Connect with us

Politics

What Candidates in Tight House Races Are Saying About Abortion

Published

on

What Candidates in Tight House Races Are Saying About Abortion

22 Democrats say

restore Roe v. Wade.

4 Democrats say

it’s no place for government.

9 Democrats say

it’s between a woman and her doctor.

21 Republicans say

no federal ban.

10 Republicans say

it’s best left up to the states.

Advertisement

5 Republicans say

they’re pro-life.

Josh Riley, the Democratic challenger running for Congress in New York’s 19th District, has a clear message on abortion: “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it.”

And his Republican opponent, the incumbent Representative Marc Molinaro, is saying nearly the same thing: “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington.”

Across the country’s most competitive House races, Republicans have spent months trying to redefine themselves on abortion, going so far as to borrow language that would not feel out of place at a rally of Vice President Kamala Harris. Many Republicans who until recently backed federal abortion restrictions are now saying the issue should be left to the states.

At least a half-dozen Republican candidates have put out direct-to-camera ads declaring their opposition to a federal abortion ban. Instead, they say, they support exceptions to existing state laws and back protections for reproductive health care, such as I.V.F.

Advertisement

Republican candidates address abortion head-on in campaign videos

Click on any video in the grid to play it.

Anthony D’Esposito

Republican, N.Y. 4

Advertisement

Mike Lawler

Republican, N.Y. 17

Advertisement

Marc Molinaro

Republican, N.Y. 19

Joe Kent

Advertisement

Republican, Wash. 3

Michelle Steel

Republican, C.A. 45

Advertisement

Juan Ciscomani

Republican, Ariz. 6

Advertisement

Democrats have raised the possibility of a nationwide abortion ban should Republicans win in November, and they are framing the campaign as another referendum on the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. They are hoping to continue their run of electoral successes since the 2022 decision to win back control of the House.

Any new federal legislation on abortion would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president to become law. But whichever party emerges with a majority in the House will have the ability to dictate the legislative agenda, including whether measures to restrict or expand abortion access have the chance to pass.

Republicans in California and New York in particular, who are running in swing districts in blue states that favor abortion rights, have felt the most pressure to address the issue directly. “If we don’t talk about the issue, we become whatever the Democrats say we are,” said Will Reinert, the press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Advertisement

To better understand how abortion is playing a role in these campaigns, The New York Times surveyed candidates from both parties in the most competitive House races about their support for federal limits on abortion. The Times also looked at voting records, issues listed on campaign websites, debate and media coverage, and endorsements from major abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.

The Times survey showed that while Republicans are notably focused on what they will not do on abortion at the federal level, their Democratic opponents are talking about what they will do to protect abortion rights. Nearly all the Democratic candidates said they supported restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade, which would allow access to abortion until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, in every state.

In attack ads, Democrats are pointing to their opponents’ voting records or past statements as evidence of extremism — despite what they may be saying now.

Democratic candidates highlight Republicans’ records on abortion in campaign videos

Click on any video in the grid to play it.

Advertisement

Josh Riley campaign

Democrat, N.Y. 19

Will Rollins campaign

Advertisement

Democrat, Calif. 41

More broadly, abortion rights groups said Republicans are misleading voters by claiming they do not support an outright abortion “ban,” when they might support a federal “limit” or “standard,” such as the 15-week proposal put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham in 2022.

Advertisement

“They are playing around with the semantics; they are clearly testing out different framing and messaging in an attempt to try and deceive voters because they realize how politically unpopular their policy stances are,” said Jessica Arons, a director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Republicans in the Times survey almost universally declined to answer questions about gestational limits. Only one, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, said he supported a specific federal limit, in the third trimester.

What Republican candidates are saying about abortion

I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.

David Valadao Republican, Calif. 22

Advertisement

At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.

Don Bacon Republican, Neb. 2

I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.

Gabe Evans Republican, Colo. 8

Advertisement

The Republican shift away from publicly supporting a federal ban follows the lead of former President Donald J. Trump, who has changed his own language on the issue after seeing the electoral backlash to the Dobbs decision.

As recently as 2021, a majority of House Republicans — including seven incumbents in this year’s tossup races — co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a bill that would have amounted to a nationwide abortion ban. This year, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th District was the only incumbent in a competitive race to stay on as a co-sponsor.

Two Republican incumbents who now say they oppose a national ban — Representatives Ken Calvert and David Valadao in California — voted in favor of a 20-week ban that passed the House in 2017. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, co-sponsored a 15-week ban on abortion in 2022. She did not respond to questions about whether she still supports it.

Other Republicans described themselves as personally “pro-life” but said they accepted the abortion laws in place in their states. Rob Bresnahan Jr., a challenger in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, said he supported the state’s current law, which allows abortion until 24 weeks.

Democrats, when they were not attacking Republicans, leaned into language about personal freedom, with many in the survey saying the government should not be involved in medical decisions.

Advertisement

Another common refrain was that the decision to have an abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor.” Two Democrats used similar language rather than explicitly calling for federal abortion protections.

What Democratic candidates are saying about abortion

Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican to make that decision for themselves.

Gabe Vasquez Democrat, N.M. 2

I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith.

Advertisement

Rudy Salas Democrat, Calif. 22

I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body and her family are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do.

Tony Vargas Democrat, Neb. 2

By appearing to moderate their stance on abortion, candidates have risked losing the backing of prominent advocacy groups. Only three Republicans in the tossup races received an endorsement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and seven received one from National Right to Life.

Advertisement

Two major abortion rights groups, by contrast, endorsed nearly all the Democratic candidates. Planned Parenthood — whose political action fund is pouring $40 million into the campaign — endorsed all but six candidates, while Reproductive Freedom for All endorsed all but four.

Endorsements from major anti-abortion groups

Candidate District Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America National Right to Life

Anderson

Va. 7

Va. 7

Bacon*

Advertisement

Neb. 2

Neb. 2

Buckhout

N.C. 1

N.C. 1

Begich

Alaska At-Large

Advertisement
Alaska At-Large

Ciscomani*

Ariz. 6

Ariz. 6

Miller-Meeks*

Iowa 1

Iowa 1

Nunn*

Advertisement

Iowa 3

Iowa 3

Perry*

Pa. 10

Pa. 10

Schweikert*

Ariz. 1

Advertisement
Ariz. 1

Barrett

Mich. 7

Mich. 7

Bresnahan Jr.

Pa. 8

Pa. 8

Calvert*

Advertisement

Calif. 41

Calif. 41

Chavez-DeRemer*

Ore. 5

Ore. 5

Coughlin

Ohio 13

Advertisement
Ohio 13

D’Esposito*

N.Y. 4

N.Y. 4

Duarte*

Calif. 13

Calif. 13

Evans

Advertisement

Colo. 8

Colo. 8

Garcia*

Calif. 27

Calif. 27

Herrell

N.M. 2

Advertisement
N.M. 2

Junge

Mich. 8

Mich. 8

Kean Jr.*

N.J. 7

N.J. 7

Kent

Advertisement

Wash. 3

Wash. 3

Lawler*

N.Y. 17

N.Y. 17

Mackenzie

Pa. 7

Advertisement
Pa. 7

Molinaro*

N.Y. 19

N.Y. 19

Steel*

Calif. 45

Calif. 45

Theriault

Advertisement

Maine 2

Maine 2

Valadao*

Calif. 22

Calif. 22

Advertisement

Endorsements from major abortion rights groups

Candidate District Planned Parenthood Repro. Freedom for All

Altman

N.J. 7

N.J. 7

Baccam

Iowa 3

Advertisement
Iowa 3

Bohannan

Iowa 1

Iowa 1

Bynum

Ore. 5

Ore. 5

Caraveo*

Advertisement

Colo. 8

Colo. 8

Cartwright*

Pa. 8

Pa. 8

Davis*

N.C. 1

Advertisement
N.C. 1

Engel

Ariz. 6

Ariz. 6

Gillen

N.Y. 4

N.Y. 4

Gluesenkamp Perez*

Advertisement

Wash. 3

Wash. 3

Golden*

Maine 2

Maine 2

Gray

Calif. 13

Advertisement
Calif. 13

Hertel

Mich. 7

Mich. 7

Jones

N.Y. 17

N.Y. 17

McDonald Rivet

Advertisement

Mich. 8

Mich. 8

Peltola*

Alaska At-Large

Alaska At-Large

Riley

N.Y. 19

Advertisement
N.Y. 19

Rollins

Calif. 41

Calif. 41

Salas

Calif. 22

Calif. 22

Shah

Advertisement

Ariz. 1

Ariz. 1

Stelson

Pa. 10

Pa. 10

Sykes*

Ohio 13

Advertisement
Ohio 13

Tran

Calif. 45

Calif. 45

Vargas

Neb. 2

Neb. 2

Vasquez*

Advertisement

N.M. 2

N.M. 2

Vindman

Va. 7

Va. 7

Whitesides

Calif. 27

Advertisement
Calif. 27

Wild*

Pa. 7

Pa. 7

Representative Jared Golden, the Democratic incumbent in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District — an area Mr. Trump won by six points in 2020 — did not get Planned Parenthood’s endorsement this year. He said the reason was his vote for the 2024 defense policy bill, which included an amendment blocking reimbursement for abortion travel costs for service members.

Mr. Golden said he was not concerned about the lack of support from the group, pointing instead to his co-sponsorship of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill to restore the protections of Roe.

“I’m quite confident that voters in Maine know where I stand,” he said.

Advertisement

Compare statements from House candidates on abortion policy

The New York Times asked candidates and their campaigns about support for a federal minimum standard on abortion. Statements have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

District

Dem. position

Rep. position

Alaska At‑Large

Advertisement

Alaska At‑Large

Mary Peltola*

No response to survey.

“Roe v. Wade set a precedent that was the law of the land for 50 years. She believes that standard was the right one — furthermore we know the importance of having strong exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother and health of mother throughout.”

Advertisement

Nick Begich

No response to survey.

“While I strongly support efforts that defend the rights of those not yet born, the courts have made it clear, abortion is a state issue and not an issue for the federal government to decide.”

Ariz. 1

Advertisement

Ariz. 1

Amish Shah

No response to survey.

“As a doctor, I understand that these personal decisions should be made by women and their physicians. That’s why we need to codify Roe v. Wade and give women across the country the right to control their own bodies and health care.”

Advertisement

David Schweikert*

No response to survey.

“It’s pretty clear that it belongs to the states,” via Business Insider.

Ariz. 6

Advertisement

Ariz. 6

Kirsten Engel

No response to survey.

“Protecting women’s reproductive freedoms at the federal level will be one of my top priorities when elected to Congress. Women had those protections for over 50 years when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, and that is what I will advocate for us to return to.”

Advertisement

Juan Ciscomani*

No response to survey.

“I’m pro-life, I reject the extremes, and I trust women. I’m against a federal ban on abortion. I’m for timetables and exceptions, including for rape, incest and the life of the mother,” via campaign site.

Calif. 13

Advertisement

Calif. 13

Adam Gray

No response to survey.

“What I support and will vote for is restoring Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women regain the federal rights they had for generations.”

Advertisement

John Duarte*

No response to survey.

“Congressman Duarte opposes federal abortion restrictions.”

Calif. 22

Advertisement

Calif. 22

Rudy Salas

No response to survey.

“I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith. Women should have the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies and to determine their own health care.”

Advertisement

David Valadao*

No response to survey.

“I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.”

Calif. 27

Advertisement

Calif. 27

George Whitesides

No response to survey.

“I strongly support a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, and if elected to Congress, I will vote to codify Roe v. Wade to ensure reproductive freedom for all Americans.”

Advertisement

Mike Garcia*

No response to survey.

“I oppose a national abortion ban — California’s law on abortion stays the law — and I support exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Calif. 41

Advertisement

Calif. 41

Will Rollins

No response to survey.

“I support a federal minimum standard for abortion. In Congress, I will advocate for legislation that restores Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from banning abortions before fetal viability. It’s critical that we protect a woman’s right to choose nationwide.”

Advertisement

Ken Calvert*

No response to survey.

“Congressman Calvert does not support a federal abortion ban and supports the right of Californians to determine this for themselves.”

Calif. 45

Advertisement

Calif. 45

Derek Tran

No response to survey.

“Derek Tran supports enshrining reproductive rights into law as California voters did through Proposition 1 in 2022.”

Advertisement

Michelle Steel*

No response to survey.

“Michelle’s position has always been, and remains, that this issue is best left up to the states, and she does not support a national ban on abortion.”

Colo. 8

Advertisement

Colo. 8

Yadira Caraveo*

No response to survey.

“Rep. Caraveo believes we need to codify Roe v. Wade. This was the law of the land for decades, and since the Dobbs decision, the lives of far too many women have been at risk.”

Advertisement

Gabe Evans

No response to survey.

“I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.”

Iowa 1

Advertisement

Iowa 1

Christina Bohannan

No response to survey.

“On Day 1 in Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade and ensure women in Iowa and across the country once again have the freedom to make their own health care decisions.”

Advertisement

Mariannette Miller-Meeks*

No response to survey.

“The congresswoman has been clear that she is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

Iowa 3

Advertisement

Iowa 3

Lanon Baccam

No response to survey.

“It’s more important than ever to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that’s why I’ll support the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress. I believe women’s health care decisions should be between her and her doctor — not politicians.”

Advertisement

Zach Nunn*

No response to survey.

“He is pro-life, but has voted for exceptions. He opposes a national abortion ban.”

Maine 2

Advertisement

Maine 2

Jared Golden*

No response to survey.

“I’m a cosponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, to restore Roe, and I would vote for it if it came to the floor again.”

Advertisement

Austin Theriault

No response to survey.

“Austin opposes and will vote against a national abortion ban.”

Mich. 7

Advertisement

Mich. 7

Curtis Hertel

No response to survey.

“When Roe was overturned and abortion rights came under attack in our state, I worked across the aisle to get rid of the 1931 abortion ban and fought to enshrine abortion rights in Michigan’s constitution. I’m running to make Roe the law of the land and protect reproductive freedom.”

Advertisement

Tom Barrett

No response to survey.

“Tom does not support a federal ban. He has consistently argued this is a decision for the states and while he disagrees with Prop. 3, Michigan voters have made that decision.”

Mich. 8

Advertisement

Mich. 8

Kristen McDonald Rivet

No response to survey.

“After Roe was overturned, I protected abortion rights in Michigan by helping to repeal our state’s 1931 ban without exceptions for rape or incest. In Congress, I’ll fight for a federal law restoring the Roe standard across America.”

Advertisement

Paul Junge

No response to survey.

“I would never and have never supported a national abortion ban.”

Neb. 2

Advertisement

Neb. 2

Tony Vargas

No response to survey.

“I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body, and her family, are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do. In Congress, I’ll vote to codify the protections earned from the Roe v. Wade decision into federal law.”

Advertisement

Don Bacon*

No response to survey.

“I support the Nebraska law that puts a reasonable three-month restriction on abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.”

N.M. 2

Advertisement

N.M. 2

Gabe Vasquez*

No response to survey.

“Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican, to make that decision for themselves.”

Advertisement

Yvette Herrell

No response to survey.

“Yvette has been clear that since the Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states, she does not support a federal ban.”

N.J. 7

Advertisement

N.J. 7

Sue Altman

No response to survey.

“Sue will work to protect access to contraception, reproductive choice, and women’s health,” via campaign site.

Advertisement

Thomas Kean Jr.*

No response to survey.

“Tom is opposed to a national abortion ban. He has voted to protect access to mifepristone and believes any legislation should be left to the voters of each state to advocate for their positions to their legislatures.”

N.Y. 17

Advertisement

N.Y. 17

Mondaire Jones

No response to survey.

“We must enshrine protections for abortion into federal law.”

Advertisement

Mike Lawler*

No response to survey.

“He does not and never will support a national abortion ban.”

N.Y. 19

Advertisement

N.Y. 19

Josh Riley

No response to survey.

“I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it. In Congress, I will codify the right to abortion as it existed under Roe v. Wade into law.”

Advertisement

Marc Molinaro*

No response to survey.

“I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington. I kept my promise to reject a national abortion ban — keeping New York’s laws in place.”

N.Y. 4

Advertisement

N.Y. 4

Laura Gillen

No response to survey.

“The standard should be the same as it was the day before the disastrous Dobbs decision. It worked for a half a century, and we should return to it.”

Advertisement

Anthony D’Esposito*

No response to survey.

“Congressman D’Esposito does not support a nationwide abortion ban and believes legislating on abortion should fall under the purview of state governments.”

N.C. 1

Advertisement

N.C. 1

Don Davis*

No response to survey.

“Congress must take action and codify Roe v. Wade. He firmly believes that a woman’s health decisions should remain private between her and her doctor,” via campaign site.

Advertisement

Laurie Buckhout

No response to survey.

“As the only candidate to be endorsed by the pro-life SBA (Susan B. Anthony) List, I believe every life is precious and would vote to preserve life, including the mother’s,” via The Perquimans Weekly.

Ohio 13

Advertisement

Ohio 13

Emilia Sykes*

No response to survey.

“Congresswoman Sykes has a strong record of supporting the protections provided under Roe that give women across the country the right to make decisions about what is best for their bodies.”

Advertisement

Kevin Coughlin

No response to survey.

“Issues related to abortion are best left to the states, and there should be no federal ban.”

Ore. 5

Advertisement

Ore. 5

Janelle Bynum

No response to survey.

“Rep. Bynum supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women across the country can have those rights back. This is a decision that should be kept between a woman and her doctors.”

Advertisement

Lori Chavez-DeRemer*

No response to survey.

“The congresswoman doesn’t support any federal standard limiting Oregonians’ access to abortion.”

Pa. 7

Advertisement

Pa. 7

Susan Wild*

No response to survey.

“I have always believed that private medical decisions, including whether or not to receive abortion care, should be made by a woman, her doctor, her partner and her faith if she so chooses.”

Advertisement

Ryan Mackenzie

No response to survey.

“He’s opposed to a national abortion ban; he supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

Pa. 8

Advertisement

Pa. 8

Matt Cartwright*

No response to survey.

“I strongly support the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would restore Roe’s protections into federal law. We should trust women with their health care decisions, not politicians.”

Advertisement

Rob Bresnahan Jr.

No response to survey.

“Rob Bresnahan does not support a national abortion ban and does support the current Pennsylvania protections of 24 weeks and exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. ”

Pa. 10

Advertisement

Pa. 10

Janelle Stelson

No response to survey.

“I think these most intimate health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors … If elected, I will put those decisions back in the hands of women, where they belong.”

Advertisement

Scott Perry*

No response to survey.

“Scott Perry believes firmly in the sanctity of Life — period. He makes exceptions for circumstances that involve rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother,” via campaign site.

Va. 7

Advertisement

Va. 7

Eugene Vindman

No response to survey.

“In Congress, I will fight to make sure that the rights of women and girls in Virginia are never dependent on politicians in Richmond or Washington by voting to restore the protections of Roe nationwide.”

Advertisement

Derrick Anderson

No response to survey.

“Derrick opposes and would vote against a national abortion ban.”

Wash. 3

Advertisement

Wash. 3

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez*

No response to survey.

“Marie is an original co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and supports codifying the abortion protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law, as well as ensuring women have continued access to contraception and I.V.F.”

Advertisement

Joe Kent

No response to survey.

“Following the Supreme Court decision that made abortion a state issue, Joe Kent opposes any new federal legislation on the issue.”

Methodology

Advertisement

The New York Times survey asked candidates or their campaigns two questions: 1) Do you support any federal minimum standard on abortion? 2) If so, until how many weeks in pregnancy (i.e. 6 weeks, 15 weeks, viability, etc.)?

Those surveyed were major-party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives whose races were rated “tossups” by the Cook Political Report at any point in October 2024. Alaska’s at-large congressional district includes four candidates and will be decided by ranked-choice voting; the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary were included in the survey. All but six candidates responded to emailed requests for comment. In these cases, position summaries were taken from campaign websites or from other public statements.

Note: Counts of candidate statements in the top graphic were taken from survey responses only.

Additional work by June Kim.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump renews bridge, power plant threat against Iran in push for deal, mocks ‘tough guy’ IRGC

Published

on

Trump renews bridge, power plant threat against Iran in push for deal, mocks ‘tough guy’ IRGC

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump mocked the Islamic Revolutionary Guard on Sunday morning for staking claim to a Strait of Hormuz “blockade” the U.S. military had already put in place.

“Iran recently announced that they were closing the Strait, which is strange, because our BLOCKADE has already closed it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “They’re helping us without knowing, and they are the ones that lose with the closed passage, $500 Million Dollars a day! The United States loses nothing. 

“In fact, many Ships are headed, right now, to the U.S., Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska, to load up, compliments of the IRGC, always wanting to be ‘the tough guy!’”

Trump declared Saturday’s IRGC fire was “a total violation” of the ceasefire.

Advertisement

“Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement!” his post began.

“Many of them were aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom. That wasn’t nice, was it? My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations.”

Trump remains hopeful about diplomacy, but is not ruling out a return to force, where he once warned about ending “civilation” in Iran as they know it.

“We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” Trump’s stern warning continued. 

“NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! 

Advertisement

“They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!”

Continue Reading

Politics

Ordered free, still locked up: Judges fume as Trump administration holds ICE detainees

Published

on

Ordered free, still locked up: Judges fume as Trump administration holds ICE detainees

Judge Troy Nunley was fed up.

Federal immigration officials had once again flouted his authority by keeping a man locked up in a California City detention center after Nunley ordered him released. When he was finally set free, the man was booted onto the street with no passport, driver’s license or other personal effects. The judge’s demand that the items be returned were met with silence.

And so on Tuesday, Nunley, the chief judge of the Eastern District of California, slapped Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Yu with an official sanction and a $250 fine.

In a scathing order, Nunley laid out why he was compelled to take such a rare step. The fine may have been less than some traffic tickets, but it’s nearly unheard for a judge to formally admonish a government lawyer.

By Yu’s own admission, he was drowning in work. In his order, Nunley recounted the attorney’s claim he’d been assigned more than 300 nearly identical cases in the last three months, all of immigrants in detention who argued they were being held without cause.

Advertisement

Court filings show many California cases involve longtime U.S. residents unexpectedly hauled off to jail after routine check-ins with immigration officials. One was an Afghan who’d helped the American war effort. Another a Cambodian grandmother of eight who fled Pol Pot’s killing fields as a girl nearly 50 years ago.

Until last year, most would have fought deportation on bond after a brief hearing with an immigration judge. Now, their only hope of release is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus — a legal maneuver once typically reserved for death row inmates and suspected terrorists — inundating the country’s busiest federal courts with thousands of emergency suits.

The Trump administration attorney said he was trying to “triage” the situation, but Nunley found he repeatedly failed to comply, leaving people with the right to walk free stuck behind bars.

“The Court is not persuaded,” he wrote, issuing the sanctions.

The order came days after Nunley took the unusual step of announcing a “judicial emergency” in the district, which covers nearly half of California, stretching from the Oregon border to the Mojave Desert in the inland part of the state, including Fresno, Bakersfield and Sacramento.

Advertisement

In the last year, the Eastern District has received more petitions from immigration detainees than almost any other jurisdiction in the United States: More than 2,700 since January, compared to fewer than 500 last year and just 18 in 2024. Similar crises are playing out elsewhere, with federal courts in Minnesota briefly paralyzed amid the Trump administration’s enforcement blitz there last winter.

People detained are seen behind fences at an ICE detention facility in Adelanto, California on July 10, 2025.

(Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

In an interview with The Times, Nunley said dealing with the surge of activity since last summer has been “like being hit over the head with a bat.”

Advertisement

“We’re up all night doing these cases,” he said.

So far this year, the Eastern District’s six active judges have ordered almost people 2,000 freed.

“The majority of the cases that we see are cases where people should not be detained,” Nunley said. “They should be receiving hearings to determine whether or not they are to remain in this country, and until they receive those hearings, they should be free.”

Since last July, the Department of Homeland Security has ordered that all immigrants it arrests are subject to “mandatory detention” — a policy that had previously only applied to those caught at the border.

The change came four days after President Trump signed a spending bill that earmarked $45 billion to expand the federal network of immigrant lockups.

Advertisement

“This has been a sea change in the way the government has read the law,” said My Khanh Ngo, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Almost every judge who has looked at this has agreed these people should get bond, and yet thousands of people are still sitting in detention.”

high school students protest immigration raids

Elizabeth Vega, 15, right, and Darlene Rumualdo, 15, from Torres High School join labor organizers, clergy leaders and immigrant rights groups to protest immigration raids nationwide at La Placita Olvera in downtown Los Angeles on January 23, 2026.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Longtime U.S. residents who might once have fought removal from home — where they can more easily gather evidence to support their case and confer with lawyers — are instead being held indefinitely.

Many have no criminal record. Some have been in the U.S. so long that the countries they came from no longer exist.

Advertisement

“People are locked up in the same facilities as people accused of crimes, people who’ve been convicted of crimes … and then you’re telling people, you have no shot of getting out,” Ngo said. “Detaining people and not giving them the chance to get out of detention is a way of coercing people to give up their claims.”

The habeas process can take weeks or months depending on the judge and the district.

“When the immigration cases dropped on our district, we got hit harder than any other outside West Texas,” Nunley said. “Initially we had more cases than anyone else.”

Today, data compiled by ProPublica and legal activist groups including the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative show almost a quarter of the roughly 30,000 active habeas petitions in the United States are in California courts. Nunley’s own tabulations show half the California cases are in his district, where a perfect storm of stepped-up enforcement, a large population of immigrant workers and a concentration of detention centers produced a flash flood of habeas petitions.

The cases rely on the Constitution’s guarantee of due process before being deprived of life, liberty or property. But according to court filings, in some instances the government has argued “the Fifth Amendment does not apply” to detained immigrants.

Advertisement

DOJ lawyers responding to the bids for freedom now regularly complain they’re being crushed under paperwork.

Judges accustomed to having government lawyers comply with their orders have been left fuming.

In California’s Central District, which includes L.A. and surrounding areas, Judge Sunshine Sykes wrote a fiery decision earlier this year that said the Trump administration is inflicting “terror against noncitizens.”

Sykes is one of several federal judges across the country that have tried to compel the government to resume bond hearings. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that decision in March, leaving the habeas system in place for now. But with challenges or recent decisions across multiple circuits, experts say the fight is fated for the Supreme Court.

“ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land,” a Homeland Security spokesperson said in an email to The Times.

Advertisement
A woman holds a "ICE not welcome here!" sign at a vigil in San Pedro in January.

A woman holds a “ICE not welcome here!” sign at a vigil in San Pedro in January.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The lawyers fighting to free those jailed under the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy say they were not initially equipped for these legal battles because they used to be exceedingly rare.

Most federal judges had only seen a handful of habeas petitions before last summer — then suddenly they had hundreds of requests for urgent relief, according to Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Immigration Clinic.

Reisz said there are efforts to get pro bono law groups trained on how to effectively argue habeas cases, “but it takes a while to get up to speed.”

Advertisement
A Federal agent asks residents to move back at the scene of a shooting

A federal agent asks residents to move back after a shooting during an immigration enforcement operation in Willowbrook on January 21, 2026.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

At the same time, Reisz said, lawyers are pushing judges who oversee the cases to act swiftly, since interminable procedural delays ensure people remain incarcerated.

“Most of the habeas petitions include a motion for temporary restraining orders, and that requires emergency decisions from the courts, which requires the courts to act very fast,” Reisz said.

In California’s federal district courts, the backlog remains thousands deep. Nunley said the system is struggling to keep up with the crush of cases.

Advertisement

“There’s nothing that says that noncitizens should not be entitled to due process,” Nunley said. “These are our people, they reside in our district. They’re entitled to the same due process that you and I are entitled to.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

Published

on

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.

Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.

“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”

RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA

Advertisement

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.

The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.

“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.

The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.

Advertisement

A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.

The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.

TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020.   (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)

Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.

Advertisement

The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.

Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.

The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)

The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending