The Brief

A district court judge on Tuesday ordered the federal government to restore its contract with an organization providing legal services to families who were separated during President Donald Trump’s first term. The Department of Justice had abruptly canceled the contract in April, a move the American Civil Liberties Union argued violated a 2023 settlement agreement.

“We’re relieved about the court's order that came down last night,” said Sara Van Hofwegen, managing director for legal access programs at Acacia Center for Justice, which administered the program for the Department of Justice. ”We're still awaiting communication from the government about resumption of those services. And we look forward to working with the Department of Justice.”

The settlement agreement, reached between the ACLU and the Biden administration after nearly six years of litigation, aimed to remedy some of the damage done to migrant families by Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” border enforcement policy starting in 2017. The policy unfolded chaotically, with families forcibly separated at the border and then effectively lost in a haphazard maze of detention and relocation.

Roughly 5,000 family members were separated during Trump’s first term, and according to the ACLU, as many as 1,000 children remain separated from deported parents today.

The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government over “Zero Tolerance” in February of 2018, arguing that separating families was unnecessary under the law and that the policy deprived migrant families of their right to due process.

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.”

While recognizing the value of the relief granted by the court for separated families, Hofwegen said it’s “just one step in what they need.”

Along with providing housing assistance and mental health treatment, the settlement agreement requires that separated family members and certain relatives have access to legal help in navigating the process of applying for temporary residency status in the U.S., work permits and asylum.

The DOJ provided funding to Acacia Center for Justice, a national nonprofit, and nine subcontractor organizations around the country, including two in California, to provide those services, which include legal advice, help with immigration applications and referrals for pro bono representation. Less than three months after Trump took office, the Justice Department canceled the contract with Acacia.

Citing a breach of the settlement agreement, the ACLU asked Judge Sabraw to intervene. In ensuing hearings, the ACLU argued that the government could not ensure services would continue, putting separated family members at risk of losing their permission to work and, ultimately, to stay in the country.

The Justice Department said it planned to provide some of the services through the immigration court system itself, and the rest would be covered by pro bono attorneys. But the ACLU argued the government’s plan was unrealistic.

“We’re talking about thousands of cases,” Lee Gelernt, lead attorney for the ACLU, told the judge April 30. “It takes a lot of work to get a firm to take one [pro bono] case.”

In court filings last week, the Justice Department admitted it had not connected anyone covered by the settlement agreement with a pro bono attorney since it took over responsibility for providing services on May 1st.

In his order, Judge Sabraw wrote that the government had failed to demonstrate that it could provide the same services Acacia had and that no viable alternative had been offered. He pointed out that the Justice Department’s plan to rely on pro bono attorneys had, in part, been hampered by the Trump administration’s cancellation of other federal contracts, including one that funded an information hotline for detained immigrants. “Since Acacia’s contract expired, the pro bono landscape has only deteriorated because of funding cuts and staffing shortages,” Sabraw wrote.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the sub-agency the Justice Department had charged with administering legal services to separated families, said it does not comment on litigation-related matters. The department also declined to comment on the decision.

Judge Sabraw set a hearing for June 27 to assess the government’s progress in restoring services.

Van Hofwegen said it will take months for Acacia’s subcontractors to rehire staff who were laid off during the work stoppage and to reestablish communication with members of the class-action lawsuit who were told services were no longer available.

The settlement agreement gives separated families until December 2025 to file for asylum. Van Hofwegen said that very few of them have completed those applications due to the limited funding the government provided for legal help, even before Acacia’s contract was ended.

Van Hofwegen said the current climate of aggressive immigration enforcement puts separated families at heightened risk. Three class members have recently been detained by immigration officials, according to the ACLU, which said it was investigating those situations.

“We remain really worried about class members until folks have full legal services,” Van Hofwegen said.

The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets throughout the state, with NPR as its national partner. 

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

Watch the interview

Gavin Newsom is in his final year as governor of California, but lately, he's been touring the country to energize voters ahead of the midterm elections.

"I think it's really important for the Democratic Party not to give up on red states and rural parts of the country," he told NPR at an event organized by local Democrats in the town of Manning, South Carolina. Newsom is also widely considered a potential presidential candidate for 2028 — a possibility he has not ruled out — and he sees himself as a leader of Democratic opposition to President Donald Trump, often mocking his brash style on social media.

"I'm putting a mirror up to President Trump and I'm fighting fire with fire and I am punching a bully back in the mouth," he told NPR.

At the same time, Newsom has embraced conversations with major right-wing figures such as Steve Bannon and Ben Shapiro on his podcast, drawing criticism from members of his own party. The governor sat down with All Things Considered for an interview ahead of the release of his memoir, Young Man in a Hurry. He discusses how his struggles with dyslexia shaped his childhood and career, his strategy for dealing with President Trump, and how he thinks the Democratic party should meet this political moment.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Stop us if you've heard this one before...but it's going to feel a lot like summer this week as temperatures soar into the mid 80s.

At the beaches, we're looking at high temperatures in the mid 70s. Meanwhile, downtown L.A. will see temperatures from the mid 70s up to 80 degrees.

Similarly, the valleys and Inland Empire will be toasty, with highs from 75 to 82 degrees. Coachella Valley will be the warmest, with highs reaching up to 89 degrees.

If you're planning for a hike, bring plenty of water — the Santa Monica Mountains will get into the low 80s.