The Brief

Gov. Gavin Newsom faces a huge deficit this spring, and he has one especially big money-saving option that he’s not using.

California’s rapidly falling inmate population could allow Newsom to close as many as five more prisons, analysts say, saving $1 billion a year at a moment when he’s pulling from reserves to bring the state budget into the black.

Instead, Newsom wants to take a more cautious approach to trimming prison beds. His new budget proposal calls on the corrections department to close 46 housing blocks inside 13 state prisons.

Prison yard closures save money and decrease the need for staffing, but not to the extent of a prison shutdown. Newsom’s proposal would save about $80 million.

Saying his administration had been “scrutinizing” the prisons budget, Newsom said “We’re mindful of the direction we’re going as it relates to public safety.”

California prison status

At the inmate population’s peak in 2006, California locked up 165,000 people in state prisons. Today, after a decade of sentencing changes, federal court intervention and a surge of releases tied to COVID-19, California’s prisons house about 93,000 people.

Because of that trend, Newsom has already moved to close four prisons over the course of his administration. He projects that those shutdowns will save the state $3.4 billion by 2027.

He suggested on Friday that the forces fighting prison closures – labor unions representing prison employees, the communities dependent on prison jobs, legislation and litigation intended to slow or stop the closures – forced him to take smaller steps than shuttering entire facilities while he crafted his plan to close a projected $27.6 billion deficit.

“Prison housing unit deactivations can happen much sooner than prison closures and provide us more flexibility,” Newsom said. “Legislative leaders have asked me, are we considering collectively reducing the larger footprint in the state? The answer is yes.

“But we want to do it in a pragmatic and thoughtful way, we want to be mindful of labor concerns and community concerns, we want to be mindful of trends and we want to be mindful of the unknown, meaning there are proposals to roll back some of our criminal justice reforms that could have significant impact on the census and population.”

California cities fight prison closures

So far, Newsom closed the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy in 2021 and the California Correctional Center in Susanville in 2023. He ended a lease with a privately run prison called the California City Correctional Facility, and the corrections department is shutting down Chuckwalla Valley State Prison near the Arizona border.

Newsom at Friday’s budget press conference said he would accelerate the proposed March 2025 closure of Chuckwalla prison in Blythe to November, although his office hasn’t yet provided details on how much money that would save the state.

That news surprised leaders in Blythe, where city officials had attempted to save the prison as one of the community’s major employers.

“This news is disheartening to say the least,” said Blythe interim city manager Mallory Crecelius. “Expediting the closure was not discussed with the city prior to it being included in the May (revised budget), and we learned about it with everyone else. Our hearts are heavy for the employees and inmates at (Chuckwalla Valley State Prison) whose lives will be directly impacted as this prison is shuttered.”

Because of the declining inmate headcount, California can close up to five more of its 33 prisons and eight yards within operating prisons while still complying with a federal court order that caps the system’s capacity, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found last year. The report estimated the potential savings at $1 billion.

The costs of incarcerating prisoners, meanwhile, is more than ever, rising to $132,860 per inmate.

Those numbers have prompted Democratic lawmakers over the past several years to press for more closures, particularly as they try to protect social services from budget cuts or to put money into inmate rehabilitation programs.

“If the people you’re serving in the department continues to go down, why is the cost going up?” Democratic Assemblyman James Ramos of San Bernardino asked corrections department officials at an April budget hearing.

Prison union sees safety risks in closures

Amber-Rose Howard, executive director of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, which advocates for reducing the number of prisons and cutting the prison population, said Newsom’s proposal to close yards instead of whole prisons misses an opportunity for bigger savings.

“The truth is, it doesn’t go far enough,” Howard said. “When only a single yard is closed, then that means that there’s still tens of millions of dollars being spent on operational costs (and) administrative staffing.”

She noted that the state still has 15,000 empty prison beds.

“These yard deactivation will save $80 million annually,” she said, “and that’s not even equal to the cost savings of one prison closing.”

Newsom has previously said he wanted to maintain some capacity in the prisons to provide more space for rehabilitation efforts.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union representing prison guards, has argued that shuttering prisons puts guards and inmates in danger. It’s a heavyweight in the Capitol, and it has supported Newsom. It contributed $1.75 million to help Newsom defeat a recall campaign in 2021, and it gave $1 million to back Newsom’s mental health ballot measure that voters approved in March.

Writing in opposition to a bill that would limit the number of empty beds the prison system can maintain, the union said prisons are still holding more inmates than they were designed to.

“Higher densities of inmates pose substantial risks to CCPOA’s membership, as well as other staff and inmates. The denser the population, the greater the risk of assaults and other acts of violence,” the union wrote.

An immigration judge issues a stern warning: "If you don't show up, there is a good chance the court will order you removed."

She speaks to an immigrant from El Salvador in a quiet immigration courtroom in Hyattsville, Md., in November. Clad in an all-black dress jacket and shirt, the immigrant — who was identified only by the number of his case — swears that his last immigration notice was lost in the mail.

The judge tells him to check his mail regularly, ahead of his next appearance in January.

As the room empties out, the judge says out loud that there are a number of no-shows that day. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney in court files motions to remove five people "in absentia." The judge grants it. Those people can now be deported.

A similar scene has played out, and increasingly so, in nearly every immigration court nationwide over the past year, according to immigration attorneys and NPR's early analysis of court data. The results mirror those of Joseph Gunther, an independent researcher, who has also been tracking the data closely. More immigrants are not showing up for their mandatory immigration court hearings, allowing the government to order their immediate deportation.

"What happened is that the word spread that if you go to court, you could get picked up from ICE," said Ruby Powers, an immigration lawyer based in Texas with cases all over the country.

In 2025, ICE turned to arrests directly from federal or immigration courtrooms in order to meet arrest quotas set by the Trump administration.

"Those instances weren't consistent around the country, but at least the word had spread, the fear had spread. And so individuals were really hesitant to go into court," Powers said.

The number of in absentia removals was generally already on an upward trend each year since 2022, said Andrew Arthur, resident law and policy fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit that advocates for lower levels of migration. Still, the number of such removal orders in fiscal year 2025 nearly tripled that of the previous year — topping over 50,000.

NPR calculated just how many people were ordered removed "in absentia."

Each of the top 10 cities with the largest number of completed immigration cases in those courts is on track to end the year with a higher rate of in absentia removals than they started. That is according to data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review — part of the Department of Justice — from January through November.

Each of these courts experienced an uptick in this kind of removal order starting in the summer months. That timeline is consistent with when immigration attorneys say ICE officers began arresting people inside the courts.

NPR has spoken with the family members of immigrants who came to court in New York, for example, in place of their parents or partners — out of concern their loved ones might be detained. New York's courts have become notorious this year for scenes of violent arrests and confrontations with federal officers.

Powers said that there are other reasons people may fear coming to court, including that they may not win their case or get deported to a third country. There are logistical barriers, too.

"A lot of times people don't even know that they have a hearing, or hearing dates can change without receiving the notice in the mail," Powers said. Sometimes immigrants can move and addresses are not immediately updated with the court, or go to places like apartment buildings that have less consistent mail delivery, she said. Notices can also be sent to completely incorrect addresses, which lawyers said has been an issue in years past.

Immigration attorneys across the country have noticed an uptick in this kind of removal order. Organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies have also spotted it.

In many cases, the Department of Homeland Security has to receive a removal order issued by an immigration judge before it can physically deport any person from the U.S., Arthur said.

"The more orders of removal in absentia or at the end of proceedings that are issued, the more people that ICE can then target for removal from the United States," he said.

Arthur said that immigrants who fail to appear opt to not take the government up on the offer for due process.

"The more people who are under final orders for removal … the more people who are going to end up in ICE custody because the law requires that ICE take into custody everybody who's under a final order of removal, notwithstanding the administration's stated focus on the worst," Arthur said.

"This appears to be well in excess of those historical trends," Arthur said.

Immigrants may have the opportunity to reopen their cases. However, most people in immigration court do not have legal representation, which they must pay for themselves.

Nonprofits like the organization Mobile Pathways have tracked a low rate of arrests in courts. But immigrant advocates said that doesn't mean the fear and negative perceptions go away.

"It probably falls into the narrative that the administration wants to be portrayed, that these individuals are not participating in the process that they're supposed to," Powers said, about the rise in no-show removal orders.

Some families she represents have fled violence, are working through trauma, or are navigating language and other barriers in addition to the immigration law system.

"[They] are just making the best decisions they can with the information they have provided to them," Powers said, adding that most immigrants are still showing up for their court appointments. "It's just because a lot of things are being stacked up against them. And that's why we're seeing these numbers."
Copyright 2025 NPR

State capitalism. MAGA Marxism. Crony capitalism.

Those are just some of the terms business and political commentators have used this year to describe how President Donald Trump's policies are reshaping U.S. free-market capitalism. There are some differences in definition — but all of these terms underline how dramatically Trump has blurred the boundaries between business and government, to an extent that could have long-term consequences for the U.S. economy and the country's global standing.

"When the American government appears to favor a company over rival companies, that distorts the marketplace," says Ann Lipton, a veteran business law expert and professor at University of Colorado's law school.

"It means that other firms have less incentive to compete on innovation, which is sort of the opposite of how a free market is supposed to operate," she adds. "It's just bad for the economy."

There's ample evidence this year of Trump actively favoring some U.S. companies and investors, while threatening others. In August, he publicly called for the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan — until Tan came to the White House to meet with him, and agreed to give the U.S. government a 10% stake in the tech company.

Several other tech CEOs also spent the year appearing to personally court Trump. Take Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who runs the world's most valuable company and is among the donors funding Trump's controversial plans to build a White House ballroom. This month, Trump said the U.S. would grant Nvidia permission to sell one of its more advanced semiconductor chips in China — as long as the U.S. government gets a 25% cut of sales.

Lipton calls this capitalism by "schmoozing," and warns that it could seriously damage the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, thus hurting the overall economy in the long term.

"We're not going to get the best innovations. We're not going to get the best products," she says. "If [businesses] are competing on their ability to schmooze, then that's bad for everybody."

Intel did not respond to an NPR request for comment. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Nvidia said, "In our discussions, President Trump focuses on his desire for America to win as a nation and his efforts to protect national security, American prosperity and technology leadership."

China-style 'state capitalism'

Business leaders have always spent some amount of time trying to cozy up to the White House, no matter its occupant. But Lipton and business insiders across the political spectrum say that Trump's direct influence over private companies this year — and the degree to which some of those companies and their leaders have sought to appeal to him personally — is pushing the U.S. economy away from free-market or "rules-based" capitalism.

This system, traditionally embraced by both businesses and Republicans, has helped make the United States into the dominant global economy.

But now, these business insiders say, Trump's policies are creating a government-controlled style of "state capitalism," in which the government — rather than competition between private businesses — shapes the economy. Some go so far as to call it "crony capitalism," meaning that the U.S. government picks winners and losers based on the president's personal relationships.

"We are seeing a shift away from the type of rules-based capitalism that has made America's economy so robust for so long. And there's a lot of risk in that," says Daniella Ballou-Aares, who co-founded the consulting firm Dalberg and served in President Obama's State Department. She now runs the Leadership Now Project, a coalition of business leaders that has endorsed candidates from both political parties.

In October, her group and The Harris Poll surveyed business leaders across the political spectrum — and found that 84% are worried "about the current political and legal climate's impact on their companies."

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang listens as President Trump speaks at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in November in Washington, D.C. Nvidia has spent the year seeking the U.S. government's approval to sell more of its semiconductor chips in China.

(

Win McNamee

/

Getty Images North America

)

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says "this narrative about how [President Trump] reshaped capitalism is significantly overstated" and calls Trump's policies by and large "the traditional free-market policy-making that you would expect coming out of a Republican Administration."

The official dismissed claims that the White House is engaging in "crony capitalism," and says "there are companies that are benefiting [from Trump's policies] whether or not they have a good relationship with the administration."

The official also notes that so far, the U.S. government has largely sought to take ownership stakes or revenue-sharing deals from companies that play a role in economic and national security: For example, Intel and Nvidia both sell the semiconductors at the center of the artificial-intelligence arms race with China. The U.S. government has also taken stakes or other interests in U.S. Steel and MP Materials, a rare-earth minerals mining company, among others.

"What we're trying to do is very much embracing the free market and the growth that it unleashes, but making targeted interventions where there's too much on the line," the official says.

Tech winners vs. everyone else in corporate America

Businesses largely welcomed President Trump's victory in last year's election, in part due to frustration with what they perceived as a harsh and "anti-business" regulatory climate under President Biden.

And some seem pretty happy with his first year in office — especially the tech billionaires whose "Magnificent Seven" companies are powering the A.I. boom.

"The Magnificent Seven and Trump 2.0 are really on the same page to a large extent," says Daniel Kinderman, a political science professor at the University of Delaware who studies what he calls "authoritarian capitalism" and business responses to right-wing movements.

Some of President Trump's policies, including his sweeping tariffs and his changes to immigration policies for highly-skilled foreign workers, have complicated the business of Big Tech. But most tech CEOs have tried to avoid criticizing those policies publicly, and instead focused on donating to Trump's personal projects. Apple's Tim Cook, for example, this summer presented Trump with a gold-plated and glass plaque as his company promised to invest $600 billion in the United States.

Such gifts appear to have helped: Apple's iPhones have escaped the worst of Trump's tariffs.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

Kinderman points out that for wealthy and powerful CEOs, Trump's degree of personal involvement in their businesses at least makes it efficient to deal directly with him — if they can keep him happy — instead of wading through the slow and complicated red tape of federal regulatory processes.

"These companies are a huge portion of the American economy," he says. "And I think Trump is also giving them, to a large extent, what they want."

In August, Apple CEO Tim Cook presented President Trump with a gold-plated and glass plaque, as his company pledged to invest a total of $600 billion in the United States.

(

Brendan Smialowski

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Still, he and others warn that, taken to the extreme, codependent relationships between political leaders and CEOs don't always end well for the latter.

In more authoritarian countries, where leaders exert much more control over private businesses, the stakes can be especially fraught. Russia, Hungary, and China all exercise some form of state-controlled capitalism, where an autocratic leader cultivates relationships with oligarchic business CEOs — and can quickly force them out of favor.

As one extreme example, Ballou-Aares invokes Jack Ma, the Alibaba founder who built one of China's biggest tech companies before criticizing the country's financial regulations … and then largely disappearing from public view for several years.

"We know that crony capitalism never really ends well for most companies," she says. "I mean, tell Jack Ma that autocracy is okay for business."

'Most CEOs are pretty frustrated'

Outside of Big Tech, many businesses feel a lot more conflicted about how President Trump is reshaping U.S. capitalism. Some have even filed lawsuits against the administration, over its tariffs and its immigration policies.

"Despite the handful of tech titans that do seem to admittedly genuflect at the White House and at Mar-a-Lago, most CEOs are pretty frustrated with what's happening," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor who regularly speaks with CEOs.

Pockets of frustration from corporate America have become more visible recently. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the administration over its plans to start charging $100,000 for H-1B visas for highly-skilled foreign workers — although it did so while praising Trump's "ambitious agenda."

And JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon, who runs the country's largest bank and is one of the most prominent non-tech CEOs in the country, recently told CNN why his company had declined to donate to Trump's White House ballroom.

"Since we do a lot of contracts with governments here and around the world, we have to be very careful about how anything is perceived," Dimon said. "We're quite conscious of risks we bear by doing anything that looks like buying favors or anything like that."

That said, most businesses are reluctant to publicly criticize President Trump or his policies. Smaller companies lack the power to effectively stand up to the White House. And even those running the country's biggest companies are unwilling to draw the personal attacks that Trump can often wield, or the ensuing partisan boycotts and financial damage that can follow.

Earlier this month, demolition work continued where the East Wing once stood at the White House. President Trump ordered the East Wing and Jacqueline Kennedy Garden leveled to make way for a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom that he says will be paid for with private donations from companies including Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Google.

(

Chip Somodevilla

/

Getty Images North America

)

Many businesses have neither the appetite nor the capacity to take on the U.S. government. They just want to focus on making money, even if that means adapting to dramatic tariffs or other sharp shifts in government policy.

"It's tactical fire-fighting," says Drew DeLong, who advises businesses around the world as head of corporate statecraft for the consulting company Kearney, and who served in the State Department during Trump's first administration.

"Every moment and every hour you spend on tariff mitigation is one less hour that you spend on innovation," he says. "There is an urgency towards fire-fighting as best as they possibly can, but there's also a fatigue."

'Merger review has been weaponized'

The Trump Administration's approach to approving — or not — corporate mergers has drawn some of the highest scrutiny, because of the nexus of political and business issues at stake.

For example, the Federal Communications Commission this year approved several telecommunications mergers only after Verizon and T-Mobile agreed to terminate internal policies around "diversity, equity, and inclusion," or DEI. Then it threatened to take federal action against some ABC affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel's comments about Charlie Kirk's killing on his ABC late-night show; the owners of some of those stations were also seeking federal approvals for mergers. (ABC parent Walt Disney suspended Kimmel's show for almost a week, before reinstating him. ABC did not respond to requests for comment.)

"Merger review has been weaponized into a tool for control," says Elizabeth Wilkins, the former chief of staff to Lina Khan, who oversaw U.S. merger review as chair of President Biden's Federal Trade Commission.

"With those kinds of tools hanging over corporate leaders' heads, we have seen an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear — which breeds silence," adds Wilkins, who now runs the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank.

The exception is, again, for leaders who cultivate close ties with the president. This year, the White House helped broker a deal for a coalition of U.S. investors to buy the U.S. operations of TikTok — and asked for an unusual multibillion-dollar payment to the federal government, which business experts have compared to a "shakedown" or "extortion." Some of those same investors, including Trump ally Larry Ellison and his son, David, are now seeking even more media deals.

Some business experts say now that corporate America has a better idea of President Trump's playbook in this administration, they expect to see companies and their executives feel more confident about how and when to push back against White House policies that they think will damage their businesses and the wider economy.

"I think it is clear that the administration's approach here is broadly unpopular, including with business," says Ballou-Aares.

But Kearney's DeLong, the veteran of Trump's first administration, warns businesses to brace for much more policy change, and uncertainty about what capitalism and the economy will look like in the future.

"This is just year one," he says. "Where do we go [during] the rest of this administration? Where do we go after?"
Copyright 2025 NPR

When L.A. hosts the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the city will need to mobilize police, fire, transit and traffic control to put on more than a month of competitions and celebrations.

The question is — who will pay for all that extra work?

Los Angeles is in high-stakes talks over what city services the private Olympics organizing committee will pay for during the Olympic Games, and negotiations have dragged nearly three months past a deadline to make a deal.

City funds could hang in the balance. The 2028 Olympics are intended to be privately financed, and an existing city agreement with LA28 states that the Olympics organizers, not L.A., will pay for extra costs for public services in support of the Games.

But the nuts and bolts of that arrangement have not been finalized, despite an Oct. 1 deadline.

City Administrative Officer Matthew Szabo, who is leading negotiations on the city's behalf along with the chief legislative analyst, acknowledged that the deal was past due at a City Council committee meeting on the Olympics earlier this month.

"It is of great significance to the city, and getting it right takes precedence," Szabo said. "We are working as quickly as we can, but this needs to be the right agreement for the city."

If the agreement leaves L.A. exposed to unexpected or additional expenses, taxpayers could end up paying many millions. Organizers have said that putting on the Olympic and Paralympic Games is the equivalent of hosting seven Super Bowls every day for a month.

Why the delay?

Neither the city nor LA28 have shared publicly what's holding up the deal. But the Dec. 8 City Council meeting hinted at potential sticking points.

One could be the boundaries of where LA28's responsibility for a service like traffic control ends and the city's responsibility begins.

Down the line, the city will need to negotiate individual agreements with LA28 about what public services it will provide at each Olympic venue in the city. The scope of those agreements will be based on venue perimeters. Some in the city appear to be concerned about how those perimeters will be determined and what happens if public services are needed outside of those boundaries.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky raised this as a potential problem to the city administrative officer at the council meeting.

" If we're only getting reimbursed for services within the venue services agreements, does that mean that anything outside of venue perimeter isn't subject to reimbursement?" she said. "Even if costs arise due to a material impact from the Games or the venue perimeters themselves?"

Szabo responded by saying the city agreed that the broader scope of what resources might be required should be included. But he acknowledged that there was an argument for a narrower interpretation.

" Now, another way to look at it, and I do need to be clear about this, is that the general condition of hosting the games may require additional services in other areas," he said.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield said he thought additional costs to the city seemed inevitable. He offered an example: If a protest took place outside an Olympic training facility — a location that could be considered outside the list of official Olympic venues.

" We're going to have controversies at some of these places, and I view that as inextricably linked to the events," he said. "That also means protests, which also means sanitation. … Some of these ancillary sites that are not direct venue sites are going to end up with enhanced costs to us as a city."

A spokesperson for LA28 didn't answer a series of questions from LAist, including where expected costs on city services are included in its $7 billion budget. The organizing committee did provide a statement saying it was "committed to delivering these historic Games in a safe, secure and fiscally responsible way."

The other source of funding that the city expects to receive for its resources will come from the federal government, which has allocated $1 billion for security costs. Szabo told the council committee that city spending on security at the Olympic venues, like for local police, should be covered by those funds.

But exactly how much federal money the city of Los Angeles will actually get is yet to be determined.

Why the agreements matter

Hosting the Games is an enormous financial risk for Los Angeles. The city is the financial backstop for the Olympic Games, meaning if the organizing committee runs into the red, L.A. will pick up the bill, along with the state of California.

The extra staff and resources the city will dedicate to the Games represents another area where L.A. may end up with surprise costs.

The specter of these potential expenses has dogged the city for months. In July, prominent civil rights attorney Connie Rice wrote a letter to Mayor Karen Bass saying knowledgeable city officials had told her the city was negotiating a bad deal with LA28.

Rice pointed specifically to the boundaries of Olympic venues, claiming LA28 was advocating for narrower venue perimeters "narrowly confined to the physical buildings and immediate sidewalks of the venue." She said the city's broader understanding of venue perimeters that will need city services could leave a substantial gap in funding that would leave the city exposed.

Reached by phone, Rice said her concerns remain the same. She called the city's dealings "incompetent."

" I know 10th graders who plan their prom better than this," she said of city officials. "Their mission is to look good. Their mission isn't to protect the taxpayers."