Author: Emmanuel

MEXICO CITY — Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday denounced as a “total disgrace” the Trump administration’s apparent decision to allow 17 relatives of Mexico’s most notorious drug trafficker—Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán— to enter the United States. “Donald Trump and Republicans love to talk tough about how they’re tough on border security,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “So, you can imagine our surprise to read that President Trump is making deals with drug cartels … to come into our country.”The 17 relatives of El Chapo — co-founder of the Sinaloa cartel, one of six Mexican criminal syndicates that the Trump administration has designated as foreign terrorist organizations — crossed on foot from Tijuana into San Diego last week as part of an apparent plea deal between U.S. prosecutors and representatives of one of El Chapo’s imprisoned sons, Ovidio Guzman López. The son is facing federal drug smuggling charges in Chicago.“Donald Trump has no problem deporting U.S. citizens, but he will grant parole for the family of drug traffickers,” Schumer said.The transfer of El Chapo’s relatives to San Diego was first reported in the Mexican media, and later confirmed by Mexico’s security chief, Omar García Harfuch, who said the Mexican government was not notified in advance. On Wednesday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum complained that U.S. authorities had failed to notify their Mexican counterparts about the operation. El Chapo is serving a life sentence in a so-called supermax prison in Colorado after his 2019 conviction in federal court in Brooklyn on narcotics trafficking and other charges.Among the El Chapo relatives allowed to enter San Diego via the San Ysidro crossing from Tijuana, according to Mexican media accounts, were his ex-wife, a daughter, a son-in-law, a grandson and several nephews and nieces. U.S. agents met them on the San Diego side and whisked them away, Mexican journalists reported. The U.S. Justice Department has declined to comment.Since taking office, Trump has stressed his desire to crack down on both illegal immigration and drug smuggling from Mexico.“Republicans should be up in arms,” Schumer, of New York, said. “If you’re related to El Chapo, Donald Trump says: ‘Come right in. Welcome to America.’ He’ll roll out the red carpet.”Authorities have not disclosed the current whereabouts of the 17 El Chapo relatives. It is unclear if they are in protective custody or are receiving other benefits from the U.S. government.In Mexico, security experts say, El Chapo’s relatives could be in danger because of the bloody factional conflict currently raging among rival factions of the Sinaloa cartel. More to Read

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical. “Every court is ruling against you,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide. In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed down by district judges. It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds, the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order. Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve the problem. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How do we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked. One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”Before that, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state. The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extends to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then that “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law. The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens. But several conservative law professors dispute the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here. Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities. Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment. In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders. They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said. A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer struggled to explain how judges should proceed when faced with a government policy that would be unconstitutional and harm an untold number of people. Is it wise or realistic to insist that thousands of people sign on to lawsuits? the justices asked. He also had a hard time explaining how such a new policy would be enforced. “How’s it going to work? What do hospitals do with a newborn?” Kavanaugh asked. “What do states do with a newborn?”“Federal officials will have to figure that out, essentially,” Sauer replied, noting that Trump’s order, if upheld, would not take effect for 30 days.California joined 21 other states in suing successfully to block Trump’s order, but California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said it was important those rulings apply nationwide. “The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country — not just those born in states whose attorneys general have stood up to challenge the president’s unlawful executive order. It’s clear that a nationwide injunction is not only appropriate here to avoid devastating harm to the states and their residents, but is also directly aligned with prior Supreme Court precedent,” Bonta said after Thursday’s argument. The justices are likely to hand down a full opinion in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June. More to Read

A Los Angeles construction worker from Vietnam was among 13 immigrants roused by guards in full combat gear around 2:30 a.m. one day last week in a Texas detention facility, shackled, forced onto a bus and told they would be deported to Libya, two of the detainees’ lawyers said. “It was very aggressive. They weren’t allowed to do anything,” said Tin Thanh Nguyen, an attorney for the Los Angeles man, whom he did not identify for fear of retaliation. Libya, the politically unstable country in North Africa, is beset by “terrorism, unexploded landmines, civil unrest, kidnapping, and armed conflict,” according to the U.S. State Department. Human rights groups have documented inhumane conditions at detention facilities and migrant camps, including torture, forced labor and rape. The construction worker, who has a criminal conviction on his record, had lived in the U.S. for decades and has a wife and teenage daughter. He was arrested after appearing at an annual immigration check-in at a Los Angeles office two months ago and then shuffled around to various detention facilities before arriving at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall.In the early morning hours of May 7, he was placed on the bus from the detention facility south to what was likely Lackland Air Force Base. From there, he and the rest of the group sat for hours on the tarmac in front of a military plane in the predawn dark, unsure what was going to happen. The men hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Mali, Burundi, Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico and the Philippines, the attorneys said. None were from Libya.“My client and the other men on the bus were silent,” Nguyen said in court files. “My client was extremely scared.” The plane hatch was open. Military personnel bustled in and out, appearing to bring in supplies and fuel the plane. Photographers positioned themselves in front of the military aircraft. “Suddenly the bus starts moving and heading back to the detention facility,” said Johnny Sinodis, an attorney for another detainee, a Filipino who grew up and went to college in the United States and also had a criminal conviction.U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts had issued a warning to the administration to halt any immediate removal to Libya or any other third country, as it would violate a previous court order that officials must provide detainees with due process and notice in their own language. Lawyers had scrambled to get the order after media reports confirmed what their clients had told them: Removals to Libya appeared imminent. Sinodis said his client and others were returned to the detention unit and placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours.In his declaration, he said his client spoke to a Mexican and a Bolivian national who were in the group. Each had been told that their home countries would accept them, but the officials still said they were going to send them to Libya.It’s been a week since the incident, and the lawyers said they are still fighting to stop their clients deportations to a third country. The Trump administration deported hundreds of mostly Venezuelan men to a prison in El Salvador, invoking a wartime law to speedily remove accused gang members. Their deportation drew immediate challenges and became the most contentious piece of the immigration crackdown. Officials have also sent people to Panama who were not from that country. This month, the foreign minister of Rwanda said in a televison interview it was in talks with U.S. officials to take in deported migrants. It’s unclear how Libya came to be a possible destination for the immigrants. Two governments claim power in the nation. The Tripoli-based Government of National Unity has denied any deal with the Trump administration. The Government of National Stability, based in Benghazi, also rejected reports that it would take deportees.The U.N. Human Rights Office said on Tuesday that it had information that at least 100 Venezuelans held in the Salvadoran megaprison weren’t told they were going to be deported to a third country, had no access to a lawyer and were unable to challenge the removal. “This situation raises serious concerns regarding a wide array of rights that are fundamental to both U.S. and international law,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said in a statement. “The manner in which some of the individuals were detained and deported — including the use of shackles on them — as well as the demeaning rhetoric used against migrants, has also been profoundly disturbing.”Sinodis said his client had already been in custody for months and been told that he would be deported to the Philippines in late April. But that month, he was transferred from the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Wash., to Texas. An officer in Tacoma told him the decision to move him there came from “headquarters,” according to court documents. On May 5, he was scheduled to be interviewed by two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Texas. He expected to learn of his deportation date. Instead, they handed him a one-page document that said he would be deported to Libya. He was shocked, Sinodis said.The man asked the officers whether there was anything he or his attorney could do to avoid this. They said no. Nguyen said his client, who doesn’t speak English fluently, had a similar experience on the same day. The officers handed him a document in English that they said would allow him to be free in Libya. He doesn’t even know where Libya is and refused to sign the document. The officers told him he would be deported no matter what he did. The next day, Sinodis said, his client’s commissary and phone accounts were zeroed out.Sinodis finally reached an officer at the detention center who told him, “That’s crazy,” when asked about Libya. His client must have misheard, he said. But his client, who grew up on the West Coast, speaks fluent English. Then on May 7, as things unfolded, the attorney reached another officer at the facility, who said he had no information that the man was going to Libya, and referred him back to an officer in Tacoma. A supervisor downplayed the situation. “I can assure you this is not an emergency because the emergency does not exist,” the supervisor told him, according to court documents. Shortly after noon that day, a detention center officer who identified himself as Garza called and told him he was looking into it, but so far had “no explanation” for why his client was told this, but he also couldn’t guarantee it didn’t happen. Less than an hour later, his client called to tell him that he had been taken to an air base. He said when he was pulled out of his cell in the early morning, he saw the same two officers that interviewed him and asked him to sign the removal papers. “He asks the officers, ‘Are we still going to Libya?” Sinodis said. “They said yes.” More to Read

As President Trump parades through the Middle East this week, he will encounter a very different region than the one he experienced during his first term. True, the Israeli-Palestinian problem remains unresolved, as do the challenges emanating from Iran’s much-advanced nuclear program and the instability and dysfunction in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Yemen.But this old wine is now packaged in new bottles. Beyond the garish headlines of Trump’s plan to accept a Boeing 747 as a gift from Qatar, new trends are emerging that will redefine the region, posing additional challenges for U.S. policy.Of all the changes in the Middle East since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, perhaps the most striking is Israel’s emergence as a regional powerhouse. Aided by the administrations of Presidents Biden and Trump, and enabled by Arab regimes that do little to support Palestinians, Israel devastated Hamas and Hezbollah as military organizations, killing much of their senior leadership. With the support of the United States, Europe and friendly Arab states, it effectively countered two direct Iranian missile attacks on its territory.Israel then delivered its own strike, reportedly destroying much of Iran’s ballistic missile production and air defenses. In short, Israel has achieved escalation dominance: the capacity to escalate (or not) as it sees fit, and to deter its adversaries from doing so. Israel has also redefined its concept of border security in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank and Syria by acting unilaterally to preempt and prevent threats to its territory.Converting Israel’s military power into political arrangements, even peace accords, would seem like a reasonable next step. But the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems uninterested in such options and is unlikely to be induced to change its outlook. Moreover, securing new, lasting agreements also depends on whether there are leaders among the Palestinians and key Arab states ready to take up the challenge, with all the political risks it entails.But the Arab world remains in serious disarray. At least five Arab states are dealing with profound internal challenges, leaving them in various degrees of dysfunction and state failure. Amid this power vacuum, two alternative power centers have emerged. The first are the states of the Persian Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Relatively unscathed by the Arab Spring and blessed with sovereign wealth funds, oil and natural gas, these stable authoritarian powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, have begun to play an outsize role in the region.The second category comprises non-Arab states. Israel, Turkey and Iran are the only states in the region with the capacity to project significant military power beyond their borders. While each has suffered periods of internal unrest, they currently enjoy domestic stability. Each also boasts tremendous economic potential and significant security, military and intelligence capabilities, including the capability to manufacture weapons domestically.One (Israel) is America’s closest regional ally, another (Turkey) is a member of NATO and a newfound power broker in Syria, and the third (Iran) retains considerable influence despite Israel’s mauling of its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s nuclear program keeps it relevant, even central, to both Israeli and American policymaking.All three non-Arab states engender a good deal of suspicion and mistrust among Arab regimes but are nonetheless seen as key players whom no one wants to offend. All three are at odds — with each frustrating the others’ regional objectives — and all three are here to stay. Their influence will most likely only grow in the years to come, given the fractiousness of the Arab world.In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, it seemed that the Palestinian issue was once again front and center, not just in the Arab world, but internationally. Those who claimed it had lost its resonance could point to the outpouring of sympathy and support for Gazan civilians as Israel’s war against Hamas led to a humanitarian catastrophe.Moreover, the United Nations passed resolutions calling for an end to the war, many around the world condemned the war and Israel, the International Court of Justice took up the question of whether Israel is committing genocide, and the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu (as well as for Hamas’ military commander, later found to have been killed).Nonetheless, it has become stunningly clear that, far from pushing the Palestinian issue to the top of the international agenda, the Oct. 7 attack has actually diminished its salience and left Palestinians isolated and without good options. Continued U.S. support for Israel’s war against Hamas, despite the exponential rise of Palestinian deaths, has protected Israel from negative consequences; key Arab regimes have done next to nothing to impose costs and consequences on Israel and the U.S. as Palestinian civilian deaths mount. The international community appears too fragmented, distracted and self-interested to act in any concerted way in defense of Palestine.Meanwhile, the Palestinian national movement remains divided and dysfunctional, giving Palestinians an unpalatable choice between Hamas and the aging president of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The prospects for anything resembling a two-state solution have never looked bleaker.How the Trump administration will process these developments remains to be seen. Clearly, it has adopted a pro-Israel view, with Trump musing about turning Gaza into a Riviera-style resort. He has deployed his special envoy to the Middle East to secure the return of hostages taken by Hamas but has yet to invest in any postwar plan for the beleaguered enclave. Indeed, he has left the strategy for Gaza to Israel, which in turn has resumed its military campaign there. Trump has also acquiesced to Israel’s pursuit of aggressive border defenses against both Lebanon and Syria, while enabling Israel’s annexationist policies in the West Bank.Yet Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. In April, he announced new U.S. negotiations with Iran in the presence of Netanyahu, who himself has tried to persuade the president that the only solution to Iran’s nuclear program is military action. But if U.S.-Iranian negotiations do advance, or if Trump’s interest in Israeli-Saudi normalization intensifies, he may find himself drawn into the Middle East negotiating bazaar, dealing with the intricacies of day-after planning in Gaza and a political horizon for Palestinians.These paths are already fomenting tension between Trump, who will not be visiting Israel on his Middle East trip, and a recalcitrant Netanyahu. But given Trump’s absolute control over his party, Netanyahu will have few options to appeal to Republicans if the White House proposes policies that he opposes. As most U.S. allies have already learned, if Trump wants something, he’s not averse to using pressure to get it.Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a former State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations and the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Lauren Morganbesser is a junior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. More to Read

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Trump met Wednesday with Syria’s new leader, praising him as a “young, attractive guy” and urging him to rid his country of “Palestinian terrorists.” Trump also urged Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa to sign on to the historic Abraham Accords brokered during Trump’s first term. The meeting in Riyadh came as Trump concluded the Saudi Arabian leg of his Middle Eastern trip and headed to Qatar, the second destination of what has so far been an opulence-heavy tour of the region.The meeting with Al-Sharaa, which lasted about half an hour and was the first time in a quarter of a century that the leaders of the two nations have met, marks a significant victory for Al-Sharaa’s fledgling government, coming one day after Trump’s decision to lift long-standing sanctions on the war-ravaged country.It also lends legitimacy to a leader whose past as an Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadi — Al-Sharaa severed ties with the group in 2016 — had led Western nations to keep him at arm’s length.The sanctions were imposed on Syria in 2011, when the now-deposed President Bashar Assad began a brutal crackdown to quell anti-government uprisings. Al-Sharaa headed an Islamist rebel coalition that toppled Assad in December, but the Trump administration and other Western governments conditioned the lifting of sanctions on his government fulfilling certain conditions.Yet as is his custom, Trump cut through protocol and relied on personal relations, lifting the sanctions at the urging of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a longtime supporter of Syria’s rebellion, who joined the meeting by phone.Speaking on Air Force One en route to Qatar, Trump described Al-Sharaa as a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.”“He’s got a real shot at holding it together,” Trump added. “I spoke with President Erdogan, who is very friendly with him. He feels he’s got a shot of doing a good job. It’s a torn-up country.”According to a readout shared by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on X, Trump urged Al-Sharaa to sign on to the Abraham Accords, tell “foreign terrorists” to leave Syria and deport “Palestinian terrorists,” help the U.S. in preventing Islamic State militants’ resurgence and assume responsibility for detention centers in northeastern Syria housing thousands of people affiliated with the extremist group. President Trump, flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, left, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, speak during a coffee ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday. (Alex Brandon / Associated Press) The Abraham Accords were the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy achievements in his first term. Brokered in 2020, they established diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan — without conditioning them on Palestinian statehood or Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.Under Assad, Syria maintained a decades-old truce with Israel, despite hosting several Palestinian factions and allowing Iran and affiliated groups to operate in the country.The move further cements the rise of Persian Gulf nations as global power brokers, adept at bringing about diplomatic breakthroughs in a number of conflicts and crises. Saudi Arabia has facilitated talks between Russia and Ukraine and worked on stopping the civil war in Sudan; Oman has been the key conduit in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, while Qatar is an essential party in the torturous negotiations between the militant group Hamas and Israel.The fighting in Gaza has proved more intractable, with a push for a ceasefire floundering even as Israel has continued bombing Gaza, killing at least 50 people Wednesday — including 22 women and 15 children — according to the Indonesian Hospital in the northern part of the enclave. Local health officials put Wednesday’s death toll even higher, with at least 70 killed, even as aid groups and the United Nations warned this week that about half a million people face starvation.Asked whether Trump’s gulf-centered trip was a snub against Israel, the president said it was “good for Israel” for him to foster relationships with Middle Eastern countries. He added that he had informed Israel that he was lifting sanctions on Syria.On the night of Assad’s ouster, Israel blitzed past long-established armistice lines with Syria and occupied border villages. It has warned Syria’s authorities that it will not permit any of the government’s forces south of the Syrian capital Damascus. Al-Sharaa has repeatedly said his country will not be a threat to its neighbors, including Israel.Trump also addressed the possibility of attending Ukraine-Russia peace talks in Turkey on Thursday, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin urged him to do so, even though it’s unclear that Putin would be attending.“I know he would like me to be there. And that’s a possibility,” Trump said.His secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is set to attend the talks.“I don’t know that he [Putin] would be there if I’m not there,” Trump said. “We’re going to find out. Marco’s going and Marco’s been very effective.”Pivoting to recent U.S. talks with Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program, Trump said he would wait to see what further negotiations over the next week produce before he would consider secondary sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s oil exports.It was unclear which sanctions Trump was talking about. On Tuesday, the U.S. sanctioned more than 20 companies that were part of an Iranian network funneling oil to China, the Treasury Department said. On Wednesday, a raft of sanctions targeting individuals and entities in Iran’s ballistic missile program followed.Iran says it wants to develop nuclear power. Trump, saying Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, wants it to abandon its nuclear efforts.“Hopefully they’re going to make the right decision because something is going to happen one way or another,” he said, adding that “they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”“We’ll either do it friendly or we’ll do it very unfriendly, and that won’t be pleasant,” he added.As Air Force One approached Doha, Qatari F-15s accompanied it for its landing in the capital. Trump in effect repeated his performance in Riyadh, pumping his fist in the air before descending the stairs to a red carpet, where he was greeted by Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.Diplomacy seemed paramount on the Qatari leader’s mind, telling Trump that he was “excited” to see him and that he knows him to be “a man of peace.”“I know that you want to bring peace to this region,” the emir said. “I hope that this time we can do the right thing and bring peace here in the region.”Trump said, “We’ll bring peace, not only here, but I know you’re very much involved in helping us in other regions, like what’s happening with Russia-Ukraine, etc.”Qatar pulled out all the stops for its Trump welcome, with men on camelback accompanying the presidential motorcade and an array of traditional dhows near the waterfront bearing Qatari and American flags. Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, greets President Trump during an official welcoming ceremony in Doha, Qatar, on Wednesday. (Alex Brandon / Associated Press) Although white horses also appeared as the presidential limousine known as “the Beast” approached the entrance of the Qatari royal court, Trump later said that he appreciated the camels.“We haven’t seen camels like that in a long time,” he said.Later on, Trump, ever the real estate mogul, cast a discerning eye at the furnishings.“The job you’ve done is second to none. You look at this, it’s so beautiful,” he said. “As a construction person, I’m seeing perfect marble. This is what they call perfecto.” More to Read

The recent firing of the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is just the latest in a string of blows for the nation’s top disaster-response agency, which has been repeatedly undercut by the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in spending and restructure the federal government. The dismissal of acting Director Cameron Hamilton on May 8 adds to ongoing layoffs, budget cuts, grant cancellations and leadership changes at FEMA, and officials now say the agency could run out of money as soon as July. That’s just in time for “danger season” — the time of year when extreme weather events typically peak and converge. Experts say the turmoil at FEMA will leave millions of Americans vulnerable as climate-change-fueled disasters get worse in the months and years ahead — particularly as President Trump seeks to shift more of the burden of disaster response away from the federal government and onto the states. In the wake of January’s destructive firestorm in Los Angeles, FEMA notably opted to break from its decades-long tradition of testing soil for contaminants, as The Times first reported. “I’m very worried about what the next few months look like for communities that are going to be impacted by a wildfire, or a tornado, or a hurricane, or a flood,” said Rob Moore, a senior policy analyst at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. “The assistance that we have come to rely upon is no longer there. It’s just not there.” In recent months, the president has called for shrinking or even eliminating FEMA, which he accused in a Jan. 24 executive order of overspending and political bias. At a news conference in L.A. after the fires, Trump described FEMA as a “very expensive and mostly failed situation.” “You don’t need FEMA — you need a good state government,” he said.But California, along with the rest of the nation, is struggling to keep pace with more frequent and destructive environmental disasters fueled by human-caused climate change. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration documented 27 weather- and climate-related disasters in 2024 that each measured at least $1 billion in losses, just shy of the record 28 billion-dollar disasters set in 2023. Over the last five years, California alone has suffered catastrophic atmospheric rivers and flooding, devastating drought and water shortages, deadly heat waves and record-shattering wildfires — not to mention earthquakes, snowstorms and even a rare tropical storm. The disasters have racked up billions in losses — the L.A. fires are estimated to have cost $250 billion — and experts say they are likely to only worsen in years ahead. Samuel Girma tries to outrun the heat of a smoldering house on La Paz Road during the Eaton fire in Los Angeles in January. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times) Responding to such disasters is more than any single state can handle, particularly smaller states but even one such as California, which has the fourth-largest economy in the world, according to Pete Maysmith, president of the nonprofit League of Conservation Voters.“States — whether it’s California or any state — need the federal government as these disasters get more and more intense,” Maysmith said. “We all have different connections to different places that have been ravaged and savaged by floods and by fires and by tornadoes and by hurricanes, and it’s the role of the federal government to care for the people of this country when disaster strikes.”FEMA officials told The Times that the agency is working to strengthen and enhance its partnerships with state, local and tribal governments, and that it is committed to ensuring Americans get the help they need during emergencies. But they also affirmed their plan to move more of those responsibilities away from the federal government.“Disasters are best when they’re managed at the state and local level,” agency officials wrote in an email. “We’re ensuring our role supports decisions that need to happen at the state and local levels.”Moore said it doesn’t have to be an either/or scenario. The government shouldn’t eliminate or hobble the federal disaster-response infrastructure — but also, states can do more to prepare for and respond to disasters, such as investing in climate resilience and expanding their emergency management capacity. Rebalancing federal, state and local responsibilities with regard to disaster response and recovery is “a conversation worth having,” he said, but such changes would require thoughtful cooperation and a slow transition to ensure states have the budgets, staffing and supplies needed to protect the public.“The result of the administration’s unraveling of the disaster safety net is somebody’s going to pay, and if you want to know who, just go look in the mirror,” Moore said. “It’s going to be individuals that are going to have to basically self-finance their recovery, and mayors and governors that are … left holding the bag.”Thousands of people agree with him. A federal review council seeking input on FEMA’s future has racked up more than 11,000 public comments ahead of a Thursday deadline, many in support of the agency. “FEMA should be kept in place, because we are constantly having disasters strike our nation,” one citizen wrote in the public forum. “People in many places in America are in an economic position that doesn’t allow them to purchase insurance against flooding, wind damage, and or forest fires[.] Please save this great program.” Hamilton, the former acting director, was fired only one day after he testified about the agency’s importance in Congress — stating, “I do not believe it is in the best interests of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” The decision to fire Hamilton as hurricane season rapidly approaches is “flabbergasting, even for the Trump administration,” said Carly Fabian, senior policy advocate with nonprofit advocacy organization Public Citizen. Dry corn grows in a field during a 2024 drought in Washington Court House, Ohio. (Joshua A. Bickel / Associated Press) “Dissolving FEMA would leave a void that state governments cannot pretend to fill,” Fabian wrote in a statement. “Over the next few months, disasters will strike the U.S. It is not a question of if — it is simply a question of where these disasters will happen.”Hamilton’s firing adds him to the ranks of an estimated 2,000 staffers at FEMA who have been laid off or taken a buyout this year — some 30% of its workforce, according to multiple reports. His successor, David Richardson, warned staff not to interfere with upcoming changes and vowed to “find out how to push things down to the states.” “I, and I alone, speak for FEMA,” Richardson said during an all-hands meeting Friday, according to leaked video footage obtained by CBS News. “I am here to carry out President Trump’s intent.” Leadership changes are only some of many recent actions the Trump administration has taken to undercut federal emergency response, including the near-total dissolution of AmeriCorps, a program that deploys about 2,000 young volunteers to FEMA and other disaster-relief organizations each year. California and two dozen other states are suing the administration over its cancellation. The administration also decided to end a FEMA grant program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, which was designed to help state and local governments reduce their risk of environmental hazards. The estimated loss from terminated BRIC funds awarded under the Biden administration is $882 million, according to a news release from the agency.“The BRIC program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program. It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters,” FEMA officials wrote in the release. (Last month, a court ruled that the president’s claims of political bias at FEMA were unfounded.) John Nguyen sprays water to cool off after shooting hoops during a hot weather day in Deerfield, Ill.. (Nam Y. Huh / Associated Press) Not all of FEMA’s woes are tied to President Trump, however. This is the third year in a row that the agency is poised to run out of disaster-relief funding before the onset of hurricane season, with FEMA’s most recent monthly report projecting that the fund could dry up as soon as July or August. The fund is allocated annually by Congress, and the agency has already spent or committed $42 billion of its $67 billion budget this year, according to the federal spending database. FEMA has also been subject to criticism from both sides of the aisle, including concerns about mismanagement and inadequate response to disasters under the Biden administration such as Hurricane Helene in 2024 and the wildfire in Maui the year before. Many lawmakers have been pushing for reform at the agency since at least 2006, when a bipartisan Congressional investigation concluded that FEMA was unprepared for Hurricane Katrina. Such disasters have only increased in the years since then. A 2024 report from the independent Government Accountability Office found that mounting disasters have “stretched FEMA’s workforce in unprecedented ways.” The number of disasters the agency manages at the peak of hurricane season has more than doubled over the last seven years, from 30 in 2016 to 71 in 2023, the report says. Yet the Trump administration’s response to these mounting crises is to simply stop counting them: Federal officials last week announced that NOAA will no longer be updating its database of billion-dollar disasters, outraging environmental groups. “Billion-dollar disasters won’t stop just because we stop tracking them,” read a statement from Alex Glass, communications director with the nonprofit group Climate Power. “Trump is trying to hide the true cost of the climate crisis, while American families pay the price.” The president’s defanging of FEMA and other climate programs will affect states across the country — including many that voted for him. The administration in recent weeks has denied requests for disaster aid following tornadoes in Arkansas, floods in West Virginia and hurricanes in Georgia and North Carolina. Maysmith, of the League of Conservation Voters, said it is “unconscionable” for FEMA to walk away from its responsibilities, as it will not only shift the onus of recovery onto states and local governments but also to individuals.“It means people’s lives are harder, because when, through no fault of their own, their house burns or their house floods or their house is swept away or their business is swept away — whatever the disaster might be — their life is going to be irreparably changed in so many ways,” Maysmith said. “We can’t fix it all, but the thing that they need is for the government to step up and help.” More to Read

MEXICO CITY — Key pillars of the Trump administration’s policy toward Mexico involve large-scale deportations and a crackdown on cartels. But reports in the Mexican media suggest that U.S. authorities recently orchestrated the secret, cross-border move of at least 17 relatives of Mexico’s most notorious drug kingpin — Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán — to California. Various social media sites have circulated images purporting to show El Chapo’s kin lugging rolling suitcases as they waited to enter the United States last week at the San Ysidro border crossing connecting Tijuana and San Diego.In a radio interview Tuesday, Omar García Harfuch, Mexico’s security chief, confirmed that the move took place.He characterized the transfer of El Chapo’s relatives as part of a “negotiation” between the U.S. Justice Department and representatives of one of El Chapo’s sons, Ovidio Guzmán López, who faces drug smuggling and other charges in federal court in Chicago. Guzmán López was initially arrested in a 2019 operation that sparked gun battles paralyzing the city of Culiacán, prompting then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to order him freed in a bid to end the violence. He was rearrested in 2023 in a second bloody operation that left at least 29 dead, including 10 Mexican soldiers. Mexico extradited him to the United States in September 2023 to face drug trafficking charges. He plans to change his not guilty plea to guilty, according to court papers, but the terms of his potential plea deal remain publicly unknown. A court hearing is set for July 9 in federal court in Chicago. “As we saw in the news, Ovidio begins a negotiation with the Department of Justice of the United States and it’s evident that, [with] his family going to the United States, it’s because of that negotiation,” García Harfuch told Mexico’s Radio Formula. The current whereabouts of the El Chapo relatives could not be determined. It was unclear whether they were under some form of protective custody.There has been speculation in Mexico that, in exchange for a reduced prison term and other concessions, Guzmán López could agree to testify for the government in drug cases. Such “cooperation” agreements, experts say, routinely include protection for the relatives of potential witnesses. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Monday that the reports had blindsided her — she learned of the move from news accounts — and that her government was seeking clarification from Washington. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Nicole Navas, declined to comment. Guzmán Lopez’s New York-based attorney, Jeffrey Lichtman, did not return messages. El Chapo, who was convicted in 2019 of running a vast drug network, is serving a life sentence at a “supermax” prison in Colorado.The accounts about El Chapo’s relatives entering San Diego originated with Luis Chaparro, a Mexican journalist who specializes in stories about the convicted drug trafficker. On Monday, citing “sources,” Chaparro reported on his YouTube channel that 17 of El Chapo’s relatives — including his ex-wife, various nephews and nieces, a grandson, a daughter and a son-in-law — entered U.S. territory in San Ysidro around midday May 9 and were met by FBI agents. They carried more than $70,000 in cash, reported Chaparro, who said at least one sniper watched over the group as they turned themselves in to U.S. authorities. Among the group was Griselda López, El Chapo’s former wife and the mother of Ovidio and his elder brother, Joaquín Guzmán López, who is also in U.S. custody facing drug charges. There has been widespread speculation in the Mexican press that the two brothers may seek a plea deal and possibly agree to testify against Ismael Zambada García, a co-founder, with El Chapo, of the notorious Sinaloa cartel. Zambada has said he was kidnapped by Joaquín Guzmán López in the summer and flown into the custody of U.S. agents outside El Paso. Zambada is reportedly in plea negotiations with U.S. authorities to avoid a potential death penalty. His arrest has sparked a bloody turf war splitting the Sinaloa cartel. Backers of Zambada are fighting supporters of El Chapo’s sons, known as Los Chapitos, for control of the notorious organization. Two of El Chapo’s other sons are both fugitives who have remained in Mexico and avoided arrest and possible extradition to the United States. Times staff writer Keegan Hamilton in Los Angeles and special correspondents Cecilia Sánchez Vidal and Liliana Nieto del Río in Mexico City contributed to this report. More to Read

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the gulf state’s royal family.Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.Criticism of the deal has even arisen within the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what the emirate expects to receive in return for the jet.White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”Leavitt previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment. Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially wielding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press) In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of the president and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it. “President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.” More to Read

Paris used to be “magical” for Kim Kardashian. But the armed robbery she experienced during Paris Fashion Week in 2016 “changed everything,” she testified Tuesday in France at the trial of 10 people accused with plotting and pulling off the crime. She said she “absolutely” thought she was going to be killed, the Associated Press reported. Then when her robe fell open and exposed “everything” on her body, she was convinced she was going to be sexually assaulted. “I was certain that was the moment that he was going to rape me,” she told presiding judge David De Pas. “I absolutely did think I was going to die.”After hearing stomping on the stairs in her two-story apartment and calling out for one of her sisters, Kardashian had been shocked when strangers appeared in her bedroom. She tried to call her bodyguard for help, but someone snatched her phone away. “I thought it was some kind of terrorist attack,” Kardashian said, per the Guardian, explaining she was confused when the men showed up. “I didn’t quite get at first that it was about my jewelry.”Then, she said, according to the BBC, “They picked me up off the bed and grabbed me and took me down the hallway to look for more jewelry, more stuff.” A gun was pointed at her back. “That was the first moment I thought, should I run for it? But it wasn’t an option, so I just stayed — and that’s the moment I realized I should just do whatever they say.”Kardashian said she tried to communicate to the suspects that she had “babies” — at that time just two children, compared with four now — and needed to make it home to them alive. The reality TV star and beauty mogul, who in recent years has been studying law, wound up with her arms and legs zip-tied and tape slapped over her mouth. The robbers ultimately abandoned her in a bathroom as they made their escape with loot worth millions.Kardashian, who finalized her divorce from rapper husband Kanye “Ye” West in 2022, said the robbery “changed everything” about how she and her family travel. “We never thought we were never not safe before this.” Now she travels with multiple bodyguards who stay rather than heading off to a separate hotel each evening, she said. At the time of the robbery, the family had one bodyguard who had gone off to a club with sister Kourtney Kardashian. Kim Kardashian now sheds her jewelry when she arrives home and sends it to a separate location for safekeeping so she can sleep comfortably at night, she testified. The trial for the 10 suspects, ages 35 to 78, runs until May 23. Five are suspected of being in the apartment, while others are accused of helping to organize the robbery. While eight of them say they are innocent of all accusations, two men whose DNA was found in the apartment have admitted their guilt. Yunice Abbas, 71, is one of those who has admitted participating in the robbery. He also answered the judge’s questions on Tuesday. Though he has written a book about his experiences that culminated in the events of Oct. 3, 2016, and has discussed it in interviews, Abbas told the court that robbing Kardashian was a job “too many” and said he “totally regrets” participating, per the Guardian. Kardashian said she was shocked when she learned about the book, the BBC reported. “Not only did he do this, but now [he’s] making money off that — my jewelry, my memories, the watch my dad who passed away gave me when I graduated high school. I can’t get that back. “It wasn’t just jewelry … someone took away my memories, and now he is capitalizing by writing a book? It didn’t seem fair to me.” After the robbers fled, Kardashian managed to get her hands free and hopped downstairs to where her stylist and friend Simone Harouche was staying, the New York Post reported. When the Paris police arrived, she said, she was “confused if they were real police because the other guys were dressed as police.”“I didn’t know who to trust,” she said. The suspects face charges including armed robbery, kidnapping and membership in a criminal gang, all of which carry the potential for life imprisonment, the AP said. Investigators believe the suspects gleaned clues from Kardashian’s social media posts at the time and exploited them to plan their crime. Since the robbery, she says she has drastically changed what she posts. More to Read

WASHINGTON — California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed two lawsuits on Tuesday challenging a Trump administration policy that would deny the state billions of dollars in transportation grants unless it follows the administration’s lead on immigration enforcement.“This is our money, and the money of other states, that he’s holding hostage for his own unlawful gain,” Bonta said in a call with reporters. “President Trump can’t use these funds as his bargaining chip,” he added. The lawsuits, filed with a coalition of 20 states against the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security in U.S. district court in Rhode Island, argue that imposing the new set of conditions across a broad range of grant programs exceeds the administration’s legal authority. “More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States,” the lawsuit against the Department of Transportation states. ‘This is a blatantly illegal attempt to bully states into enacting Trump’s inhumane and illogical immigration agenda.’ — California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said cities and states that prevent agents from arresting immigrants should not receive federal funding. “Radical sanctuary politicians need to put the safety of the American people first — not criminal illegal aliens,” she said in a statement. “The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law. No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that.”Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement that the immigration enforcement requirement is a common-sense step that reflects the priorities of the American people. Duffy said he simply took action to ensure compliance with federal law. “These 20 states are challenging the terms of their grant agreements because their officials want to continue breaking federal law and putting the needs of illegal aliens above their own citizens,” Duffy said. “Under the leadership of President Trump, what my Department has done is remind grant recipients that by accepting federal funds, they are required to adhere to federal laws.”Last month, Trump signed an executive order aiming to identify and possibly cut off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities and states, which limit collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.“It’s quite simple,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a briefing announcing the executive order. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”Cities and states that find themselves on the Trump administration’s list could also face criminal and civil rights lawsuits, as well as charges for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.During Trump’s first term in 2018, California legislators passed a pioneering sanctuary law, the California Values Act.During a news conference announcing the lawsuits on Tuesday, Bonta said California has now sued the Trump administration 22 times. California receives more than $15.7 billion in transportation grants annually to maintain roads, highways, railways, airways and bridges, Bonta’s office said. That includes $2 billion for transit systems, including buses, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries.The state also receives $20.6 billion in yearly homeland security grants to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. Those funds include emergency preparedness and cybersecurity grants. But the coalition of states — also including Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island — argued that because such grant funding has no connection to immigration enforcement, the Trump administration cannot impose criteria that forces states to comply with its vision of enforcement. And they said the policy ignores Congress’ authority to designate federal funding. “The president doesn’t have the authority to coerce state and local governments into using their resources for immigration enforcement,” Bonta said.The other states also stand to lose billions of dollars in federal funds. Illinois, for example, received more than $122 million in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and $2 billion from the Department of Transportation, said Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul. New Jersey Atty. Gen. Matthew Platkin said the Trump administration’s politics are making his state less safe and damaging the trust between local police and immigrant communities. In one case, he said, immigration agents tried to deport a victim of domestic violence who was stabbed in the neck. Platkin also noted that Duffy, the transportation secretary, announced he will reduce the number of flights in and out of Newark Liberty International Airport because of equipment failures. “His solution, apparently, is to cut billions of funding from transportation to our state unless we agree to assist in deporting victims of domestic violence,” Platkin said in the press call. “And if we don’t, which is our right under the 10th Amendment, they will continue to destroy one of the busiest airports in the world.” During his first term, Trump withheld millions of dollars in public safety grants from local law enforcement, prompting California leaders to sue. But the question of whether the federal government can withhold grants to punish sanctuary jurisdictions was left unanswered by the Supreme Court after President Biden took office and previous lawsuits were dismissed. More to Read