The Brief

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump sat behind neat stacks of executive orders in the Oval Office and started signing. First, he pardoned the more than 1,500 “hostages,” as he called them, who’d been convicted or charged in connection with the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. He went on to sign a slew of immigration-related orders, including one titled “Protecting The American People Against Invasion,” which called for a dramatic surge in border enforcement and, among other things, the dissolution of the Family Reunification Task Force.

The task force was born out of a federal settlement agreement, reached in 2023 between the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union after a yearslong lawsuit, that required the government to reunite thousands of families who were forcibly separated during Trump’s first term. The separations were part of the Trump administration’s “Zero Tolerance” immigration policy, a crackdown on illegal border crossings in 2018. As reports emerged of weeping children being taken from their parents’ arms and languishing behind chain-link fences, the policy drew global condemnation for its inhumane treatment of people seeking asylum.

Asked by a reporter if he expected his new immigration orders to be challenged in the courts, Trump responded that he didn’t think they could be. “They’re very straight up,” he said.

Immigration and civil rights attorneys who work with separated families disagree, saying the sweeping changes will test the strength of the federal settlement agreement, which also banned most separations for eight years. Trump’s broad focus on total enforcement of all immigration laws, without specifying who exactly the orders apply to, has the ACLU and immigrant advocates on alert for anything that resembles a new family separation policy or undermines the settlement. And they’re spring-loaded to fight.

“We will be monitoring very closely to see whether the Trump administration faithfully applies the settlement,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who led the lawsuit. “And if they don't, we'll be back in court immediately.”

Nearly seven years after the Zero Tolerance policy, hundreds of children remain apart from their families. For the more than 3,000 families who have already been reunited and for thousands more making their way toward the border today, even a relatively minor or temporary policy change could jeopardize their claims for asylum.

“Basically, [the administration is] trying to shut down the border again to all asylum seekers,” said Laura Peña, director of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR). “And that is going to affect children. It is going to affect families.”

Here’s what to know about family separation under Trump, then and now.

A ‘shameful chapter’

To understand how so many families ended up separated, you have to go back to pre-Trump America. Unauthorized entry to the U.S. is illegal, but for decades, adults who crossed the border illegally with their children, many of whom were fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries, were generally not prosecuted for that infraction alone. Instead, families would either be allowed to stay in the U.S. pending immigration rulings or be deported together. But things changed after Trump took office in 2017.

That spring, the U.S. Border Patrol in El Paso, Texas, started toying with a new way to deter people from crossing the border illegally: prosecute every adult, including those crossing with kids. In April of 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions took the policy border-wide, dubbing it “Zero Tolerance.”

“Having children does not give you immunity from arrest and prosecution,” Sessions later said of the policy.

When families were apprehended at the border, federal agents began sending children and their parents or guardians to separate holding facilities. A 14-year-old boy and his older sister, who had raised him, crossed the border into Texas, where they surrendered to the Border Patrol. “On the third day, they took me out of my cage and said I would be separated from my sister, but they didn’t tell me where I was going,” the boy later told a visitor from Human Rights Watch. “I don’t understand why they separated us. They didn’t give me a chance to say goodbye.”

Three months after the policy was formally implemented, the Trump administration began touting a dip in illegal border crossings but did not mention it was a small dip, and typical for that time of year. Meanwhile, border-area prosecutors complained that their dockets were overwhelmed by all the misdemeanor immigration cases and that people accused of serious crimes were slipping through the cracks.

But there was an even more problematic consequence of Zero Tolerance: the massive number of children who were suddenly in the care of the federal government. Children went to holding pens — many of them tents erected for the purpose — while they waited to be placed in shelters or foster homes. Over 40% of those detention centers were in California, Arizona and Texas. Humanitarian workers reported that federal authorities were not prepared to care for them, so older children took care of younger ones and illnesses went untreated.

Then, the government lost track of which children belonged to which parents.

Caseworkers and therapists asked traumatized kids who they came with, while immigration lawyers tried to calm hysterical parents who had no idea where authorities had taken their children. Many kids panicked, crying endlessly, or went catatonic. In one case, after Border Patrol agents forcibly removed a Honduran father’s 3-year-old son from his hands, the man became so agitated he had to be moved to a Texas jail, where he strangled himself to death.

The ACLU filed its class-action lawsuit on behalf of these families, Ms. L v. ICE, in February 2018.

In June of that year, under growing public pressure, Trump ordered an end to family separations without revoking Zero Tolerance. Separations slowed but didn’t stop. By the time Trump left office, well over 5,000 children had been taken from their families. While many had been reunited by then, some parents had been deported, leaving their children in the United States with other family members or in foster care.

In December 2023, the Biden administration settled the ACLU’s lawsuit by agreeing to aid in the reunification of separated families and to provide a pathway for their claims to asylum, including access to work permits, various forms of support and a three-year legal status called humanitarian parole.

Before approving the settlement, federal judge Dana Sabraw, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, said family separation “represents one of the most shameful chapters in the history of our country.”

U.S. Border Patrol agents arrest migrants attempting to enter the United States in McAllen, Texas, in 2018.

(

Ozzy Trevino

/

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

)

Out of the frying pan

The ACLU’s Gelernt said there could be as many as 1,000 children still separated from their parents or guardians. Those families have been identified using the sparse records kept by the Trump administration during Zero Tolerance, which often yield little more than a name. The government and a coalition of nonprofit advocacy organizations have not been able to find them.

Lesly Tayes, an attorney in Guatemala, has been working to track down separated parents by combing through Guatemalan government records for information on their possible whereabouts. When she finds them, often in rural indigenous communities, she helps them travel to the Guatemalan capital to formally regain custody of their kids. But some parents Tayes worked with had never been to a city in their lives. “I had to support them with transportation or hotels,” she said. “Many of them didn't even speak Spanish.”

Parents who want to join their children in the U.S. and seek asylum often need help removing bureaucratic obstacles first; a sibling may need a passport for the journey or a legal guardian proof of their relationship with the child from whom they were separated.

Even after families are together again in the United States, their struggle is hardly over.

Alfonso Mercado, a psychologist in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, has spent the last several years conducting clinical research and consulting as an expert witness in family separation cases at the border. “There was trauma everywhere,” he said. “These children were experiencing difficulties integrating into an environment that abused them,” by which he meant the United States.

Joanna Dreby, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Albany who has studied the impact of immigration policies on families for the past two decades, said that even after separated families are reunited, parents and children can struggle to repair their relationships. In some cases, children who were separated when very young are reunited with parents they don’t remember.

“Kids might be like, ‘Why did they even go? Why did they do that? It led to this mess,’” Dreby said.

The Ms. L settlement agreement promises that, once reunified in the United States, families will be supported with mental health and other medical care, housing and legal assistance and the ability to apply for work permits. But advocates say these resources have fallen short of what’s needed.

“The increase in mental health services for this population is still very scarce and very limited,” Mercado said. “There's no continuity of care.”

And in the U.S., families face an avalanche of urgent problems. Tayes said parents and guardians often wait months to get authorization to work. “Some of them were struggling with food, housing. It wasn’t easy for them,” she said.

Hanging over these families is the specter of another deportation. According to the ACLU, the 2023 court settlement should supersede any immigration-related orders from the Trump administration. But the agreement doesn’t guarantee asylum, and the application process can be difficult to navigate, even with the help of an attorney. Non-governmental organizations serving Ms L. class members say they have struggled to provide pro bono legal help, especially after family separations were no longer a front-page issue and funding sources dried up.

The question of legal status can be complicated by the fact that members of separated families are often pursuing separate immigration cases. Children’s asylum claims, for example, were often filed after the initial separation, when the government designated them as “unaccompanied.”

“If [parents] lose their asylum cases,” Gelernt said, “then they're going to be in real trouble of being removed and/or re-separated from their children.”

Separations continue

In settling Ms. L, the federal government agreed to halt further family separation at the border through 2031, though there are exceptions that have allowed hundreds more separations since the settlement went into effect. For example, parents and children crossing the border illegally are still detained separately when the adults are deemed a national security or public safety risk, a danger to their children or if they’ve been charged with a felony other than crossing the border without authorization. However, the wording of the exceptions allows for broad interpretation. “You can basically run an 18-wheeler through them,” said one immigration law expert with knowledge of family separations.

Peña, whose organization ProBAR is a project of the American Bar Association, said cases in which border crossers are flagged for national security reasons are hard for attorneys like her to challenge because they often involve classified information. “The government can cite national security risk without revealing what information exactly is underlying that determination,” she said. “So it's hard to determine the source of the risk and advocate for family reunification.”

If a parent is flagged under one of the exceptions, they often go into federal immigration custody while their child goes to a shelter operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Many parents are later released from custody if they successfully fight their case, but because the government has become legally responsible for their children’s welfare, strict guidelines kick in for releasing them into the care of someone else — even their parents. As a result, it can take much longer to reunite a family than to separate them.

The settlement agreement mandates that families who are separated be given written notice of the reason. Agencies have to facilitate communication between parents and children, and if parents are being deported, they must be given the option to be deported with or without their children. But Peña said this doesn’t always happen: “There are certain rights that the parents have under this settlement agreement that they're not going to know about if they don't have a lawyer who is also educated on these.”

The ACLU believes they should be notified if class members are picked up for removal, but Gelernt acknowledges the government may hold a different view. DHS did not respond to questions about how it will handle those encounters.

Gelernt said the ACLU is relying on organizations like Peña’s to report apparent patterns in immigration enforcement. Cases of parents being flagged under the exceptions could suddenly increase, for example, creating what, in effect, becomes a new separation policy. If that happens, Gelernt said, “We'd go back to court and say, it can't be that four out of five parents all of a sudden are abusing their children, or four out of every five parents are a public safety threat to the United States.”

He thinks the Trump administration knows better than to try to renegotiate or oppose the settlement agreement or to reestablish a formal separation policy. “I'd be surprised if they do forcible separation again, given the outcry against it,” he said. “But I've been wrong before about where they're willing to go.”

The next chapter

President Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on Jan. 21, 2025.

(

Daniel Torok

/

The White House

)

Attorneys and immigrants’ rights advocates say it’s too early to tell how Trump’s spiking the task force, which has been a collaboration between the departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, State, and Justice, will impact reunification efforts. The group’s main purpose in recent months has been to determine whether separated families were eligible for relief under the settlement agreement and to smooth the way for reunification.

The Ms. L settlement agreement remains in effect, Gelernt said, so even without a task force, the Trump administration will have to do something to meet its requirements.

The White House could not immediately be reached for comment as to whether the Trump administration intends to honor the court-ordered settlement. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which houses several federal agencies involved in immigration issues, did not respond to the same question by publication time.

NGOs working with separated families said that, so far, the government appears to be meeting its obligations under the settlement.

Earlier this month, the task force’s website was updated to reflect the new secretaries of Homeland Security and the State Department, Kristi Noem and Marco Rubio, and to remove references to the Biden-Harris administration.

The settlement agreement stipulates that the federal website where separated families can register for relief, Together.gov, has to stay up and that the registration process has to remain open until December 2026. Gelernt worries that potential class members may be afraid to come forward in the current enforcement climate but urges them to register: “Otherwise, they are very vulnerable.”

Even if the dismantling of the task force is only symbolic, Gelernt sees it as a tactic to erase Zero Tolerance from the collective consciousness. “That they immediately eliminated the task force highlights the Trump administration’s failure to admit there was such a policy, much less acknowledge the brutal abuse it inflicted on little children,” he said.

And even without a formal policy of family separation, sweeping changes to the bureaucracy — especially when they’re rushed — can get messy.

Peña worries that, as Trump’s orders take effect, there may not be clear guidance for immigration authorities on the ground. “Law enforcement agencies could really be looking at anybody who's not a citizen and trying to figure out, ‘OK, are they a priority or not?’” she said. “Because of the complexity, a lot of people who should not be on this priority list are going to get caught up in it. And that's where we're going to see mass family separations, potentially not just at the border, but across the nation.”

The ACLU believes they should be notified if class members are picked up for removal, but Gelernt acknowledges the government may hold a different view. DHS did not respond to questions about how it will handle those encounters.

Erika Pinheiro, executive director of Al Otro Lado, an organization that supports migrants on both the U.S. and Mexican sides of the border, said her office has been fielding calls from separated families asking how the new executive orders could affect them. “Unfortunately, we can tell them what we know, which isn't much at this point.”

Dreby, the sociologist, has observed that the mere threat of deportation and separation weighs heavily on immigrants, even those with legal status. “The ongoing anxiety is a really big deal,” she said, adding that cultural shifts can matter, as well as changes in policy. “When you have moments of really strong anti-immigrant rhetoric, the anxiety bubbles to the surface.”

Mercado put it more succinctly: “As a psychologist, I am very concerned about what's to come.”

In the meantime, Gelernt and other legal advocates are confident that the Ms. L settlement agreement, and their fight against Zero Tolerance during Trump’s first term, have prepared them for potential legal battles.

“By the time we understood that it was systematic, it had already been happening for months and months,” Gelernt said of the original wave of family separations. “This time, I think everyone's attuned to watching for it.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.