Connect with us

Politics

L.A. was forged by global commerce. Can the metropolis we know survive the Trump trade wars?

Published

on

L.A. was forged by global commerce. Can the metropolis we know survive the Trump trade wars?

When Fang Chen was growing up in the wealthy city of San Marino in the 1980s, it was still a majority white community, one where locals occasionally exploded into ugly moments of racism at the arrival of new Asian residents.

Today, the community is nearly 70% Asian, with nearly half of all residents born outside the country, according to the U.S. census. And Chen, a stay-at-home mom who travels frequently to China to visit relatives, said that for years she has urged friends and family there (assuming they have the means) to consider purchasing a stately mansion on one of San Marino’s graceful tree-lined streets.

But President Trump’s sweeping on-again, off-again tariffs have caused her to reconsider.

“I’m not sure I can make that case anymore,” she said last week, relaxing under a tree in the manicured green expanse of Lacey Park, where she had retreated, she said, to try to decompress from all the unsettling economic news. “There’s a lot of anxiety among my neighbors, because so many of us have friends and relatives in the countries affected by the tariffs.”

Like few other places in the U.S., the economy and culture of Los Angeles and its sprawling suburbs have been forged by globalization. The L.A. metro area has more foreign-born residents than any city but New York, many of whom go back and forth to their ancestral countries with some regularity. Its massive port complex, sprawling across San Pedro and Long Beach, is the largest in the Western Hemisphere. There are more languages spoken here —185, according to the census — than in any city but New York. Local businesses, from toy sellers to restaurants to small family day-care operations, rely on goods imported from elsewhere. It is a place whose distinctive culture arises from its sense of being connected to communities across the globe.

Advertisement

“A place you can travel around the world by going from neighborhood to neighborhood,” said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, now a candidate for governor. “A global city.”

1

2 A blue plate loaded with Ethiopian food.

1. Fasika Abraham arrived in L.A. in the mid-1990s after fleeing political violence in Ethiopia. “If you’re unhappy in this country,” he says of the U.S., “you’ll be unhappy in heaven.” (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times) 2. Merkato Ethiopian Restaurant and Market is a draw in L.A.’s Little Ethiopia. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

A global metropolis that, last week, was left shaken and on edge by Trump’s threats to upend and rework global trade. From the multinational residents of million-dollar homes in the suburbs to cramped apartments in the dense urban core, to the tens of thousands of warehouse owners, retailers and food merchants who rely on imports, people across the region expressed profound uncertainty over what a looming trade war — even the threat of one — could do to Los Angeles’ economy.

At the start of the month, Trump announced that the U.S. would begin applying a baseline tariff of 10% on imported goods from all foreign countries. Several dozen nations were to face additional tariffs based on what his administration described as an unfair trade imbalance, with Vietnam facing a 46% tax on its goods, Thailand a 36% tariff, India 26%, South Korea 25%, Japan 24% — and on it went.

But midweek, with U.S. stock markets in turmoil as the tariffs took effect, Trump abruptly changed course. He said the universal 10% tariff on most nations would be paused for 90 days, and the higher rates targeting countries with a trade imbalance lowered to 10%. At the same time, he escalated his standoff with China, raising duties on imports to 145%. Trump’s tariff on foreign automobiles, set at 25%, remains in place.

On Friday, China retaliated by raising its tariffs on American goods to 125%, even as the European Union suspended its plans for a 25% tariff on American goods while waiting out Trump’s next moves.

Taken together, it’s a trade war roller coaster that has business owners around the region scrambling to comprehend the effects on their profit margins and plot a viable path forward.

Advertisement

In the San Fernando Valley, Justin Pichetrungsi is the chef at Anajak Thai, the restaurant that his immigrant parents started and that he took over in 2019 and turned into a food-world darling, written up in the Michelin Guide and celebrated as the Los Angeles Times’ top restaurant in 2022. Part of what helped propel Anajak’s glittering star was its Thai Taco Tuesday, which started as a staff meal for his Mexican-born cooks and turned into a fusion phenom.

“We use so much fish sauce it’s crazy,” said Pichetrungsi, noting that “really good high-quality fish sauce, it’s gonna come from Thailand or Vietnam.” Already he said last week, it is becoming more scarce and prices are rising. And what would tariffs do to his Michelin-lauded wine list, which leans heavily on imported natural wines?

  • Share via

    Advertisement

Listen as residents share the positive and negative effects of globalization in their lives.

Advertisement

Fifty miles south, in Fountain Valley, Danny Tran, who with his wife, Albee, runs Son Fish Sauce, sat down to write a message to his employees and customers. “One thing is for sure,” he wrote, “the road ahead is going to be bumpy as hell.”

Albee Tran, who was born and raised in Vietnam, is the fourth generation in her family to produce fish sauce. She met Danny, who is Vietnamese American, when he decamped to Saigon during the Great Recession for a three-week vacation that turned into a three-year stay. Together they created a company, moved back to California, and started selling high-end fish sauce to U.S. outlets including Whole Foods and Bristol Farms.

On L.A.’s Westside, Ivan Vasquez, 43, emigrated from Oaxaca, Mexico, when he was 16. He learned English at University High School in Westwood and began working in restaurants, rising from a dishwasher at Carl’s Jr. to a district operator overseeing 15 outposts for Baja Fresh.

Still, he dreamed of opening his own restaurant. He wanted to serve Oaxacan food, incorporating his mother’s recipes and the region’s distinctive drink, mezcal.

Advertisement
A man stands behind a bar, the wall behind him lined with mezcal bottles.

“The salesperson for this mezcal is not from Mexico,” Ivan Vasquez says of the product he sells at his Madre restaurants. “He lives here. He’s American.”

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

His first restaurant, Madre, debuted in Palms in 2013, and he since has opened locations in Torrance, Fairfax and Santa Clarita.

The pandemic hit his restaurants hard, but he survived. But now, he said, the tariffs, if enacted, would hit just about everything that passes through his business. There is the mezcal itself, all 55 brands he sells, many of which are imported from Mexico by American companies. And there are the napkins, straws, produce, kitchenware, even the light fixtures, many of which are imported from China.

Vasquez grabbed a bottle of mezcal and raised it up dramatically: “The salesperson for this mezcal is not from Mexico,” Vasquez said. “He lives here. He’s American. He’s got a job to do here. He has a family to support.”

Advertisement

Though it may be tough to imagine for people who know the region only as it is today, Los Angeles was not always a global center — or even a particularly cosmopolitan one.

The city was founded in 1781 and grew up on railroads and oil, at one time accounting for as much as 25% of the world’s oil output. In the early 20th century, the twin engines of its growth were Hollywood movies, which made the city famous, and manufacturing, which actually drove the economy.

Bolstered by the nation’s huge defense buildup during World War II, the region emerged as a manufacturing center in the 1950s and ‘60s. While movie stars lived in the Hollywood Hills and coastal bluffs, neighborhood after neighborhood of modest ranch homes began to rise across the flatlands, housing for the tens of thousands of workers who kept the factories rolling, taking home decent wages that raised the standard of living across the region.

“It felt like a new factory opened up every few years, and there were jobs for everyone,” recalled Mack Johnson, 70, who grew up in South Los Angeles.

That began to shift in the 1970s, as the first great wave of globalization hit the city. Companies started opening factories overseas in search of cheaper materials and labor, a trend that accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s. The plant closures tore up communities, vaporizing what had been stable union jobs. The shuttered factories hulked over degrading neighborhoods like cavernous empty shells.

Advertisement

Former state Sen. Martha Escutia, 68, recalled that her grandfather worked at the Bethlehem Steel plant in Bell but lost his job in the first wave of plant closures. He eventually got another job, in Pacoima, with a lower wage and a much longer commute.

But globalization was coming for Pacoima, too. Former Democratic state Sen. Richard Alarcon was a member of the L.A. City Council in the 1990s, when the Price Pfister factory in Pacoima moved operations to Mexicali.

The era brought the rise of maquiladoras, factories operated by U.S. companies just over the Mexican border, where they could produce goods at far cheaper costs and export them back to U.S. consumers at lower prices. The trend was a natural outgrowth of the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1994, which lowered tariffs between the U.S., Mexico and Canada and prioritized economic cooperation among the nations.

Maquiladoras brought jobs to Mexico and thriftier price points for cost-conscious consumers. But in Pacoima, Alarcon said, workers lost their jobs, and the jobs that replaced them often offered far lower wages.

Globalization was buffeting the region with other big changes.

Advertisement

Successive waves of immigration redefined Los Angeles. Between 1980 and 2010, millions of people found their way here, some fleeing persecution, others drawn by opportunity.

South Los Angeles, which once had a largely Black population, is now more than 60% Latino. The southeast cities, including South Gate, Bell and Bell Gardens, once mostly white, are now about 90% Latino. Huge numbers of Asian immigrants have settled throughout the San Gabriel Valley.

1 A woman holds stacks of tortillas at a tortilla factory.

2 Assembly line workers assemble car parts at a Ford plant.

3 Women work on a ramen factory line.

1. An undated historic photo of a Los Angeles tortilla factory. (John Malmin / Los Angeles Times) 2. A 1930 photo of assembly line workers at a Ford plant in Long Beach. (Los Angeles Times) 3. An undated photo of workers packing noodles at a Nissin Food Products plant in Gardena. (Bruce H. Cox / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

And even as factories closed, L.A. was able to take advantage of another offshoot of globalization. International trade spawned the use of giant cargo ships ferrying goods across the oceans in massive containers. The city’s harbor boasted deep channels that could accommodate bigger ships, as well as acres of vacant land near the docks where containers could be offloaded. The adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were booming.

“By luck and good work, we were perfectly situated,” said City Councilman Tim McOsker, whose family has deep roots in San Pedro. “We could adjust to the new world of bigger ships and big containers. We became the shipping capital.”

These days, about 40% of all goods entering the U.S. come in through the combined ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. “One in 9 jobs in L.A. County are directly related to the port,” McOsker said. “Think about that. That’s amazing.”

And, he added, in a time of trade wars: ”It’s terrifying.”

These colliding forces recast the region into what it is today: dizzyingly diverse and deeply intertwined — economically and culturally — with places around the globe.

Advertisement

Take Koreatown, one of L.A’s most densely populated neighborhoods. It is home to longtime Korean immigrants and their offspring, but also more recently acclimated Bangladeshis, Central Americans and Oaxacans. Hipsters, drawn to newly rehabbed condos, have moved in. The sidewalks are packed with vendors, and merchants advertise in a host of languages, including Spanish, English and Korean.

On Vermont Avenue, shoppers can pick up a box of doughnuts, consult with a Salvadoran attorney, seek respite at a Korean day spa, pick up meat at a carniceria, or dine out at a Korean barbecue.

Jackson Yang, now 80, was 39 when he came to L.A. County from Taiwan. He and his wife were seeking a better education for their children, and he hoped to build a successful trading business.

He started out selling toys, mugs and ceramics at a swap meet in Cerritos.

“From there I learned about what people are looking to buy,” he said last week. “I started from zero, and now we have revenue of almost $400 million a year between our two companies.”

Advertisement

Yang has a home on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and 11 grandchildren to visit him. He has stepped back from leading Seville Classics, the Torrance-based company that he built into an international force, with offices on multiple continents. In 2000, his son, Frank, founded the successful Torrance-based housewares company simplehuman.

Yang said across-the-board tariffs would stifle his business, but even tariffs limited to China will hurt.

“We’ve been thinking about Mr. Trump wanting to bring manufacturing into the U.S., but some items we bring in today cannot be built in the U.S.,” Yang explained. “We’ve been encouraging some of the factories to maybe move to the U.S., but it’s too expensive when you’re talking about a $10 item with a lot of labor involved. It’s not really possible for the U.S. to manufacture that.”

Smadar Gubani, 60, who emigrated from Israel in 1987, is not directly involved in international trade — but her day-care business exists as a result of it. She launched it in 1997, after struggling to find affordable day care for her daughter Hannah, who is named after Gubani’s Moroccan grandmother and her husband’s missing older sister, one of thousands of Yemenite children who disappeared after their families were evacuated to Israel between 1949 and 1950.

A man poses with two boxes of Rolex watches.

“No one can predict what Trump’s gonna do, what China’s gonna say,” Asher Gamzo of Gamzo & Co., a luxury jeweler in downtown L.A., says of the looming trade wars.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement
Luxury watches line a display case.

The trade wars set off by President Trump’s tariff threats have upended sales in the globalized jewelry market.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Gubani is Orthodox, as are most of the toddlers who cavort through her wonderland of sun-bleached playhouses. But they represent the global diversity of L.A.’s half-million Jews, melding the Hebrew and English spoken at day care with the Persian or Yiddish learned at home.

Her day care provides kosher food, serving recipes learned from her mother and collected in a 2013 cookbook. She buys whatever produce is on sale, but most kosher meat is now imported from Mexico and South America. Her youngest students snack on Bamba, the Israeli peanut butter puffs given to teething babies. Tariffs could hit her in lots of ways.

Advertisement

“What can I do?” Gubani asked, rocking the son of a former student in her lap. “Sometimes I just block my eyes and I put the stuff that I need [in my cart]. If I look at the prices, I will not buy nothing.”

Rising food prices — both the recent surges tied to inflation and the prospect of what tariffs would mean for imported goods — are a serious concern in communities across the region.

Every night, Maria Allana, 52, and other Central American immigrants set up food stands at South Bonnie Brae and 6th streets in Westlake for what is known as the Guatemalan Night Market.

Here, immigrants yell out their menus and sweet-talk potential customers as they stroll by. They sell grilled meats, aguas frescas and dishes from their native lands in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. On a typical night, crowds huddle around the vendors, and even homeless people drop by to get discounted meals.

But the crowds have thinned out since the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration. And inflation has cut into profits, making it harder to send money to their families back home.

Advertisement

“Everything is getting expensive,” Allana said.

The 50 pounds of dough she buys to make her tortillas jumped from $17 to $35. Refilling the gas tank also went up.

“With all this happening here, I’m sometimes considering whether it’s best to just head back home,” she said.

Back in San Marino, real estate agent Brent Chang, 54, who has been selling houses in the area since 2008, has a clear understanding of how much his business is tied to the global economy. For decades now, the city’s housing market has been lifted by whichever Asian economy was thriving at the time.

Japanese people in the 1980s, then Taiwanese in the ‘90s, and Chinese in the 2000s — so much so that when the rest of the housing market crashed in 2008, San Marino was untouched.

Advertisement

The influx has sent home prices soaring; the median home value in the city is $2.7 million, placing it in the realm of ultraluxe Westside enclaves such as Beverly Hills and Bel-Air. Chang said deep-pocketed Asian buyers have helped grow the city’s school district into one of the best in the state, and newcomers are often quick to invest in the city, including a Taiwanese homebuyer who’s planning to fund a new data software service for the San Marino Police Department.

“In the 1970s, I was the only Asian kid around. Look at it now,” Chang said. “You can’t go backwards and try to make the world small again.”

Times staff writer Anthony Solarzano contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.

Published

on

Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.

Plaintiff Council for Opportunity in Education

Defendant U.S. Department of Education

Filed in the District of Columbia on Oct. 14, 2025

Advertisement

Injunction

Plaintiff Dallas County, Tex.

Defendant Kennedy

Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 5, 2025

Advertisement

Plaintiff Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Defendant Kennedy Jr.

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on July 21, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff Colorado

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on April 1, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff Housing Authority of the County of San Diego

Defendant Turner

Advertisement

Filed in the Northern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff National Alliance to End Homelessness

Defendant Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Dec. 1, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Plaintiff Washington

Defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on July 16, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Arizona

Defendant Environmental Protection Agency

Filed in the Western District of Washington on Oct. 16, 2025

Plaintiff Open Technology Fund

Advertisement

Defendant Lake

Filed in the District of Columbia on March 20, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff National Public Radio

Defendant Trump

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Columbia on May 27, 2025

Plaintiff San Francisco Unified School District

Defendant AmeriCorps

Filed in the Northern District of California on March 10, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Plaintiff Maine

Defendant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Filed in the District of Maine on June 17, 2025

Advertisement

Plaintiff Rhode Island Latino Arts

Defendant National Endowment for the Arts

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on March 6, 2025

lost

President Trump has tried to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to coerce states, punish opponents, remake programs and impose his views. His targets have repeatedly sued to stop him, and the courts have repeatedly rebuked him — only for the president to try again and again.

Advertisement

Take just these seven cases, all of them tied to the administration’s efforts to block funds from “sanctuary” communities, those that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Last February, a coalition of cities and counties sued over executive orders directing agencies to shut off such funds.

Advertisement

Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco

Defendant Trump

Advertisement

Filed in the Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025

injunction

A judge issued a preliminary injunction, halting those directives while the case proceeded.

The same day, the Department of Transportation told communities they must cooperate with immigration enforcement to get federal transportation dollars.

Advertisement

Twenty states, led by California, soon sued …

Plaintiff California

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Transportation

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025

lost

… and the administration lost in district court.

Advertisement

The Department of Homeland Security tried to withhold emergency management funds. Another lawsuit followed …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant FEMA

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025

lost

… and the administration lost.

Advertisement

Then D.H.S. tried reducing counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states instead …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant Noem

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Sept. 29, 2025

lost

… and again, the administration lost.

Advertisement

In the past year, funds for housing, transit, health and public safety have all been conditioned on cooperation with immigration.

Plaintiff King County

Advertisement

Defendant Turner

Filed in the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

Plaintiff Fresno

Defendant Turner

Filed in the Northern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

Plaintiff Chicago

Defendant Department of Justice

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 12, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Injunctions regularly followed.

These are among 198 lawsuits in the past year identified by The New York Times that challenge how Mr. Trump has leveraged federal funding to carry out his agenda without the consent of Congress. And they reflect one remarkable feature of the campaign: It has proceeded undeterred by losses in court.

Advertisement

With that persistence, the administration has been hammering away at a new kind of reality in Washington, one where the president wields far more control over spending, and where his opponents aren’t entitled to the services of their federal government.

“Anyone in the country who relies on federal dollars is depending on the president to get that money,” said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor at Emory University. “And that’s a new thing.”

The president has threatened money to states that don’t adopt his policies, universities that don’t bend to his will, hospitals that don’t alter their services, school districts that don’t abandon diversity efforts, nonprofits that don’t embrace his gender views, and researchers who study the wrong subjects.

Advertisement

These moves have tested whether Congress, granted the “power of the purse,” still holds the ultimate authority over spending. And they have challenged the courts with a flood of cases — 37 separate suits from the state of California; four from the Association of American Universities on virtually the same question; one from King County, Wash., that has grown to include as plaintiffs 75 communities and agencies.

“You would think there would be some conditioning here: You do an action, you get sued, you lose, maybe you don’t do that action anymore,” said Rob Bonta, who as California’s attorney general has brought many of those suits. “He’s continued to repeat offend. And repeat lose.”

Advertisement

The administration’s approach has amounted to “a game of three-card monte” in the courts, said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Each injunction covers the parties suing and the specific programs at issue, but doesn’t necessarily stop the administration from blocking funds to other groups it disfavors. The result, Mr. Bagenstos said: “‘Oh, well, you think I can’t do this thing over there? Well I’m going to do it over here.’”

Presidents have long sought to steer funding to advance their priorities, designing programs with Congress or awarding competitive grants to communities that emphasize certain ideas. But the Trump administration has gone much further: terminating en masse funds that were already awarded; imposing new conditions on future grants that flout federal rule making; and blocking money to whole programs and agencies created by Congress.

The groups that have sued represent a fraction of everyone affected; many have lacked the means or the will to go to court. But these 198 cases, as of the beginning of March, have pried open a public view into the breadth of the administration’s tactics. And one year in, they have produced a lopsided record of rulings.

Advertisement

When plaintiffs have sought immediate relief, district court judges have temporarily blocked the administration’s actions 79 percent of the time, signaling plaintiffs’ likely success on the merits. In the 26 instances where district judges have issued partial or final rulings, the administration lost 23.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. Department of Health and Human Services

Advertisement

Judge Beryl A. Howell, Obama appointee, Oct. 7, 2025

Just because a pronouncement comes from the president does not make it true, even if expressed in the form of an executive order, and even then, does not supersede the law.

lost

Advertisement

American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education

Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, Trump appointee, Aug. 14, 2025

By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.

lost

Advertisement

Michigan v. Noem

Magistrate Judge Amy E. Potter, Dec. 23, 2025

None of this appears consistent with Congressional intent or FEMA’s mission.

Advertisement

lost

The administration declined to comment on the record. But a White House official authorized to describe the strategy said the Trump administration is restoring power to the presidency that previous presidents have shied away from, while tapping that power to prevent fraud and steward taxpayer dollars. The groups bringing all these lawsuits, that person said, are the ones using the courts in a hostile campaign to hamstring the president.

The administration has notably walked away from some defeats without appealing them. But it is counting on a better record before appeals court judges, as has been the case more broadly. Among cases it has appealed, appellate courts have reversed or paused orders against the administration in about 40 percent of their rulings, often with judges appointed by Mr. Trump in his favor.

Advertisement

But even when it is losing in court, plaintiffs’ attorneys and legal scholars said, the administration may still find it is winning on its own terms.

‘Undeserving recipients’

Alongside that first sanctuary cities directive, early executive orders outlining the president’s core agenda aimed to end all “diversity, equity and inclusion” in the government, to eradicate “gender ideology,” to reverse the “green new deal,” and to enforce “election integrity.” All of them proposed leveraging federal funds to do it.

Advertisement

These cases show the administration pulling that lever in numerous ways.

It has tried to set conditions with no clear relationship to program goals (like immigration requirements for highway funds). It has threatened funding to force states to share information (voter rolls, food aid lists). It has told grantees they must pledge to comply with orders the president hasn’t issued yet. And it has invoked criminal and financial penalties if they break those pledges.

Advertisement

It has terminated even small sums, targeting with laser precision opponents of the president (who then sued):

The American Bar Association lost $3.2 million in domestic violence training grants after the administration attacked the group.

Advertisement

Plaintiff American Bar Association

Defendant Department of Justice

Filed in the District of Columbia on April 23, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

The American Academy of Pediatrics lost nearly $12 million in grants in apparent retaliation for its advocacy of vaccines and gender-affirming care.

Plaintiff American Academy of Pediatrics

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 24, 2025

injunction

Maine lost access to support for school meals as Gov. Janet Mills was fighting with the president over transgender athletes.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Maine

Defendant Department of Agriculture

Filed in the District of Maine on April 7, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

The government backed down with the American Bar Association and Maine after judges issued initial rulings, only to turn its focus elsewhere.

“You can see that the government’s posture is essentially: Do the thing that’s going to make the White House happy, or get the press release about sticking it to trans people,” said Kevin Love Hubbard, a former D.O.J. attorney who represented the government before leaving in August. Agencies are doing that, he said, “without thinking about then having to go into court.”

Advertisement

Today, he is suing the government in several funding cases with the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.

Most of these nearly 200 cases are about disfavored categories of recipients like sanctuary jurisdictions, Harvard researchers or organizations serving transgender people.

“We are the undeserving recipients, at least in the mind of our current administration,” said Leesa Manion, the prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which encompasses Seattle. “The goal all along was to ensure that we — the undesirables — do not get our fair share. Whether it works or doesn’t work, if that’s your overarching goal, you just keep evolving your technique.”

Advertisement

The administration is now increasingly targeting blue states as such a category, too.

That began during the government shutdown last October, when the White House budget director Russell Vought announced the administration would cancel nearly $8 billion in energy projects in 16 states — all where voters had supported Kamala Harris in 2024.

Advertisement

A small group of grantees, including the city of St. Paul, Minn., sued in response.

Plaintiff St. Paul, Minnesota

Advertisement

Defendant Wright

Filed in the District of Columbia on Nov. 10, 2025

lost

In January, the administration lost in district court, where a judge said it had violated the Constitution.

Advertisement

But officials were already preparing other cuts to blue states. H.H.S. froze $10 billion in child care and family assistance funds to five states. The states sued …

Plaintiff New York

Advertisement

Defendant Administration for Children and Families

Filed in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 8, 2026

injunction

… and a judge issued an injunction.

Advertisement

The D.O.T. suspended funding to the $16 billion Gateway Tunnel project connecting New Jersey and New York. Both states sued …

Plaintiff New Jersey

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Transportation

Filed in the Southern District of New York on Feb. 3, 2026

injunction

… and secured another injunction.

Advertisement

Even after those setbacks, in early February the administration told Congress it would cut more than $600 million in public health grants to four blue states. They sued …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant Vought

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2026

injunction

… and the next day, a judge issued another injunction in the form of a temporary restraining order.

Advertisement

Still, last week, the administration said it would withhold about $250 million in Medicaid funds from Minnesota (prompting another lawsuit).

These moves, citing a mix of fraud and immigration policies, follow the president’s vow to block all funding to sanctuary jurisdictions — a group, under the D.O.J.’s definition, that could encompass one-third of the U.S. population.

Advertisement

“They can sue us and maybe they’ll win,” the president said in January. “But we’re not giving money to sanctuary cities anymore.”

Arbitrary and capricious

At stake in many cases are weighty constitutional principles: the separation of powers; the right to due process when the government says grantees have done something wrong; the First Amendment protections for organizations to advocate their views without government retaliation.

Advertisement

In the St. Paul suit, a district judge, Amit P. Mehta, ruled in January for the first time in one of these cases that the administration had violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause by singling out states for their partisan lean. During the litigation, the government didn’t deny doing that. Rather, it argued it was allowed to.

St. Paul, Minnesota v. Wright

Advertisement

Judge Amit P. Mehta, Obama appointee, Jan. 12, 2026

Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily — if not exclusively — based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. There is no rational relationship between that classification and defendants’ stated governmental interest.

lost

But that ruling covered only seven canceled grants worth about $27.5 million out of the nearly $8 billion total terminated. Now a coalition of 13 states is suing with the same constitutional argument in a new case about the same cuts.

Advertisement

The constant that is running through most of these cases, however, is the more mundane-sounding Administrative Procedure Act. That 1946 law says that the federal government must be reasoned and document its thinking according to transparent rules — in short, that it shouldn’t be slapdash and secretive.

These cases are full of examples of it doing just that. When the Department of Homeland Security tried last year to reduce counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states, the agency appeared to arrive at the lower award sums by simply lopping digits off the original values.

Advertisement

Illinois v. Noem

Judge Mary S. McElroy, Trump appointee, Dec. 22, 2025

Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result.

Advertisement

lost

Officials have sent out directives with copy-and-pasted typos, termination letters without agency letterhead and bare explanations with boilerplate rationale.

“You had literally grants for millions of dollars being canceled in a single vague paragraph: ‘This no longer comports with administration priorities, thank you very much,’” said Claudia Polsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who has led a class-action lawsuit among University of California researchers that has restored, for now, at least a thousand grants worth about a billion dollars.

Advertisement

The administration has given grantees new mandates — and prohibitions — so vague that they haven’t known how to comply.

“‘Promote gender ideology’ — what does that mean?” said Maria Corona, the head of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has challenged new conditions on grants. “When you’re talking about ‘violence against women,’ in the language itself we’re already talking about a gender issue.”

Last February, the National Institutes of Health issued a seismic policy change on a Friday night, to take effect the following Monday, slashing payments to universities for research overhead, drawing several lawsuits.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Massachusetts

Defendant National Institutes of Health

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Plaintiff Association of American Medical Colleges

Advertisement

Defendant National Institutes of Health

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Advertisement

In April, the administration lost these cases, consolidated under one judge (an appeals court upheld the decision this year).

But after the district court ruling, the Department of Energy, followed by the National Science Foundation and then the Department of Defense, each rolled out an identical policy.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Energy

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant National Science Foundation

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on May 5, 2025

Advertisement

lost

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Defense

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 16, 2025

lost

As these cases accumulated, so did the judges’ irritation.

Advertisement

Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense

Judge Brian E. Murphy, Biden appointee, Oct. 10, 2025

The Court does not write upon a blank slate but instead follows three other courts in this district who have come to similar conclusions with respect to different federal agencies’ attempts to enact virtually identical policies. Notably, defendants ignored these obviously relevant — and at least reasonable — analyses before adopting this policy.

lost

Advertisement

Success for the administration has seldom involved winning on the merits. Rather, the administration has argued in most of these cases that district judges have no business hearing them at all. Cases seeking money, it says, belong instead in the Court of Federal Claims, a specialized court dedicated to financial contract disputes with the government.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett breathed life into that argument, concurring in a preliminary ruling last summer that surprised some legal experts. Her opinion — suggesting policies should be litigated in district court, while payouts resulting from them belong in the Court of Federal Claims — has further complicated these cases. So has the Supreme Court’s ruling last year ending nationwide injunctions.

Winning while losing

Advertisement

By the time grantees have gone to court, they have already lost much. Researchers have halted studies. Nonprofits have laid off staff. The core expectation that the government is a reliable partner has already been undercut.

“The result is a corrosive uncertainty that undermines the basic functioning of government,” said Jacob Leibenluft, a former official in the Biden White House budget office.

Advertisement

That uncertainty sets in the moment money isn’t on time, or when grantees start to think it won’t be in the future. Other changes take root, too: Grantees rethink what’s in their mission statements; professors shift what they teach.

American Association of University Professors v. Trump

Advertisement
Judge Rita F. Lin, Biden appointee, Nov. 14, 2025

Numerous U.C. faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the U.C. system.

injunction

The administration is advancing these changes even when it’s losing particular funding cases in court. And it has successfully blocked money to groups who haven’t sued, further entrenching the president’s expanded power over spending.

Advertisement

Whether this dynamic sticks depends as much on Congress as on the courts. If legislators were more actively guarding programs they had funded themselves, many of these lawsuits likely wouldn’t exist.

New York v. Trump

Advertisement
Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., Obama appointee, March 6, 2025

The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate and sophisticated balance — but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress.

injunction

In rare cases, Republicans in Congress have pushed back against the administration and been able to reverse billions in cuts far more quickly than courts could, including from after-school programs and mental health and addiction treatment.

Advertisement

For most programs targeted by the administration, however, Republicans have publicly said little, and that’s unlikely to change as the president now targets blue states more explicitly. Republican and Democratic appropriators have together quietly tucked some new guardrails into spending bills this year. But it is Democrats, primarily, who have spoken up for the larger principle that lawmakers set the terms of federal spending — not the president.

“We have to guard that with our lives,” said Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House. The alternative, she said, is that funding becomes a tool to silence dissent. “‘Don’t speak out — or I’ll cancel your grant.’”

Absent bipartisan clamor in Congress, cases like King County v. Turner grind on. The case was brought last May by eight local governments challenging new conditions on housing and transportation grants. Then they added H.H.S. as a defendant. And 23 more local governments and transit and housing agencies joined as plaintiffs. Then another 29 came on board. Then 15 more. Each one has had to explain the harms it has faced. The judge has had to review each claim, alongside the details of dozens of grant programs, while crafting what are now four successive injunctions. All that is just one lawsuit.

Advertisement

“Should we have to do that 200 times, 300 times?” said Erin Overbey, the general counsel with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. “What’s the number where we reach critical mass?”

Continue Reading

Politics

Combustible Republican Senate primary in Texas heading into overtime

Published

on

Combustible Republican Senate primary in Texas heading into overtime

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

AUSTIN, TEXAS – The expensive and contentious battle for the Republican Senate nomination in Texas is headed to a May runoff, after none of the three major candidates in the crowded field of contenders topped 50% of the vote in Tuesday’s primary election.

Longtime incumbent Sen. John Cornyn will face off with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after they finished in the top two in the primary, with Rep. Wesley Hunt in third place, according to unofficial primary election results.

The winner will face off with either progressive firebrand Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a vocal critic and foil of President Donald Trump, or rising star state Rep. James Talarcio, who were vying for the Democratic Senate nomination. Both were trying to become the first Democrat in nearly four decades to win a Senate election in right-leaning Texas.

This year’s Senate showdown in Texas is one of a handful across the country that could determine if Republicans hold their majority in the chamber in the midterm elections. The GOP currently controls the chamber 53-47.

Advertisement

The Cornyn campaign and aligned super PACs spent nearly $100 million to run ads attacking Paxton and Hunt, with the senator charging in the closing weeks of the primary campaign that Democrats will flip the seat in the general election if Paxton’s the GOP’s nominee.

Cornyn, his allies, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of the Senate GOP, repeatedly pointed to the slew of scandals and legal problems that have battered Paxton over the past decade, as well as his ongoing messy divorce.

TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKE ROCKS SENATE PRIMARIES IN TEXAS

“If I’m the nominee, I’ll help President Trump by making sure that we carry the five new congressional seats as well as maintain this Senate seat and will help him continue his agenda through the last two years of his term of office,” Cornyn touted in a Fox News Digital interview on Sunday.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop in The Woodlands, Texas, Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026. (Annie Mulligan/AP Photo)

Advertisement

And, he argued, “If the Democrats win, because we nominate a flawed candidate with incredible baggage like the attorney general, then that last two years of [Trump’s] agenda is jeopardized, as well as everybody down ballot that we need to continue to elect as Republicans.”

PAXTON DEMANDS STRICTER VETTING AFTER DEADLY TEXAS RAMPAGE

Paxton, a MAGA firebrand who grabbed significant national attention by filing lawsuits against the Obama and Biden administrations, pushed back, telling Fox News Digital on the eve of the primary that “I’m 3-0. I’ve won three statewide races.”

Pointing to public opinion polls suggesting he has the edge over Cornyn, Paxton argued, “it’s really easy for him to say that when he’s losing a primary, because he’s not delivered for the people of Texas, and he’s going to find out tomorrow what that means. He’s going to end up losing.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican Senate candidate, speaks to supporters at a campaign event on primary eve, in Waco, Texas, on March 2, 2026. (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

Advertisement

“This idea that I can’t win a race is not true… there’s no evidence of what he’s saying is being true. As a matter of fact, the evidence is just the opposite,” Paxton added.

Paxton was boosted a few weeks ago by an endorsement from the political wing of Turning Point USA, the powerful grassroots conservative organization that was long steered by the late Charlie Kirk.

The GOP nomination battle was a two-person race until Hunt, a West Point graduate and military veteran who flew helicopters during his service and who represents a solidly red district in suburban Houston, announced his candidacy last autumn.

“I think there’s going to be a runoff, no matter what happens,” Cornyn predicted on Sunday.

Paxton, speaking to supporters on primary eve, touted that “if we go to a runoff, the odds get better for me,” as he pointed to what will likely be a smaller electorate for the May 26 runoff.

Advertisement

Republican Senate candidate Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas, at a primary eve campaign event, in Houston, Texas on March 2, 2026 (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

Hunt, in a Fox News Digital interview on the eve of the primary, argued that he’s “the best candidate to win the primary and win the general.”

TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKE ROCKS TEXAS SENATE RACE AS DEMS DEMAND ‘WAR POWERS,’ GOP APPLAUDS PRESIDENT

And pointing to the negative ads from Cornyn and his allies that have targeted him the past couple of weeks, Hunt said, “They have spent tens of millions of dollars against me in the state of Texas, which means that I must be doing the right thing, and I must be a threat. DC will not decide who will be the next senator from Texas. Texans will and that’s why I got in this race.”

But Hunt fell short, coming in third place.

Advertisement

Trump, whose clout over the GOP remains immense, stayed neutral to date in the Republican primary. All three candidates, who sought the president’s endorsement, were in attendance Friday as Trump held an event in Corpus Christi, Texas.

“They’re in a little race together,” Trump said of Cornyn and Paxton. “You know that, right? A little bit of a race. It’s going to be an interesting one, right? They’re both great people, too.”

Trump also complimented Hunt, and said that all three contenders were engaged in an “interesting election.”

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in a Whataburger restaurant in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Feb. 27, 2026. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

While Trump stayed neutral, his top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, helped the Cornyn campaign. And veteran Republican strategist Chris LaCivita, who served as co-campaign manager of Trump’s 2024 White House bid, consulted for a top Cornyn-aligned super PAC.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The big questions going forward as the runoff campaign gets underway are whether Trump will make an endorsement, and whether the major outside groups that supported Cornyn will continue to throw resources into the extended nomination battle.

Related Article

Polls close in Texas, North Carolina and Arkansas as high-stakes midterm primaries enter counting phase
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Israel believes Iran war could last months, testing U.S. resolve

Published

on

Israel believes Iran war could last months, testing U.S. resolve

U.S. and Israeli officials are privately casting doubt on projections from the Trump administration that the war with Iran could end within a matter of weeks — instead warning that a months-long campaign may be required to destroy the country’s ballistic missile capabilities and install a pliant government, multiple sources told The Times.

The prospect of extended combat creates political risks and uncertainties for President Trump, whose penchant for dramatic, short-term military operations has suddenly given way to a full-scale assault on the Islamic Republic, shocking a MAGA base that for years supported his calls to end forever wars in the Middle East.

One Israeli official told The Times — despite internal guidance among Israeli officials to adhere to the U.S. president’s stated time frame — that the war “definitely could be longer” than the four-week window that Trump repeatedly offered to reporters.

A U.S. official said that in private conversations, top administration officials presume the campaign will require a longer runway now that remnants of Iran’s government have chosen to resist rather than acquiesce to Washington.

Protracted war was always a possibility. Trump was presented with U.S. intelligence assessments gaming out the potential conflict that emphasized how highly unpredictable the results of an attack would be — an analysis the intelligence community believes has borne out on the ground in the chaotic early days of the conflict.

Advertisement

A longer conflict could create diplomatic space between Trump and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has advocated for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic for over 30 years.

The Israeli leader has succeeded in convincing Trump to take military actions in Iran that American presidents have rejected for decades, from bombing its nuclear facilities to assassinating its leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an opening strike over the weekend.

Goal of a change of government fades

Yet, mere days into the war, White House officials have all but ceased references to a democratic spring that could sweep Iran’s government aside.

A set of four U.S. goals for the mission no longer calls for changing the regime itself. Still, Netanyahu’s government remains keen on replacing the government, and the nation’s longest-serving premier sees the current war as his best opportunity to do so, one official said.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday, Trump rejected reports that the Israelis had convinced him to launch the attack.

Advertisement

“No, I might have forced their hand,” Trump said. “Based on the way the negotiations were going, I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out.”

In a series of interviews this week, Trump said he had been given projections of a four- or five-week war, while noting he is prepared to go longer if necessary.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who is Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that projecting a deadline to the conflict at its start would be a strategic mistake for the Trump administration, as it would in effect give Iran’s remaining leadership an end date to wait out the fighting.

“Successive presidents have shown that America has strategic attention deficit disorder,” Rubin said. “If that was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s especially true under Trump. He imposed a ceasefire on Gaza that let Hamas survive to fight another day; they still haven’t disarmed.”

The duration of the war will depend, in part, on Iran’s ability to resist and defend its remaining capabilities — but also on the president’s willingness to accept an outcome that leaves the Islamic Republic in place.

Advertisement

That decision has not yet been made by Trump, who has vacillated between calls for a democratic uprising across Iran — and U.S. military options to support resistance groups inside the country — as opposed to a shorter campaign that cripples Iran’s political leadership and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“I can go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days and tell the Iranians, ‘See you again in a few years if you start rebuilding,’” Trump told Axios.

One of Israel’s primary goals is to effectively eliminate the country’s ballistic missile program, and progress on that score is ahead of schedule, another source familiar with the operation said. “Things are going very well at the moment,” the source added. “Great pace.”

An Israeli military source noted to The Times that the stated goal of the mission is to significantly degrade, but not necessarily destroy, Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, a goal the source said could be accomplished within Trump’s preferred time frame.

“Israel was quite unhappy Trump ordered the [June 2025] 12-day war ended when it did,” said Patrick Clawson, director of the Iran program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He said he expected the current war would “take time” to comprehensively set back Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, after a series of Israeli missions in 2024 against the missile program failed to set them back by more than a matter of months.

Advertisement

“Some Israelis think before the recent strikes, Iranian production was fully restored,” Clawson said. “So a really comprehensive attack on Iranian missiles is an important Israeli objective.”

The Maduro model

But no one inside the Islamic Republic system has emerged so far to serve in a supplicant role to Trump in the way that Delcy Rodríguez has stepped in as acting president of Venezuela, after U.S. forces captured that country’s strongman president, Nicolás Maduro, in an audacious overnight raid in January.

Since then, the Stars and Stripes have flown alongside the Venezuelan tricolor at government buildings in Caracas, where senior Trump administration officials have been welcomed to discuss lucrative opportunities in Venezuela’s oil industry.

Trump is now looking for an Iranian counterpart to Rodríguez, he said Tuesday, suggesting he is willing to keep the Islamic Republic in place despite encouraging its citizens to rise up against their government.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “We had some in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also…. Pretty soon we’re not gonna know anybody.”

Advertisement

“I mean, Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack and we kept the government totally intact,” he added.

Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations, expressed doubt that Trump would be willing to proceed with a months-long campaign, regardless of Israel’s aspirational objectives.

“I believe President Trump doesn’t define clear objectives so he can decide to end the war at a time of his choosing, and declare the objective at that point, announcing we have achieved what we sought to do,” said Ross, noting that finding a figurehead in Iran as he did in Venezuela was always “a long shot.”

“Unilaterally, he could declare we made the regime pay a price for killing its citizens, and we have weakened Iran to the point that it is not any longer a threat to its neighbors,” Ross added. “He could then say, if Iran continues the war, we will hit them even harder.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending