The Brief

Topline:

The background: Palisades residents have been under a “Do Not Drink” notice since Jan. 10, meaning residents could only use bottled water for drinking and cooking. The order affected most of the Pacific Palisades' 90272 ZIP code and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers just north of San Vicente Boulevard.

Why the order? The Palisades Fire damaged water distribution infrastructure in the area, and the system lost pressure as firefighters worked to combat the flames. Since then, the LADWP has been flushing the system and testing for contaminants such as benzene and other toxic chemicals that may have gotten into the water supply. (Learn more about that process here.)

What’s next: Testing shows that water quality has been safely restored, officials said Thursday. LADWP will continue testing the water despite the notice lifting. For residents whose homes still stand, you should also flush your water before use — here’s how.

Go deeper: 

Water utilities are flushing pipes to clean drinking water after the fires. Here’s what to know

Fact check: What really happened with the Pacific Palisades hydrants?

Cheat sheet: Everything LA residents need to know about water advisories

Adopted from Iran at age two, she takes great pride in her quintessential American upbringing.

The woman was raised on a small farm in the Midwest. She attended church every Sunday. And she loved listening to her late father's stories from when he was in the Air Force during World War II. 

But in the eyes of the U.S. government, the woman, who's now in her 50s and lives in California, is not American. Instead, she's an immigrant who overstayed her visa since she was a toddler and therefore, subject to deportation. She spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity because she fears speaking publicly will complicate her immigration case.

"How could this happen?" she said. "I'm American. I've never had any other identity besides that."

Most international adoptees receive automatic citizenship thanks to the 2000 Child Citizenship Act. But the law excludes those who were already adults when the legislation passed or adoptees who entered the U.S. on the wrong type of visa, which is what happened to the California woman.

Earlier this month, she received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security saying removal proceedings have begun. The woman, who has no criminal record, has no idea what prompted the letter. 

An adoptee brought to the United States by her American parents from Iran as a young child holds the immigration removal order she received recently, photographed in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

She's terrified to be deported to Iran given her father's military service and her Christian faith. Open Doors, which tracks Christian persecution, ranks Iran among the top 10 most dangerous countries for Christians. The woman also has no family there nor does she speak Farsi. And the prospect of deportation comes amid great upheaval in Iran, from anti-government protests to looming threats of a U.S. military strike. 

"The sheer possibility of the daughter of an American WWII hero being sent overseas, through no fault of her own, epitomizes a broken system," her attorney Emily Howe said in a statement.

It's unclear exactly how many adoptees are in the same vulnerable position as the California woman. Many don't realize their situation until adulthood, when obtaining citizenship becomes far more difficult. Others live in limbo because of lost paperwork and the sheer difficulty locating it decades later — which is also a layer of the woman's case.

An adoptee brought to the United States by her American parents from Iran as a young child stands for a portrait in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

Adoptees have been deported in the past, often because a crime triggered their removal. But with President Donald Trump's historic mass deportations, noncitizen adoptees are more fearful than ever of being sent to countries they barely remember.

A bill to close the gaps in the 2000 law has bipartisan support but failed several times in Congress, partly because of its tie to immigration, NPR reported last year.

The Department of Homeland Security would not respond to a request for comment unless provided the woman's name, which NPR declined to do. In a statement, DHS said immigrants facing deportation "receive full due process and asylum seekers have their fear claims heard."

'I don't understand this. How could this happen?'

Born in Iran in the 1970s, the woman doesn't know what happened to her birth parents or why she was placed in an orphanage. At the time of her adoption, she said her American father was working in Iran as a U.S. government contractor.

An archival childhood family photograph of an adoptee brought to the United States by her American parents from Iran as a young child, photographed in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

Fast forward, three decades later, the woman had finished paying off her student loans and wanted to travel outside the country. But when she applied for a passport, she realized something was wrong.

Pretty soon into the application process, the woman received a letter saying her parents did not complete her naturalization when she was a child. She recalled reaching out to an immigration attorney, who told her point blank, " You're deportable to Iran."

"I couldn't stop crying," she said. "I just, through my tears, kept asking like, I don't understand this. How could this happen?" 

The California woman was brought to the U.S. on a tourist visa, which was fairly common to use when adopting from countries that did not have formal intercountry adoption systems in place, according to Joy Alessi, a Korean adoptee who is with the Adoptee Rights Campaign.

"These nonimmigrant statuses routinely expired before state adoption proceedings could conclude," she said. "The status lapse required a formal adjustment to permanent residency."

The California woman firmly believes that her parents took the necessary steps to naturalize her. She points to a local newspaper article in which her parents mentioned working toward her citizenship, which NPR reviewed. Among her father's belongings, the woman said she found a document requesting lost citizenship paperwork. She added that her mother repeatedly insisted she was indeed a citizen.

An undated photo of the adoptee's father, who served in the military.

(

Provided by the adoptee.

)

Over the years, the woman said she has spent tens of thousands of dollars and sought help from several lawyers to track down missing documents and rectify what she believes is a clerical error.

"There was just paperwork and a paper trail letting me know and I'm grateful for that," she said. "And I stand by the fact that my dad loved me and he made sure that he did his part to make me an American in this country."

'I fight for myself, but at the same time, I fight for my dad's legacy'

Up until her passport debacle, the woman said she never thought of herself as an immigrant. 

"I didn't know what a green card was, alien number, I had no clue," she said. "But obviously now through this journey, I know it really well."

Now, she winces every time she turns on the news and hears about Trump's crackdown on immigration. Since she received the DHS letter, the woman has kept a low profile — switching to remote work and rarely leaving her house or driving her car. The woman also shares her location with her friends in case she is detained by ICE. 

"It used to be that, before some of the laws were changed, that you were safe in hospital spaces, churches, schools," she said. "Some of those places that I should be able to come and go are not safe havens for me anymore."

A "Home Sweet Home" decoration along with family portraits of an adoptee's American family in her home in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

Her case is scheduled before an immigration judge next month, which she does not have to appear in-person for. Although she's terrified, part of her has always wanted to resolve her legal status and put an end to the fear she has been carrying.

"I welcome fixing this. I've always wanted to fix this," she said. "I feel like I haven't been able to freely embrace my life."

As painful as this time has been, the woman attributes her strength to her father, a retired Air Force officer who was a prisoner of war in Germany during World War II. She imagines that if her father was alive today, he'd be angry on her behalf. 

"I fight for myself, but at the same time, I fight for my dad's legacy and what my dad wanted for me and how he prepared me for this life," she said. "And I'm not gonna let somebody take it from me."
Copyright 2026 NPR

In November, California voters may have to referee a multimillion-dollar battle among Uber, attorneys and doctors. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for anybody who uses the state’s roads and highways.

Uber last fall filed a proposed ballot measure that would cap personal injury lawyers’ contingency fees and limit medical damages for all vehicle crashes in California, even those not involving an Uber. The company paints its effort as a way to rein in attorneys who take advantage of those who get hurt in a crash. Crash survivors often hire attorneys on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyers only get paid if they win the case.

That got attorney groups fired up: They responded by proposing three ballot initiatives that would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger injuries; increase its liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers; and ban new state laws that interfere with people’s ability to retain lawyers.

Doctors and other medical providers also got organized and formed a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, last October to oppose Uber’s initiative.

Despite the substantial opposition, legal experts acknowledge Uber’s proposed ballot initiative could appeal to Californians.

“This measure could backfire for Uber, but it’s certainly possible that California voters will approve (the company’s) initiative because it has a ‘bumper sticker quality’ to it,” said Stanford University law professor Nora Engstrom, a litigation expert. She said she has no formal role in the opposition to Uber’s initiative, but she has researched contingency fees’ effects on competition and has written an op-ed opposing the measure.

Engstrom told CalMatters the measure might look good because it seems “unthreatening”; who would oppose crash survivors keeping more of their settlements? But capping contingency fees is equivalent to a price control, and economists generally agree that price controls hurt consumers, she said. She and other lawyers say the initiative could discourage attorneys from taking on cases and helping crash survivors secure compensation for any losses or injuries.

Arriving passengers walk with their luggage as they prepare to board vehicles at the 'LAX-it' ride-hail passenger pickup lot at LAX.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

A very expensive battle

Uber has put about $32.5 million into its effort since last fall, according to campaign finance records. The opposition has committed about $55 million to fight Uber as well as to promote its own competing initiatives. Consumer Attorneys of California, whose members are lawyers who represent consumers, has led the way with $30 million so far, while more than 400 other attorneys and law firms have spent a combined $20 million to fight the Uber initiative and promote their three measures. The medical providers have raised about $5 million so far and are aiming to raise a total of $10 million, said Pamela Lopez, a campaign representative.

As each side collects signatures to try to get their initiatives on the ballot, they have also spent that money on two different TV commercials that aired during the Super Bowl.

The last time Uber spent tens of millions of dollars on a California ballot measure was on Proposition 22 in 2020, when the state’s voters approved a law written by Uber and other gig companies, which allowed them to create a carveout from labor law and continue to treat their drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Top spender Uber — along with its Postmates subsidiary — funded more than $70 million out of the total $205 million the winning campaign.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who focuses on labor and opposed Uber’s Prop. 22 five years ago, said: “Uber is trying once again to misuse the democratic process and to disclaim legal responsibility — this time, not just towards their drivers but also towards consumers.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote that if Uber’s ballot measure passes, the state could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars of increased Medi-Cal costs, such as for health care that the state wouldn’t be able to recover. On the other hand, the state could save tens of millions of dollars a year in court costs because there could be fewer auto accident cases, the LAO wrote.

Uber’s ‘expansive’ measure

Uber’s proposed initiative calls for victims of vehicle crashes to retain 75% of any settlement they receive. In addition, it limits how much can be awarded for medical expenses and raises the burden of proof for recovering them. For liens and future medical expenses, the limit would be 125% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a service, and 170% of the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. The measure would also ban law firms from referring clients to a health care provider in which they have a financial interest.

The company says it’s necessary to stop lawyers from inflating crash victims’ medical costs then pocketing a big chunk of a settlement. Uber has sued lawyers and medical practices in California, New York and Florida over such allegations.

“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over ambulance lawyers, and that’s exactly what this measure does,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Uber’s campaign, in a statement.

Opponents of the measure said that if it qualifies for the November ballot and voters approve it, accident victims may not be able to sue for the compensation they deserve because lawyers will not have enough incentive to take on their cases if they know they will get only 25% of the settlement — or less — as opposed to the average 33% or more.

“Uber wrote it to be expansive, to keep victims from finding attorneys,” said Doug Saeltzer, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, which is spearheading the opposition to Uber’s initiative and proposed the competing ballot measures.

Lawyers and Uber are also battling over legalese about who would be responsible for paying medical bills after a crash. The lawyers say Uber’s initiative would require medical expenses to get paid from the attorney’s share of the settlement. Uber says the medical bills are likely to get paid by the client.

The way Saeltzer and other opponents of the measure read it is that medical expenses from a vehicle accident must come out of an attorney’s 25% share of a settlement. Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said it’s because of the language that a victim must retain 75% of the total amount recovered, and this part: “Medical expenses, including liens incurred by the automobile accident victim… are not deductible disbursements or costs.”

Uber spokesperson John Finley told CalMatters in an email that the company strongly disputes the lawyers’ interpretation. He said medical bills are likely to be paid by the client, “which is why the client needs a guarantee that they’ll have enough to pay those bills instead of being left with little to no portion of their recovery.”

Engstrom, the Stanford law professor, said: “No doubt, the language is pretty convoluted… If Uber wanted to create a clear medical bill carveout, it surely could have. They have lots of smart lawyers. You have to wonder why they didn’t.”

Changing medical-cost recovery

Mary-Beth Moylan is a University of the Pacific law professor and an expert on California initiatives. When she read that Uber’s measure also proposes limits for medical costs for crash survivors, she said: “I mean, what?”

Moylan said the many details in Uber’s initiative could have unintended consequences. “This is the danger of this particularized policy-making by initiative,” she said.

Lopez, the Providers for Patient Care representative, said uninsured or underinsured survivors of vehicle crashes may not get the medical care they need because the limits mean providers may decline to treat some patients out of fear they will not be reimbursed for most of the costs.

“This is an attempt by Uber to get out of paying for patient care,” Lopez said, adding that such care could be needed long term and that limiting what a responsible party would pay would affect those without health insurance. That could help drive up medical costs for everyone else, she said.

“This will affect you, me, anyone who’s ever injured in an auto accident in California,” Lopez said.

Uber based its proposed limits on a state law that caps payments to out-of-network providers at 125% of Medicare reimbursement rates, said Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab in an email.

“The current system creates incentives to overbill and overtreat auto accident victims, which increases legal costs and raises premiums statewide,” Arab said.

Because it would be a constitutional amendment, Uber’s measure requires a higher threshold to qualify for the ballot: more than 874,000 signatures by June 8. By the first week of February, it had collected at least 25% of that number, according to the California Secretary of State.

Lawyers’ initiatives

Two of the attorney groups’ proposed measures would treat Uber and other ride-hailing providers like other common transportation carriers such as taxis, buses and trains.

One initiative would expand Uber and other ride-hailing companies’ liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers. It would require additional background checks for drivers; monthly reports of sexual assaults and misconduct; disclosure of a driver safety-risk assessment score based on the driver’s history of sexual misconduct to customers; and more. As an initiative statute, it needs to collect 546,651 signatures by July 1 to get on the ballot and reached the 25% threshold a couple of weeks ago.

Another measure would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger and public injuries. It would hold the companies responsible for harm to their riders and the public, regardless of the classification of drivers as independent contractors.

The third measure would prohibit new laws that interfere with people hiring lawyers of their choice. It would be a constitutional amendment, and would void Uber’s initiative if both that one and this one are approved by voters.

Uber by the numbers

Uber’s top executives have told investors during their most recent earnings calls that they expect the company’s lower insurance costs to help drive higher revenue growth. The San Francisco-based company brought in more than $14 billion in revenue last year. The executives have mentioned “legal abuse” and their legislative efforts in different states to drive Uber’s legal and insurance costs down.

The company has tried to enact measures similar to the one it’s pushing in California elsewhere. Last year, the Nevada Supreme Court found that Uber’s description of the effects of a measure that would have capped attorneys’ contingency fees in civil cases to 20% was “misleading and confusing.” The company and lawyers in that state later reached a deal on a bill related to insurance liability.

In California, Uber recently won a bid to reduce its costs by going not to the voters but through the Legislature. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that reduced how much insurance ride-hailing companies are supposed to carry for crashes involving uninsured and underinsured motorists, from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. State Sen. Chris Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, said he wanted to help lower fares for rides.

Fares for Uber rides in California have generally risen in the past several years. From 2019 to 2025, the average Uber fare in the state rose from $14.11 to $27.15, according to Gridwise, which makes an app that allows gig workers to track their earnings and expenses. Gridwise says its data encompasses more than 800 million trips and more than $8.5 billion in tracked driver earnings.

That aligns with the trajectory of the data from Obi, an app maker that allows users to compare ride-hailing and taxi fares, which shows that from 2021 to 2025, the average Uber fare in California rose from $26.96 to $29.93. Obi’s data is based on information it collects from its 1 million users.

President Donald Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight for his first State of the Union address since returning to the White House just over one year ago.

It's an opportunity for the president to tout his agenda and shape his party's messaging ahead of this year's midterm elections.

But the prime-time address comes at a moment when the president has seen his agenda complicated on multiple fronts. That includes trade, where his tariff policies were dealt a rebuke last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, and immigration, where Trump and congressional Democrats are deadlocked over funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Plus, Americans are divided on whether Trump's first year has been a success. Six in 10 believe the country is worse off than last year, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, and a majority think the state of the union is not strong.

Here's what you need to know ahead of tonight's speech.

What time is the address?

The president is expected to begin at 6 p.m. PT., and if history is any indication, prepare for a long night. Last year, in what was technically not a State of the Union speech, Trump addressed Congress for over 90 minutes, breaking records as the longest joint address in at least 60 years.

NPR will be covering all of it with live special coverage and analysis. You can listen on NPR.org, on many public radio stations, in the NPR app or by telling your Alexa device to "Ask NPR to play Special Coverage" starting at 6 p.m.

Why does this happen every year? 

This is part of the gig for every president. The Constitution requires that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." It's intended to be a recap of sorts of their previous year in office.

So it's a formality, yes, but there are political stakes. Trump's speech comes at the start of a crucial election year, and his party is on the defensive. GOP lawmakers are fighting to maintain control of the Senate, where they currently hold a 53 to 47 majority, and the House, where their margin is even smaller, 218 to 214. Trump is battling low approval numbers, which are often seen as a warning sign, given that since World War II the party controlling the White House historically loses an average of 27 House seats in the midterms and four in the Senate.

What will Trump talk about?

Expect a big focus on immigration, which has been a key pillar of Trump's second term. The administration has defended its enforcement agenda, arguing it's aimed at removing people living in the country illegally who have committed dangerous crimes. However, lawmakers have raised concerns about the tactics used by federal immigration agents in cities around the country, especially after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month.

It will also be worth watching how Trump talks about tariffs. He has long defended imposing import taxes on foreign goods as a way to strengthen American manufacturing, but in a major ruling last Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the main lever the president has used to carry out this policy.

The tariff ruling is part of a broader economic messaging challenge facing the White House. A majority of Americans already say they think tariffs are more likely to hurt than help the economy. Trump has also dismissed affordability concerns as a Democratic "hoax," even though voters report struggling to keep up with the cost of living.

Tonight's address is also happening at a crucial moment in U.S. foreign policy. Trump is pressuring Iran to disband its nuclear program, and he has not ruled out using force to make that happen. In recent days, the American military has expanded its presence in the Middle East, sending additional fighter jets and a second aircraft carrier to the region.

It's the latest move by Trump in what has been a more muscular approach to foreign policy compared to his first term. The president has approved strikes on countries around the world, announced the U.S. will "run" Venezuela after arresting the country's leader and has threatened to buy Greenland. At the same time, Trump has repeatedly labeled himself a peacemaker, despite facing steep challenges in achieving his goals of rebuilding Gaza and brokering an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.

What will the response from Democrats look like?

Newly sworn-in Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is slated to provide the party's official rebuttal. Spanberger was one of several Democrats who won their races last November, delivering some of the most high-profile victories since the party's bruising losses across the country in 2024.

She may also provide a potential preview of how Democrats may approach their own midterm messaging. On the campaign trail, Spanberger centered her message on affordability concerns and criticized the administration's treatment of federal workers through mass layoffs and the longest government shutdown in history.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger speaks after being sworn in to office at the Virginia State Capitol in January. Spanberger will deliver the official Democratic response to President Trump's State of the Union address.

(

Win McNamee

/

Getty Images

)

California Sen. Alex Padilla is tapped to deliver the Spanish-language response for Democrats. It's another notable pick for Democrats as they refine their election message, particularly on immigration. Padilla has been an outspoken critic of Trump's immigration agenda and was forcibly removed from a Homeland Security press conference over the summer.

There's also a group of roughly a dozen House and Senate Democrats who plan to boycott Trump's speech and instead hold a counter-rally dubbed the "People's State of the Union." It comes as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has urged lawmakers to either "attend with silent defiance" or skip the event.

Follow for more coverage:

📧 NPR Politics newsletter: Breaking down the big stories and why they matter
🎧 NPR Politics Podcast: Our experts provide insights into what's happening
Copyright 2026 NPR

Last month, Colleen Fagan was observing an immigration enforcement operation at an apartment complex in Portland, Maine, when federal agents scanned her face with a smartphone and appeared to record her car license plate number.

In a social media video she recorded, Fagan can be heard asking why the agent was taking her information. What the agent said next made the video go viral.

"Cause we have a nice little database," the masked agent said. "And now you're considered a domestic terrorist."

Fagan, who is a social worker, has now joined a federal class action lawsuit that argues the Department of Homeland Security and a number of its sub-agencies are violating the First Amendment and are taking actions "designed to chill, suppress, and control speech that they do not like."

"A federal agent called me a domestic terrorist just because I recorded agents operating in public in my community. But I have a right to do that, and so do others," Fagan said in a statement. "I want people to know how important it is to use our First Amendment rights to observe and document what is happening. Peaceful dissent is not a crime."

Though Fagan's video went viral, her full name had not been widely publicized until this lawsuit.

The suit, filed by the legal nonprofit Protect Democracy and the law firms Dunn Isaacson Rhee and Drummond Woodsum, alleges federal agents are unconstitutionally retaliating against people who are lawfully observing and recording federal immigration enforcement operations by gathering their personal information and labeling them domestic terrorists.

"Plaintiffs must either abandon their constitutional rights or accept being cataloged and branded as 'domestic terrorists,'" reads the lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in Maine on Monday. "That is a choice the Constitution does not require Plaintiffs, or anyone, to make."

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. DHS officials have denied the existence of a database of alleged domestic terrorists since Fagan's video was widely shared.

"There is NO database of 'domestic terrorists' run by DHS," the agency's spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin (who has recently departed) told CNN last month about the video. "We do of course monitor and investigate and refer all threats, assaults and obstruction of our officers to the appropriate law enforcement. Obstructing and assaulting law enforcement is a felony and a federal crime."

After federal agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minnesota last month, DHS officials labeled both of them domestic terrorists in the immediate aftermath.

Federal agents have access to facial recognition tools that can be used to identify people in the field, as well as the mobile app Mobile Companion, which allows agents to use a smartphone to scan license plates.

These kinds of surveillance tools have allowed federal agents to intimidate observers and protesters by revealing they know their names and addresses, the lawsuit says. Several Minnesota observers who have followed federal agents in their cars have described the experience of agents leading them to their own homes to show they know where they live. The lawsuit names other Maine observers who have had the same experience.

It is legal for observers to film and follow federal agents at a safe distance, Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told NPR earlier this month. But dozens of people in Minnesota said in declarations collected by the ACLU that they were observing federal agents but were told they were impeding, interfering or acting illegally.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a press conference in July that violence against DHS agents "is anything that threatens them and their safety," and went on to say that included "doxing them" and "videotaping them where they're at when they're out on operations."

DHS has crafted a wide definition of doxing. McLaughlin told The American Prospect in September that "videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents."

A memo issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi in December lists "doxing" law enforcement as domestic terrorism.

Elinor Hilton, another resident of Portland, Maine, is also listed as a plaintiff in the new lawsuit. Federal agents captured her face and license plate with their phones on Jan. 21, after she began recording them conducting an immigration enforcement operation at a Home Depot, the lawsuit says.

She says one told her, "I hope you know that if you keep coming to things like this, you are going to be on a domestic terrorist watchlist. Then we're going to come to your house later tonight," according to the lawsuit.

Hilton did not stay at her home that night for fear the agent would make good on the threat, the lawsuit says. She has reduced how often she observes federal agents and no longer uses her own car when she observes. She now parks her car several blocks away from her home and those of family members "out of concern that federal agents might recognize her car and trace it to her home." She says on a recent trip she left her personal phone at home out of concern that if she was placed on a government list, federal agents might detain her and search her phone.

Fagan is concerned about being placed on a "no-fly" or similar list, the lawsuit says, and worries her current or future employment could be affected by any labels DHS gives her.

Less than a week before Hilton's interaction with federal agents, Tom Homan, President Donald Trump's immigration adviser, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he wanted to create a "database" of people who impede ICE.

"These people who want to say follow ICE and film ICE, you know what, you can protest, they have that right." Then he added that for those who cross a legal line, "We're going to create a database where those people that are arrested for interference, impeding, and assault, we're going to make them famous," Homan said. "We're going to put their face on TV. We're going to let their employers, in their neighborhoods, in their schools, know who these people are."

But in other public appearances, federal officials have denied a database of protesters exists.

At a congressional hearing earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) asked Todd Lyons, acting director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to respond to what the federal agent in Maine said about "a little database" in the video Fagan recorded.

"I can't speak for that individual, sir," Lyons said. "But I can assure you that there is no database that's tracking United States citizens."

The lawsuit says, "If Defendants' denials are true—and the actions captured on video simply involved federal agents pretending to add observers to a database—then they are deliberately lying about domestic terrorist watchlists or databases to unlawfully intimidate observers."

The lawsuit is asking a federal judge to stop DHS from collecting records on people and from "threatening, harassing, and otherwise retaliating against" them for exercising their protected first amendment rights, and to expunge records that have already been collected.

JoAnna Suriani, counsel at Protect Democracy, said the lawsuit will "ensure that the federal government can no longer use unconstitutional surveillance tactics to silence its critics and sideline the observers who protect our communities."
Copyright 2026 NPR