Connect with us

Politics

Four Californians walk into an Iowa caucus

Published

on

Four Californians walk into an Iowa caucus

The Californians pulled on hats, gloves, scarves and puffy winter coats. Michael Porter covered his face in a warm balaclava and his wife, Natalia, stepped into the boots she had just purchased at Costco. Their 28-year-old daughter, Deborah Stoner, pulled a neon orange Ron DeSantis T-shirt over her head and popped on a matching “DeSantis Precinct Captain” hat. Her husband, Jonathan, wrapped a scarf around his head.

Then they pushed their way out the front door, their breath making puffs in the frigid winter air.

It was Iowa caucuses night for the California family.

Raised in Huntington Beach, Deborah has served in various roles in Iowa Republican politics since moving here with her Lakewood-raised husband in 2017.

Advertisement

Natalia Porter of Huntington Beach glasses are fogged up as she enters Caucuses night after walking in sub-zero temperatures in Ames, Iowa.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

This year, she was precinct captain for DeSantis, the Florida governor. And for Monday’s caucus, she had a special audience: Natalia and Michael, Deborah’s parents, had flown from Southern California to Iowa especially for the first-in-the-nation nominating contest.

Longtime Republicans, the couple switched their registration to no party preference in 2016, when Trump became the GOP nominee.

Advertisement

Unless they flip back, they won’t be able to vote in California’s crucial March 5 Republican presidential primary.

By playing host to her parents, Deborah was giving them a chance to participate in the presidential nomination contest a different way. They could witness the inner workings of Iowa’s caucus process, get a closer look at the GOP candidates and their supporters, and think about how they might vote in November.

Ron DeSantis precinct captain Deborah Stoner, formerly of Huntington Beach, now living in Ames, Iowa, right, speaks with a Trump supporter during caucuses night at Mitchell Elementary School in Ames.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Natalia refused to vote for Trump in 2016, instead opting for independent candidate Evan McMullin. Michael voted for Hillary Clinton. They “didn’t believe Trump was going to do what he said,” Natalia explained. They were pleasantly surprised by Trump’s performance, and they both voted for him in 2020. But they believe the Republican Party used California only for fundraising, so they’re sticking with their NPP registrations.

In the few days since arriving in the frigid state, where temperatures have hovered well below zero, Natalia and Michael had already made the rounds — they saw DeSantis, as well as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy at barbecue restaurants over the weekend. Michael, a soft-spoken math professor at Cal State Long Beach, got to meet a presidential candidate for the first time since Bill Clinton visited Irvine in the early ‘90s.

“It was surreal,” he said. “I’m used to always seeing them on TV, and then, yeah, to actually see a real presidential candidate just a few yards away from me.”

“I love learning about how our country works in all sorts of different ways,” Natalia said.

Michael Porter Sr. and his wife, Natalia, observe the process during caucuses night at Mitchell Elementary School.

Advertisement

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Michael and Natalia raised their two children in a conservative Christian home where dinnertime was revered and foul language was not tolerated. For civic education, Natalia towed her home-schooled children around Orange County suburbs, door knocking for local Republican candidates. She and Michael each took a child into the voting booth on election day, to help them bubble in their vote on the ballot.

Deborah jokes she got an early start in politicking when her mom took her to a George W. Bush election rally. Natalia remembers standing on sizzling asphalt in Garden Grove, taking turns holding up Deborah and Mike Jr. so they could see the stage.

“I was like, ‘We’re hoping this is our next president!’” Natalia recalls.

Advertisement

But Iowa’s first-in-the-nation election procedure is famously opaque, even for political junkies like Natalia and Michael.

A caucus goer leaves with a Trump sign after Trump won the Iowa Caucuses in this precinct by nine votes at Mitchell Elementary in Ames, Iowa.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“We read stuff and we’re like, OK, this makes no sense,” Natalia said. “It will be completely foreign to us.”

Advertisement

The caucuses slip by unnoticed for many Americans, who are still awakening to the 2024 election cycle. In Huntington Beach, Mike Jr., 30, a diagnostic tools manager for an original equipment manufacturer, said if it weren’t for his parents’ special trip to Iowa for the caucuses, he’d “have no idea they were existing.”

“People really need to know the candidates, and what they stand for and what they believe in, and make informed decisions on election day, rather than knowing about a candidate and how they did in Iowa,” he said.

Politics isn’t as high a priority for him nowadays — especially after becoming a father eight months ago. Although he still votes and bats around policy issues with his parents and sister, Mike Jr. is “not a politics nerd.” A registered Republican, he’s waiting until California’s primary election day on March 5 draws closer to decide how he’s voting. And how a candidate shifts on policy positions is more important to him than how they perform in Iowa.

Natalia Porter, left, helps her daughter Deborah Stoner gather DeSantis fliers on Monday night.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“For me as an individual in California, 2,000 miles away, I kinda already know who the front-runners are, and I know the people who I think are gonna show up on our ballot,” he said. “I’m more focused on the information I need rather than a process in politics.”

On Monday night, Mike Jr.’s parents were all about the process. They trooped into the elementary school caucus location and wiped the fog from their glasses as Jonathan handed his ID to the precinct officials and Deborah set down her box of DeSantis fans, fliers and mailers to do the same. “We’re just observing, we’re from California,” Natalia told caucus chair Roman Lynch.

“Oh! My condolences,” Lynch responded, and they both laughed.

“Seriously! Except I think we’ve got you beat on this weather,” Natalia said.

Advertisement

Once Deborah and Jonathan had signed in, they moved into the cafeteria, where coat hooks lined the walls and a dozen children’s tables soon began to fill with voters.

The 100,000 or so Republican caucusgoers Monday night represented a fraction of Iowa’s 2.2 million registered voters. And Iowa, as the 32nd-most populated state in the union, is a sliver of the overall American electorate.

Should such a small state with a largely homogeneous population — most of Iowa is white, rural and conservative — garner such attention for its first-in-the-nation status?

“There has to be an order,” Natalia said, shrugging. “Somebody’s got to be first. Right?”

Wearing a Trump hat, Ev Cherryington, 86, of Ames, right, cheers as the results of the Iowa Caucus are read giving Trump the win by nine votes on caucus night at Mitchell Elementary in Ames, Iowa.

Advertisement

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“We’re narrowing the field, and that’s our job,” Deborah added. “It’s hard to win Iowa. And if you don’t show up, you don’t get a lot of traction, in my opinion. Because Iowa is personal politics, where you meet your candidates, you know who they are — including the presidential ones.”

Deborah delights in the candidate tour through Iowa every four years. She’s made a game of collecting campaign mailers and recording who sent them, what they’re about and whether they are for or against a candidate. The stack on her kitchen counter is a couple of inches high.

As caucusgoers began to filter into the elementary school cafeteria, Deborah worked the crowd, greeting familiar faces from her neighborhood and church, and giving one last pitch for DeSantis. At 7 p.m. sharp, the event kicked off.

Advertisement

One by one, representatives for each presidential candidate stood up to give a stump speech. Deborah bopped from the cafeteria to another schoolroom, where another precinct was sharing the space. Sporting her neon orange, she petitioned her neighbors to support DeSantis.

“It’s very much of a different perspective and approach to politics,” Deborah said in an interview before caucus night. “We are the first in the nation, and we have responsibility. And talking to people about politics is important to people.”

Volunteers for Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are on hand to give out stickers as Iowans register for the Caucuses at Mitchell Elementary in Ames, Iowa.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

When Deborah left her parents’ home in right-leaning Huntington Beach to study biological systems engineering at the famously leftist UC Davis, she immediately searched for like-minded students. She began volunteering with College Republicans and writing about conservative issues for a now-defunct newspaper, the Millennial Review.

Because Democrats dominate California politics, “You’re definitely a lot more free in California to vote how you feel,” Deborah said, “rather than knowing that your vote matters to the point of, well, I need to pick the lesser of two evils or something.”

That dearth of political competition — and what she sees as Republicans’ abandonment of California, except for fundraising purposes — has kept Natalia from rejoining the GOP, despite her belief that Trump was “way better than I thought he’d be as president.”

Still, if a different candidate — like her favorites, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz or then-Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — had become the Republican nominee in 2016 rather than Trump, Natalia contends the party may have had a two-term president. Although Natalia is hoping someone else will win the Republican nomination this year, she is resigned to voting for Trump again in the general election if he is the Republican choice — even if she is still disgruntled by the party’s treatment of her home state.

“They come here, and they fundraise … lots and lots of money, and then they take it elsewhere and they don’t really use it here,” she said. “They’re like we can raise it and it will go further other places. And it’s like, yeah, meanwhile my state is going down the drain faster than oil. It’s just awful.”

Advertisement

Like her mother, Deborah holds California up as an example of liberal policies gone too far.

“California is the state I grew up in. I have a lot of love for that state,” Deborah said. “What bothers me so much is I see the potential of California and how it’s being ruined by all these terrible policies.”

On a recent visit back to California to meet her niece, Deborah and her family discussed a recent debate in California about whether school boards should be required to notify parents if their child begins identifying with a different gender than the one assigned at birth. Deborah tried to persuade her parents and brother on the upsides of Iowa.

“Being able to keep up on both systems of politics and contrasting them is really useful to making my arguments more effective,” Deborah said. “I’m literally like in conversations with my brother going, ‘Do you really want to raise your daughter here? Do you think that’s a good idea?’”

“This is where I become a little bit more liberal than the rest of my family,” Mike Jr. said in an interview. “If my daughter grows up, and she can’t talk to me about stuff like that, then that’s my failure as a parent. … I should never need the school district to tell me, hey, my child wants to use these pronouns. My child should be telling me that. So if that hasn’t happened, that’s not the school district’s failure. That’s my failure.”

Advertisement

****

After the stump speeches ended, election officials hunkered around a table in the elementary school hallway, tabulating votes written on pink scraps of paper. Jonathan had cast a vote for Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old firebrand businessman.

Stumping for different candidates on caucus night didn’t seem to bother Deborah and Jonathan.

“We’re really not offended that the other person is voting for someone else,” Deborah said. “I don’t have anything against Ramasawmy, and he doesn’t have anything against DeSantis. We would both be happy if that was president instead of Biden.”

Silence fell over the elementary school cafeteria as Lynch, the caucus chair, stood up to announce the results: former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson: 1. Ramaswamy: 8. Haley: 33. DeSantis: 40. Trump: 49 votes.

Advertisement

“That’s about what I was expecting,” Deborah said. “I knew that DeSantis was in striking distance of Trump.”

“I didn’t know what to expect,” Natalia said. “California should caucus. This would be so much fun!”

By 8 p.m., the cafeteria had emptied. Deborah placed her DeSantis paraphernalia back in its box and the foursome trooped back home in the snow. By the time they got home, national news outlets had projected a statewide winner: Trump.

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