Connect with us

News

The divisive politics of India’s movement to ‘reclaim’ temples

Published

on

The divisive politics of India’s movement to ‘reclaim’ temples

Shortly after midnight on February 1, Hindu worshippers entered the grotto-like cellar of Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, northern India, and held prayers for the first time in more than three decades. Hours earlier, a district court had approved a legal petition by Hindus to allow the acts of devotion to go ahead.

The mosque was built in the 17th century by Emperor Aurangzeb. Hindu nationalists have long contended that a temple devoted to the god Shiva at the site was demolished by India’s then-ruling Mughals, who were Muslim. Today Hindus and Muslims worship in proximity; an alley just a few feet wide separates the mosque from the Kashi Vishwanath Hindu temple, built in its latest version in 1780.

The complex, inside a high-security compound, is patrolled by brooding armed soldiers and police. It is one of the world’s tensest shared religious sites outside the Middle East, where Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews pray in proximity at Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque and the Western Wall.

Now Gyanvapi is at the centre of an emotive legal campaign by Hindu nationalists. Their aim is to reclaim physical space for worship at sites where India’s Muslim dynasties razed temples and built mosques. How it plays out will shape religious discourse, social equanimity and the direction of secular democracy in the world’s most populous country.

Hindu revivalism, of which the temple “reclamation” movement is part, will play a key role in India’s upcoming national election, which will be held between April 19 and June 1.

Advertisement

Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party is widely expected to vanquish India’s divided opposition led by the Indian National Congress and win a third five-year term.

In January, Modi presided over the consecration of a vast new temple on the site of the 16th-century Babri mosque in Ayodhya, thought to have been built atop the ruins of an older Hindu temple. The mosque was torn down by religious zealots in 1992, in what is now seen as a defining moment for the BJP’s Hindu nationalist politics.

Now two other major sites of shared worship are in nationalists’ sights, raising the spectre of further, profound communal disputes surfacing elsewhere in India along the country’s main religious divide.

Hindu litigants are mounting court challenges to have centuries-old mosques torn down both in Varanasi — home to the Kashi Vishwanath complex — and in the northern city of Mathura, revered by Hindus as Lord Krishna’s birthplace.

For Hindu nationalists, the claims are part of a project to restore the religion to which four-fifths of India’s 1.4bn population adhere to its rightful place of supremacy — and to “decolonise” a country shaped, and in their view marred, by first Muslim and then British domination.

Advertisement

“These disputes which we are fighting are for a cultural restoration and renaissance,” says Vishnu Shankar Jain, an advocate representing Hindu litigants in the cases in Varanasi and Mathura. “It’s a dispute for the restoration of our heritage, of our glorious cultural past, and for the restoration of the rights of our deities.”

But for many of India’s roughly 200mn Muslims, the wrangling over shared religious spaces are an intrusion on their rights by a government they see as promoting Hinduism above other religions, and one that is bent on wiping Mughal heritage and other non-Hindu elements from history books.

It has been accompanied this year by the razing of two mosques, one in Delhi and the other in India’s northern Uttarakhand state, on the grounds that they represented illegal “encroachment”. The Delhi mosque was six centuries old.

The disputes over archaeology, historic legitimacy and religious rituals sit at the heart of a broader discussion about India’s multicultural nature and constitutional rights under the rule of a prime minister and ruling party who embrace Hindu supremacy.

“This is an instrument for inflaming emotions, passions — a way of polarising divisions,” says Zoya Hasan, professor emerita of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. “It’s a Hindu-Muslim dispute, and they want to keep the issue alive to consolidate the majority Hindu vote and very importantly to show Muslims their place.”

Advertisement

Little understood outside India, efforts to reclaim Hindu religious sites destroyed by Muslim rulers have gone on for decades. The current legal struggle by Hindu and Muslim petitioners is an emotionally charged one in which deities are invoked by politicians and, in some cases, are parties to legal petitions.

The Varanasi court gave Hindu petitioners the right to pray in Gyanvapi’s cellar after a controversial government archaeological survey under the mosque found broken idols, regarded as proof a temple once existed on the site. Hindu worshippers had believed this to be the case for centuries, and an idol of Lord Shiva’s bull Nandi faces across the alley towards Gyanvapi’s cellar for this reason. (Muslims say the area housed a fountain used by worshippers for ablutions.)

Indian police and soldiers stand guard outside an ornate mosque
Police and soldiers stand guard near the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, which is at the centre of an emotive legal campaign by Hindu nationalists © Niharika Kulkarni/AFP/Getty Images

“It was like a dream,” says Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas, a pujari or Hindu priest, who claims his family has been responsible for prayers at the site for centuries. “Not only did the court judgment come, we were told to just come and the puja [worship] will start.” News that the steel grate barring the cellar entrance had been removed spread “like wildfire” via WhatsApp messages, he says, and Hindu devotees flocked into the cellar from the adjacent temple, taking photos.

Across town, in Varanasi’s densely populated Muslim neighbourhood of Azad Park, news that Hindu prayers were commencing in the mosque’s basement stirred fears that the building’s future was now in peril.

“It was frightening,” says Abdul Batin Nomani, the mosque’s imam. “There was an atmosphere of fear and everybody was disturbed throughout the night.” An advocate representing the Muslims, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, filed an urgent supreme court petition in the small hours.

In the week that followed, the Muslims’ fears appeared to be confirmed. Varanasi, like Ayodhya and Mathura, is in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state and the BJP’s heartland. Yogi Adithyanath, a Hindu holy man who is sometimes tipped as a Modi successor, is the state’s chief minister.

Advertisement
A bulldozer demolishes the walls of a mosque
A bulldozer demolishes a mosque in the Jahangirpuri neighborhood of New Delhi in April 2022 © Altaf Qadri/AP

Speaking at the state assembly in Lucknow days later, in a show of support for reclaiming the site couched in religious language, Adithyanath said that it was Shiva’s bull who had “got the barricading broken overnight” at Gyanvapi mosque.

Hindu revivalism was given a shot in the arm in 2019, when India’s Supreme Court allowed the building of the temple in Ayodhya to go ahead, 27 years after the Babri mosque was destroyed. The ruling followed a long legal struggle by Hindu nationalists and an archaeological survey.

Archaeological evidence and British imperial accounts support their claims that India’s Muslim rulers razed temples to build their grand domed structures in places like Kashi (the Hindu name for Varanasi) and Mathura. Hindus rebuilt their temples alongside them, and generations of Hindus like the Vyas family in Varanasi continued to pray at the old sites, such as in Gyanvapi’s south cellar.

“[Hindus] never forgot the sites, and kept up the struggle to get hold of the site,” says Meenakshi Jain, a former professor of history at Delhi University’s Gargi college, and an author of books about Kashi and Mathura, who is no relation to the lawyer. “If they couldn’t get hold of the site, they got as close as possible.”

But for many Indian Muslims and secular liberals, the issue is not about which community got there first, but protecting minority religious rights and a status quo on worship enshrined in Indian law.

In 1991, under a Congress-led government, India passed the Places of Worship Act, which in effect halted such disputes (except in Ayodhya) by freezing religious sites’ status as it stood in August 1947, when India won independence.

Advertisement
A bare-chested man kneels and prays in front of a colourful Hindu shrine
A Varanasi court has given Hindu petitioners the right to pray in Gyanvapi’s cellar after a government archaeological survey under the mosque found broken idols, regarded as proof a temple once existed on the site © Jyotsna Singh/FT

The act was passed amid tensions over Ayodhya’s Babri mosque, which was destroyed the following year, leading to deadly religious rioting in 1993 that killed at least 1,000 people in Mumbai and elsewhere. A former Uttar Pradesh state government led by the regional Samajwadi party, which BJP supporters regarded as pandering to Muslim voters, prohibited Hindus from offering pujas in Gyanvapi’s cellar in 1993.

The temple movement has gained momentum since the BJP took power nationally in 2014, and accelerated since the 2019 supreme court decision on Ayodhya. Hindu petitioners have filed a slew of civil cases for surveys in Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque and in Mathura, where the litigants are seeking to have a Hindu-Muslim agreement on the shared complex overturned.

“There is a template and the template is clear: Hindutva [Hindu nationalist] groups make claims to a mosque, claiming there are temple remains behind it,” says Hasan, the academic. “They ask the court to order an archaeological survey, and they almost invariably find — which is not a surprise — that there are some temple remains.”

This, however, is a “legal figleaf”, she asserts. “When an archaeological survey is conducted and temple remains are found, the next step is to lay claim to the site.”


Whereas a mob tore down the Babri mosque, no such violence is now required, analysts say. In Modi’s India, Hindu nationalists believe that they have not just history but a sympathetic government and the courts on their side.

In Varanasi and in Mathura, Jain, the lawyer, and his father Hari Shankar Jain have led the fight by Hindu litigants to restore Hindu worship at the site of mosques.

Advertisement

In Varanasi the pair were legal advisers on seven civil suits in 2020-21 calling for the Gyanvapi mosque to be removed and similar civil suits calling for the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura in 2022.

“We want the removal of these mosques,” the younger Jain says in his office in Ghaziabad outside Delhi, where the door is decorated with Hindu religious symbols. “Our legal case before the court is that this is the site of a Hindu temple that has been wrongly converted or wrongly used as a mosque.”

The petition seeking to allow Hindus to pray in the cellar under Gyanvapi was brought by the Vyas family. Separately, five Hindu women with links to nationalist circles have filed a petition to be allowed to offer prayers inside the Gyanvapi mosque complex. Jain says he is working independently: “We are individuals who are working on this issue and we are not affiliated or associated with the ruling party.”

Lawyers representing Muslims in Varanasi are trying to fight back in court.

A man holds up a lighted incense burner to a Hindu statue
On January 22, Narendra Modi presided over the consecration of the new Ram Mandir shrine in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh © Imtiyaz Khan/Anadolu/Getty Images

“It’s very surprising that in 2023-4, when we are moving ahead with economic development and technology — to move forward with such things is surprising and painful,” says Ayyubi, who has represented Muslim litigants in both Gyanvapi and Mathura. “For almost 400 years, the mosque has been there.”

While the legal dispute around Ayodhya dragged on for decades, things appear to be moving quickly now. After the decision to allow Hindus to pray in the Gyanvapi cellar was handed down in the evening of January 31, devotees were there saying prayers within hours, giving Muslims no time to appeal against the decision.

Advertisement

“On Babri, they gave all sides enough time,” Ayyubi says. “This time it’s being rushed through — there is unusual haste.”

At the complex one recent evening, Gulshan Kapoor, president of a committee set up to “liberate” a Hindu shrine located at Gyanvapi’s back wall, pointed to what he said were remnants of Hindu temple architecture along the mosque’s perimeter. “All the walls are still [Hindu] temple walls,” he says.

Kapoor’s group has published a pamphlet about the site, which includes an artist’s rendition of a future temple. When asked what he thinks should happen at the site, he replies: “I have no hesitation in saying that the mosque will have to go to build our temple.”

In the centre of Mathura, the 17th-century Shahi Idgah mosque sits within the Krishna Janmasthan Hindu temple compound. Hindus believe Lord Krishna was born here in a prison cell. Under an agreement reached in 1968, Hindus and Muslims pray in separate designated areas.

Security forces patrol the site, and visitors entering are required to check digital devices, bags, and other belongings — including on one recent day a notebook and a pen because, in the words of a guard, “you might try to draw a map”.

Advertisement

Hindu litigants are seeking to have the mosque declared null and void in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a god, Lord Krishna, a practice with a long history in Indian law. “We have the proper evidence to prove that this property belongs to Lord Krishna,” says Mahendra Pratap Singh, a Hindu litigant who registered the first case.

When asked what his side would do if they were to prevail in their lawsuit, he says: “Build a temple.”

“These things only started in 2020, when outsiders came and filed a petition,” says Tanveer Ahmed, a lawyer representing the Muslims who are seeking protection from any change at the site under the Places of Worship Act. Ahmed links the court challenge to the 2019 court ruling allowing the Ayodhya temple to be built. “The issue started only when they were done in Ayodhya, and they turned their gaze to this one,” he says.

In recent remarks, members of Modi’s government have described January’s temple opening in Ayodhya as the “start of a new era”. India’s BJP-dominated lower house passed a resolution praising the temple opening; Modi’s powerful interior minister Amit Shah said that January 22, when the temple opened, was set to be recognised as “a historic day for 10,000 years”.

If Modi and the BJP succeed in their goal of winning a third term with a commanding majority, Indian liberals fear it will provide further fuel to the nationalists’ campaign to “reclaim” shared Hindu-Muslim religious sites.

Advertisement

Inside Mathura’s mosque-temple compound, a security guard muses on the need for religious harmony. “Indians don’t know their fundamental rights. Everybody has the right to their own religion, to worship the way they want, and it’s the government’s duty to ensure the right to worship,” she says. But on a regular basis, she adds, “people come through and ask me, ‘oh, when is that thing [the mosque] going to be torn down?’”

News

Video: Raising a Baby in Altadena’s Ashes

Published

on

Video: Raising a Baby in Altadena’s Ashes

“So, my daughter, Robin, was born Jan. 5, 2025.” “Hi, baby. That’s you.” “When I first saw her, I was like, ‘Oh my God, she’s here.’” “She was crying and immediately when she was up on my face, she stopped crying.” “I got the room with the view.” “But it wasn’t until way later, I saw a fire near the Pasadena Mountains.” “We’re watching the news on the TV, hoping that it’s just not going to reach our house.” “The Eaton fire has scorched over 13,000 acres.” “Sixteen people confirmed dead.” “More than 1,000 structures have been destroyed.” “And then that’s when we got the call. Liz’s mom crying, saying the house is on fire.” “Oh, please. No, Dios mio. Go back. Don’t go that way. It’s closed. Go, turn. Turn back.” “Our house is burning, Veli.” “Oh my God.” “It was just surreal. Like, I couldn’t believe it.” “There’s nothing left.” “Not only our house is gone, the neighbors’ houses are gone, her grandma’s house is gone. All you could see was ash.” “My family has lived in Altadena for about 40 years. It was so quiet. There’s no freeways. My grandmother was across the street from us. All our family would have Christmas there, Thanksgivings. She had her nopales in the back. She would always just go out and cut them down and make salads out of them. My grandmother is definitely the matriarch of our family. My parents, our house was across the street. And then me and Javi got married right after high school.” “My husband’s getting me a cookie.” “Me and Javi had talked a lot about having kids in the future. Finally, after 15 years of being married, we were in a good place. It was so exciting to find out that we were pregnant. We remodeled our whole house. We were really preparing. My grandmother and my mom, they were like, crying, and they were like, so excited.” “Liz!” “I had this vision for her, of how she would grow up, the experiences maybe she would have experiencing my grandmother’s house as it was. We wanted her to have her childhood here. But all of our preparation went out the window in the matter of a few hours.” “And we’re like, ‘What do we do?’ And then we get a phone call. And it was Liz’s uncle. He was like, ‘Hey, come to my house. We have a room ready for you.’” “In my more immediate family, nine people lost their homes, so it was about 13 people in the house at any given point for the first three months of the fire. It was a really hard time. We had to figure out insurance claim forms, finding a new place to live, the cost of rebuilding — will we be able to afford it? Oh my gosh, we must have looked at 10 rentals. The experience of motherhood that I was hoping to have was completely different. Survival mode is not how I wanted to start. “Hi, Robin.” “Robin — she was really stressed out. “She’s over it.” “Our stress was radiating towards Robin. I feel like she could feel that.” “There was just no place to lay her safely, where she could be free and not stepped over by a dog or something. So she was having issues gaining strength. So she did have to go to physical therapy for a few months to be able to lift her head.” “One more, one more — you can do it.” “All the stress and the pain, it was just too much.” “Then Liz got really sick.” “I didn’t stop throwing up for five hours. Javi immediately took me to the E.R. They did a bunch of tests and figured out it was vertigo, likely stress-induced. It felt like, OK, something has to slow down. I can’t just handle all of it myself all the time. My mom is so amazing and my grandmother, they really took care of us in a really wonderful way. So — yeah.” “We’ve been able to get back on our feet. “Good high-five.” “I think it has changed how I parent. I’m trying to shed what I thought it would be like, and be open to what’s new. Robin is doing much better. She’s like standing now and trying to talk. She says like five words already. Even if it’s not exactly home for Robin, I wanted to have those smells around. You walk in and it smells like home. For us, it’s definitely tamales. My grandmother’s house is not being rebuilt. I can tell she’s so sad. “Let me just grab a piece of this.” “So right now, where Javi’s standing is the front. One bedroom there, here in the middle, and Robin’s bedroom in the corner. My grandma will live with us versus across the street, which is silver linings. Yeah, and we did make space for a garden for her.” “What are you seeing? What do you think? What do you think, Robin?” “The roots of Altadena — even though they’re charred — they’re going to be stronger than before.” “How strong you can be when something like this happens, I think is something that’s really important for her to take on. And that I hope Altadena also takes on.”

Continue Reading

News

New video shows fatal Minnesota ICE shooting from officer’s perspective

Published

on

New video shows fatal Minnesota ICE shooting from officer’s perspective

People participate in a protest and noise demonstration calling for an end to federal immigration enforcement operations in the city, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026, in Minneapolis.

John Locher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

John Locher/AP

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota prosecutor on Friday called on the public to share with investigators any recordings and evidence connected to the fatal shooting of Renee Good as a new video emerged showing the final moments of her encounter with an immigration officer.

The Minneapolis killing and a separate shooting in Portland, Oregon, a day later by the Border Patrol have set off protests in multiple cities and denunciations of immigration enforcement tactics by the U.S. government. The Trump administration has defended the officer who shot Good in her car, saying he was protecting himself and fellow agents.

The reaction to the shooting has largely been focused on witness cellphone video of the encounter. A new, 47-second video that was published online by a Minnesota-based conservative news site, Alpha News, and later reposted on social media by the Department of Homeland Security shows the shooting from the perspective of ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who fired the shots.

Advertisement
This image from video made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross via Alpha News shows Renee Good in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026.

This image from video made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross via Alpha News shows Renee Good in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026.

Jonathan Ross/AP/ICE


hide caption

toggle caption

Jonathan Ross/AP/ICE

Advertisement

Sirens blaring in the background, he approaches and circles Good’s vehicle in the middle of the road while apparently filming on his cellphone. At the same time, Good’s wife also was recording the encounter and can be seen walking around the vehicle and approaching the officer. A series of exchanges occurred:

“That’s fine, I’m not mad at you,” Good says as the officer passes by her door. She has one hand on the steering wheel and the other outside the open driver side window.

“U.S. citizen, former f—ing veteran,” says her wife, standing outside the passenger side of the SUV holding up her phone. “You wanna come at us, you wanna come at us, I say go get yourself some lunch big boy.”

Other officers are approaching the driver’s side of the car at about the same time and one says: “Get out of the car, get out of the f—ing car.” Ross is now at the front driver side of the vehicle. Good reverses briefly, then turns the steering wheel toward the passenger side as she drives ahead and Ross opens fire.

Advertisement

The camera becomes unsteady and points toward the sky and then returns to the street view showing Good’s SUV careening away.

“F—ing b—,” someone at the scene says.

A crashing sound is heard as Good’s vehicle smashes into others parked on the street.

Federal agencies have encouraged officers to document encounters in which people may attempt to interfere with enforcement actions, but policing experts have cautioned that recording on a handheld device can complicate already volatile situations by occupying an officer’s hands and narrowing focus at moments when rapid decision-making is required.

Under an ICE policy directive, officers and agents are expected to activate body-worn cameras at the start of enforcement activities and to record throughout interactions, and footage must be kept for review in serious incidents such as deaths or use-of-force cases. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to questions about whether the officer who opened fire or any of the others who were on the scene were wearing body cameras.

Advertisement

Homeland Security says video shows self-defense

Vice President JD Vance and Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in posts on X that the new video backs their contention that the officer fired in self-defense.

“Many of you have been told this law enforcement officer wasn’t hit by a car, wasn’t being harassed, and murdered an innocent woman,” Vance said. “The reality is that his life was endangered and he fired in self defense.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has said any self-defense argument is “garbage.”

Policing experts said the video didn’t change their thoughts on the use-of-force but did raise additional questions about the officer’s training.

“Now that we can see he’s holding a gun in one hand and a cellphone in the other filming, I want to see the officer training that permits that,” said Geoff Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina.

Advertisement

The video demonstrates that the officers didn’t perceive Good to be a threat, said John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who has written extensively about officers shooting at moving vehicles.

“If you are an officer who views this woman as a threat, you don’t have one hand on a cellphone. You don’t walk around this supposed weapon, casually filming,” Gross said.

Ross, 43, is an Iraq War veteran who has served in the Border Patrol and ICE for nearly two decades. He was injured last year when he was dragged by a driver fleeing an immigration arrest.

Attempts to reach Ross at phone numbers and email addresses associated with him were not successful.

Prosecutor asks for video and evidence

Meanwhile, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said that although her office has collaborated effectively with the FBI in past cases, she is concerned by the Trump administration’s decision to bar state and local agencies from playing any role in the investigation into Good’s killing.

Advertisement

She also said the officer who shot Good in the head does not have complete legal immunity, as Vance declared.

“We do have jurisdiction to make this decision with what happened in this case,” Moriarty said at a news conference. “It does not matter that it was a federal law enforcement agent.”

Moriarty said her office would post a link for the public to submit footage of the shooting, even though she acknowledged that she wasn’t sure what legal outcome submissions might produce.

Good’s wife, Becca Good, released a statement to Minnesota Public Radio on Friday saying, “kindness radiated out of her.”

“On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns,” Becca Good said.

Advertisement

“I am now left to raise our son and to continue teaching him, as Renee believed, that there are people building a better world for him,” she wrote.

Protesters confront law enforcement outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

Protesters confront law enforcement outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

Adam Bettcher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Adam Bettcher/AP

The reaction to Good’s shooting was immediate in the city where police killed George Floyd in 2020, with hundreds of protesters converging on the shooting scene and the school district canceling classes for the rest of the week as a precaution and offering an online option through Feb. 12.

On Friday, protesters were outside a federal facility serving as a hub for the immigration crackdown that began Tuesday in Minneapolis and St. Paul. That evening, hundreds protested and marched outside two hotels in downtown Minneapolis where immigration enforcement agents were supposed to be staying. Some people were seen breaking or spray painting windows and state law enforcement officers wearing helmets and holding batons ordered the remaining group of fewer than 100 people to leave late Friday.

Shooting in Portland

The Portland shooting happened outside a hospital Thursday. A federal border officer shot and wounded a man and woman in a vehicle, identified by the Department of Homeland Security as Venezuela nationals Luis David Nico Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras. Police said they were in stable condition Friday after surgery, with DHS saying Nico Moncada was taken into FBI custody

Advertisement

DHS defended the actions of its officers in Portland, saying the shooting occurred after the driver with alleged gang ties tried to “weaponize” his vehicle to hit them. It said no officers were injured.

Portland Police Chief Bob Day confirmed that the two people shot had “some nexus” to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Day said they came to the attention of police during an investigation of a July shooting believed to have been carried out by gang members, but they were not identified as suspects.

The chief said any gang affiliation did not necessarily justify the shooting by U.S. Border Patrol. The Oregon Department of Justice said it would investigate.

On Friday evening, hundreds of protesters marched to the ICE building in Portland.

The biggest crackdown yet

The Minneapolis shooting happened on the second day of the immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities, which Homeland Security said is the biggest immigration enforcement operation ever. More than 2,000 officers are taking part and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said they have made more than 1,500 arrests.

Advertisement

The government is also shifting immigration officers to Minneapolis from sweeps in Louisiana, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. This represents a pivot, as the Louisiana crackdown that began in December had been expected to last into February.

Good’s death — at least the fifth tied to immigration sweeps since President Donald Trump took office — has resonated far beyond Minneapolis. More protests are planned for this weekend, according to Indivisible, a group formed to resist the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

News

Trump administration can’t block child care, other program money for 5 states: Judge

Published

on

Trump administration can’t block child care, other program money for 5 states: Judge

A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot block federal money for child care subsidies and other programs aimed at supporting needy children and their families from flowing to five Democratic-led states for now.

The states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York argued that a policy announced Tuesday to freeze funds for three grant programs is having an immediate impact on them and creating “operational chaos.” In court filings and a hearing earlier Friday, the states contended that the government did not have a legal reason for holding back the money from those states.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was pausing the funding because it had “reason to believe” the states were granting benefits to people in the country illegally, though it did not provide evidence or explain why it was targeting those states and not others.

The programs are the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidizes child care for children from low-income families; the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides cash assistance and job training; and the Social Services Block Grant, a smaller fund that provides money for a variety of programs.

The five states say they receive a total of more than $10 billion a year from the programs.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, who was nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, did not rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but he said the five states had met a legal threshold “to protect the status quo” for at least 14 days while arguments are made in court.

The government had requested reams of data from the five states, including the names and Social Security numbers of everyone who received benefits from some of the programs since 2022.

The states argue that the effort is unconstitutional and is intended to go after Trump’s political adversaries rather than to stamp out fraud in government programs — something the states say they already do.

Jessica Ranucci, a lawyer in the New York Attorney General’s office, said in the Friday hearing, which was conducted by telephone, that at least four of the states had already had money delayed after requesting it. She said that if the states can’t get child care funds, there will be immediate uncertainty for providers and families who rely on the programs.

A lawyer for the federal government, Kamika Shaw, said it was her understanding that the money had not stopped flowing to states.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending