Connect with us

Politics

Upstate N.Y. school system’s support for trans athletes draws federal investigation.

Published

on

Upstate N.Y. school system’s support for trans athletes draws federal investigation.

For much of the past two months, the White House has assumed a defiant stance toward a series of court orders — including one from the Supreme Court — to take steps to secure the freedom of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongly deported to El Salvador in March.

But the administration is also fighting a separate court order in another case in which officials have been told to seek the release of a different, and lesser-known, immigrant who was expelled to El Salvador on the same set of flights as Mr. Abrego Garcia.

That man, a 20-year-old Venezuelan identified in court papers as Cristian, was flown to El Salvador on March 15 with scores of other immigrants. He was among nearly 140 Venezuelans deported without hearings after Trump officials accused them of being members of the Tren de Aragua street gang and deemed them subject to President Trump’s proclamation invoking an 18th-century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is a Salvadoran citizen, was deported on one of those flights even though an earlier court order expressly prohibited him from being sent back to his homeland. Something similar happened to Cristian: He was expelled from the United States despite a ruling that his removal violated a previous court settlement intended to protect young migrants with pending asylum cases.

Last month, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, echoing the judge in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case, ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” Cristian’s return by asking the Salvadoran government to send him back to U.S. soil. But on Tuesday, Judge Gallagher agreed to put her own order on hold until Thursday to give the Justice Department time to appeal it.

Advertisement

The two cases, both of which are playing out in Federal District Court in Maryland, exemplify the way in which the White House has sought new and aggressive methods to expel immigrants from the United States. The cases also reflect the increasingly recalcitrant attitude that the administration has adopted toward judicial orders — especially in deportation cases.

In her initial order, on April 23, Judge Gallagher said Cristian should not have been deported because he was shielded by the protections of a settlement agreement that immigration lawyers and the Department of Homeland Security had reached in the waning days of the Biden administration.

Under that agreement, unaccompanied minors who arrive in the United States and claim asylum cannot be removed from the country until their cases are fully resolved.

Over the weekend, the Justice Department asked Judge Gallagher to set aside that order, saying that if Cristian were returned to the United States, immigration officials would reject his asylum claim — a move that would lift the protections of the settlement agreement.

Department lawyers explained that his asylum application would be denied because he was a terrorist. The department has not disclosed what evidence it has to support that claim beyond the fact that the State Department has designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization.

Advertisement

During a hearing on Tuesday, Judge Gallagher refused to reverse her original ruling, noting that even if the government ultimately plans to reject Cristian’s asylum claim, it would have to do so in a process that played out in the U.S. courts.

She told the Justice Department that the administration “can’t skip to the end” and simply leave Cristian in El Salvador because it believes it would be futile to bring him back.

Still, Judge Gallagher acknowledged that if Trump officials did return Cristian and denied his asylum application, he might not be able to remain in the United States.

“It may be that the result here for Cristian is no asylum,” she said. “I think people who have been following the news for the past four months would not be surprised if that’s the end result here.”

The cases in Maryland are not only the ones in which the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the White House, is fighting against efforts to bring deported people back to U.S. soil.

Advertisement

Last month, in a case in Massachusetts, department lawyers tried to convince a federal judge that the administration had not violated his order requiring that immigrants have the opportunity to challenge their removal to a country not their own if they have reason to fear being sent there.

While the lawyers admitted that four Venezuelan men accused of being Tren de Aragua members had recently been sent to El Salvador from a U.S. military base in Cuba without a chance to question their removal, they gave a narrow reason as to why. The lawyers claimed that the judge’s order covered only officials from the Department of Homeland Security, and the men had technically been sent from Cuba by Defense Department officials.

Next week, a federal judge in Louisiana plans to hold a hearing to determine whether Trump officials wrongly expelled a 2-year-old U.S. citizen to Honduras with her mother.

The judge, Terry A. Doughty, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, intends to examine the government’s claim that the mother requested that the girl — known only as V.M.L. — be deported with her. Lawyers for the family have said that the mother and father wanted V.M.L. to remain in the United States.

In yet another deportation case, a federal judge in Washington has set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss whether he can order the return of all of the Venezuelan men who were deported with Cristian to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending