Politics
Immigrant rights advocates prepare to fight Trump's immigration orders
WASHINGTON — A day after President Trump issued 11 executive orders cracking down on illegal immigration, advocates and a coalition of states led by California are preparing for court battles against an administration that appears to have learned from previous legal missteps made during his first term.
Among the many sweeping changes in Trump’s orders were the declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, the revocation of birthright citizenship and the designation of drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
Immigrants and those who hoped to immigrate to the U.S. are reeling from the news. Thousands of migrants are indefinitely stranded in Mexico after Trump ended use of a phone app and canceled long-standing appointments by asylum seekers for legal entry. Afghan refugees who had been cleared for travel to the United States are now in limbo after Trump paused refugee resettlement. Undocumented immigrants in Chicago and other cities across the country stayed home out of fear of planned immigration raids.
Legal experts said subtle modifications to some of the orders reflected attempts by the Trump administration to beat back legal challenges preemptively.
“Some of this stuff they have done is to try and preempt a lot of the issues that they bumped into last time,” said Amy Fischer, director of the refugee and migrant rights program at Amnesty International USA.
Opponents of Trump’s orders wasted no time in challenging them. A coalition comprising California, 17 other states, the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco sued the federal government Tuesday over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, calling it unconstitutional and asking the court to block it from taking effect.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued Monday night over the birthright citizenship order and submitted a legal filing in an ongoing case over the cancellation of appointments for asylum seekers at the border. Nayna Gupta, policy director at the left-leaning American Immigration Council, said the organization is also planning a lawsuit this week against Trump’s use of executive authority to “suspend the entry” of certain immigrants when doing so is deemed to be detrimental to national interests.
The ability to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is suspended, according to Trump’s order, “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”
“Trump’s barrage of executive orders is calculated to create fear, create chaos, induce anxiety and drive our elected officials to capitulate and collaborate in a mass deportation agenda,” said Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the ACLU. “If we let Trump exert this kind of death grip over our communities now for immigration enforcement, we fear it will embolden Trump to come again and again for our civil rights.”
Longtime critics of illegal immigration hailed the president’s actions. “Thanks to Donald Trump, America’s borders are about to get a lot more secure,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) said in a post on X. Issa’s district runs along the border east of San Diego.
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement that “nothing exemplifies a new day in America more than President Trump’s unwavering commitment to border security and restoring enforcement of our nation’s laws.”
Some of Trump’s orders are predicated on what opponents contend to be legally dubious claims. Birthright citizenship, for example, is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“He cannot unilaterally change that,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Monday night on CNN. “But that’s the conversation — the chaos — he wants to create.”
And in designating drug cartels as terrorist groups, Trump is preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against them. But utilizing the law would require courts to agree that criminal groups can be considered a nation at war with the United States. The Alien Enemies Act allows the president to arrest, imprison or deport immigrants from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime.
“Whether this is a war or there’s an invasion is going to be subject to litigation, and there is good law on the side against the president on this,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
But challenging some of Trump’s policies will be a challenge in itself. Fischer, of Amnesty International, said it’s harder to cleanly pick apart policies that are laid out in executive orders that overlap and rely on one another.
Other aspects of the orders have less conclusive legal precedent. Fischer pointed to the pause on refugee admissions, something Trump did during his first presidency. This time, the executive order calls for a report to be sent within 90 days to the president by immigration officials detailing whether resumption of refugee processing “would be in the interests of the United States.”
Tom Jawetz, a former senior attorney at the Homeland Security Department under the Biden administration, said Trump’s new administration is being both more cautious and more aggressive than last time. The policies he implemented before, such as Remain in Mexico, could be carried out more quickly and possibly more effectively. Under that policy, asylum seekers must stay across the border as their cases are being adjudicated.
But the more “exotic” provisions of some executive orders are largely legally untested, Jawetz said. Trump said during his inaugural address that he would deploy the military to the border region to combat illegal immigration.
“Aligning the mission of the U.S. military to border security, combined with a national emergency declaration and all of this invasion rhetoric, taken to the extreme, could be completely unprecedented and transformative,” Jawetz said.
Trump’s opponents are waiting to see the written policies that emerge from the executive orders. Litigation strategy will come down to how the orders are implemented, Jawetz said.
Some of those policies started trickling out Tuesday. In a news release, the Homeland Security Department announced that acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman had issued a directive ending the broad use of temporary humanitarian programs, which under then-President Biden were expanded to give legal protection to 1.5 million immigrants. Another directive rescinds long-standing guidelines that prevent immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as hospitals and churches.
“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” the release states.
Times staff writer Rachel Uranga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
Politics
Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
Politics
WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
Politics
Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him
On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.
The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”
After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.
That’s when things took a curious turn.
A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”
Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.
That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.
Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.
“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”
He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.
But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.
Or should be.
Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.
It’s also Trump Country.
Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.
St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.
“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”
He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.
“Right?” he called out.
“No!” a voice hollered back.
Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.
Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.
Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)
He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.
A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.
“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”
And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”
The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.
Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”
Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.
-
Maryland5 minutes agoU.S. Air Force reverses course on retiring A-10 Thunderbolt planes, making way for potential Maryland return
-
Michigan11 minutes agoUS supreme court sides with Michigan in its fight to shut down ageing pipeline
-
Massachusetts17 minutes agoHeavy police presence due to ‘ongoing incident’ in Tewksbury
-
Minnesota23 minutes agoTikToker’s ban from St. Paul parks lifted after appeal, agent says
-
Mississippi29 minutes ago
8 rivers, lakes are the most alligator-infested water in Mississippi
-
Missouri35 minutes agoGroundbreaking date announced for Springfield Missouri Temple
-
Montana41 minutes agoWalker Hayes to headline 2026 Northwest Montana Fair
-
Nebraska47 minutes agoCarriker Chronicles: Sean Callahan on Matt Rhule’s Critical Year 4 with Nebraska Football