospital. His attorneys argued being indefinitely held without any charges is a clear constitutional violation.
The Department of Homeland Security and the medical center did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Under federal law, officers initiating warrantless arrests must provide the person in custody a reason why they were arrested or detained and within 48 hours determine if the person will remain in custody, released on bond or given a notice to appear in court and an arrest warrant issued. Those rules are only waived in extraordinary circumstances. The judge noted that the September 11 attacks previously qualified as an “extraordinary circumstance” in delaying notices to appear to noncitizen detainees, but said that Rovidio Marin has been held “substantially longer.”
It’s unclear exactly how he was injured, but his lawyers say that Rovidio Marin had been at the car wash on Aug. 27, when immigration agents doing a “roving patrol” stormed in and raided it.
In an emailed press statement, Cynthia Santiago, Attorney for CLEAN Carwash Worker Center and Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, Attorney for CHIRLA said he suffered severe injuries and was arrested by Border Patrol agents who transferred him into ICE custody.
“For 37 days, our client was forced to endure medical treatment and recovery with ICE agents in his room, 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” the statement read. “ICE agents listened to every conversation between him and his doctors,” they stated. “They interrogated him while he was in pain and under the influence of medication. They did not permit him to see his family and removed his access to phone calls.”
According to the judge’s order, Rovidio Marin has been under the supervision of ICE, which contracted with Spectrum Detention Services to provide guards at the hospital where he was taken.
Once admitted he was placed under what is known as a “blackout” procedure for patients in law-enforcement custody, making it harder for anyone to find him. He was registered under the pseudonym “Har Maine UNK Thirteen.”
Two to four uniformed guards —either Spectrum employees or ICE agents— “have been continuously stationed in Petitioner’s hospital room, monitoring him at all times, including while he sleeps, eats, uses the restroom, or receives medical care,” according to a declaration referenced in the order.
“It’s fundamental that you can’t be detained indefinitely without charges,” said Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic, who is representing Rovidio Marin in the habeas case. “Freedom from restraint is the cornerstone of our society and so to arrest someone and withhold their liberty for an extended period of time without any charges, it’s antithetical to our constitutional system and our immigration laws. Our immigration laws do provide for the rights of immigrants as well.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.
The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.
The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court said in an unsigned order.
Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.
Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.
But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.
Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.
The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.
Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.
Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.
Shortly after, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.
In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.
The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.
He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.
The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.
In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.
Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.
“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.
The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.
In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.
That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”
Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.
In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.
“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”
