If it sounds like authoritarianism in motion, that’s because it is. Immigrants are being systematically squeezed out of the economy through bureaucratic means. Ballots are being seized. Fascists gathered openly while major newsrooms looked away. And far-right candidates are winning elections across Latin America. Here’s what’s happening as the midterms approach.

Stephen Miller’s quiet war on immigrants

The Trump administration has stopped talking about raids. Instead, it’s using the federal bureaucracy like a vise. According to The New York Times, officials have methodically pulled every lever possible to cut immigrants—documented and undocumented—from jobs, health care, housing, financial services, and tax credits. A woman with legal work status was fired from her airport job because the administration determined that her visa category no longer qualifies as “authorized residency.” Asylum seekers are about to lose work permits. Undocumented immigrants are being pushed out of community health clinics. American-born children of undocumented parents just lost access to the child tax credit. The goal is not just to deport people; it’s to make living in the United States economically impossible. So far, more than 116,000 people have voluntarily left. Many more are hiding.

The ballot seizures have already begun.

In January, FBI agents raided Fulton County, Georgia, and seized ballots from 2020. In March, the DOJ demanded ballots from Arizona, and in April, it demanded them from Michigan. In March, a California sheriff obtained warrants to seize 600,000 ballots from a redistricting election. According to WIRED, election experts are alarmed. The seizures cite past election fraud claims that have already been investigated, debunked, and dismissed. The warrants were obtained on the basis of problematic evidence and faulty assertions. But what’s more chilling is the precedent: if the courts fail to scrutinize these requests, the administration could begin seizing ballots during or immediately after elections—the one moment when federal seizures would have only one possible purpose: interference. “There is just no legitimate rationale for interfering while there is an active vote tally,” one election law expert said.

The remigration summit and the missing headline.

Two days ago, the former head of U.S. Border Patrol attended a summit in Portugal alongside Europe’s leading fascists. They called it the “Remigration Summit 2026.” The speakers included an Austrian extremist famous for promoting the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, a Belgian politician convicted of Holocaust denial, and the founder of a Swiss neo-Nazi group. A New York Young Republican Club leader was there, too. They gave Nazi salutes and talked about ethnic cleansing. And according to The Redoubt, no major English-language news outlet covered it. The American press—captured by right-wing ownership, cowed by litigation threats, or simply indifferent—has decided that when Republicans do fascism, it’s not news. Only when Democrats disappoint does the headline appear.

The far-right is winning across Latin America.

Colombia held its presidential election on Sunday. A far-right lawyer and Trump admirer named Abelardo de la Espriella won the first round with 43.7 percent of the vote, shocking most analysts who had him trailing. He will face off against a left-wing senator in a June runoff. Meanwhile, in Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum is escalating her rhetoric against the United States, accusing far-right sectors of orchestrating attacks on her government. She’s not entirely wrong, though. The pattern across Latin America is now unmistakable: Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, and now Colombia are trending in this direction. Mexico and Brazil remain the region’s last remaining governments. The momentum is all in one direction.

One more thing to keep in mind this week.

Congress is quietly advancing a bill that would bind the U.S. and Israeli militaries closer than ever, integrating their weapons industries and defense technologies. It appears as a routine provision in the annual defense bill. But what it actually does is embed Israel into America’s military supply chain so deeply that, as one former State Department official put it, “it’s impossible to root it out.” When one government’s military becomes dependent on another’s technologies, leverage flows in unpredictable directions. The bill has bipartisan support. It will likely pass.

That is where we are. Immigrants pushed underground, elections are being rehearsed for seizure, fascists are mainstreaming themselves, while the press looks away. And a hemisphere tilting rightward while America deepens its military dependence on a country waging war under genocide allegations.

Donald Trump reached an agreement with the IRS that “forever” prevents the federal government from “prosecuting or pursuing” any tax claims against the president, his family members, and his companies.

Trump’s former criminal defense attorney and now acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, signed the document and appointed a five-member board to manage payments from a $1.776 billion fund to beneficiaries whose identities will remain secret. Blanche publicly stated that Trump and his family are ineligible for these payments, but he has not ruled out payments to the president’s donors and allies.

In other words, Trump sued his own government, demanding that he not be prosecuted for his well-known tax fraud, that he be compensated with billions of dollars, and that he be protected forever from any further scrutiny of his tax returns.

Trump filed the lawsuit over the leak to the press of some of his tax return documents that exposed the tax fraud his organization and family have committed for decades. It’s no wonder he has refused for so long to voluntarily hand over his tax returns.

Now, the fund approved by his own government can literally go to anyone. Some claim it could go to the January 6 insurrectionists. Others will most likely remain anonymous. For his part, Trump can remove the commissioners from the attorney general’s board, and, as The Guardian explained, reports on the attorney general’s administration must be confidential under the agreement.

This Is the Dictator’s Playbook

And as perverse as the ploy sounds, it is not new. In fact, it is, once again, part of the dictator’s playbook.

Even if Vladimir Putin releases his tax returns, we can trust those figures about as much as we can trust the results of his “democratic” elections. His own regime (and Russia’s historical structure since the Bolshevik Revolution) has been, as autocracies tend to be, opaque.

However, in most autocracies, there is a national tax administration process. The economic system of dictatorships eliminates the middle class, dividing the population between the 1% and the rest. Often, the former are members of the government or direct beneficiaries of it. And the president? Well, I don’t think it ever occurred to anyone that someone like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez Frías ever paid taxes.

“The deal that Trump extracted from the government he leads is really a spectacular demonstration of the fact that there really are two sets of tax rules, one for those at the top, and another for the rest of us,” according to Steve Wamhoff, federal policy director with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan tax policy group.

“Trump and his officials view themselves as untethered from the tax laws that apply to ordinary Americans,” he told The Independent.

America’s Constitutional Guardrails (In Theory)

However, the United States is not (yet) a dictatorship. In fact, its constitutional structure was designed to be bulletproof, preventing what we are seeing unfold in real time. That is why the Trump vs. IRS scheme appears, at first glance, to be just another tantrum by the celebrity-turned-president. What it really is, on the contrary, is the cementing of a regime that puts in writing that “no one criticizes me.”

“Trump’s dirty deal has crossed the line into illegality,” according to Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

“If Acting AG Todd Blanche tries to effectuate this settlement by directing the IRS to end audits underway or not to conduct audits it would normally undertake, both he and Donald Trump will be violating the law and putting IRS officers at risk,” they said.

Who Else Gets the Money?

In Trump’s rhetoric, convoluted by his team to confuse the public, the money will go to his supporters, “persecuted” by Democratic administrations.

Trump said the victims of “weaponization” under the Obama and Biden administrations — an apparent reference to his allies who were investigated in connection with his 2016 and 2020 campaigns and the attack on the Capitol — were “destroyed, they went to jail, their families were ruined, they committed suicide.”

“We’re reimbursing those people for their legal fees and for their costs, and for anybody involved,” he said. “It was the most violent thing I’ve ever seen in politics.”

Blanche has not ruled out millions of taxpayer dollars going to people who assaulted law enforcement officers during the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. The first lawsuit against the “weaponization” fund came from two law enforcement officers who were beaten and bloodied by a mob of Trump’s supporters that day.

The 14th Amendment Problem

Trump’s IRS lawsuit was a “Potemkin lawsuit, a sham brought about only so that it could be settled,” according to the complaint filed by Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges.

The administration is also accused of violating the 14th Amendment’s clause prohibiting the government from paying debts and other obligations “incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States” by effectively creating a roundabout payment system for aggrieved rioters.

“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment,” according to the lawsuit, “they will be rewarded with riches.”

Meanwhile? The president can continue to pocket money, directly or indirectly, through illegal means, without anyone being able to hold him accountable.

1934? Is that you?

While the world is distracted by the senseless war in Iran, the Hantavirus, and the slow decline of the last Western empire, something was brewing here on the continent.

A series of recordings leaked by investigative journalists in Honduras and the Spanish news platform Canal Red have revealed the behind-the-scenes plan of the United States and Israel. It is a campaign to promote their interests in Honduras and destabilize left-wing governments in Latin America, according to Middle East Eye.

And yes, this may sound like “nothing new” to some, especially given the United States’ history of political interventionism on the continent. However, the investigation, led by anonymous Honduran journalists, reveals a macabre plan that goes beyond even the most dystopian of imaginations.

The investigators had access to 37 leaked voice notes from WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram that, according to what’s now called “Hondurasgate,” have been authenticated through forensic analysis. They were recorded between January and April 2026. The website that published the 37 recordings, making them available in their entirety, explains that each file was analyzed using the Phonexia Voice Inspector protocol, a forensic suite from the Czech company of the same name, founded in 2006 and used in more than 60 countries by intelligence agencies, law enforcement, banks, and media outlets.

The first finding of the investigation was that the recordings appear to indicate that Israeli interests were behind U.S. President Donald Trump’s pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández.

For those who don’t recall, in December of last year, Trump pardoned Hernández, who was serving a 45-year prison sentence following a U.S. federal court conviction on drug trafficking charges.

At the time, many of us questioned the U.S. president’s decision, given that he had campaigned for years against drug trafficking—a stance he used to justify intervention in Venezuela and the bombing of ships in the Caribbean.

Shortly thereafter, Trump endorsed the then-presidential candidate of Palestinian origin, Nasry Asfura, who was running against his centrist opponent Salvador Nasralla, and threatened to cut aid to the country if Asfura lost the election.

The question was, what is Trump’s interest in Honduras? We now know that it was not in the interest of the U.S. administration but of Israel.

What interest does Israel have, then?

Hernández, known as JOH, served as president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022 as a member of the conservative-leaning National Party. Those were years of supposed cooperation with the United States in the fight against drug trafficking. In 2024, he was sentenced in Manhattan to 45 years in prison for associating for more than a decade with drug traffickers who paid him bribes to ensure that more than 400 tons of cocaine reached the northern border of the Rio Grande. According to El País, three years earlier, his brother Juan Antonio Hernández had been sentenced to life in prison for the same crimes. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York had accused JOH of receiving $1 million from Mexican drug trafficker Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.

According to new leaks from “Hondurasgate,” Trump’s pardon of JOH, days before the elections in Honduras, was not clemency, but rather the initial payment in a larger agreement. In one of the recordings, Hernández explains it directly, though without revealing his interlocutor: “The pardon money didn’t even come from you. It came from a group of rabbis and people who supported Israel.” In another audio recording, he says that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “everything to do” with his release and the negotiations that made it possible.

The investigation into “Hondurasgate,” which includes voice messages from Asfura following private meetings at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, reveals plans to establish a new U.S. military base in Honduras, expand private “economic development” zones, and encourage investment by U.S. artificial intelligence companies.

According to the investigation, Asfura’s election was intended as a transitional step before an alleged plan backed by the United States and Israel to have Hernández take power in the upcoming presidential elections.

In a January 20 voice note, Hernández said that “the prime minister of Israel is going to support us.” He added that “they [the Israelis] had everything to do with my departure and negotiation,” referring to Trump’s pardon.

In a March 14 voice message, Hernández credited the money for his pardon to “a group of rabbis and people who supported Israel.”

The investigation also includes messages from Hernández to the president of the National Congress of Honduras, Tomás Zambrano, in which the former instructed Zambrano to undermine Asfura’s power with Israeli support.

“I sent you the people of Israel; they sent you money. I’m the one doing the lobbying,” the former president said.

The plan extends beyond Honduras.

The investigation also included conversations between Hernández and Asfura about creating a “digital journalism unit” funded by the Honduran government and the U.S.-backed Argentine president, Javier Milei, to launch media attacks against the governments of Colombia and Mexico.

The second installment from the investigators includes a recording of an alleged conversation between Hernández, Asfura, and his vice president, María Antonieta Mejía. The goal would be to undermine the governments of Claudia Sheinbaum and Gustavo Petro.

In the conversation between Hernández and Asfura, the former president tells the Honduran leader that he needs $150,000 to rent an apartment in the United States, where he plans to set up an office for a digital journalism unit. This unit would “publish information about Manuel Zelaya,” who accused Trump of “protecting the plunderer of the state,” referring to Hernández’s pardon last November, and about Xiomara Castro, who served as president until handing power to Asfura. “Someone else here, from the U.S. president’s team, will handle it for me. Well, he’s one of the Republicans who are helping us. They’re going to set up a news site for us.”

Asfura’s response is: “I’m going to transfer it from a friend’s account. Let’s see if they can give it to you in cash, but explain to me, what are we going to do with it, what do we gain?” Hernández replies: “We’re going to set up a cell, Mr. President. From here, from the United States, an information cell, so they can’t track us there in Honduras. It’s going to be like a Latin American news site. I was on a call with President Javier Milei, and it was successful. Very, very, very good, and I think that at this point we can do great things for all of Latin America. There are some cases coming up against Mexico, some cases coming up against Colombia, and, most importantly, against Honduras, against the Zelaya family.”

“Also, I think you need a little more money for yourself. So we’re going to send another $150,000. And that way, you can survive a little longer. “We’re going to take it from INSEP [Secretariat of Infrastructure and Public Services],” Asfura says. On the same topic, in another alleged communication between the former Honduran president and the current vice president, Hernández emphasizes the importance of having that liquidity, “with the support of some Republicans,” to “attack and eradicate the cancer of the left” in Honduras and throughout Latin America.

“I was telling President Asfura that we were able to speak with Javier Milei, and he’s also contributing $350,000. Another great friend of ours from Mexico is also providing support, specifically for the Mexican community. We’re pretty much ready and hoping this moves forward quickly,” Hernández added.

For her part, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, during her morning press conference this Wednesday, said she listened to the audio recordings and reviewed part of the news reports. The Mexican president again sent a message to Isabel Díaz Ayuso, regional premier of Madrid, who is currently on a tour in Mexico as part of an international right-wing network linked to groups in Spain, the United States, and Argentina that spread fake news because “they don’t like Mexican humanism” and “prefer to worship Hernán Cortés.”

“They can set up a smear campaign office against our government in Honduras, using resources from a friendly nation. It won’t affect us, not at all. There may be days of confusion, but if we remain true to our principles, know what we must do within the framework of our Constitution and the laws, and respect sovereignty, no one will be able to undermine the transformation project. It’s that clear,” Sheinbaum stated.

Meanwhile, in September 2025, the U.S. government announced its intention to revoke Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s visa after he joined a pro-Palestine demonstration in New York City and urged U.S. soldiers to “not point their guns at people” and to “disobey Trump’s orders.”

For his part, Argentine President Javier Milei has promoted relations between Israel and Argentina with U.S. support, fostering economic cooperation and announcing plans to move the Argentine embassy to Jerusalem.

Israel has a long history of interventionism in Latin America.

Latin American presidents such as Gustavo Petro, Lula da Silva, and Sheinbaum herself have opposed Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people. However, they have been among the few to speak out in recent years.

In contrast, the region’s right wing has always maintained ties with Israel. As president of Brazil (2019–2022), Jair Bolsonaro expanded security cooperation with the Israeli military and visited the Western Wall alongside Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Argentine President Javier Milei (who calls himself a “fan of Israel”) promised to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem and pledged to maintain his “unwavering commitment to the State of Israel and its people in the fight against Islamic terrorism, for peace and freedom.”

The relationship between Latin America and the Middle East dates back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when waves of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese immigrants left the crumbling Ottoman Empire and settled in South and Central America. Today, their descendants number in the tens of millions, including approximately 700,000 Palestinians. While this diaspora has strengthened support for Palestine, the region’s solidarity is rooted in more than just ancestry. Latin America has suffered the same tactics of state terrorism that Palestine faces at the hands of regimes armed, trained, and advised by Israel.

Israel proved to be an indispensable ally to the dictatorships and military juntas that ravaged Latin America in the late 20th century. For example, Israel’s oldest ally in the region is Nicaragua, where the ruling Somoza dynasty provided weapons and diplomatic cover to the Haganah (a militia of Zionist settlers) between 1939 and 1948. In return, Israel began selling automatic weapons, tanks, and military aircraft to the autocracy in the 1950s. Inspired by the examples of Algeria and Cuba, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) was founded in 1961 to lead a revolution against the regime.

Similarly, the largest single recipient of Israeli arms in Latin America during the Cold War was Argentina’s fascist military junta. After seizing power in 1976, the regime launched the so-called “Dirty War” against students, intellectuals, trade unionists, human rights activists, journalists, and anyone else suspected of leftist sympathies. Between 1978 and 1983, Israel sold more than $1 billion in military equipment to the junta, during whose rule more than 30,000 people were murdered. Among those kidnapped, tortured, and executed, Argentine Jews were disproportionately represented. Investigations later revealed that the regime murdered 2,000 Argentine Jews, while Tel Aviv’s arms sales to Argentina continued uninterrupted.

And in Guatemala, Israel’s role became evident after the United States suspended military aid in 1977, and Tel Aviv became the government’s primary source of arms and training. General Benedicto Lucas García, later prosecuted for mass killings, stated that “we consider the Israeli soldier to be the best soldier in the world today, and we take him as a model and example.”

So, while the findings of Hondurasgate do not tell a new story, they do show how, in the end, decisions regarding much of Western international policy, both within and outside Latin America, have always been in the hands of Tel Aviv.

The definition of democracy, in the strictest sense, is the granting of the right to have a say to the people. This entails electing their representatives and the opportunity to shape the constitution. It does not, however, mean that voters’ wishes are always carried out, but it does guarantee their right to express those wishes.

That fundamental right is officially at risk in the United States.

In a 6-3 ruling last Wednesday, the Supreme Court significantly restricted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Since the Civil Rights Movement, Section 2 of the law has broadly prohibited voting discrimination based on race. The provision requires the use of race-conscious data in redistricting to protect minorities’ voting power.

However, in a conservative-majority court, the use of race in the redistricting process has been called into question.

The Court’s ruling on Louisiana.

Wednesday’s ruling came in a case involving Louisiana’s redistricting. The case reached the Court after the state created a district that elected its second Black representative to Congress. The Court’s decision held that the map constituted unconstitutional gerrymandering because it took race into account when drawing the lines.

In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s conservative majority held that the Voting Rights Act provision in question, Section 2, was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.

In other words, after achieving a redistricting plan that provided fair representation to a community where one-third of the population is Black, the state is arguing that race cannot be used to determine the representation of its voters, using the argument of civil rights against the community itself.

“It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation,” said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. “It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that’s not an exaggeration.”

And it isn’t.

An ‘insurmountable barrier.’

On August 6, 1965, five months after “Bloody Sunday,” when civil rights protesters were brutally attacked in Selma, Alabama, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation known as the Voting Rights Act, which guaranteed a voice for communities of color.

Until then, Republican-majority states had used all sorts of arguments to prevent Black and Brown people from voting and electing their representatives. The new law put provisions in place to prohibit this. One of them, Section 2, is the one the Supreme Court is now challenging.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, said the requirement to prove intentional discrimination is “an almost insurmountable barrier” for challenges to voting rights issues seeking to prove discrimination.

A dangerously timely ruling.

“We’re witnessing the evisceration of America’s greatest legislative landmark at the hands of a far-right Supreme Court,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York.

Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow for more aggressive “cracking and packing” of populations to dilute their votes, “not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards, and city councils.”

The decision comes at a time when Donald Trump’s administration is facing historically low approval ratings, when a handful of conservatives loyal to the administration are taking over the media, and when constitutional guarantees are at risk.

Many people are calling it a “betrayal” as California plans to share detailed information about driver’s license holders with an outside group. This includes immigrants who do not have legal authorization to live in the U.S.

For over ten years, California and 18 other states have encouraged undocumented people to get driver’s licenses to improve public safety and help the economy. Economists say these laws increase economic activity, add billions in tax revenue, and make communities safer because people without legal status may feel safer reporting crimes.

More than one million people have obtained driver’s licenses in California under Assembly Bill 60, a law passed in 2013. The law prohibits the state from using information obtained during the licensing process to determine a person’s citizenship.

But the multi-state verification system can show if someone is undocumented. A manual obtained by CalMatters says the database will include the last five digits of a person’s Social Security number. If someone does not have one, states can use “99999” as a placeholder.

Civil rights advocates are raising concerns. They say this move “breaks a promise” California made ten years ago when it started giving permits to undocumented immigrants. Now, over a million people could face a higher risk of deportation.

Advocates say that after a recent meeting with the California DMV and Governor Newsom’s office, they learned that if the state does not share the data, the Department of Homeland Security might stop accepting California permits and IDs at airports.

All they need is a Social Security number.

CalMatters reported that four advocacy groups at the meeting said the shared information will show if someone has a Social Security number. This could be used to identify people who are in the country without legal status.

The state plans to give the information to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a nonprofit run by DMV officials from around the country. The information provided to the association will be incorporated into the group’s interstate verification system and its platform, SPEXS, which allows DMVs and contractors working with them to verify whether someone holds more than one driver’s license issued in their name. Sharing this data allows agencies that issue driver’s licenses to confirm that a person does not hold duplicate licenses in multiple states.

In the future, a database like this could be used for mobile driver’s licenses on iPhones, online age checks for adult content, or even chatbots.

But advocates worry that federal immigration officials might try to get large amounts of this data and use missing Social Security numbers to target people for deportation.

The state, for its part, assures there will be safeguards.

The association told the state it will add security measures to stop mass searches of unauthorized immigrant driver’s license holders and block access by Border Patrol and ICE, according to people at the DMV and the governor’s office briefing. Still, many remain skeptical.

“Once this data is uploaded to AAMVA, it’s out of California’s control, no matter what California wants, no matter what protests we may make,” said Ed Hasbrouck of the San Francisco civil liberties group The Identity Project, who was on the briefing call.

Similarly, in a statement to the Washington Examiner, a spokeswoman for Newsom asserted that claims the data sharing could negatively affect undocumented immigrants “are lies.”

“CalMatters got it wrong. Their reporting hurts vulnerable Californians by manufacturing fear and panic with lies,” the spokeswoman said. “California continues to lead in supporting immigrant families and protecting personal data from federal overreach.”

This warning has been building for a long time.

As the Examiner explained, the news comes at a time when the California DMV has faced months of criticism from both the Trump administration and state officials. Several states are engaging in “systemic noncompliance” with regulations regarding commercial driver’s licenses for non-residents.

California and other DMVs across the country have been “illegally” issuing commercial driver’s licenses that allow truckers to remain on the road and retain that privilege after their legal status or work permits have expired, among other issues, according to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

In January, the secretary said he would withhold $160 million in federal funds allocated to California after the state refused to revoke 17,000 licenses. In a March update, the California DMV indicated that the government is revoking 13,000 commercial driver’s licenses held by non-residents, effective immediately.

It won’t be cheap

To move forward with sharing data, the California Legislature must approve $55 million for the DMV’s costs. Lawmakers may also need to change the current law, which says Social Security numbers collected by the DMV can only be shared to address unpaid taxes, parking tickets, or child support.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office would not confirm details of the call or respond to the specific concerns raised by advocates.

“California continues to lead in supporting immigrant families and protecting personal data from federal overreach,” the spokesperson, Diana Crofts-Pelayo, wrote in an email. “The state has taken the same approach to protect Californians’ data during the Real ID implementation, while maintaining Real ID compliance for the benefit of all Californians.”

Ian Grossman, executive director of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, told CalMatters that participation in the verification system is voluntary and that only authorized state employees or contractors have access to it, that bulk searches are currently not permitted, and that all searches must include specific information about an individual, such as their name and date of birth.

The state’s past actions do not inspire confidence.

CalMatters reported last year and again this year on cases in which local law enforcement violated state law and shared information collected by automatic license plate readers with ICE or Border Patrol agents.

The DMV and the governor’s office say the association will notify California of requests from any entity other than a participating state, including attempts to subpoena the database for information on California license holders, giving the state the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas or intervene in other requests. But if a subpoena is accompanied by a gag order, the association would be unable to provide such notification.

An agreement between the association and the California DMV obtained by CalMatters states that the association will inform California “if legally permitted” if it receives a subpoena “to release, disclose, discuss, or obtain access to S2S information.”

However, for Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director at Oakland Privacy, who participated in the call, the questions remain unanswered.

“It’s unclear how extreme the danger people are being put into by this decision, but there’s no doubt we told people with AB 60 licenses this would never happen. But it’s happening, and that’s a direct betrayal,” she said.

A new precedent-setting decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative court within the Justice Department, says that having active DACA status is not, by itself, sufficient to terminate deportation proceedings. In other words, the federal government has made it easier to keep Dreamers in removal proceedings even while they still hold the very status that was supposed to shield them from deportation.

NPR reported that the ruling came in the case of Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago and sends her case back to an immigration judge for further review. El País also reported that the decision gives fresh momentum to the deportation of DACA recipients under Trump’s second term.

The ruling does not mean every DACA recipient will be deported tomorrow. It does, however, mean that one of the clearest practical assumptions about DACA has been weakened by the administration’s own court apparatus. NPR reported that the BIA found an immigration judge had erred by terminating Santiago’s case solely because she had active DACA status. This means DACA can still exist on paper while offering less protection in practice. And that is exactly the kind of bureaucratic rollback immigrant advocates have been warning about for months.

As of September 2025, about 505,900 people in the United States had active DACA status, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Mexico accounts for by far the largest share, followed by El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. At the same time, California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and New York remain the states with the largest DACA populations.

The Santiago case shows exactly how precarious this has become.

According to NPR, Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago’s case drew national attention after she was detained by Customs and Border Protection officers while boarding a domestic flight at the El Paso airport in August. She spent weeks in immigration detention before a federal judge ordered her release, and she has been fighting deportation through the immigration court system ever since.

The BIA ruling does not automatically result in her deportation. Still, it does side with the Department of Homeland Security on the key point that DACA status alone does not justify shutting down removal proceedings. That is the precedent that now reaches far beyond her case.

Over the last year, attorneys for ICE and DHS have increasingly appealed decisions to the BIA, and the board backed government lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases. Similarly, the board has also made it harder for immigration courts to offer bond in lieu of detention, and easier to deport migrants to countries other than their own. It is operating alongside a proposed regulation that would make immigration appeals harder overall.

That is why Congressmember Delia Ramirez’s warning is bone-chilling.

Speaking to Democracy Now!, Ramirez called the BIA ruling “very concerning” and described it as part of a larger effort to “weaponize the court system” against immigrants. She also pointed to the deeper cruelty of the policy, which is that many DACA recipients have been here since they were toddlers or young teenagers and know no other home but the United States.

DACA recipients were brought here as children, built their lives here, and were told for more than a decade that this temporary protection, while fragile, still meant something. Now the government is using its own administrative courts to drain even that promise of its force.

And if anyone still wants to pretend that active DACA status is functioning like a real shield, the recent case of María de Jesús Estrada Juárez should end that illusion.

The Guardian reported last month that Estrada Juárez, a DACA recipient who had lived in the United States for more than 27 years, was deported to Mexico after being arrested during a green card appointment in Sacramento. A federal judge later ruled that the deportation was unlawful and ordered the government to bring her back.

She described being handcuffed in front of her daughter, deported within 24 hours, and left trying to understand how a system she had tried to follow could turn on her so abruptly.

DACA has always been temporary. It has never provided a path to citizenship or permanent legal status. But that legal fragility is now being used as a weapon.

NPR reported that DHS had already begun urging DACA recipients to self-deport last year. At the same time, the administration has also moved against their access to benefits such as the federal health care marketplace. Newsweek reported that then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told senators that 261 DACA recipients were arrested and 86 were removed between January and November of last year.

There is another layer to this story, and it is about the courts themselves.

The Washington Post reported this week that the Justice Department has fired more than 100 immigration judges since Trump returned to office and replaced many of them with new hires who often have less immigration law experience and less training.

According to that reporting, asylum grants have plunged, denials have surged, and former judges and legal experts are warning that due process is being eroded in favor of a judiciary more aligned with the administration’s deportation agenda.

And that is the real story here.

Trump does not always need one dramatic announcement to gut an immigration program. The program still exists, technically. But the floor beneath it keeps giving way.

Wasn’t the war “almost over”? Then why do you need automatic military draft registration?

The last time a military draft was in effect in the United States was in February 1973, during the Vietnam War, the most unpopular war in the nation’s history. Around 1.9 million men were selected for military service between 1964 and 1973. For context, 2.8 million were drafted during World War I, and around 10.1 million were drafted during World War II.

Now, “young, eligible men” will be automatically registered for the military draft pool in the U.S. starting in December as part of a measure no one seems to have read in the defense policy bill Congress signed into law late last year.

According to the Selective Service System’s 2024 report, automatic registration is already in place in 46 states and territories. However, the SSS proposed a rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs late last month to implement the practice nationwide, according to CNN.

An educated guess would suggest the Trump administration already knew it wanted to be in a world-scale conflict for a long time, or at least until next year.

However, CNN says “the nationwide measure has no connection to the ongoing war with Iran and was passed with bipartisan support months before the current conflict with the country. But the Trump administration has declined to rule out the possibility of putting U.S. troops on the ground, and the war has led to renewed attention on the draft policy.”

That is, if you believe CNN.

On the other hand, according to The New York Times, government officials are bracing for what experts say are “potential confrontations with China or Russia” at a moment when military recruiting “has slumped.”

What happens now?

First, failing to comply with the draft is a felony, which carries various penalties. According to The New York Times, these include up to five years in prison and the inability to receive certain federal benefits, such as government loans.

The logical reasoning is simple: if you are not planning to wage war, you do not really need a larger army, do you? In fact, in decades past, a country used to be proud of not needing an army at all. However, these are quasi-unprecedented times, right?

This, however, does not mean young, able Americans will be drafted. This is just a preemptive move, “just in case.”

As the Times continues, during a March 8 interview on Fox News, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Trump “does not remove options off the table” when asked what she would tell mothers worried about the draft returning.

Leavitt also said at the time that sending ground troops into Iran was not part of the “current plan.” That was over a month ago, and before the U.S. president drew the world to the edge of its seat in a countdown to a possible nuclear conflict.

Others argue that “even if boots were to be put on the ground, it is very unlikely a draft would return. This is because America already has one of the largest militaries in the world, so currently it doesn’t need any soldiers who don’t already want to be there.”

While the president would be required to get approval from Congress to enact a military draft, which was last used during the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, this could be more about “money and ease.”

As reported by ABC News, in 2024, Representative Chrissy Houlahan noted that automatic registration “saves taxpayers significant money and makes it easier for these men to follow the law and register with the Selective Service.”

Does this change if you are an immigrant?

According to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, “Except as otherwise provided in this title, every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, shall be automatically registered under this Act by the Director of the Selective Service System.”

So, in short, and as Michael Grothaus explained in his column for Fast Company, if you are a man in the United States aged 18 to 26, you will be automatically registered for the draft. And this does not just include U.S. citizens. The Selective Service System says that immigrants and dual-national U.S. citizens must register, along with other cohorts.

However, this is no different from what was already required. Currently, all men ages 18 to 26 must register for the draft. The new rules mean the registration will now be automatic across the country.

Airports are now part of the administration’s broader show of force. According to The Washington Post, ICE officers were sent to at least 14 airports in March, officially to help with crowd control, exit lanes, and line management during TSA staffing shortages. They were not supposed to check IDs or screen passengers. However, their presence still raised obvious concerns because, as immigration lawyers told the Post, ICE officers in an airport still carry the same authority they would have in any other public place.

That means this is the practical question travelers need to answer before they leave for the airport: what can they legally do, what can they not do, and how can they protect themselves and their loved ones without making a bad situation worse?

First, know who you may be dealing with

At airports, you may encounter TSA officers, local airport police, ICE officers, Customs and Border Protection officers, or Homeland Security Investigations agents. The ACLU’s airport enforcement guide notes that at the border or ports of entry, you are especially likely to encounter CBP and sometimes HSI, which is part of ICE.

TSA’s role is security screening. ICE’s role is immigration enforcement. CBP’s authority is broader at ports of entry than ICE’s is in an ordinary domestic airport setting. According to the Post, if ICE officers are simply standing in an airport in their capacity as ICE agents, they have the same authority they would have in any public place, not some magical airport superpower.

The biggest thing to understand: there are no ICE-free zones in the airport

The Post reports that ICE can approach travelers anywhere in the airport, not just at the checkpoint. That includes the terminal, the security line, the gate, or a coffee line. The practical advice from immigration attorney Nicole Hallett: stay aware of your surroundings the entire time you are there, not just while going through security.

For undocumented people, the risk is higher. The ACLU’s guide says noncitizens without current legal status should consider the risks of flying, including on domestic flights, and notes that TSA has provided lists of travelers to ICE.

If ICE approaches you, do not run and do not volunteer more than you have to

According to the Post, if an ICE officer approaches you and starts asking questions, the safest immediate move is not to run. Running may escalate the encounter. Instead, you can calmly say that you are exercising your right to remain silent.

For domestic travel, the Post also notes that, by law, you do not have to carry proof that you are a U.S. citizen or lawful resident. That said, if you are a noncitizen with lawful status and fear profiling, carrying documentation may help resolve an encounter more quickly.

The ACLU’s airport rights guide adds an important distinction. U.S. citizens generally only need to answer questions establishing identity and citizenship. Lawful permanent residents usually only need to answer questions establishing identity and permanent residency. Visa holders and visitors face more risk if they refuse to answer questions, especially at the border.

ICE cannot automatically search your phone just because you are in an airport

According to the Post, ICE officers at an airport cannot, without a warrant, search your carry-on, phone, or laptop simply because they are present in the airport. They can conduct only those kinds of searches if they are acting under the authority of the agency that has that search power in that setting, such as TSA at a domestic checkpoint or CBP at a port of entry.

But at the border, the legal terrain gets much worse. The ACLU’s airport guide says customs officers sometimes ask travelers to unlock devices or provide passwords when entering or leaving the United States. U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry for refusing, though refusal may lead to delays or the seizure of a device. Lawful permanent residents should generally not be denied entry, though delays and confiscation can still occur. Visa holders and tourists face a greater risk if they refuse. If an officer confiscates a phone or laptop, the ACLU says to get a receipt.

So protect your devices before you travel

According to The Intercept, there are a few key things to keep in mind regarding digital security, especially for journalists, organizers, immigrants, or anyone carrying sensitive information.

They suggest that before you leave:

1. Use a strong alphanumeric passcode, not Face ID or fingerprint unlock.

2. Turn biometrics off entirely.

3. Power your phone fully down before security. Do not just lock it.

4. Carry a paper boarding pass if possible, so you do not need to power the device back on in line.

5. Log out of apps you do not need.

6. Delete sensitive chats, files, and contacts from the device you are traveling with.

7. If possible, travel with a clean secondary device instead of your primary phone.

The reasoning is: if authorities get access to your device, the safest device is the one that contains as little as possible. The Intercept also warns that if you refuse to unlock a device, you may be delayed, hassled, or have the device confiscated. That does not mean you lose the right to refuse, but you should prepare for the consequences in advance.

TSA still has limits, too

The ACLU’s airport guide makes clear that TSA officers can screen you and your belongings, but they cannot arrest you. They may search bags further, even if the first screening shows nothing suspicious. Still, they may not select you for a personal search or secondary inspection based on religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity, or political beliefs.

If you wear a religious head covering, the ACLU says you have the right to wear it through screening. If TSA insists on further screening, you can request that any pat-down or removal happen in a private area and, where relevant, by someone of your gender.

If you are traveling with children, the ACLU notes that children can opt out of an airport scanner, though there is no blanket exemption from pat-downs. Children under 13 may keep shoes, light jackets, and headwear on during screening. If you are carrying breast milk or formula, TSA must allow it in quantities larger than the standard liquid limit, though it may be inspected or tested.

If you are delayed for a long time, say so clearly

The ACLU guide says that if questioning becomes intrusive or improper, you can ask to speak to a supervisor. If you are being detained for an unusually long period, you should ask to contact an attorney or a legal services organization. If an officer tells you that you are under arrest, or it becomes clear they suspect you of a crime, ask for a lawyer before answering more questions. If you want to invoke your right to remain silent, say it out loud.

What families should do before they leave home:

1. Have one folder, physical or digital, with the documents you may need.

2. Memorize or write down at least one emergency phone number.

3. Decide in advance who will be called if someone is detained.

4. Tell your loved ones your flight number, route, and departure and arrival times.

5. If someone in your family is undocumented or has a precarious status, talk honestly about the risk before traveling at all.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most consequential immigration cases in years. On paper, it is about whether Donald Trump can use an executive order to end automatic citizenship for some babies born in the United States. In practice, it is about something much larger: whether the Court is willing to reopen one of the country’s most settled constitutional guarantees, and in doing so create a new class of children whose legal status would depend on who their parents are.

Trump’s order, signed on his first day back in office, says children born in the U.S. would no longer automatically be citizens if their parents are undocumented or in the country temporarily, including on student or work visas. Lower courts have uniformly blocked the order from taking effect, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case before the appeals process had fully played out. A decision is expected by late June or early July.

What the Court is actually being asked to decide

The formal question is whether Trump’s order is consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that all persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. For more than a century, that clause has been understood to cover nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, with only narrow exceptions such as the children of diplomats and foreign enemies. That understanding was cemented by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Trump administration is asking the justices to adopt a much narrower reading. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect freed slaves and their children, not the children of people in the country unlawfully or temporarily, and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be read to require a more complete form of allegiance to the United States. Opponents say that it is an attempt to rewrite settled law by executive order.

That is the clean constitutional fight. But there is a second path the justices could take.

The quieter issue that could decide the whole case

As The Hill points out, the Court does not necessarily have to resolve the full constitutional question tomorrow. Congress codified birthright citizenship in federal law in 1940, and then again in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, using language that closely tracks the 14th Amendment. That gives the justices a narrower off-ramp: they could rule that Trump’s order conflicts with federal statute even if they avoid saying anything sweeping about the Constitution itself.

That point is crucial because this Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts in particular, has sometimes preferred narrower rulings when a broader constitutional one is not strictly necessary. A statutory ruling would still block Trump’s order. It would also let the Court sidestep, at least for now, a frontal collision with more than a century of constitutional understanding.

Of course, that would not end the politics. It would simply move the fight back to Congress, where Republicans have spent years trying to restrict birthright citizenship and where support for that effort has grown, even if the legislation still has not moved.

The administration’s argument is not just aggressive. It is historically loaded.

There is another reason this case feels so ominous. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration’s Supreme Court brief leans in part on arguments advanced by late-19th-century figures such as Alexander Porter Morse, Francis Wharton, and George D. Collins, men whose campaigns against birthright citizenship were steeped in anti-Black and anti-Chinese racism. Scholars quoted by the Post say the administration is reviving ideas that emerged from efforts to narrow Reconstruction-era citizenship and keep Chinese immigrants and their children outside the national body politic.

That historical backdrop matters because it clarifies what is being presented as a technical dispute about constitutional meaning. The argument Trump is pushing did not emerge from some neutral, long-lost legal tradition. It grew out of an older effort to decide that some people born here still did not belong here.

That does not automatically decide the case. But it tells you something about what kind of history the administration has chosen to elevate, and why so many legal historians hear alarm bells in this brief.

John Eastman is back in the room, even if his name is not on the brief

And then there is the man behind the theory.

According to Politico, John Eastman has been trying to end birthright citizenship for decades. Long before he became nationally known for helping devise Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, Eastman was writing op-eds, law review articles, and testimony arguing that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil. Politico describes him as the longtime intellectual engine behind this effort, even though the administration’s briefs do not openly credit him.

In short, the same lawyer whose legal theories became shorthand for constitutional extremism after 2020 is also the leading evangelist for this one. That does not make the administration’s argument legally impossible on its own. But it does tell you what ideological ecosystem it comes from, and how long this project has been waiting for the right Court and the right presidency to try again.

The babies keep disappearing from the argument

One of the sharpest critiques of this case came from NPR, which noted how rarely the people most directly affected are centered in the debate. According to Bruce Lesley of First Focus on Children, this is “birth” right citizenship. This is about babies. But public argument around the case has focused instead on administrative burdens, historical meaning, political allegiance, and immigration deterrence.

NPR reports that under the current system, babies born in U.S. hospitals are automatically folded into a network of legal and administrative protections: Social Security numbers, Medicaid eligibility, food benefits, and continuity of care. If birthright citizenship were narrowed, every family could be forced into a proof regime that does not currently exist, with the citizenship of newborns depending on documents, parental status, and bureaucratic determinations made at the most vulnerable moment in a child’s life.

Regarding the consequences, NPR notes that around 3.6 million babies are born in the U.S. each year, and that all parents, not just immigrant parents, could face new documentation hurdles if automatic citizenship disappears. Lawyers have also warned of especially chaotic outcomes for babies with unknown fathers, foundlings, children born through surrogacy or assisted reproductive technology, and families whose records are incomplete or destroyed.

In the end, once you make citizenship at birth conditional, you are no longer simply arguing about constitutional text. You are building a bureaucracy of suspicion around newborns.

How many children are actually at stake

Similarly, CBS reports that the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute estimate more than 250,000 babies each year would be affected by Trump’s order. California Attorney General Rob Bonta told CBS that between 20,000 and 24,000 babies in California alone could lose citizenship annually, while states would also lose federal funding tied to children’s eligibility for programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.

And the concern does not stop with future births. Advocates told CBS that if the Court accepts the administration’s reading of the Citizenship Clause, it could invite broader challenges to the citizenship of millions of Americans and fuel even more aggressive efforts to question who belongs. That is why opponents keep stressing that this case is not just about one executive order. It is about whether the Court opens the door to a much wider culture of doubt about citizenship.

Public opinion is split, but not in a simple way

NPR’s latest survey round-up shows the politics here are more complicated than the White House would like. General support for birthright citizenship remains relatively strong when people are asked about it as a constitutional principle, but support drops sharply when poll questions focus specifically on undocumented parents or temporary visitors. The divide is also steeply partisan and racialized: Democrats, younger voters, Black Americans, and Latinos are much more likely to support birthright citizenship, while Republicans, especially white Republicans, are much more likely to oppose it.

That split matters because it helps explain why the administration is pushing so hard on this case. Birthright citizenship is one of those issues where long-settled law collides with a public that is unevenly informed and often responsive to how the question is framed. It is also one of the clearest examples of how immigration politics in the United States works: present a constitutional guarantee as a loophole, describe newborns as incentives, and then ask the Court to do what Congress never quite managed to do.

What tomorrow’s hearing is really about

Tomorrow’s argument is nominally about text, history, and precedent. But the deeper conflict is over what kind of country the Court thinks the 14th Amendment created after the Civil War.

The traditional understanding of birthright citizenship says that if you are born here, you enter the political community here. You are not required to inherit your parents’ legal precarity. You do not begin life having to prove that you belong. That is part of what made the Citizenship Clause so powerful after Dred Scott, and part of why Wong Kim Ark became so central in the first place.

Trump’s order asks the Court to move in the opposite direction. It asks the justices to treat birthplace as insufficient, parental status as decisive, and constitutional bedrock as flexible enough to be narrowed by a president on day one.

We’re starting the week with a contradiction the White House can no longer hide: the spectacle of power is still there, but so are the cracks. From the largest single day of protest in U.S. history to a sudden retreat on Cuba oil and a Pentagon argument that edges toward criminalizing journalism itself, here’s the news we’re watching as the week begins.

The country kept showing up

The third No Kings protest drew more than 8 million people across more than 3,300 events in all 50 states and more than a dozen countries, according to organizers cited by The Guardian. That makes it the largest number of protests in a single day in U.S. history.

What stands out is not only the scale but the geography. Organizers said nearly half of the events took place in traditionally red or battleground states, and more than two-thirds of people who RSVP’d were outside major urban centers. In other words, this was a national warning flare.

The issues pulling people into the street were also tellingly broad: ICE raids, the war in Iran, voting rights threats, trans rights, labor rights, Palestinian solidarity, and the basic question of whether the country is sliding toward something openly authoritarian. In Minnesota, where federal agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti earlier this year, the protest carried the weight of mourning as much as resistance. In New York, the theme was democracy. In Chicago, it was anti-fascism and protection for immigrant and trans communities. Across cities and rural towns alike, the throughline was simple: people are seeing the connections.

That is why the White House response felt so brittle. Dismissing millions of people as participants in “Trump Derangement Therapy Sessions” fell, well, short. It is the language of an administration that knows the backlash is no longer a partisan issue.

Trump blinked on Cuba

After months of trying to choke off fuel to Cuba, Trump said Sunday he would not stop a Russian tanker carrying oil to the island. According to The Washington Post, the Hong Kong-flagged tanker was nearing Cuba with Russian-origin fuel when Trump abruptly said he had “no problem” with a country sending oil there.

This comes after the administration had spent months building an effective fuel blockade meant to weaken the Cuban government. Trump had threatened tariffs on countries that supplied Cuba with oil. He had also already cut off Venezuelan fuel exports to the island. The result, according to the Post, was diesel and gasoline shortages, island-wide blackouts, and the closure of schools and hospitals.

Then, in the now trademarked style of this administration, came the reversal.

On one level, Trump tried to brush it off by claiming Cuba is finished anyway. On the other hand, the climbdown exposed the limit of trying to run a war in Iran, manipulate global energy markets, antagonize Russia, and tighten the screws on Cuba all at once. When your foreign policy is scattershot and overextended, eventually one front gives way.

That is the more interesting part here. The administration wanted the blockade to appear to be a display of dominance. Instead, it ended up looking like another reminder that coercion has consequences, especially when oil prices are already under pressure, and Russia is still willing to test Washington’s nerve.

The Pentagon wants fear to do the censoring

The administration’s assault on the press also kept moving.

According to The Intercept, a federal judge struck down the Pentagon’s restrictions on journalists seeking “unauthorized” information, siding with The New York Times. The Pentagon responded by reissuing essentially the same restrictions with cosmetic changes and pledging an immediate appeal.

The more chilling part is the legal theory underneath it. As The Intercept reported, the Justice Department argued that while journalists may ask authorized Pentagon personnel questions, they can be accused of soliciting a crime if they ask nonpublic information from officials who are not supposed to disclose it. Put plainly, the government is pushing the idea that asking the wrong question to the wrong official could itself be criminal.

For years, administrations have tried to route journalists through official spokespeople and choke off unscripted access. This move, however, goes further. It tries to shift the burden of censorship onto reporters themselves, forcing them to behave as if the government’s internal gag rules are now their legal problem, too.

And January 6 keeps coming back dressed as public service

Meanwhile, in Florida, one of the men most closely associated with the visual humiliation of January 6 is trying to turn notoriety into office.

The Washington Post profiled Adam Johnson, the man photographed carrying Nancy Pelosi’s lectern through the Capitol Rotunda on January 6, 2021. After serving jail time and receiving a presidential pardon, he is now running for a seat on the Board of Commissioners in Manatee County.

The profile is disturbing for reasons that go beyond one race. Johnson has rarely voted, still doubts the 2020 election was fair, and now treats his role in January 6 as both a joke and a brand asset. His campaign logo is a silhouette of him carrying the lectern. He calls that day “a good day.” He says it offers “free marketing.”

And that sums it up. January 6 is no longer something many on the right feel compelled to explain away. It is becoming a credential, a meme, a low-level launching pad into public office. What was once supposed to disqualify someone from democratic life is being folded back into politics as a matter of personality.

And if that sounds familiar, it should. The administration is doing something similar in court this week as it asks the Supreme Court to revisit birthright citizenship using arguments, The Washington Post reports, that rely in part on figures steeped in anti-Black and anti-Chinese racism.

That is the broader story right now. This is not just a government trying to govern badly. It is a government trying to normalize the ugliest parts of its project by laundering them through repetition, legal process, and spectacle.

One more thing to keep in mind this week

We’ll also be publishing a Survival Guide on what travelers need to know about ICE officers at airports, as the administration continues folding immigration enforcement into ordinary public life.

That is where we are. Millions in the streets, a blockade that wobbled, a Pentagon trying to scare reporters out of doing their jobs. And a January 6 meme candidate asking voters to call it all “normal.”

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers have gone without pay for 40 days as a partial government shutdown drags on. TSA is housed under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Senate is in a stalemate over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding accountability for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

As the shutdown drags on, Democrats have attempted 11 times to fund TSA separately, and Republicans have voted against it each time. Republicans have tried to reach a deal, but President Donald Trump demanded that Republican senators keep up the shutdown. There is a lot going on here, so let’s break it down.

President Donald Trump is threatening extraordinary actions to sidestep the Senate

The president is not immune to public perception and pressure. President Trump is known to walk back policies or comments when he sees that they are unpopular. After all, he has made a career of wanting to be liked and caring what people think about him. The mounting pressure to alleviate the long lines and wait times at airports is starting to make President Trump crack.

According to the Associated Press, the president is considering declaring a national emergency to force DHS to pay TSA workers. The move is a desperate attempt to end a partial government shutdown that is hurting the president’s polling numbers.

The president posted to Truth Social that he wants to end the chaos at the airports, and he is prepared to do whatever it takes to end the pain he has caused.

“It’s not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it!” the president wrote.

Sixty votes are required in order for the funding to pass the Senate; senators are ready to get rid of the filibuster. Republicans need Democrats to cross party lines and vote with them to pass it. But by not negotiating in good faith, Democrats have stood strong on their demands.

Democrats are asking to rein in ICE. Democrats want three things: stricter standards around judicial warrants for arrests, ICE agents wearing body cameras, and banning ICE agents from wearing masks. Recent polling shows that Americans want the agency overhauled. Yet, like always, Republicans don’t want to work for the people.

Democrats have attempted to get the TSA paid to end the airport chaos

Democratic senators have offered 11 times to fully fund TSA, separate from the negotiations to fund DHS. Each time, Republicans have voted against the bills, creating an unnecessarily long partial shutdown. The refusal to vote to fund TSA separately has created more chaos in airports across the country. President Trump deployed ICE agents to airports to help with security, but social media posts show ICE agents hanging around like spectators.

“We can pay TSA workers right here, right now,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who offered that latest attempt to fund TSA. “Republicans are more interested in playing political games and holding the rest of DHS hostage than governing and keeping our communities safe!”

Sen. Merkley first sought unanimous consent to fund TSA directly and independently. However, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) refused. Sen. Moreno then blocked Sen. Merkley’s second attempt to fund all of DHS except for ICE and CBP so TSA workers can get paid and negotiations can continue.

Previously, Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement to fund all of DHS, minus ICE and CBP. Republicans said they could fund ICE later with a reconciliation. This would be along party lines, guaranteeing desired funding for ICE. President Trump told Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) no deal. The decision means that President Trump personally blocked pay for TSA workers.

Even Republicans have blamed President Trump for the prolonged shutdown

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) explained in a recent interview that a deal had been reached to partially fund DHS. The bipartisan deal was seen as a victory within the Senate, but President Trump didn’t like it. Republicans were prepared to accept the deal.

“[W]e would offer a bill for reconciliation where we don’t need any Democratic votes to do whatever we wanted to do with ICE. And that way we’re out of the shutdown, and DHS is back open,” Sen Kennedy said in the interview. “Senator Thune submitted that to President Trump, as is his right. He said no. No deals with the Democrats. It would’ve worked. We could’ve had TSA paid by the end of the week. But the president said no deal.”

Whether or not he meant to, Sen. Kennedy single-handedly disproved that Republican talking point that Democrats are to blame for the TSA chaos. In one interview, he admitted that Democrats were willing to fund TSA, but President Trump wasn’t done with his political theater.

A Mexican teenager died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Royer Perez-Jimenez, 19, was found unresponsive in a Florida detention facility in the early morning hours of March 16. His death was announced in a press release from ICE dated March 18. The teenager’s death is raising more questions about detention facility conditions. Here’s what we know about Perez-Jimenez’s death and the trend of people dying in ICE custody.

A teenager is dead after being detained by ICE

Royer Perez-Jimenez, a Mexican national, is the youngest person who has died in ICE custody during President Donald Trump’s second term. The teenager was being held at the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida. According to a press release, Perez-Jimenez was found unconscious and unresponsive by a detention officer at 2:34 a.m. in his room. He was declared dead at 2:51 a.m., but an investigation into the death is ongoing.

According to ICE, Perez-Jimenez is presumed to have died from suicide. Perez-Jimenez was arrested on Jan. 21 by the Edgewater Police Department. He was charged with misdemeanor fraud for impersonation and misdemeanor resisting an officer. He was placed into an ICE detainer on Jan. 22 and was transferred to ICE custody on Feb. 21. ICE transported him to the Glades County Detention Center on Feb. 26.

“At intake, Perez was evaluated by medical staff,” reads the press release. “He denied any behavioral health issues or concerns and answered ‘no’ to all suicide screening questions.”

Perez-Jimenez’s death is drawing more attention to poor conditions in Florida immigration detention centers

A report from multiple civil rights and advocacy groups released in January looked specifically at the conditions of the Glades County Detention Center. The report found that the detention center posed a serious risk to people’s health. Along with the misuse of industrial chemical disinfectant, the report found that detainees were at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. Most troubling, ICE agents regularly used pepper spray as a form of punishment, adding more irritants to the air.

“This is just one of several immigration detention facilities in Florida in recent years in which we’ve seen a troubling disregard for the health of people detained or the surrounding environment,” Dominique Burkhardt, Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “The courageous effort by advocates and those detained to expose these conditions is vital in an immigration detention system that would otherwise operate as a black box.”

There have been concerns about the conditions of immigration detention centers for years. Activists have been calling attention to the subpar sleeping accommodations, chemical pollutants, and general unhygienic conditions.

This isn’t the first ICE custody death this year

There have been at least 10 deaths in ICE custody so far in 2026. Others who have died in custody include Victor Manuel Díaz, 36; Heber Sanchez Domínguez, 34; Luis Beltrán Yanez–Cruz, 68; Luis Gustavo Núñez Caceres, 42; Jairo Garcia-Hernandez, 27; Lorth Sim, 59; Mohammad Nazeer Paktiawal, 41; Emanuel Cleeford Damas, 56; Pejman Karshenas Najafabadi, 59; and Alberto Gutiérrez Reyes, 48.

Forty-two people have died in ICE custody so far in President Trump’s second term, a record number. ICE officials have denied the claim. However, ICE detentions have skyrocketed under President Trump’s second term. According to data, the number of people in ICE custody peaked at more than 70,000 in January 2026.

The current federal government has put a lot of focus on mass arrests, detention, and deportations at the expense of people’s lives. Perez-Jimenez is the latest victim, but likely will not be the last of President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The federal government has poured tens of billions into immigration detention, expanded the number of facilities at breakneck speed, and helped entrench private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group even further into the machinery of enforcement.

Behind them sit some of the largest financial firms in the world, holding major stakes, while immigrants with no criminal convictions fill detention beds and deaths in custody rise.

Meanwhile, the same administration escalating this crackdown is also starving farms, trucking, and other sectors of the immigrant labor that keep the economy moving.

Renouncing your United States citizenship isn’t a common thing for people to do. According to data, between 5,000 and 6,000 people renounce their citizenship, and the State Department wants to make it easier. In a recent rule change, the cost of renouncing your U.S. citizenship is now $450. The announcement comes at a time when the federal government has been trying to get rid of birthright citizenship and threatening to strip people of their citizenship.

Renouncing your U.S. citizenship has never been cheaper

The State Department just dropped the cost of renouncing your U.S. citizenship from $2,350 to $450. That is an 80 percent drop in the financial cost of walking away from your citizenship. It is now back down to the original price it cost in 2010 when the U.S. started to charge citizens to renounce their citizenship. The price increased to $2,350 in 2015 when requests surged due to the changing tax responsibility for U.S. citizens living abroad.

“Many reported spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on tax professionals, even when they might have no U.S. tax liabilities,” an official for the State Department said, according to The New York Times. “Some stated that despite being required to comply with U.S. tax laws, they received and/or benefited from few of the services for which their taxes were collected.”

The drop in price is due to unrelenting legal pressure from the Association of Accidental Americans, which is based in France. The organization represents people living abroad who are U.S. citizens simply due to being born in the U.S. The organization filed several lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the fee. There is a current lawsuit pending that argues that there should be no fee to renounce your citizenship.

“The Association of Accidental Americans welcomes this decision, which acknowledges the necessity of making this fundamental right accessible to all,” Fabien Lehagre, the president of the Association of Accidental Americans, said in a statement. “This victory is the direct result of six years of relentless legal action and advocacy.”

There are implications for anyone who renounces their U.S. citizenship

Renouncing your U.S. citizenship comes with implications. Once someone renounces their citizenship, they lose all rights that are given to citizens. First, people who give up their citizenship lose the right to enter, work, and live in the U.S. In the eyes of the government, once you renounce your citizenship, you are seen as a foreign national. It is seen as a permanent, irrevocable process, so don’t take it lightly.

For high-income individuals, the financial liabilities to renounce their citizenship keep growing. Currently, people who make $2 million+ net worth or $190k+ average annual income tax for 2024/2025 have to pay capital gains taxes on all property they own abroad. This is called an “exit tax.”

People are also required to file a specific tax form as their final tax return for the year they renounce. Renouncing your citizenship doesn’t wipe away tax liability debt. After all, the U.S. government wants to make sure it gets its money.

It is also important not to renounce, if you want, before having citizenship in another country. There is a risk of becoming stateless, which leaves you limited in how you can travel or receive government protection.

Renouncing your citizenship is not an easy process and requires the person to confirm multiple times that they understand the implications. The new fees are effective on April 13.

The 2026 midterms are heating up across the country. Democrats are over-performing and defeating Republicans. The political world is buzzing with new data and polling, shifting the likelihood of races into new territory. This also means that there is a lot of drama starting to show itself in some races.

The recent election results show a shift towards the Democratic Party, and it is putting some seats in danger of flipping away from Republicans. We live in a time, politically, where being an incumbent comes as extra baggage rather than an advantage. It has led to some wild political moves. Here are some of the elections that we are watching after some sudden shifts caused drama.

Montana: Senate Race

The Montana Senate race took a turn on March 4 when Republican incumbent Sen. Steve Daines withdrew from the race three minutes before the filing deadline. He then endorsed Kurt Alme, a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana. Many in the political world see right through the façade and call the move a trick to allow Alme to file to run while keeping other candidates out of the race.

By waiting until the last minute and essentially choosing a successor, Sen. Daines is putting his finger on the scale. The maneuver shut out Democrats from mounting a strong challenger in the now open Senate race. Independent candidate Seth Bodnar is capitalizing on the drama Sen. Daines created. Before the announcement, Sen. Daines held a sizable lead, and the story was that Republicans would hold onto the Senate seat.

However, the decision could put the seat into play for the 2026 midterm elections, costing Republicans a seat in the Senate. Inside Elections moved the race from Solid Republican to Likely Republican in the aftermath of Sen. Daines’s sudden retirement. President Donald Trump won Montana in 2024 with 58.4 percent of the vote. Sen. Daines intentionally injected uncertainty into the race with potentially far-reaching consequences.

Alaska: Senate Race

Mary Peltola is giving Democrats hope of a potential flip in the Senate. Peltola is no stranger to defying the odds when it comes to politics in Alaska. She won a special election in 2022 after the Republican incumbent Don Young died. She became the first Native Alaskan and woman elected to represent Alaska in Congress. She also became the first person born in Alaska elected to serve in Congress and the first Democrat elected to Congress in Alaska since 1972.

Polling shows Peltola leading the pack in Alaska’s jungle primary and ranked-choice voting system. Peltola's entering the race moved what would have been a Solid Republican seat to Lean Republican across several organizations tracking elections. She is challenging incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. A recent survey from The Alaska Current shows that Alaska voters are not happy with Sen. Sullivan’s work in the Senate. The survey reports that 41 percent of Alaska voters think the senator should have another term, while 53 percent believe that he should be replaced.

Iowa: Senate Race

Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa threw the Senate race into chaos long before 2026. During a town hall in 2025, Sen. Ernst was asked about Medicaid cuts that were coming as part of the Big Beautiful Bill that Republicans supported. Her response was, “Well, we are all going to die.” The comment landed as well as you would expect. The backlash was swift and severe, eventually forcing Sen. Ernst to announce her retirement from the Senate, a seat she has held since 2015.

With Sen. Ernst out of the race, national Democrats are hopeful that the right candidate could turn Iowa from a Republican state back to a battleground state. Iowa voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Current polling shows a close race with 3 percent between Republican Ashley Hinson and Democrat Zach Wahls. Wahls is currently leading in the polls for the Iowa Democratic Senate primary. Cook Political Report names the Senate race in Iowa as Likely Republican, showing a shift towards Democrats.

Texas: Senate Race

The Texas Senate race drama has less to do with party affiliation and more to do with unwavering loyalty to the president over country. Democrat James Talarico won the party’s nomination after the primary election on March 3. However, incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton failed to get 50 percent of the vote in the Republican primary, triggering a runoff election.

Where this gets dicey is AG Paxton’s claim that he will drop out of the race if Sen. Cornyn commits to suspending the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. Sen. Cornyn had previously stated that he would not support suspending the filibuster for the vote, and it has thrown the Republican Party into chaos over the election. Why? Well, President Trump was set to endorse the incumbent, but he is determined to pass the SAVE Act in an attempt to disenfranchise voters ahead of the midterm elections.

AG Paxton’s announcement leaves President Trump unable to endorse one candidate over the other. On the one hand, he could endorse the incumbent to protect the seat. On the other hand, he can endorse a man who said he would drop out of the race if the incumbent changes his thoughts about the filibuster.

Meanwhile, recent polling shows both Sen. Cornyn and AG Paxton trailing Talarico by very slim margins. Talarico leads Sen. Cornyn 44 to 43, and he leads Paxton 47 to 45. Democrats have been trying to flip a Texas Senate seat for a decade, and this could be their best shot in a long time to turn a statewide seat blue.

Texas: 23rd Congressional District

Running from San Antonio to El Paso, Texas’s 23rd Congressional District is one to watch. Rep. Tony Gonzales has represented the district since 2021. However, a political scandal upended his reelection bid after admitting to an affair with a staffer who committed suicide last year. For months, Rep. Gonzales denied the affair, despite text evidence that he engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship.

After he dropped out, YouTube personality Brandon Herrera, also known as the “AK Guy,” became the Republican candidate. He was quickly endorsed by President Trump. Herrera has a long history of posting Nazi and gun content on social media. Texas’s 23rd Congressional District includes Uvalde, the site of the Robb Elementary School shooting.

Recent polling shows that Democratic challenger Katy Padilla Stout is within striking distance of Herrera in a district that is largely Latino. Stout is polling at 40 percent compared to Herrera’s 42 percent.

Why do these elections matter?

Democrats are capitalizing on disenchanted voters who are moving away from Republicans. Recent special elections show Democrats over-performing in even the most Republican districts with strong support for President Trump in 2024.

On January 31, 2026, Taylor Rehmet pulled off a major upset for Republicans when he flipped Texas’s 9th Senate District for Democrats. The seat had been held by Republicans since 1992, ending a 34-year streak of Republicans representing the district. Rehmet won the district by 14 points, a dramatic swing from the 20-point victory by Republican Kelly Hancock in 2022. The 34-point swing is largely attributed to the shift of Latino voters back towards Democrats following the 2024 presidential election.

Republicans hold a slim majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives that could disappear after the 2026 midterms. Republican leadership has regularly stated that if Democrats control the Senate and the House, it would be an effective stop to President Trump’s agenda. Americans, according to polling, are unhappy with the president’s job. Fifty-five percent of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s job performance, with factors like the economy, the Iran war, and tariffs dragging down his approval rating.

Independent and Latino voters are shifting to the left. In a survey with Latino business owners by Politico, 42 percent said that their economic situation has gotten worse under President Trump. New data shows that 45 percent of Americans now identify as politically independent, the largest number ever recorded. The shift, however, seems to be favoring Democrats leading into the 2026 midterm elections.

For years, Donald Trump and his team have campaigned on the slogan “America First,” claiming that mass deportations of immigrants would lead to “higher wages with better benefits” and a “100% American workforce.” What they did not realize, among many other things, is that immigrants are the backbone of the American workforce.

In 2025 alone, more than 15,000 farms closed in the U.S. According to USDA data released in February 2026, the number of U.S. farms fell to a total of 1.865 million. This is due in part to a severe economic downturn, along with all the other factors the administration has promoted as a hoax: climate change, declining export demand, and, of course, the importance of farmworkers.

Now, according to The New York Times, the agricultural sector is facing a tight labor market as “farmworkers age and fewer new immigrants and younger Americans are willing to toil in the fields.”

Without saying so outright, the administration has admitted in recent months that immigration raids and the crackdown at the border “have exacerbated the issue.” Their solution? Making it cheaper for farmers to hire immigrant farmworkers on temporary visas.

As the Times reported, although many farmers have welcomed the changes made to the H-2A visa program, others are more radical in their opposition. Either way, “the simmering debate underscores how some of the administration’s top goals — reducing immigration, keeping food prices low, and helping American workers — may inevitably conflict.”

And it seems the administration still doesn’t get it

As if the lesson about the importance of immigrants to the country’s economic engine had not sunk in, some 200,000 immigrant truck drivers will now “begin to lose their commercial driver’s licenses as they expire” under a new Trump administration rule that takes effect Monday.

As reported by NPR, the administration’s rationale for tightening the rules is “following several high-profile crashes involving foreign-born drivers.” The policy, aimed at strengthening safety and enforcement, affects asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients.

“To be clear, states are already barred from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to anyone in the U.S. illegally,” NPR added. “Immigrants with temporary legal status do need work authorization from the federal government in order to qualify for a CDL.”

As of early 2026, approximately 200,000 to more than 720,000 truck drivers in the U.S. are immigrants, with estimates often placing the foreign-born workforce at around 18% to 20% of all drivers. However, a new federal rule in March 2026 banning asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients from obtaining or renewing commercial driver’s licenses is directly affecting about 200,000 of these drivers.

Foreign-born drivers are heavily involved in long-haul and regional freight, helping fill labor shortages

The administration’s new rule is expected to exacerbate driver shortages, increase shipping costs, and raise consumer prices.

As the industry relies heavily on foreign-born labor, companies are already reporting immediate difficulties finding drivers for key routes. That translates into increased shipping costs caused by reduced capacity, which are eventually passed on to consumers.

To be more specific, with foreign-born drivers making up a significant portion of the workforce, removing 200,000 drivers is expected to intensify the current labor shortage, which was already estimated at more than 60,000 drivers.

In California, specifically, the regulations are expected to disrupt the transportation economy, with concerns about the potential loss of 61,000 drivers, according to CalMatters.

Finally, the increased scrutiny has caused fear among immigrant drivers, prompting some to avoid certain routes and potentially leading to further supply chain slowdowns.

So what happens when ideology collides with reality?

In the end, as is highly likely, the government will realize that it has no other workforce as efficient and reliable as the immigrant workforce. Will it regret this decision, just as it did with farmworkers, or will it let the economy collapse while searching for another scapegoat that better suits its rhetoric?

We’re kicking off the week with half the world captivated by the Oscars while the rest of it continues to burn. From what’s really happening in American television to the latest news out of Iran, here’s the news we’re watching as the week begins.

Not even the Oscars can escape politics

Before all the artists arrived at the Dolby in their finest attire, hundreds of anti-ICE protests erupted across Los Angeles. Amid slogans like “history will remember” and “ICE won’t quit,” activists called for the expulsion of the government’s paramilitary agents from cities including Minnesota and Portland.

While stars like Javier Bardem demanded an end to the war and freedom for Palestine, U.S. networks are now under direct threat.

Just before the Academy Awards ceremony, the current Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, threatened that TV broadcasters must “course correct” their coverage of the Iran war or “they will lose their licenses.” Carr’s threat came just one day after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth openly called for CNN to be taken over by Paramount, and just one hour after the president posted an image outlining his plan to “reshape the media” by defunding public news, firing late-night hosts and news anchors, and waging war on media companies.

Waco teacher fired for giving kids art supplies for ICE protest

Steve Gaines, an English teacher at the Harmony School of Innovation in Waco, was fired a month after students in his class organized a walkout to protest ICE. Gaines helped students make signs out of cardboard boxes and paint during school hours and said the principal did not instruct him to stay out of the protest until third period.

Gaines, who has 11 years of teaching experience, says he takes responsibility for the lost class time, but believes his dismissal was a disproportionate consequence and stands by his decision to support his students.

Finally, Iran’s long game

As the U.S.-Israel war on Iran escalates, Trump is urging NATO nations to help reopen shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz through military support. Daily oil exports from the Persian Gulf, home to top exporter Saudi Arabia and other major producers, have dropped by at least 60%, driving up prices and intensifying fears of long-term economic fallout.

However, only 2% of the total petroleum products fueling the United States passes through the Strait of Hormuz, while 20% goes to Europe. That could push countries around the world to negotiate with Iran before joining the deranged and unsustainable quest the United States has launched on Israel’s behalf.

There is something especially cruel about the way this Administration talks about work.

It wraps itself in the language of entrepreneurship, grit, self-reliance, and “American job creators,” while targeting the very people who have spent years building businesses, hiring workers, and keeping local economies from hollowing out. This week, the U.S. Small Business Administration made that contradiction impossible to ignore.

According to a March 9 news release from the SBA, the agency has now expanded its restrictions on access to SBA-backed loans, banning foreign nationals and non-citizens from all SBA-guaranteed small business loan programs. That includes the agency’s Surety Bond and Microloan Programs, and it builds on an earlier policy change that had already made any small business owned in whole or in part by a foreign national ineligible for the SBA’s flagship 504 and 7(a) loan programs. Under the new rule, small business owners applying for any SBA loan program “must be U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals with their principal residence in the United States.”

“The Trump SBA is committed to driving economic growth and job creation for American citizens,” SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in the agency’s release. “Last month, we made it clear that SBA would not allow foreign nationals to access our core small business loan programs, and today, we are expanding that policy to include all SBA-guaranteed loans. With our lending authority capped annually by Congress and amid record demand for access to capital, our responsibility is clear: the limited resource of SBA financing must prioritize American citizens who are building businesses and creating jobs here at home.”

On paper, the White House and the SBA want this to read as a simple America First correction. In practice, it reads as an attempt to choke off access to capital for immigrant communities, including a large swath of Latino entrepreneurs, at the precise moment they have become one of the country’s clearest engines of business growth.

What the SBA actually changed

According to Politico, the Small Business Administration issued policy guidance in early February requiring that all owners of a small business applying for the agency’s primary 7(a) loan program be U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals with principal residences in the United States. The outlet reported that the move rescinded a December policy that had allowed a 7(a) loan borrower to hold up to 5% of a business’s ownership by a foreign national, a green card holder, or a U.S. national or citizen living outside the country.

That shift was severe enough on its own. Green card holders who had permanent U.S. residency could no longer own any part of a business applying for the federal government’s most popular small business loan program. Then the Administration went further.

According to Reuters, the SBA notice stated that “Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) will not be eligible to own any percentage interest in an Applicant/Borrower.”

Then came the March 9 expansion. According to the SBA’s own release, the rule now covers all SBA-guaranteed loans, including the Surety Bond Guarantee and Microloan programs. The agency said the change would take effect 30 days after publication.

The SBA said that in fiscal year 2025, it approved 3,358 loans for small businesses owned in part by lawful permanent residents, representing 4% of the agency’s total loan approvals of 85,000. Because Congress caps the agency’s lending authority each year, the SBA argued that “the limited resource of SBA financing must prioritize American citizens.”

But that framing leaves out the basic reality that lawful permanent residents are legal residents of the United States. They live here. They work here. They pay taxes here. They hire here. They build here. The Administration is asking the public to treat them as outsiders while depending on the economic life they help sustain.

Latino business owners already carry more of the economy than Washington admits

According to Brookings analysis of the Annual Business Survey, American Community Survey, and Bureau of Economic Analysis data from 2017 to 2022, Latino or Hispanic individuals owned 7.9% of all employer businesses in 2022, totaling 465,202 firms. Those businesses employed 3,550,230 people and generated more than $653 billion in total revenue. From 2021 to 2022 alone, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses increased employment by 14.1% and total revenue by 18.9%.

That growth did not come out of nowhere. According to the same report, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses grew at an average annual rate of 7.7% between 2017 and 2022, far outpacing the 0.46% growth rate for all employer businesses. Between 2017 and 2022, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses grew in 204 of 227 U.S. metro areas studied. Between 2021 and 2022, they represented 58% of the increase in total employers nationwide.

This means that without Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses, the U.S. would have had 619,655 fewer jobs between 2019 and 2022, alongside a loss of $34 billion in workers’ wages and $190 billion in total revenue.

So when this Administration narrows access to capital in the name of protecting “American job creators,” it is attacking a sector of the business community that has already been doing the work of creating jobs, wages, and revenue at a pace the broader economy has struggled to match.

However, another point buried in the Brookings data deserves more attention. Latino or Hispanic business owners remain underrepresented relative to their share of the U.S. population. In 2022, Latino or Hispanic-identifying individuals made up 19.1% of the population but owned only 7.9% of employer businesses. According to Brookings, if the share of Latino or Hispanic-owned employer businesses matched the share of Americans who identify as Latino or Hispanic, there would be 812,440 more businesses generating a combined $1.1 trillion in revenue and $250 billion in payroll.

In other words, the country is already benefiting from Latino entrepreneurship while still starving it of the full room it deserves to grow.

And who gets shut out when Latino business owners lose access to capital?

The SBA does not need to name Latinos explicitly for Latino communities to feel the blow.

According to The Guardian, this is the first time in the agency’s history that legal residents, including green card holders, have been cut off from loans backed by the Small Business Administration. The paper reported that many of those loans support “main street” enterprises such as retail shops, restaurants, cafes, franchises, and business-to-business services in sectors ranging from manufacturing to transportation.

That description should sound familiar to anyone who knows how Latino entrepreneurship actually looks on the ground. It is the restaurant owner trying to expand, the contractor trying to bid on a larger project. The family business struggling to buy equipment. The franchisee who wants to open a first location.

According to The Guardian, Keegan McBride, co-founder of SBA Source, said many franchisees are immigrants, including both green card holders and naturalized U.S. citizens, and that under the new rule, even married couples trying to launch a business together could be blocked from an SBA loan if both people are not U.S. citizens. He explained why these loans matter by saying, “SBA loans are really only meant to be issued in situations where folks wouldn’t be able to get access to credit on similar terms without the government guarantee. It’s challenging because SBA is kind of designed to fill that gap.”

That gap is the story. Conventional lenders already reward people who have home equity, inherited wealth, investment portfolios, or the kind of financial cushion that makes risk feel manageable. SBA-backed loans were created to reach people who do not move through the economy with those protections.

Many Latino families know that terrain intimately. They build businesses while carrying less generational wealth, thinner margins, and fewer institutional connections. Cutting off access to government-backed financing does not level the playing field. It tilts it even harder toward the people who already own most of it.

The Administration says this protects Americans. The record says something else.

The Administration has not been subtle about the worldview behind this policy.

According to Politico, the change is consistent with Trump’s January 2025 executive order on “protecting the American people against invasion,” which directs federal agencies to “employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States.” According to Lexology’s review of the policy changes, the SBA’s tightening rules have been gradual, beginning in 2025 and becoming more restrictive over time, culminating in a February 2026 policy that excludes legal permanent residents from owning even 1% of a business applying for SBA-backed financing.

This was not a one-off administrative correction. It was a deliberate campaign to tether access to capital to the Administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda.

In an op-ed posted to the SBA’s website in February, Loeffler said, “Trump has restored confidence and opportunity to Main Street with a commonsense economic agenda designed to put hardworking families and small businesses, not Washington bureaucrats, illegal aliens or coastal elites, in the driver’s seat,” according to The Guardian.

But the policy does not stop at undocumented immigrants. It reaches legal permanent residents. It reaches people whom the government itself has authorized to live and work permanently in the United States. It reaches people who have built businesses, paid taxes, created jobs, and committed themselves to this country for years.

According to Politico, Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Nydia Velázquez said in a joint statement: “The Trump administration is stoking the flames of hatred, spreading fear and confusion among immigrants and small business owners. Rather than support hardworking legal immigrants to start or expand a business, the Trump SBA is choosing hatred by barring green card holders from receiving an SBA loan. The Administration’s message to immigrants is clear: you are not welcome to pursue the American Dream.”

According to The Guardian, Aissatou Barry-Fall, CEO of the Lower East Side People’s Federal Credit Union, said the new policy makes “no sense whatsoever” and added, “I think it’s discrimination. That’s all it is.”

Latino business owners grew across the country. The punishment is national too.

One of the laziest myths in American politics is that Latino economic power is confined to a few predictable places. The data says otherwise.

According to Brookings, Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses grew in nearly 90% of the metro areas examined between 2017 and 2022. The biggest numerical gains came in places with large Latino communities, including Miami, Los Angeles, and New York. Miami alone added 13,693 Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses during that period. Los Angeles added 10,999. New York added 8,727.

And yet the pattern was national. Growth was observed across the Midwest and parts of the Southern Appalachians. Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses also contributed heavily to overall business growth in major metro areas. According to Brookings, they accounted for over 93% of total growth in Miami, 47% in Los Angeles, and 65% in Orlando.

These businesses are concentrated in sectors that shape everyday life. In 2022, according to Brookings, Latino or Hispanic-owned employer businesses were clustered in construction, accommodation and food services, and professional, scientific, and technical services. From 2017 to 2022, Latino- or Hispanic-owned construction businesses increased by over 37,500, a 75% jump. Transportation and warehousing grew by 74%. Arts, entertainment, and recreation grew by 86%. Real estate and rental leasing grew by 66%.

So why target Latino business owners now?

Because capital is power.

A community that starts businesses builds more than income. It builds autonomy. It builds leverage. It builds local hiring power, local political influence, neighborhood stability, and the ability to survive institutions that were never designed to make life easy. Small business formation changes the social map of who gets to own, employ, and endure.

That helps explain why this Administration keeps returning to the same pressure points: Immigration status. Access to credit. Federal legitimacy. The right to belong economically.

According to the SBA’s March 9 release, the agency also pointed to earlier efforts, including citizenship verification requirements across its loan programs, to “cut off access to loans for illegal aliens” and plans to move SBA field offices out of sanctuary cities that it says do not comply with ICE. In other words, this is a political worldview being translated into administrative barriers.

And it arrives at a brutal time. According to Politico, small business advocates warned that restrictions on green card holders come as small businesses are already struggling with tariffs, health care costs, inflation, and long-standing difficulties accessing capital. Small Business Majority founder and CEO John Arensmeyer said the decision “will limit the growth of small businesses and jobs throughout the United States” and that “the timing of SBA’s tighter lending eligibility criteria could not be worse.” He called on the agency to “prioritize broadening eligibility rather than narrowing it.”

According to The Guardian, restaurateur Aneesa Waheed, who was named the SBA’s New York state small business person of the year in 2024, put the emotional reality of the shift into plain language. “I’m really shocked,” she said. “I’ve been in the SBA world for a long time. You think of the SBA as a source of support and strength for small businesses.”

For decades, the SBA was one of the few places where the federal government acknowledged that access to capital should not be limited exclusively to the already secure. Now the agency is being used to narrow who counts as fully investable in America.

What they are really cutting off

There is a temptation to describe this as an immigration story and leave it there. That would let the Administration off too easily.

This is also a labor story. A wealth story. A race story. A story about who gets to convert work into ownership.

According to Reuters, the new rule does not stop non-citizens from owning businesses in the United States or from accessing conventional bank loans. That is true. It is also incomplete. Conventional credit is often harder to obtain, especially for founders without the collateral, asset base, or financial history that banks prefer. That is exactly why SBA-backed loans exist.

According to The Guardian, McBride said that without the SBA guarantee, many borrowers will have to rely on home equity, investment portfolios, or other forms of collateral to secure financing. Those are resources that many working and immigrant families do not have in abundance.

This is where the broader economic picture comes back into view. Brookings found that Latino or Hispanic-owned businesses likely buffered the U.S. economy against a more severe downturn during and after the pandemic. They helped drive post-pandemic business creation. They generated jobs, wages, and revenue in places that badly needed all three.

And still, they remain underrepresented. Still, there is room for growth. Still, the ceiling has not remotely been reached.

So when this Administration closes off a critical financing pathway, it’s telling a fast-growing entrepreneurial community that its labor, taxes, hiring, and revenue are welcome, but its claim to institutional support remains conditional.

There is a lot of chatter about the gubernatorial race in California. The top-two primary system, also called a jungle primary, has conservative voices on social media claiming that California is poised to have a Republican governor. For months, former Riverside County sheriff and Oath Keeper Chad Bianco was leading the pack. Second was Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator from the United Kingdom. Republicans really thought that they had something cooking in the Golden State, but claiming an early victory that never materializes is typical of the California GOP. New polling shows that the dream of a Republican-only race for governor in California is quickly evaporating.

Sorry, Republicans. The new frontrunner for California governor is a Democrat

For months, polling numbers showed a rare Republican two-way race in the top-two primary. A top-two primary is when all candidates for an office run against each other in the primary. This means that there is no Democratic or Republican primary for a two-party matchup for the general election. This is a rare primary structure that is only used in a handful of states. California and Washington both use a top-two primary system. Louisiana has what is called a classic jungle primary, where all of the candidates run on the same ballot, and only the one with more than 50 percent of the vote wins. Otherwise, there is a runoff. In Alaska, there is a similar system, but the top four candidates go into a ranked-choice voting runoff.

Previous polling showed Chad Bianco, a former sheriff from Riverside County and an unapologetic former member of Oath Keepers, and Steve Hilton, a conservative political commentator born in the United Kingdom, leading the large pack of gubernatorial hopefuls. This had Republicans hyped that they might take the governorship in California.

New polling from Emerson dashed those hopes this week when it was reported that Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell is now leading the pack with 17 percent. Meanwhile, Hilton remained in second place with 13 percent, and Bianco dropped to third place with 11 percent. Billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer is tied with Bianco for third place. Katie Porter, who was the favored candidate and the first to announce her candidacy, is in fifth place with 8 percent. So far, 25 percent of voters are still undecided and likely deciding on which Democrat to support.

The possibility of a Republican governor for California is very slim

The California GOP has been relying on a potential lockout scenario to win the California gubernatorial race. While it is technically possible, it is also an almost impossible situation. The gubernatorial race is filled with a lot of hopefuls.

There are currently nine Democrats in the race for governor. When you add up the polling numbers between Swalwell, Steyer, Porter, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Xavier Becerra, it accounts for 42 percent of likely voters. Meanwhile, the only Republicans in the mix account for 24 percent of potential voters.

For reference, Democratic voters outnumber Republican voters in California by almost double. There are 10,398,558 registered Democrats in California compared to 5,845,164 registered Republicans.

History shows that Californians aren’t into the Republican Party

Conservative pundits and social media users were obsessed with telling everyone that California is turning red. It would be an impressive feat if Republicans could somehow flip the Democratic stronghold. However, the data and history are not on their side. While they point to maps with large red districts, population numbers are important. The red areas of California are largely rural with fewer voters than major metropolitan areas, like Los Angeles and San Francisco.

When you dig into the historical data, the idea of a Republican governor becomes even more unlikely. The last Republican governor of California was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected during a recall election in 2003 and won reelection in 2006. He served until 2011 and left the state in bad shape. Schwarzenegger left office with a 23 percent approval rating, a $28 billion deficit, and an economy in ruins.

To put this in even clearer terms, Schwarzenegger was elected as governor the last time in 2006. Coincidentally, 2006 was the last time that California voters elected a Republican to a statewide office. By 2022, no Republicans have come within a 10-point margin of winning a statewide office.

As the race narrows, the Democratic lead will grow

With so many Democrats running for governor in California, the numbers right now aren’t telling the true story. California is strongly Democratic and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. The Republican Party's rebrand to MAGA and anti-immigrant doesn’t play well within the state. The last thing that Californians want is a state-level government that functions like a Trump administration.

Two out of three California voters do not approve of the president’s job. More specifically, a large majority of voters in California said that political extremism or threats to democracy, economic conditions, and immigration are important problems facing the nation with President Donald Trump in the White House. Three out of four believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction. These fears and opinions spell a worsening situation for the California Republican Party, which is already weakened due to the national Republican Party’s message.

Additionally, none of the low-ranking Democratic candidates would want to be the spoiler that would usher in a Republican state government these days. If any of them want to have a future career in California politics, the right thing to do is to suspend their campaigns and put their support behind the leading Democrats in the field. Once that happens, the fantasy of a Republican winning the 2026 gubernatorial race in California will fully evaporate. Till then, pay attention to the numbers, not the loud voices.

The recent arrest of Nashville journalist Estefany Rodríguez is further exposing the questionable tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Rodríguez has built a career as a journalist and recently covered immigration raids in Nashville. There is conflicting information coming from the federal government that is doing more to cast doubts than answer questions about her arrest. Let’s dig into what happened and why people are calling for Rodríguez’s release.

Estefany Rodríguez is a Nashville journalist covering immigration

Rodríguez first came to the United States on March 10, 2021, on a tourist visa from Colombia. After arriving, she applied for asylum based on death threats he received in Colombia for her reporting on corruption. She is married to a United States citizen, has applied for a green card, and has a valid work permit.

So, why was she arrested by ICE?

Rodríguez works for a media outlet called Nashville Noticias. As part of her work, she has recently covered the immigration raids and increased surveillance in the Nashville area. Her legal team and critics are claiming that her on-the-ground reporting made her a target for an unfounded immigration arrest.

“With her arrest, federal authorities have both silenced an important on-the-ground perspective and have sent a chilling message that reporting critical of the administration may face retaliation,” reads a statement from the Society of Professional Journalists. “Rodríguez’s detention is part of a broader erosion of democratic norms and human rights in the United States in which immigration authorities are increasingly being used to chill free expression and First Amendment rights. This practice must stop.”

On March 4, Rodríguez was in the car with her husband, who was driving. The car had a Nashville Noticias sticker on it. The couple was driving with their 7-year-old daughter when they were pulled over. When they parked, they were suddenly surrounded by unmarked cars and immigration agents. She was arrested and taken from the scene without any information about why she was arrested.

The federal government did not have a proper warrant

According to Rodríguez’s legal team, the original administrative warrant, dated March 2, was not properly filled out. An administrative warrant is a document that is signed by a fellow immigration officer, not a judge. These warrants are not legally binding and would prevent the arrest of a person or an immigration agent’s entry into private property.

Columbia Journalism Review pointed out the glaring mistakes of the original administrative warrant. According to the report, the Department of Homeland Security submitted a photo of the administrative warrant to the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The warrant did not include an A-number, which is a unique seven- to nine-digit code assigned to noncitizens. Additionally, the part that says where and when the arrest happened was left blank, further complicating the narrative from the federal government. The court is demanding an explanation from the federal government to justify the arrest.

DHS is trying to use social media and bots to change the narrative

Of course, the current federal government responded to the allegations on social media, instead of in court. Making legal arguments on social media has become a go-to for the administration as a way of controlling the narrative and likely relying on bots to spread the information as fact.

DHS claimed that there was a valid warrant and shared an image of said warrant. However, the warrant that DHS shared in an attempt to validate the arrest is dated March 4, the same day as the arrest. The claim from DHS is that the warrant was filled out in a post-arrest interview with Rodríguez.

According to court filings, the warrant isn’t enough to satisfy the burden of proof to justify her arrest. Rather, the documentation shown so far is casting a lot of doubt around ICE’s tactics in targeting Rodríguez.

Rodríguez’s arrest is exposing more potential constitutional violations

Rodríguez and her legal team are arguing that her First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights were violated in the arrest. Activists and her legal team are claiming that she was targeted for her reporting on immigration activities.

“Petitioner still seeks immediate release from custody of the ICE Enforcement & Removal Operations (“ERO”) Nashville Office, but she also requests that this Court enjoin Respondents from taking any enforcement action against Petitioner, either by retaliating against her past speech or chilling her future speech,” reads a filing to the court by Rodríguez’s legal team.

Rodríguez is currently being held in a county jail in Gadsden, Alabama. She is expected to be transferred to a detention center in Louisiana.