Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to protesters who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside of the ICE office in Baltimore, Maryland, on Monday,  Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

BALTIMORE — Hundreds of protesters gathered at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Baltimore early Monday for a prayer vigil for the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the Trump administration aims to re-deport to Uganda unless he pleads guilty to Justice Department charges.

As Abrego Garcia arrived for his Monday ICE check-in at the office, he was arrested and detained, one of his immigration lawyers, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, told the crowd. 

The crowd shouted “Shame!”

Sandoval-Moshenberg added that the ICE officials  at the time would not answer questions about where Abrego Garcia would be detained. 

“The only reason that they’ve chosen to take him into detention is to punish him,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said outside the office. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement to States Newsroom that “ICE law enforcement arrested Kilmar Abrego Garcia and are processing him for deportation.”

DHS said that ICE has placed Abrego Garcia in removal proceedings to Uganda, which has agreed to accept deportees from the United States.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys quickly filed a habeas corpus petition suit in a Maryland district court, where Judge Paula Xinis, who also ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garica after his wrongful deportation, has barred immigration officials from removing Abrego Garcia from the United States until 4 p.m. Eastern Wednesday. A habeas corpus petition allows immigrants to challenge their detention.

In a Monday afternoon emergency hearing with Xinis, the attorneys for Abrego Garcia, including Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he was being held in Virginia.

Sandoval-Moshenberg asked Xinis if she could order that Abrego Garcia not be moved from Virginia because he was concerned that Abrego Garcia could be moved. Xinis agreed, saying the order would give Abrego Garcia access to his legal counsel in his criminal case and habeas one.

Sandoval-Moshenberg said Abrego Garcia would accept refugee status that has been offered by Costa Rica’s government, but would not plead guilty to the charges. 

‘I am free and have been reunited with my family’

As Abrego Garcia walked into his ICE check-in with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, he was greeted by cheers from hundreds of protesters. 

In Spanish, Abrego Garcia thanked those who attended.

“I always want you to remember that today, I can say with pride, that I am free and have been reunited with my family,” he said. 

Immigrant rights activists from the advocacy group CASA shielded the family and the attorneys as they entered the field office. 

Over the weekend, attorneys for Abrego Garcia’s criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration is trying to force the Maryland man to plead guilty to human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses. 

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty and was released Friday to await trial in January on charges he took part in a long-running conspiracy to smuggle immigrants without legal status across the United States. 

His attorneys received a letter from ICE that informed them of his pending deportation to Uganda and instructed him to report to the ICE facility in Baltimore for a check-in. 

Sandoval-Moshenberg said that Monday’s check-in with ICE was supposed to be an interview but “clearly that was false.”

Sandoval-Moshenberg said the new lawsuit was filed early Monday in the District Court for the District of Maryland challenging Abrego Garcia’s potential removal to the East African country, or any third country, while his immigration case is pending. 

“The fact that they’re holding Costa Rica as a carrot and using Uganda as a stick to try to coerce him to plead guilty to a crime is such clear evidence that they’re weaponizing the immigration system in a matter that is completely unconstitutional,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. 

Trump mass deportations in spotlight

The Supreme Court in April ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, who was unlawfully deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, his home country.  An immigration judge had granted him removal protections in 2019 because it was likely he would face violence if returned. 

The case has put the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation tactics in the national spotlight as well as the White House’s clash with the judicial branch as the president aims to carry out his plans of mass deportation. 

On Friday, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys moved to dismiss the case against him because of the coordination from Homeland Security and the Justice Department to force a guilty plea from him. 

“There can be only one interpretation of these events,” the lawyers wrote. “The (Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security) and ICE are using their collective powers to force Mr. Abrego (Garcia) to choose between a guilty plea followed by relative safety, or rendition to Uganda, where his safety and liberty would be under threat.”

Another judge in Maryland had earlier ruled that ICE must give Abrego Garcia 72 hours of notice before removing him to a third country.  

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia while he was detained there, criticized the move by the Trump administration to re-deport him to Uganda. 

“The federal courts and public outcry forced the Administration to bring Ábrego García back to Maryland, but Trump’s cronies continue to lie about the facts in his case and they are engaged in a malicious abuse of power as they threaten to deport him to Uganda – to block his chance to defend himself against the new charges they brought,” he said in a Sunday statement. “As I told Kilmar and his wife Jennifer, we will stay in this fight for justice and due process because if his rights are denied, the rights of everyone else are put at risk.”

Maryland Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the district where Abrego Garcia’s family lives, attended Monday’s rally. He slammed the Trump administration for moving to again deport Abrego Garcia.

“This started with a mistake,” he said. “They knew it was illegal. Instead of acknowledging it and bringing him back, they said, ‘We can’t bring him back.’ They lied.”

The Trump administration repeatedly stated in court that because Abrego Garica was in El Salvador, he was no longer in U.S. custody and could not be brought back despite court orders.

Wrongly deported in March

Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported in March and returned to the U.S. in June to face the charges filed by the Justice Department in May.

While Abrego Garica was at the notorious prison in El Salvador known as El Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, he detailed how he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

Because of his 2019 deportation protections, the Trump administration either had to challenge the withholding of removal or deport Abrego Garcia to a third country that would accept him. 

His attorneys in the Tennessee case attached the agreement with the government of Costa Rica to accept Abrego Garcia’s removal in Saturday court filings. 

“The Government of Costa Rica intends to provide refugee status or residency to Mr. Abrego Garcia upon his transfer to Costa Rica,” according to the agreement. “The Government of Costa Rica assures the Government of the United States of America that, consistent with that lawful immigration status and Costa Rican law, it does not intend to detain Mr. Abrego Garcia upon his arrival in Costa Rica.”

In that filing, the Trump administration late Thursday agreed to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica if he remained in custody until Monday, pleaded guilty to the DOJ charges and served the sentence imposed.

Selah Torralba, an advocacy manager for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, said at Monday’s rally outside the ICE facility that she pushed for Abrego Garcia’s release while he was detained in Tennessee.

“After spending close to three months brutalized in a place that he should never have been sent to begin with, and another three months imprisoned in a state that is not his own, Kilmar was joyfully reunited with his family and children this weekend,” she said. “But it is impossible to celebrate that joy without acknowledging the cruel reality that our communities have known for far too long.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Nashville press conference on July 18, 2025.  An appeals court on Aug. 21, 2025, said it will allow Noem and the Trump administration, for now, to move forward with ending temporary protections for 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — An appeals court late Wednesday said it will allow the Trump administration, for now, to move forward with ending temporary protections for 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua.

It means that Nepali immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, will lose their legal status – including work permits and deportation protections – immediately. Honduran and Nicaraguan holders will lose their status by Sept. 8.

The judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — Michael Daly Hawkins, Consuelo M. Callahan and Eric D. Miller — did not give a reason for their decision. Former President Bill Clinton nominated Hawkins, former President George W. Bush nominated Callahan and President Donald Trump nominated Miller in his first term.

Wednesday’s decision pauses a late July ruling from California District Judge Trina Thompson that found Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to end deportation protections for those nationals to be rooted in racism.

Instead, Thompson extended TPS for nationals from Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua until Nov. 18 while the case proceeded through the courts.

“The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek,” Thompson wrote in her 37-page ruling. “Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees.”

As the Trump administration aims to carry out its plans of mass deportation of immigrants in the country without legal authorization, DHS has also moved to end the temporary legal status many immigrants have held.

Noem has acted to halt TPS for nationals from Haiti and Venezuela and end humanitarian protections for those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Supreme Court has allowed, for now, many of those moves by the Trump administration.

DHS praises decision

DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement called the decision from the appeals court a victory for the Trump administration.

“TPS was never meant to be a de facto asylum system, yet that is how previous administrations have used it for decades while allowing hundreds of thousands of foreigners into the country without proper vetting,” McLaughlin said. “This unanimous decision will help restore integrity to our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe.”

Certain nationals are granted TPS because their home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to war, disaster or other unstable conditions.

Immigrants who are granted TPS go through vetting by DHS, including a background check, and have to re-apply roughly every 18 months to keep work permits and have deportation protections. A misdemeanor could result in the loss of TPS status for an immigrant. 

‘Fear and uncertainty’

“I am heartbroken by the court’s decision,” Sandhya Lama, a TPS holder from Nepal who is a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.

“I’ve lived in the U.S. for years, and my kids are U.S. citizens and have never even been to Nepal. This ruling leaves us and thousands of other TPS families in fear and uncertainty,” Lama continued.

Many immigrants are on TPS for lengthy periods due to their home country’s condition. Those from Nepal had TPS for more than 10 years and those nationals from Honduras and Nicaragua were on TPS for more than 26 years, attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is one of the groups that filed the suit, said.

“This administration’s attack on TPS is part of a concerted campaign to deprive noncitizens of any legal status,” Emi MacLean, an attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California said in a statement. “(Wednesday’s) ruling is a devastating setback, but it is not the end of this fight. Humanitarian protection–TPS–means something and cannot be decimated so easily.”

Organizations that filed the suit include the ACLU Foundations of Northern California and Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law and the Haitian Bridge Alliance. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivers remarks at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on June 10, 2025. (Daniel Torok/The White House)

This story was originally reported by Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta and Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mariel, Grace and Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

“In my ideal society, we would vote as households,” a pastor tells CNN. “And I would ordinarily be the one that would cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household.”

Another agrees, saying he’d back an end to a woman’s right to vote: “I would support that, and I’d support it on the basis that the atomization that comes with our current system is not good for humans.”

The discussion of 19th Amendment rights was part of a news segment focused on Doug Wilson — a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist pastor based in Idaho — that was reposted to X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The secretary is among Wilson’s supporters, and his involvement with Wilson’s denomination highlights how a fringe conservative evangelical Christian belief system that questions women’s right to vote is gaining more traction in the Republican Party.

Kristin Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and author of “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation,” said Wilson’s broader vision of Christian nationalism has gotten more attention over the past several years, alongside President Donald Trump’s rise to power.

“He was a fairly fringe figure, but this moment was really his moment,” she said. “And then as part of that, also, I think he signaled and gave permission to others that they didn’t need to hide some of their more controversial views, such as, should women have the vote? And that’s something that you didn’t hear proudly promoted from very many spaces, even just a handful of years ago.”

In the CNN interview, Wilson said he’d like to see the United States become a Christian and patriarchal country. He advocates for a society where sodomy is criminalized and women submit to their husbands and shouldn’t serve in combat roles in the military — a belief Hegseth has also publicly shared in the past though walked back during his confirmation hearings.

Hegseth appeared to support the nearly seven-minute interview with the caption, “All of Christ for All of Life.” Wilson has built an evangelical empire over the past 50 years that is centered in Moscow, Idaho, and now spans more than 150 congregations across four continents — including a new church in Washington, D.C. In July, Hegseth and his family attended the inaugural service at Christ Church, according to CNN.

“The Secretary is a proud member of a church affiliated with the Congregation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which was founded by Pastor Doug Wilson,” Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to The 19th. “The Secretary very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.”

Du Mez said Wilson built his brand as a vocal critic of mainstream evangelicalism.

“They were too wishy washy,” Du Mez said, referring to Wilson’s view of much of White evangelicalism in the 1990s and early 2000s. “They were too soft. And so he was kind of bringing a harsher biblical truth, and that included things like a much more rigid application of biblical patriarchy. ”

In 2024, only 1 in 10 Americans qualified as Christian nationalism adherents, according to the Public Religion Research Institute.

Ryan Dawkins, an assistant professor of political science at Carleton College, said Christian nationalism hasn’t necessarily gotten more popular in the past 20 years. But there have been   partisan trends.

“While they used to be more evenly divided between the two parties, over the last two decades, Christian nationalists have sorted into the Republican Party at incredibly high rates,” Dawkins said. “Christian nationalism is almost non-existent within the Democratic Party today, at least among White Democrats.”

While it’s still far from a mainstream opinion, several figures within the Republican Party have flirted with the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment.

Paul Ingrassia, who Trump nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel, suggested approval for the idea in a 2023 podcast. Podcast host Alan Jacoby told Ingrassia that his own wife is the “biggest misogynist this side of the Mississippi, by the way. My wife literally thinks women should not vote.”

Ingrassia responded, “She’s very based,” a term expressing support for a bold opinion.

During the 2020 Republican National Convention, Republicans featured anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson, who has advocated for a new kind of voting system where households, not individuals, would cast votes. Head-of-household voting has historically disenfranchised women and people of color by concentrating power on the male leaders of the home.

In the leadup to the 2016 presidential election, FiveThirtyEight, a political forecasting site, shared data that suggested if women didn’t vote, Trump would win. The hashtag #repealthe19th — a reference to the 19th Amendment, which grants women the right to vote — quickly went viral.

And a former Trump-backed Michigan candidate for the U.S. House who has also held positions in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was found to have made statements criticizing women’s suffrage while in college at Stanford University in the early 2000s. John Gibbs, now an assistant secretary at the agency, said that the country had been damaged by the 19th Amendment because women’s suffrage had led to an increase in the size and scope of the government. He added that women making up half of the population wasn’t enough reason for women’s suffrage. Gibbs’ 2022 congressional campaign denied he opposed women’s right to vote.

Kelly Marino, associate teaching professor at Sacred Heart University and author of “Votes for College Women: Alumni, Students and the Woman Suffrage Campaign” said that while conservative religious sects adamantly opposed to women’s suffrage have always existed, now there is renewed momentum.

“If you look at the way things played out in the past, we have this very liberal period followed by a conservative backlash,” Marino said. “And that’s what’s going on now. You have this period of liberalism where people were having a more expansive view of gender ideology, ideas about sexuality and women in politics. We had some pretty prominent female politicians that were making it pretty far in the last couple of years. And now there’s a backlash.”

Marino said the conservative backlash is reminiscent of the 1960s and 70s. There were significant progressive movements for civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights and environmental protections. But at the same time, the early 1970s saw the emergence of the men’s liberation movement, which focused primarily on issues like divorce law and child custody.

“There’s some men who are promoting a sort of return to tradition, a patriarchal vision for society,” Marino said. “It’s always sort of there, but it’s gaining traction within mainstream consciousness again. And now, you have all this stuff about soft girls and tradwives — this gender ideal of women being the domestic homemaker within a traditional family structure. There’s been a big push for this radical Christianity and some of its values — it’s become really popular even among younger people.”

Joseph Slaughter, an assistant professor of history at Wesleyan University, said Wilson is having his moment in the spotlight — but it’s important to remember that he does not speak for the majority.

“He delights in upsetting people or saying transgressive, un-PC things,” Slaughter said. “Ten years ago, when he posted a video talking about man’s biblical duties — people just sort of yawned and dismissed him. Now, he’s saying things and they’re gaining more currency because of some of this other new right-wing masculinity and the online manosphere.”

Slaughter said it’s particularly concerning that Wilson’s teachings have found their support in a man as powerful as Hegseth.

“What does it mean for somebody who’s running an organization which has had its struggles over the years integrating women and trying to understand existential questions about women’s role in combat?” Slaughter said. “Are Hegseth’s views reinforced by his religion now? Does this church reinforce his cultural chauvinism? For somebody in his position, it’s certainly fair game to ask.”

Multiple ambulances and police vehicles respond to a shooting at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Mich., in June. Homicides fell 17% in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period in 2024, according to the Council on Criminal Justice’s latest crime trends report. (Photo by Emily Elconin/Getty Images)

Amid recent political rhetoric about rising crime and violence in American cities, a new analysis shows that violent crime has continued to decline this year.

Homicides and several other serious offenses, including gun assaults and carjackings, dropped during the first half of 2025 across 42 U.S. cities, continuing a downward trend that began in 2022, according to a new crime trends report released Thursday by the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice.

Homicides fell 17% in the first half of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024, among the 30 cities that reported homicide data, according to the report.

During that same period, five cities saw increases in homicide — ranging from 6% in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to 39% in Little Rock, Arkansas.

While the report’s authors say the continued drop in violent crime — especially homicides — is encouraging, they note that much of the decline stems from a few major cities with historically high rates, such as Baltimore and St. Louis.

More than half of the cities studied have higher homicide rates than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, though, the analysis found that there were 14% fewer homicides during the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2019.

The authors say more research is needed before crediting any specific policy or practice for the continued drop in violent crime.

The group’s findings come as President Donald Trump continues to amplify concerns about crime, at times citing misleading statistics and narratives.

In a Truth Social post earlier this week, Trump claimed that cashless bail — a practice that allows people charged with a crime to be released pretrial without paying money, unless a judge deems them a threat to public safety — were fueling a national crime surge and endangering law enforcement.

He wrote: “Crime in American Cities started to significantly rise when they went to CASHLESS BAIL. The WORST criminals are flooding our streets and endangering even our great law enforcement officers. It is a complete disaster, and must be ended, IMMEDIATELY!”

Some research suggests that setting money bail isn’t effective in ensuring court appearances or improving public safety. Opponents of ending cash bail often raise concerns that released suspects might commit new, potentially more serious crimes. While that is possible in individual cases, studies show that eliminating cash bail does not lead to a widespread increase in crime.

The Truth Social post also marked a sharp shift from Trump’s remarks during a June roundtable with the Fraternal Order of Police, where he claimed the national murder rate had “plummeted by 28%” since he took office — a figure that overstates the decline and overlooks the fact that murder rates began falling well before he returned to office.

According to data consulting firm AH Datalytics, which manages the Real-Time Crime Index — a free tool that collects crime data from more than 400 law enforcement agencies nationwide — the number of homicides between January and May 2025 was 20.3% lower than the same period in 2024.

Similarly, data released in May by the Major Cities Chiefs Association showed that homicides fell roughly 20% in the first quarter of 2025 compared with the first three months of the prior year. The group’s data is based on a survey of 68 major metropolitan police departments nationwide.

Researchers at the Council on Criminal Justice note in their report that it’s difficult to pinpoint a single reason for the drop in homicides, but they note that fewer people appear to be exposed to high-risk situations, such as robberies.

Most major crimes fell in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period last year, according to the council’s report.

Motor vehicle thefts dropped by 25%, while reported gun assaults fell 21%. Robberies, residential and non-residential burglaries, shoplifting, and aggravated and sexual assaults also saw double-digit declines

Drug offenses held steady, while domestic violence reports rose slightly — by about 3%. Carjackings declined 24% and larcenies were down 5%.

Compared with the first half of 2019, before the pandemic and nationwide reckoning over racial justice and policing, overall homicides are down 14%, robberies by 30%, and sexual assaults by 28%.

Still, more than 60% of the cities in the council’s study sample report homicide rates that remain above 2019 levels.

Motor vehicle theft remains the only crime tracked in the report that is still elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels — up 25% since 2019 — although it has declined sharply since 2023.

The council also released another analysis on the lethality of violent crime, showing that while violent incidents have decreased, the share of violence that ends in death has increased significantly. In 1994, there were 2 homicides per 1,000 assaults and about 16 per 1,000 robberies. By 2020, those figures rose to 7.2 and 55.8, respectively.

Stateline reporter Amanda Hernández can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

People listen to a sermon before being admitted to lunch at the Hope Center, which assists homeless and addicted residents in Hagerstown, Md. Experts say Medicaid cuts will exacerbate rural communities’ access to mental health care. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Across the nation, Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health care, and in rural America, residents disproportionately rely on the public insurance program.

But Medicaid cuts in the massive tax and spending bill signed into law earlier this month will worsen mental health disparities in those communities, experts say, as patients lose coverage and rural health centers are unable to remain open amid a loss of funds.

“The context to begin with is, even with no Medicaid cuts, the access to mental health services in rural communities is spotty at best, just very spotty at best — and in many communities, there’s literally no care,” said Ron Manderscheid, former executive director of the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors.

Cuts over the next 10 years could force low-income rural families to pay for mental health care out of pocket on top of driving farther for care, experts say. Many will simply forgo care for depression, bipolar disorder and other illnesses that need consistent treatment.

“Not only do you have very few services available, but you don’t have the resources to pay for the services,” Manderscheid said. “That makes the problem even worse.”

Rural communities are already at higher risk of suicide, with rates almost doubling over the past two decades. Already, rural communities are grappling with a shortage in mental health professionals, making them more vulnerable to losses compared with more urban areas, experts say.

Paul Mackie, assistant director of the Center for Rural Behavioral Health at Minnesota State University, Mankato, studies rural mental health workforce shortages.

“If it [coverage] goes away, what would then be the person’s next option if they already don’t have the resources?” said Mackie, who grew up on a rural Michigan dairy farm. “You can have a rural psychologist or a rural clinical social worker working under a shingle, literally alone.”

Small rural hospitals often provide critical behavioral health care access, he said. One analysis found the cuts next year would leave 380 rural hospitals at risk of shutting down.

States such as Mackie’s Minnesota, which expanded Medicaid eligibility under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, would suffer significant slashes in federal matches as a result of President Donald Trump’s signature legislation. The law, which includes tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, cuts the federal government’s 90% matching rate for enrollees covered under expansion to anywhere from 50% to 74%.

States will have to redetermine eligibility twice a year on millions enrolled under Medicaid expansion. Some Medicaid recipients also will have to prove work history. The new law creates work requirement exceptions for those with severe medical conditions — including mental disorders and substance use — but experts say proving those conditions may be convoluted. The exact qualifications and diagnoses for the exceptions haven’t been spelled out, according to a report by KFF, a health policy research organization.

“You can’t work when your mental illness is not treated,” said Dr. Heidi Alvey, an emergency and critical care medicine physician in Indiana. “It’s so counter to the reality of the situation.”

Alvey worked seven years at Baylor Scott & White Health’s hospital in Temple, Texas. As nearby rural critical access hospitals and other mental health centers shut down, the hospital became the only access point for people hours away, she said.

“People who just had absolutely no access to care were coming hours in to see us,” she said. Many had serious untreated mental health conditions, she said, and had to wait days or weeks in the emergency department until a care facility had an open bed.

She’s concerned that Medicaid cuts will only make those problems worse.

Jamie Freeny, director of the Center for School Behavioral Health at advocacy group Mental Health America of Greater Houston, worries for the rural families her center serves. The organization works with school districts across the state, including those in rural communities. Nearly 40% of the state’s more than 1,200 school districts are classified as rural.

She remembers one child whose family had to drive to another county for behavioral health. The family lost coverage during the Medicaid unwinding, as pandemic provisions for automatic re-reenrollment expired. The child stopped taking mental health medication and ended up dropping out of school.

“The child wasn’t getting the medicine that they needed, because their family couldn’t afford it,” Freeny said. “The catalyst for that was a lack of Medicaid. That’s just one family.

“Now, you’re multiplying that.”

Family medicine physician Dr. Ian Bennett sees Medicaid patients at the Vallejo Family Health Services Center of Solano County in California’s Bay Area. The community health clinic serves patients from across the area’s rural farm communities and combines primary care with mental health care services, Bennett said.

“When our patients lose Medicaid, which we expect that they will, then we’ll have to continue to take them, and that will be quite a strain on the finances of that system,” Bennett said. The center could even close, he said.

“The folks who are having the most difficulty managing their lives — and that’s made worse by having depression or substance use disorder — are going to be the folks most likely to drop off,” said Bennett, a University of Washington mental health services researcher. “The impacts down the road are clearly going to be much worse for society as we have less people able to function.”

The psychiatric care landscape across Michigan’s rural western lower peninsula is already scarce, said Joseph “Chip” Johnston. He’s the executive director of the Centra Wellness Network, a publicly funded community mental health care provider for Manistee and Benzie counties. The network serves Medicaid and uninsured patients from high-poverty communities.

“I used to have psychiatric units close by as an adjunct to my service,” he said. “And they’ve all closed. So, now the closest [psychiatric bed] for a child, for example, is at least two hours away.”

Those facilities are also expensive. A one-night stay in an inpatient psychiatric facility can be anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 a night, he said.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Federal agents block people protesting an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid at a nearby licensed cannabis farm in Ventura County, California, on July 10, 2025. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A group of U.S. House Democrats on Tuesday blasted President Donald Trump’s administration for what they called “cruelty” and “lawlessness” in carrying out mass deportations of migrants without legal status.

At a forum at the U.S. Capitol, Democrats who sit on the House Homeland Security Committee and others rebuked the administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown and its impact on communities, bringing in prominent voices from immigration and legal advocacy groups and a U.S. Marine veteran who said his father was beaten by federal immigration officers.

Rep. Delia Ramirez, an Illinois Democrat, slammed the Department of Homeland Security, calling the agency “unaccountable.”

“They continue to break the law and bypass congressional authority to conceal the ways in which they are abusing (the) power of DHS to violate our rights, undermine due process and tear our communities apart,” she said.

“Under the Trump administration, DHS is an out-of-control, abusive terror force that disregards law, rejects accountability and tramples on the very foundations of our Constitution,” Ramirez added.

Rep. Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat and committee member, said “like many Americans, I’m deeply troubled by the cruel and profoundly un-American mass deportation agenda being undertaken by Donald Trump and his allies.”

“These harsh policies are not about public safety or border security — we have seen children torn from their parents, a flagrant disregard for basic due process protections and individuals targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said.

“Congress must uphold the rights of all people in the United States. We need immigration policy rooted in dignity, fairness and due process, not cruelty and authoritarianism.”

$170B for immigration enforcement

The forum came less than three weeks after Trump signed a massive tax and spending cut bill into law that provides roughly $170 billion for immigration and border enforcement.

NPR reported Monday that DHS is preparing to use military bases in New Jersey and Indiana to detain immigrants who unlawfully entered the United States.

“What is happening right now is just plain wrong,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said. “We’re all for immigration enforcement and smart border security, but the targeting of innocent people who are just trying to work hard and make a living, the targeting of the elderly, of the sick, of U.S. citizens, of students by an anonymous army of masked men is not who we are as a country.”

‘Violently attacked and detained’

Alejandro Barranco, a Marine veteran, said his father, an immigrant who does not have legal status, was “violently attacked and detained by federal immigration agents” in Orange County, California.

Barranco said his father, a landscaper, was working in June when masked men approached and quickly surrounded him and did not identify themselves or present any warrant.

He said his father was terrified and ran.

“They chased him through the parking lot and into a crowded street,” Barranco said. “They pointed guns at him, pepper-sprayed him. They tackled him to the ground and kicked him. They restrained and handcuffed him. They dragged him into an unmarked vehicle and pushed him into the back seat. As many have already seen, while several agents were holding him down, another beat him repeatedly in the neck and head area, over and over and over again.”

Barranco depicted the brutal conditions his father endured while in federal custody and said it’s been a nightmare for his family since his father was detained.

Barranco said that while his father was eventually released on bond, “the trauma that day and the brokenness of this system remains in our hearts, and we are still under a cloud.”

Masked agents

The Trump administration also faced scrutiny from the panel over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wearing masks during immigration raids. 

Jesse Franzblau, associate director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said ICE agents wearing masks with no identifying information is not proper, but “quite dangerous” and “puts everyone further at risk.”

“I mean, we’ve seen people impersonating ICE, wearing masks and saying that they’re ICE and then carrying out abuses against other people,” Franzblau said, adding that “it puts communities at more risk when you have masked agents, federal agents that should be identifying themselves, going into communities and carrying out sweeping operations like this.”

DHS response

In a statement shared with States Newsroom on Wednesday, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the department, said: “How many Americans have to die because of illegal immigration for Democrats to give a damn about actual American citizens?”

“Democrat politicians should stop defending criminal illegal aliens and exploiting law enforcement for their 15 minutes of fame and start working with President Trump and (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kristi) Noem to keep Americans safe.”

In a Tuesday press release, the department defended ICE, saying the agency has targeted the “worst of the worst” during immigration arrests.

To mark six months since Trump took office on Sunday, the department touted a long list of its actions, including on immigration enforcement and border security.

The agency described the list as “victories” in Trump’s and Noem’s “mission to secure the homeland and Make America Safe Again,” including record low numbers of illegal border crossings.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to once again publish details about the pace at which it plans to spend money approved by Congress.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in his ruling that Congress “has sweeping authority” to require the president to post a website detailing how it doles out taxpayer dollars throughout the year.

“As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” he wrote. “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

The ruling won’t take effect until Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern, giving the Trump administration time to appeal and to seek the ruling be put on hold during the appeals process.

Sullivan was appointed to the federal district court by President Bill Clinton but was selected for two prior judicial appointments by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.

Website pulled down

More than two years ago, Congress began requiring the White House budget office to publicly post apportionment information and the Biden administration took that step, though Trump officials pulled down the website in March.

That decision led to two separate lawsuits, one from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and another from the Protect Democracy Project.

Apportionments are the first step the executive branch takes when spending money appropriated by Congress. The documents and their footnotes usually detail how quickly, or how slowly, departments and agencies plan to send money out the door throughout the fiscal year.

The documents and the public website would have been a window into whether the Trump administration was impounding, or refusing to spend, funding that lawmakers have said it should allocate on behalf of taxpayers.

Trump administration protested provision

An attorney for the Department of Justice argued during a May hearing the Trump administration believes the provision is unconstitutional and seeks to micromanage how the executive branch spends federal funds throughout the year.

The DOJ lawyer also said posting the information within two business days, as called for in the law, would require the White House budget office to divert staff from other work.

Lawyers for CREW and Protect Democracy Project told the judge the White House was in clear violation of the law and that the data is valuable information that helps the organizations monitor if a president were to cease spending on programs funded by Congress.

The watchdog organization attorneys noted during that hearing the Government Accountability Office is looking into dozens of instances where the administration held onto congressionally approved funding instead of spending it.

They said the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, wasn’t a helpful alternative to the website since it can take months or years for organizations to get a response to their request.

Public’s right to see decisions

Sullivan wrote in the 60-page ruling the Trump administration “complaining about the extra work” that goes along with posting the information on a public website represents “a management issue; not a constitutional one.”

“Here, Congress has determined that OMB’s apportionment decisions should be publicly available so that, among other things, it and the public can see whether they are consistent with congressional appropriations,” Sullivan wrote, adding the website aids Congress with “its undisputed oversight role.”

“The Acts do not dictate how OMB should apportion funds, nor do they establish a congressional management role in the administration of apportionments,” Sullivan wrote. “The Acts merely require that the final apportionment decisions be made publicly available to provide transparency to Congress and the public.”

Sullivan rejected an argument from the Trump administration that publicly sharing details about the pace at which it’s spending taxpayer dollars was unconstitutional because it required “the disclosure of privileged information.”

“There is no evidence in the record remotely supporting the notion that the apportionment documents are presidential communications or are in any way subject to the presidential communications privilege,” Sullivan wrote. “Accordingly, the Court rejects this constitutional claim.”

Advocates applaud ruling

Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy Project, wrote in a statement the judge’s ruling “makes clear that the executive branch cannot simply ignore appropriations laws they disagree with on policy grounds, no matter what President (Donald) Trump or OMB Director Russell Vought thinks.

“Congress passed a law making sure the American public could see how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, and we will continue to hold the administration accountable for making good on that promise.”

Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, wrote in a separate statement that the organization applauds “the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, which reaffirms Congress’s constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

“Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent. Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch’s abuse and misuse of federal funds.”

Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a statement the administration strongly disagrees with the ruling.

“This leftist, anti-Trump judge undermines the President’s ability to effectively manage his agencies,” Cauley wrote. “Moreover, these progressive dark money groups have zero standing to claim injury for not having access to this privileged internal information.”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment about the ruling or whether the administration would appeal to the Circuit Court.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement that “the law is clear as day: every president is required to show the public how they are spending taxpayer dollars, and it is past time President Trump and Russ Vought get the website they illegally ripped down back up.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, didn’t immediately return a request for comment. 

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration confirmed Friday that it’s releasing funds that support before- and after-school programs as well as summer programs, a portion of the $6.8 billion in withheld funds for K-12 schools that were supposed to be sent out two weeks ago.

The administration has faced bipartisan backlash over its decision to freeze billions of dollars that also go toward migrant education, English-language learning, adult education and literacy programs, among other initiatives. Those other funds apparently remained stalled on Friday, and Democrats, a key Republican appropriator and school leaders called for them to be released as well.

The funds that will be released total $1.3 billion, according to Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and are intended for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative.

The Education Department says the program “supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools.”

A senior administration official said the programmatic review for 21st Century Community Learning Centers has concluded and funds “will be released to the states.”

“Guardrails have been put in place to ensure these funds are not used in violation of Executive Orders,” the official added. 

Pressure from GOP senators

The announcement came after 10 Republican senators sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on July 16 urging him to release the $6.8 billion in funds to states.

West Virginia GOP Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who led the letter, said in a statement Friday that “21st Century Community Learning Centers offer important services that many West Virginians rely on.”

“This program supports states in providing quality after-school and summer learning programs for students while enabling their parents to work and contribute to local economies,” said Capito, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the broader Senate Appropriations panel, also signed the July 16 letter, along with: Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Jim Justice of West Virginia.

While Collins said in a Friday statement she is glad she and her colleagues were able to work together to “effectively urge the Administration to get these funds released,” she noted that “there is more funding that still needs to be disbursed.”

“I will continue to work to ensure it is delivered swiftly so educators can prepare for the upcoming academic year with certainty and Maine students and families have the resources they need to succeed,” she said.

July 1 notification

The Education Department notified states of the freeze just a day before July 1, when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the school year, saying the funds were under review.

A slew of congressional Democrats and one independent pushed back on the funding freeze.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats urged Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon in two letters dated July 10 to immediately release the funds they say are being withheld “illegally.”

A coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia also sued the administration over the withheld funds.

The rest of the school money

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate spending panel, called on the Trump administration to release the rest of the frozen funds.

“After we spoke up — and after weeks of needless chaos — the Trump administration is now releasing funding for after school programs while continuing to block billions more in funding for our students, teachers, and schools,” Murray said in a statement Friday.

“Every penny of this funding must flow immediately,” she said. “Whether or not parents know the afterschool program they depend on will exist should not depend on whether Republicans will push back against Trump’s lawlessness — he should simply get the funding out, just as the law requires him to do. I am going to keep pushing until every dollar goes.”

David Schuler, executive director of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, expressed similar concerns in a statement Friday.

“While we’re pleased to see crucial dollars going to afterschool programs which are vital for students across the nation, the bottom line is this: Districts should not be in this impossible position where the Administration is denying funds that had already been appropriated to our public schools, by Congress,” said Schuler, whose organization helps to ensure every child has access to a high quality public education.

“The remaining funds must be released immediately — America’s children are counting on it.” 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — House Democrats sent a letter Thursday to the heads of Homeland Security and the State Department seeking more information about the financial agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain more than 200 men at a notorious megaprison.

“Congress has the right and the obligation to conduct oversight over the executive branch and determine what deals our government has struck with a foreign dictator to imprison individuals seized in the United States in an effort to place them beyond the reaches of our court,” according to the letter by California’s Robert Garcia, Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson and New York’s Gregory Meeks.

In March, the Trump administration flew several planes to El Salvador containing 238 men removed either under an 18th-century wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, or because they are immigrants who had final orders of removal and are citizens of El Salvador. The men arrived at the notorious prison known as CECOT.

The letter challenges the Trump administration’s position publicly and in courts that any individuals removed to El Salvador to be detained are no longer in U.S. custody and any court order to facilitate the return of wrongly removed immigrants cannot be fulfilled.

According to court documents filed last week, testimony from Salvadoran officials noted that those individuals removed and detained at CECOT were considered in the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other state,” according to the court document submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

That document was submitted in a court case that relates to the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law, and whether or not officials violated a federal judge’s order to return the planes to the U.S. The planes still landed in El Salvador.

“Court filings last week suggest the Administration misled federal judges, Congress, and the American people about the legal status of individuals the U.S. government has spirited away to El Salvador and who are being held in torture prisons like Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT),” the Democrats wrote. 

The Democrats addressed the letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asking to see the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to accept non-Salvadoran citizens and information on the men detained at CECOT.

“This document indicates that the Department of Justice has misled federal courts in assertions regarding the agreement with El Salvador,” wrote the  Democrats, who sit on House committees on Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform.

$15 million payment to El Salvador

The State Department is paying up to $15 million to house immigrants removed from the U.S. at CECOT, but the agreement has not been made publicly available. Former State Department officials and foreign policy aides have raised concerns that the State Department payments violate a human rights law.

The Leahy Law bars financial assistance to “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations, such as CECOT.

The State Department has denied any wrongdoing.

The Trump administration has resisted court orders to return wrongfully deported men from CECOT, such as in the high-profile deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and a separate case out of Baltimore, Maryland concerning another wrongly deported man sent to the megaprison. Abrego Garcia detailed how he experienced physical and psychological torture while at CECOT.

Noem visited CECOT earlier this year, and said the prison would be one of the Trump administration’s tools amid its aggressive immigration crackdown. 

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, speaks at a rally on Friday, March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C, protesting the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs and President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Department of Education has emerged as central in the struggle over control of the power of the purse in the nation’s capital.

Democrats in Congress are pushing back hard on the Trump administration’s freeze of $6.8 billion in funds for after-school programs and more at public schools, some of which open their doors a few weeks from now. California alone lost access to $939 million and every state is seeing millions of dollars frozen.

At the same time, the Supreme Court on Monday slammed the door on judicial orders that blocked the dismantling of the 45-year-old agency that Congress created and funds.

The nation’s highest court cleared the way for the administration to proceed, for now, with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Department of Education that President Donald Trump ordered earlier this year.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “the majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.”

Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the president “must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.”

“That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers,” she wrote. “Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief.”

Just a day after the Supreme Court’s decision, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters at a Tuesday press conference that while he hasn’t had a chance to digest the Supreme Court’s order, he also knows that “since its creation, the Department of Education has been wielded by the executive branch.”

“I think that was the intent of Congress, as I understood it back then. We have a large say in that, but we’re going to coordinate that with the White House,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“If we see that the separation of powers is being breached in some way, we’ll act, but I haven’t seen that yet,” he added.

Letters from Democrats on frozen funds

Two letters from Senate and House Democrats demanding the administration release the $6.8 billion in federal funds for various education initiatives also depict the Education Department as a key part of the tussle between the executive branch and Congress.

Just a day ahead of the July 1 date when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the coming school year, the department informed states that it would be withholding funding for programs, including before- and after-school programs, migrant education, English-language learning and adult education and literacy, among other initiatives.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought last week asking to immediately unfreeze those dollars they say are being withheld “illegally.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the senators wrote in their letter.

The respective top Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding, Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, led the letter, alongside Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

In the lower chamber, House Democrats wrote that “without these funds, schools are facing difficult and unnecessary decisions on programs for students and teachers.”

“No more excuses — follow the law and release the funding meant for our schools, teachers, and families,” they added.

Georgia’s Rep. Lucy McBath led the letter, along with the respective top Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, its subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education and its panel on higher education and workforce development: Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon and Alma Adams of North Carolina.

Democratic attorneys general, governors file suit

Meanwhile, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Monday over those withheld funds, again arguing that Congress has the power to direct funding.

The states suing include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, both Democrats, also signed onto the suit filed in a Rhode Island federal court.

“Not only does Congress require that Defendants make funds available for obligation to the States, Congress, in conjunction with (Education Department) regulations, also directs the timing of when those funds should be made available,” the coalition wrote.

An analysis earlier in July by New America, a left-leaning think tank, found that the top five school districts with the greatest total funding risk per pupil include those in at least two red states: Montana’s Cleveland Elementary School District, Kester Elementary School District and Grant Elementary School District, along with Oregon’s Yoncalla School District 32 and Texas’ Boles Independent School District.

The think tank notes that program finance data was not available for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin has joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration's action to withhold $6.8 billion for education progams supporting English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. (Photo by Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images)

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined 23 states and the District of Columbia Monday in suing the Trump administration for withholding $6.8 billion meant for six U.S. Department of Education programs, which help support English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. 

The funds, approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025 and signed into law on March 15, are typically distributed to states by July 1. However, the Department of Education notified the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as well as other state education agencies on June 30 that they would be withholding the funds. 

“Depriving our schools of critical resources is bad for our schools, bad for students, and bad for Wisconsin,” Attorney General Josh Kaul said in a statement. “This unlawful funding freeze should be stopped.”

The Wisconsin DPI said in a statement that the federal agency gave no specific explanation for the action. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education said that “decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year” and “accordingly, the Department will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review. The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities.” 

The withholding of funds comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue closing the Department of Education with a plan to lay off more than 1,000 agency employees and resume drastically cutting the agency after getting the greenlight from the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. The Trump administration has also withheld other funds this year, including for grants for mental health in schools. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement about the review of education funding that “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.” 

The multi-state lawsuit argues that the freeze of the $6.8 billion violates federal laws and regulations that authorize and fund the programs, federal laws, including the Antideficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act, that govern the federal budgeting process and the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. 

The coalition of states is requesting that the court provide declaratory relief by finding the freeze is unlawful and offer injunctive relief by requiring the release of the funds. 

Over $72 million is being withheld from Wisconsin. Without the funding, school districts face funding shortfalls for programs that have already been planned, DPI may have to lay off 20 employees and programs at Wisconsin’s technical colleges are in trouble with $7.5 million in adult education grants being withheld.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that Wisconsin schools depend on the federal funding distributed through an array of programs to support students. There are five programs affected: Title I-C, which supports migrant education, Title II-A, which goes towards teacher training and retention, Title III-A, which supports education of English language learners, Title IV-A, which is for student enrichment and after-school programs and Title IV-B, which supports community learning centers.

“Make no mistake, stopping this money has had and will continue to harm our families and communities,” Underly said. 

Wisconsin schools have received funding through these federal programs for decades to help carry out related programs. According to DPI, federal funding makes up about 8% of funding for Wisconsin schools with nearly $850 million coming into the state. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin alongside 31 other U.S. senators penned a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, calling on them to release the money. 

“This delay not only undermines effective state and local planning for using these funds to address student needs consistent with federal education law, which often takes place months before these funds become available, but also flies in the face of the nation’s education laws which confers state and local educational agency discretion on permissible uses of federal formula grant funds,” the senators wrote. “We are shocked by the continued lack of respect for states and local schools evidenced by this latest action by the administration.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the lawmakers said. 

The lawmakers also said the “review” being undertaken by the administration appears to be intentional to delay the funding and will result in budget cuts for schools. They said it is happening “with no public information about what the review entails, what data the administration is examining or a timeline for such review.”

New townhomes are under construction this year in Minnesota. Milwaukee joined two Minnesota counties along with dozens of cities and counties suing over Trump administration threats to tie federal funding for housing and other programs to local policy on immigration enforcement; diversity, equity and inclusion; and abortion. (Photo by Ellen Schmidt/Minnesota Reformer)

Twenty-eight cities and counties including Baltimore, Los Angeles, Milwaukee and Rochester, New York, joined a lawsuit July 10 challenging Trump administration attempts to withhold federal funds because of local policies on immigration enforcement; diversity, equity and inclusion; gender equity; and abortion access.

Funding for housing, transit, health care, civil rights and other essential programs has been threatened by new grant conditions, according to the lawsuit, which now includes 60 cities, counties and other entities.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein issued a restraining order in May against tying unrelated federal funds to ideological conditions, saying the Trump administration was forcing the local governments to “choose between accepting conditions that they believe are unconstitutional, and risking the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant funding.”

The first places to sue in early May were three counties in Washington state, two more in California, plus Boston, Columbus, Ohio, and New York City. Since then, 52 cities, counties and other entities have joined from states including Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Two of the latest to join are Ramsey County and Hennepin County in Minnesota, where Minneapolis and St. Paul and located. Hennepin County has almost $272 million in federal funding for this year for things such as emergency shelter and road projects, all threatened by new grant conditions imposed by the Trump administration, according to the court filing.

“Communities shouldn’t have to lose critical services because of the Trump administration’s political agenda,” said Jill Habig, CEO of Public Rights Project, a nonprofit legal organization doing work in the case. “These federal funding conditions aim to strip billions of dollars from local governments working to help people thrive.”

Lawyers for the Trump administration opposed the injunction, saying the court had no authority to require the federal government to pay local governments grant money.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

A protester holds a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, Maryland — A federal judge at a hearing Monday sought more information on the Trump administration’s plans for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are pressing to have him transferred to Maryland from a Tennessee jail.

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife and family before he was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in March. While there, he said he was tortured, physically and psychologically, by Salvadoran officials, according to court records.

Now he is in custody in Tennessee, where he faces federal criminal charges related to human smuggling. He could be released as soon as July 16, and Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis questioned Department of Justice lawyers about their intentions for him upon his release.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys expressed concern that once he is released, immigration officials would immediately detain the Maryland man and either quickly remove him to a third country or send him back to El Salvador by attempting to remove his earlier deportation protections.

“We do need protection from the government waking up tomorrow and upon Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from criminal custody, (removing him) to somewhere they haven’t identified,” said Andrew J. Rossman, of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn said removing Abrego Garcia to a third country is likely the path forward, but could not confirm or detail which country.

‘Jello to a wall’

Xinis set a Thursday afternoon hearing to obtain testimony from a witness who will be involved in making the decision about what will happen to Abrego Garcia.

“It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to figure out what happens next week,” she said of Abrego Garcia’s potential release on July 16 ahead of his trial.

Xinis said until she’s clear about what steps the Trump administration will take next, she’ll hold off on issuing an order bringing Abrego Garcia back to Maryland.

During the Monday hearing, Xinis also denied the Trump administration’s two requests to dismiss the case.

DOJ lawyers argued that because Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States, the case is now moot. Xinis said the case is not moot because the “status quo” has not been fulfilled — although Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., he is not back in Maryland, but instead is in the custody of U.S. marshals in Tennessee.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia made the same request last month, on an emergency basis to try to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues, but Xinis denied that request as well.

At that time she referred to an answer from DOJ attorney Guynn, who said Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country was not immediate, as part of her reasoning.

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said June 26 of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Rossman during Monday’s hearing also raised concerns that Abrego Garcia, yet again, would not receive proper due process if he is to be removed to a third country. He said Abrego Garcia must be notified where he will be sent and have time to appeal if he fears he will face harm in that country.

Xinis said while that will likely fall under an immigration judge, she does have the authority to have access to the information detailing how the Trump administration is going to remove Abrego Garcia.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. from El Salvador last month to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment by the Trump administration occurred while Abrego Garcia was in prison custody in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During Monday’s hearing, Xinis pressed Department of Justice attorney Bridget O’Hickey on whether the federal charges played a role in the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

“He was not indicted with the purpose of bringing him back,” O’Hickey said.  “He was indicted because he was under investigation.”

Xinis questioned the timing of the investigation, which began on April 21, when Abrego Garcia was in a Salvadoran prison and shortly after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

O’Hickey could not give an answer on when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but she said that he was “under investigation prior.”

Xinis also questioned O’Hickey on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case entirely in May.

On May 27, the Department of Justice told Xinis that nothing could be done to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador and therefore the case should be dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction. But federal charges were filed on May 21.

“Why else would you file an indictment against someone you couldn’t produce?” Xinis asked O’Hickey.

O’Hickey said that negotiations with El Salvador were ongoing and that it was not clear that the indictment would mean Abrego Garcia would be released from El Salvador.

“I am aware that the proceedings were moving in tandem,” she said. 

Prison officers stand guard at a cell block at the Salvadoran mega-prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported in March to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, endured “severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture” while there, his attorneys wrote in a late Wednesday filing.

The filing, an amended complaint to the District Court of Maryland, provides the first disturbing details of what Abrego Garcia experienced at Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

His wrongful deportation has become the most high-profile example of the conflict between the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportations campaign and the judiciary’s call for the due process rights of immigrants.

The allegations of torture also raise questions about the U.S. State Department’s payment to El Salvador of up to $15 million to detain about 300 immigrant men at CECOT, a possible violation of the human rights law known as the Leahy Law.

The law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — such as military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

Hit with batons, forced to kneel for hours

When Abrego Garcia first arrived to CECOT, he was told by a prison official, “Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn’t leave,” according to the filing from lawyers with Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia was later kicked, hit with wooden batons and beaten by Salvadoran guards on his first day at CECOT on March 15, according to the new filing.

“By the following day, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia had visible bruises and lumps all over his body,” according to the complaint.

While in a cell, Abrego Garcia and 20 other incarcerated Salvadorans were forced to kneel from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and guards would strike “anyone who fell from exhaustion,” according to the filing. During that time, Abrego Garcia was denied access to a bathroom and soiled himself.

“The detainees were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in an overcrowded cell with no windows, bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation,” according to the complaint.

At CECOT, the guards would threaten to put Abrego Garcia in cells with gang members “who, they assured him, would ‘tear’  him apart,” according to the filing. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have denied he is a gang member.

During his first two weeks at CECOT, Abrego Garcia’s health deteriorated, and he lost 31 pounds, his attorneys said.

Transfers to two more facilities

On April 9, Abrego Garcia and four others were transferred to a different sector in CECOT, “where they were photographed with mattresses and better food—photos that appeared to be staged to document improved conditions,” according to his attorneys.

Around April 10, he was later transferred alone to a separate prison facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador. On April 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia — who had deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador since 2019.

But for months, the Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador, and the United States could not force El Salvador to return him.

At the new location, Abrego Garcia “was frequently hidden from visitors, being told to remain in a separate room whenever outside visitors came to the facility,” according to the filing.

“During his entire time in detention in El Salvador, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied any communication with his family and access to counsel until Senator (Chris) Van Hollen visited him on April 17, 2025,” according to the brief.

The Maryland Democrat traveled to El Salvador in an effort to bring back Abrego Garcia, who is a longtime Maryland resident.

Criminal charges

While Abrego Garica was returned to the U.S. last month, it was to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee while he was detained in El Salvador. His attorneys have denied the charges of human smuggling and say they are nothing more than the Trump administration trying to save face.

Abrego Garcia’s criminal case is being handled out of a Tennessee court and he’s being kept in jail due to fears Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will deport him.

Department of Justice attorneys stated in the District Court of Maryland last week that the Trump administration plans to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country, but said the move was not immediate.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia are trying to move forward with discovery to determine if the Trump administration flouted the district court’s order and the Supreme Court’s order in refusing to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after the Trump administration admitted his deportation was a mistake.

“Defendants’ disdain for the law and legal process, and their cruelty, shocks the conscience and demands immediate, sustained, judicial relief and oversight,” according to the complaint. “It also marks a profound constitutional crisis in which executive agencies have repeatedly and deliberately flouted the authority of multiple federal courts—including the Supreme Court itself.”

“This defiance undermines the foundational principles of our constitutional system by eroding the checks and balances and rule of law that protect individual liberty from government overreach,” the attorneys continued. 

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by ICE agents. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

This report has been updated.

GREENBELT, Maryland — The Trump administration plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country once he is released from federal custody, a Department of Justice attorney disclosed during a Thursday emergency court hearing.

Attorneys for the unlawfully deported Abrego Garcia had made an emergency request Thursday to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues.

The move by the lawyers followed earlier public statements from Trump administration officials that they would deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador upon his release from a Tennessee federal court as soon as Friday. But Thursday, plans appeared to have shifted to deportation somewhere else.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn, under questioning by District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis, said the Trump administration planned to deport Abrego Garcia, and “to a third country is my understanding.”

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Xinis declined the request to return him to Maryland, arguing that Abrego Garcia has not been released and that she’s not clear if she has the jurisdiction to fulfill such a request.

She added that Guynn said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security does not have “imminent plans” to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country, while holding out that possibility.

The Supreme Court this week, ruled that it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to continue carrying out deportations to third countries, after a Massachusetts judge barred removals without proper notice. In such cases, immigrants are deported to countries that are not their native countries and may be far from them.

Jonathan Cooper, a partner of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case, tried to ask Xinis if she would require the Trump administration to notify Cooper and his team before deporting him to a third country.

“We have concerns that the government may try to move Mr. Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend,” Cooper said.

Xinis said she would not because Guynn said that the Trump administration had no “imminent plans” to remove Abrego Garcia.

Cooper laid out the same concerns in the written emergency request to Xinis Thursday.

“The Government’s public statements leave little doubt about its plan: remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador once more,” according to the complaint written by attorneys from Quinn Emmanuel.

“If this Court does not act swiftly, then the Government is likely to whisk Abrego Garcia away to some place far from Maryland,” it says.

Federal prosecutors in Tennessee court have said that should Abrego Garcia be released, he would be immediately arrested by ICE agents and could face deportation back to El Salvador, despite having protections from such removal since 2019.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned from El Salvador earlier this month to the United States to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment occurred while Abrego Garcia was housed in a Salvadoran prison.

The human smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee when police pulled Abrego Garcia over for speeding. Eight other men were in the car, but neither Abrego Garcia nor the passengers were arrested.

DHS opened an investigation into the three-year-old stop and Attorney General Pam Bondi held a press conference on the day Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. to face federal charges.

She argued that the traffic stop was part of a years-long human smuggling scheme where Abrego Garcia was paid by members of the MS-13 gang to transport migrants who entered the country without legal authorization to destinations across the country.

His attorneys have denied the charges and Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty in federal court in Nashville.

Stephen Miller, the chief architect of many of the president’s immigration policies and a senior White House adviser, has written on social media that Abrego Garcia would be deported back to El Salvador if released. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have pointed to that statement as to why they want him brought back to Maryland.

The Trump administration has alleged that Abrego Garcia is a leader of the MS-13 gang, and President Donald Trump has made those same allegations. During an interview, the president held up a photo of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles that were digitally altered to type MS-13 on his fingers.

House Democrats pressed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in May about the doctored photo and she sidestepped questions about whether the photo was real, until she eventually said she was unaware it existed.

She added that even if Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. that he would be immediately deported.

Maryland arguments

In Maryland, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said in their complaint they want to ensure he is not deported again.

“This motion does not ask this Court to adjudicate Abrego Garcia’s custodial status in the Tennessee criminal proceedings; that is for the Tennessee district court to resolve,” they wrote.

“Nor does this motion seek to alter any of the conditions of release set by the Tennessee district court or otherwise interfere with the Tennessee criminal proceedings. This motion simply seeks to ensure that when Abrego Garcia is released from criminal custody, he returns to, and remains in, this District (other than to travel to Tennessee as needed), until further order from this Court.”

Abrego Garcia lives with his family in Maryland. “Maryland is where he was on March 12 at the moment his unlawful removal saga began, when ICE agents with ‘no warrant for his arrest and no lawful basis’ arrested him and locked him up at an ‘ICE facility in Baltimore, Maryland,’” the complaint said.

“Returning Abrego Garcia to Maryland implements the Supreme Court’s directive and safeguards this Court’s jurisdiction in this matter,” it added.

Clashes between administration and judges

Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation drew national attention to the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportations campaign that some judges have found skirted due process rights for immigrants. The White House has clashed with the judicial branch with some frequency over immigration decisions.

The Trump administration this week has, in an unusual move, sued the entire judicial bench of the District Court of Maryland, including Xinis, over a standing order to require a two-day pause for deportations due to a high volume of habeas corpus claims from immigrants challenging their detention in the state. A habeas corpus claim allows immigrants to challenge their detention.

Abrego Garcia has had deportation protections from his home country since 2019, but in March he was arrested in Maryland by federal immigration officials while driving his son home and informed his status had changed. Days later, he was deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, a move the Trump administration admitted was a mistake.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States, but stopped short of requiring it.

For the next two months, administration officials would testify in a Maryland court that Abrego Garcia’s return was out of their hands and up to the government of El Salvador.

Xinis has accused the Trump administration of stonewalling information and is allowing for discovery in the civil case to continue to determine if the Trump administration violated her court order to return Abrego Garcia. 

Essential immigrant workers and their families gather in front of the Federal Building in Milwaukee for the Day Without Immigrants call to action. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

People who believe the call to action, Black Lives Matter, to be controversial and provocative should buckle up.

What we’ve been witnessing these last weeks has been a new call to action: Immigrant Lives Matter.

Yes, even undocumented immigrant lives matter.

Black Lives Matter stirred passionate backlash unlike anything I’ve seen since the 1960s. 

Immigrant Lives Matter is now a cry to recognize the humanity of people who are suffering violent attacks after being demonized as “aliens.” 

I’ve written on immigration as a reporter, columnist and editorial writer for decades. The most invective I’ve had directed my way has been about who I am as the son of immigrants.

“Go back to Mexico” was a common retort to things I wrote. Each time I’d chuckle to myself: “Hard to do since I’m from California.” 

Yup, I’m not from Mexico. But my parents were. And they lived in this country without legal status until I was in grade school.

I’m quite familiar with immigrant life, although, thanks to the 14th Amendment (also under attack by the Trump administration), I’m a citizen. 

I’ve seen up close what being afraid of deportation looks like. The fear that a family would be torn apart, loss of livelihood and loss of the country you chose to work in, pay taxes for, build a family in and the only one your children know. And, in my case as with many other immigrants and children of immigrants, the country in whose military you chose to serve.

That experience and those decades of writing on immigration taught me that among the hottest buttons around are those dealing with the border, particularly when people cross it who don’t look and talk like you. 

Standard disclaimer: You don’t have to be a racist to be concerned about immigration and immigrants, but using terms such as invasion, infestation, vermin, criminals and threat to American identity and values is a big tell.

As is calling out the military to combat a non-existent foreign invasion.

Black Lives Matter speaks to the current plight of people whose ancestors were unwilling immigrants, packed into slave ships and brought here by force. Dehumanizing racism and the shocking mistreatment of Black citizens by police has dogged our nation from the beginning.

But  even that call to action, after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, was roundly disparaged.

Wrap your head around that. Americans who have been around since the country’s founding and over whose slavery a country fought a bitter civil war are still not considered American enough to  insist on being treated as Americans.

All that immigrants and those who stand in solidarity with them are asking is that the basic precepts of fairness, humanity and, importantly, due process extend to them as well. 

Immigrants are in a vulnerable position. Demagoguing about invasion and infestation is just too tempting for nativists and opportunists who prey on prejudices for political gain.

Los Angeles has been in the news because of protests that the Trump administration has been trying very hard to depict as a violent conflagration. But the protests have been  mostly peaceful by people reasonably objecting to ICE raids. The ICE targets are people who have worked here for years, raising U.S. citizen children and doing the work Americans won’t do. 

Despite footage of “violent“ protesters cast as “invaders” faced by brave military troops, California’s governor and many others have noted that there was no widespread, destructive civil unrest, much less the foreign invasion that the demagogues claim justifies military involvement. 

Be afraid. We need to stop underestimating the appeal of nativism. It’s real in this country.

But something happened after President Trump’s unwarranted use of the military in Los Angeles and in reaction to his military parade in Washington D.C. (lightly attended, to the president’s dismay).

The “No Kings” protests. 

I saw them as solidarity with Immigrant Lives Matter.

Black lives will always matter. After the phrase was coined, some people  insisted that it meant other lives mattered less. 

Nonsense, then and now.

Immigrant lives matter, as with Black lives, as much as your life does.  And if we don’t protect the lives of the people in the crosshairs now, we all could be next.

Yessenia Ruano as she prepares to self-deport to El Salvador (Photo courtesy of Voces de la Frontera)

A Milwaukee teacher’s aide has decided to self-deport back to El Salvador, following moves by the Trump administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to remove her from the country. Yessenia Ruano, who worked at the Academia de Lenguaje y Bellas Artes bilingual school in Milwaukee, is the mother of 10-year-old twin girls. Although the girls were born in the United States, Ruano took her daughters with her back to El Salvador on Tuesday, choosing to self-deport and keep her family intact rather than being forcibly removed by ICE. 

On Friday, federal immigration officials denied Ruano’s request for an emergency stay, which would have halted the government’s attempts to remove her while her visa application was considered, WPR reported. Ruano’s attorney Marc Chirstopher said that ICE gave a one-sentence rationale for denying the stay. 

Christopher said that ICE officials claimed that Ruano “did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” 

“Quite frankly, if she doesn’t warrant it, I don’t know who does.” Christopher said. Ruano did not have a criminal record. She crossed the southern border in 2011 to escape gang violence after local gang members murdered her brother. Christopher added that “she’s very involved in the community,” as  a teacher’s aide for kindergarten teachers, owns  her own house and  pays taxes into a safety net system she is not eligible to access. 

 “I am extremely disappointed in ICE’s decision to deny an emergency stay for my constituent Yessenia Ruano,” U.S. Rep.  Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement. “It is outright cruel to force a human trafficking victim to return to the place she was fleeing from.” Ruano was applying for  a T-visa, which confers legal status on  victims of human trafficking. “T-visas are meant for people like Yessenia, but sadly, she wasn’t even given the chance to have her case heard,” said Moore. “Yessenia is a wonderful person and her and [her] children’s removal from Milwaukee will be a loss to our community.”

Ruano received a letter telling her  to self-deport on June 3, spurring condemnation from Milwaukee residents, immigrant rights advocates and elected leaders. At the time, Ruano’s attorneys said that it appeared that ICE was abandoning policies of waiting for T and U visas — which protect victims of trafficking and crime victims who are cooperating with law enforcement— to be processed. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley wrote on the social media website X that “deporting valued members of our community who are raising and educating our kids, assisting law enforcement in their important work, and giving back to our neighborhoods should alarm us all. It is wrong and unjust.” Crowley added that “these individuals are victims of a broken immigration system. The Trump Administration told the country they were only going after ‘the worst of the worst’. But time and time again, we see them targeting the very people who contribute the most — our neighbors, coworkers, our friends.” The county executive warned that “I am deeply alarmed that our country continues to turn its back on our most vulnerable. By not standing up and protecting our neighbors, we’re not just failing them — we’re failing our entire community. Due process is under attack, and that should concern all of us in Wisconsin and across the country.”

During a May 30 hearing, ICE officials told Ruano to self-deport by June 3. During that hearing her attorneys filed for an emergency stay, beginning a wait-period of several weeks until a decision was finally made, WPR reported. Attorney Christopher said that few emergency stays are being granted under the second Trump administration. 

Earlier this month, the Milwaukee Common Council released a statement opposing Ruano’s impending deportation, and held 14 minutes of silence to honor her 14 years in the United States. “Yessenia has developed roots here,” the council stated. “She is a wife with two Milwaukee-born daughters. She is an educator. She is a volunteer. She is a contributing member of our society. All of us should be outraged by this decision and what it means for Yessenia and her family, and other immigrants who could be facing similar fates.” 

“If there is one thing this case has made crystal clear,” the statement continued,  “it’s that the immigration laws and systems in our country are broken, and the administration at the federal level is more concerned with scapegoating hard working immigrants than fixing the process so it is fair and works for everyone.”

Before Christopher took on  Ruano as a client about two months ago, Ruano had paid over $14,000 in legal fees to file the T-visa application to a different team of Ohio-based attorneys. 

“From what I’ve been seeing consistently through other cases and hearing from other attorneys, they’re not granting hardly any stays for anyone really,” said Christopher. “I am more than positive that she would have been able to remain in the U.S. while the T-visa was pending…under previous administrations.” 

Senator Alex Padilla, D-Calif.,  speaks at a Biden-Harris campaign and DNC press conference on July 18, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

Federal law enforcement officials forcibly removed and handcuffed U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla at a Thursday press conference in Los Angeles by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem amid multi-day protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The scuffle between law enforcement, including an officer wearing a jacket with an FBI logo, and a United States senator represented a stark escalation of tensions after President Donald Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA. His action followed major protests sparked by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ramping up immigration raids.

Before Padilla was physically removed, Noem said that the Trump administration would continue its immigration enforcement in LA.

“We are not going away,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, said. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Padilla, 52, a member of the Senate since 2021, when he was appointed to replace former Vice President Kamala Harris, and then elected in 2022, tried to ask Noem a question and was rushed by federal law enforcement.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have questions for the secretary,” he said as four federal law enforcement officers grabbed him and shoved him to the ground. “Hands off.”

The DHS wrote on social media that U.S. Secret Service officers thought “he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.”

DHS said that after the press conference, Noem and Padilla had a 15-minute meeting. His office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

In a statement, Padilla’s office said the California senator was in LA for congressional oversight into the federal government’s operations in LA and across California.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” his office said, referring to General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of United States Northern Command.

“He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

The incident drew swift condemnation from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

“Watching this video sickened my stomach, the manhandling of a United States Senator, Senator Padilla,” Schumer wrote on social media. “We need immediate answers to what the hell went on.”

On the Senate floor, Schumer said the video of Padilla “reeks of totalitarianism.”

He called for a full investigation so that “this doesn’t happen again.”

Padilla gave remarks after the incident, with The Associated Press. He did not take questions. 

“If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they’re doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community,” Padilla said. 

Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee FBI office to speak out against the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Prosecutors for the Trump administration filed a brief Monday requesting that a federal judge not dismiss the government’s indictment against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan. 

Dugan faces criminal charges after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI, arrived in the Milwaukee County Courthouse April 18 to arrest 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz for being in the country illegally. 

Flores-Ruiz was set to appear in Dugan’s courtroom that day for a status hearing on misdemeanor charges against him. When Dugan learned that the agents were outside her courtroom, she confronted them and learned they only had an administrative warrant, which was issued by an agency official and not a judge. An administrative warrant doesn’t allow agents to enter private spaces in the courthouse such as Dugan’s courtroom. 

Later, while the agents were waiting for Flores-Ruiz in the hallway outside the main courtroom door, Dugan sent him and his attorney out a side door into the hallway. One of the agents rode down the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and he was later arrested on the street.

Dugan-DOJ-Filing

Dugan was charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Last month, Dugan’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case against her, arguing she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore immune from prosecution for her actions and that the federal government is impinging on the state of Wisconsin’s authority to operate its court system. 

The case drew national attention, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel both making public statements about Dugan’s arrest before she’d even been indicted. Legal experts have questioned the strength of the federal government’s case and accused Trump officials of grandstanding to make a political point. 

In the Monday filing, federal prosecutors argued that dismissing the case would ignore previously established law that allows judges to face criminal charges. 

“Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond,” the prosecutors argued. “Dugan’s desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are ‘above the law,’ and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.”

Dugan is set to appear for trial on July 21.