The Brief

Hours after California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against the Trump administration Sunday seeking to prevent the president from sending 300 California National guard troops to Portland, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking federalized deployment from any state to Oregon.

The order came during an extraordinary Sunday night hearing after Oregon and California attorneys revealed that in addition to trying to send California troops to Oregon, President Donald Trump’s War Secretary, Pete Hegseth, had ordered Texas National Guard members to deploy as well.

Oregon District Court Judge Karin Immergut interrupted Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton repeatedly during the hearing, saying the administration was trying to circumvent an order she issued Saturday temporarily halting the use of Oregon Guard troops in Portland.

She said that she sees the conduct of the Trump administration, and its federalization of 400 Texas National Guard troops, as a “direct contravention of the order that this court issued yesterday.” The Texas National Guard was also slated for Chicago and other locations, a legal document said.

At another point in the hearing she asked, “aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland, and nothing has changed? Another point in the hearing. “So why is this appropriate?”

Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general, argued that the White House was authorized to send in the California National Guard, despite Immergut’s Saturday order, because the California troops were called up under a different Trump memo in June. Immergut dismissed that line of reasoning. “Mr. Hamilton, you are missing the point, because here it’s the conditions on the ground in Oregon that was a basis for my finding” yesterday. And those conditions haven’t changed.

After the 30-minute hearing, which was delayed nearly an hour for technical reasons, Bonta issued a statement applauding Immergut’s ruling.

“The President’s move to deploy the National Guard of one state over the objections of a Governor to another state over the objections of a second is well outside of the norms or practices of any President in recent history.” Bonta wrote. “This fight isn’t over, but today’s rebuke of the President’s illegal actions is a step in the right direction.” This was California 42nd suit against Trump in 36 weeks.

Stephen Miller, a senior White House advisor, condemned the judge’s decision Sunday in a social media post. “A district court judge has no conceivable authority, whatsoever, to restrict the President and Commander-in-Chief from dispatching members of the US military to defend federal lives and property.” Federal appeals court judges, including those appointed by Trump, disagree and have ruled that they can review a president’s decisions, but with deference.

He also called the ruling “one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen — and is yet the latest example of unceasing efforts to nullify the 2024 election by fiat.”

Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and police, attempt to keep protesters back outside a downtown U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility Saturday in Portland, Oregon.

(

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

On Saturday, Immergut temporarily blocked the administration from activating a contingent of the Oregon National Guard to combat what President Donald Trump calls lawless behavior emanating from immigration protests in Portland.

Hegseth responded by calling in California troops. As of Sunday evening, 100 California Guard members had already arrived in Portland.

“The stakes could not be higher,” Bonta said before Sunday’s hearing. “People should understand clearly what is happening here: The president is seeking to deploy the California National Guard as federal military police indefinitely anywhere in the country. He’s not even hiding the ball.”
He and legal representatives for Portland and Oregon sought a temporary halt to the deployment of California troops.

Bonta’s messaging echoes Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said in a statement Sunday morning that: “we will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.”

By Sunday morning 100 California National Guard troops arrived in Portland by plane from Los Angeles, the amended suit says. Hegseth intends to send another 200 California National Guard troops soon, Bonta added.

Trump has characterized Portland and other Democratic-run cities as dangerous, high-crime zones and last week told a gathering of U.S. generals that the military should “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

Trump’s moves are ‘unique’

In the suit filed Sunday evening, lawyers for California and Oregon argue that the White House is again failing to meet the standards of the federal law that would permit Hegseth to federalize any National Guard troops — Title 10, Section 12406.

It also says that the initial reason for federalizing the California National Guard to Los Angeles is “wholly unrelated” to the Trump administration’s goals in Portland.
Bonta expressed dismay over the shifting reasons to deploy California’s troops. The White House does “not have the carte blanche … to deploy whatever military they want, whenever they want,” he said at the press conference.

The suit also argues that the Trump White House is violating a 19th century federal law prohibiting federal troops from acting as law enforcement.

The dynamic is highly unusual, in no small part because Trump is essentially pulling troops from one state that has opposed his use of the National Guard to another state where political leaders also reject Trump’s moves.

“I don’t think we’ve seen this scenario before, I think it is unique,” Bonta said.

Trump claims he must deploy federalized troops because Portland is under siege by protesters opposing the administration’s immigration enforcement actions.

But Immergut, the Oregon judge, ruled Saturday that the protests there are “not significantly violent or disruptive” enough to justify Trump’s use of Oregon’s National Guard. Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued her decision as part of a temporary restraining order against the federal government after Oregon and city of Portland sued the administration last week.

Protesters there set up “a makeshift guillotine to intimidate federal officials” while others flashed bright lights into the eyes of federal officials driving, Immergut summarized. “These incidents are inexcusable, but they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces,” Immergut wrote.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.”

The Trump administration on Saturday appealed that decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

What’s likely new

Immergut’s order over the weekend was narrow, said Loren Voss, a fellow at the legal affairs publication Lawfare who’s taught classes on domestic deployment of the military. In an interview with CalMatters, Voss said the order specifically blocked Hegseth’s federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard — it wasn’t a restraining order on all National Guard deployments.

“But one of their (Oregon’s) big arguments, and one that judge Immergut found persuasive, was a diversion of their National Guard members from state responsibilities, right, which would not apply here,” Voss said.

She expects several overlapping legal proceedings to unfold. In addition to Newsom’s vow to sue, the Ninth Circuit may weigh in shortly on Immergut’s Saturday decision in response to the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, which could shape how future legal challenges unfold.

Voss noted that Trump federalized the California National Guard because of protests in Los Angeles, but now they’re being assigned to duties in Portland for a different purpose. “This is an interesting legal question,” she said. “I think there is a good challenge that can be made there.”

Trump sent thousands of troops into L.A.

California sued Trump in June after the president federalized 4,000 of the state’s National Guard troops and 700 Marines to protect federal property and provide support for federal immigration law enforcement officers after protests across Los Angeles County erupted over immigration sweeps.

A district judge, appointed by President Bill Clinton, sided with Newsom by issuing a temporary restraining order against Trump’s use of the National Guard in June. But a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit blocked that decision, giving Trump control of the federal troops again.

The 300 California National Guard troops Trump is deploying to Oregon are a holdover from his June activation. After most of the 4,700 troops left Los Angeles, Trump in August ordered 300 California National Guard troops to remain deployed in Southern California. Those are the troops Hegseth is sending to Oregon. Bonta had already sued to stop that extended deployment before Sunday’s suit.

The Oregon judge’s decision doesn’t conflict with the higher court’s reasons for returning the federal troops to Trump, said Kelly Simon, a legal director at the ACLU of Oregon, during a press conference.

The appeals court said judges can review such military decisions, rejecting an argument by Trump administration lawyers. And while the “courts have to give a substantial deference” to a president’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to a state against the wishes of a governor, the White House still has to make that “determination rooted in fact,” Simon said. “The president’s determination was untethered from the facts.”

The California federal lower court judge also ruled in September that federal troops were used for law enforcement purposes, a violation of a 19th-century law banning the military from such activity.

“There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence,” wrote Judge Charles Breyer. “Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”

He blocked the Trump administration from using the military to engage in “arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants, unless and until” the Trump administration presents valid constitutional or legal exceptions.

The Trump administration has also appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, putting Breyer’s September block on a temporary hold.

LAist reports on local issues for — and with — communities across Southern California, but chances are most readers have never spoken with a journalist before. Your stories and experiences power our reporting, so it’s important that people know what to expect when they speak with a reporter.

That’s what this guide is for.

Below are some tips from our newsroom on what to keep in mind when talking to a journalist.

Remember: You are the expert on your own life

Tell the story you want to tell about yourself.

Be honest. Truthfulness and facts are central to journalistic ethics.

Also know your worth. Reporters come to you for a reason. They may be intimidating because they have a mic or a camera, but you have a perspective they need. Media outlets also want to expand their audiences, and that includes you.

Common questions

How can I get a journalist’s attention?

Contact reporters by social media or send them a personal email — at LAist, contact information is available on our staff page. If you meet a reporter, get their business card. It will usually have a direct phone number to talk with them.

Will all my words be published?

Probably not. Journalists are often working with a limited word count or air time. They will likely use one short sound bite or quote from you. It’s also possible they will not use your interview at all. Reporters and their editors decide what will get published.

Can I see a copy of the story before it's published?

Probably not. It is against journalistic ethics to have sources review a story before it’s published. Imagine if a journalist were to do a piece about government corruption. You wouldn’t want the government agency to review the story and edit it. Editors review stories for accuracy.

When will the story be published?

It depends on the type of story. Some stories are short and may air on the radio or be published online the same day you talk to the reporter. Other times a reporter might work on a story for several weeks or months. It’s OK to follow up with the reporter who talked to you and ask when the story might be done and ask them to let you know where you can read or hear it.

Can I speak with a fact-checker?

You are welcome to ask reporters about their fact-checking process or how they make sure a story is accurate. Not all outlets have fact-checkers. If the story is an investigative story or a long-form or magazine format, designated fact-checkers are more common. At LAist, reporters and editors are responsible for verifying information.

What if I am asked about something that makes me feel uncomfortable?

Your story is your own and during an interview you have full control over what you say to a reporter. Answer questions in any way that makes you feel most comfortable, and you can always decline to answer a question.

What do I do if a reporter asks me about my immigration status?

You don't have to disclose your immigration status to a reporter. If it's directly relevant to the story, a trustworthy reporter will explain that and also tell you how they'd handle the information. You can decline to answer.

• More on how LAist handles this topic

How do I determine if the newsroom I'm speaking with has a specific point of view?

It's a great question and relates directly to media literacy — meaning how well you can spot misinformation, disinformation and bias. The reality is that we all have points of view. Here are some tools to check on where a publication falls across the political spectrum:

• FAIR's (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), which describes itself as a "progressive media watchdog group" has this media literacy guide.
• PEW Research Center, which describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan nonadvocacy organization, has information on sources most popular with different political perspectives
• You should be able to find information on who funds the work on the site (corporations, individual owners, subscribers, members and so on).
• You can also check out this interactive chart tracking media outlets across the political spectrum (note that you may need a paid version to search smaller outlets). Ad Fontes Media, which describes itself as a "public benefit corporation" which they said means they are "a for-profit business with a stated public mission," has been publishing its analysis since 2018.

Is everything I say usable in a story?

You can come to an agreement with reporters ahead of the conversation about how your words can be used:

• “On the record”: This means that everything you say in your conversation with the journalist can be quoted, published and attributed back to you. By default, you should assume any exchange you have with a journalist is on the record unless you mutually agree otherwise. 
• “On background”: This means that you are sharing information with a journalist that can be referenced in a story, but is not directly attributed to you. 
• “Off the record”: This means that you are sharing information that is not for publication. People may share experiences or tips off the record if they want the journalist to be aware of the information but don’t want it mentioned in a story. Remember that “off the record” only counts if both you and the journalist agree to it. 

It's worth noting that different newsrooms may use these terms slightly differently. You should confirm with the reporter that you have as shared understanding of the meaning.

Do I need to pay to be in a news story? Can I get paid?

No and no. You will not pay or get paid to be in a news story because this is against journalistic ethics. Anyone who receives payment for a story could be swayed to bend the truth.

What if the reporter gets my story wrong?

If you feel that the reporter misrepresented your story, you can ask for a correction or an update to clarify a point. Reporters want to get the story right and they don't want to incorrect or misleading information to go unchecked. That said, corrections deal with information that is factually incorrect, so you should be ready to explain what was wrong and why. Under California law, you have 20 days to demand a correction and the publisher has to respond within a set period of time.

• More on California civil defamation claims and the definition of defamation.

How can I prepare for an interview?

Think about the main points you want to get across in your interview. What are the most critical things for the reporter to know? Some people like to organize their thoughts into three major points. If you are not used to telling your story, you may want to have a friend ask you some questions to practice. Depending on the story, a reporter may also ask if you have any pictures to share that they can use to help tell the story.

Get involved with LAist

Ask LAist reporters questions

You can reach out to LAist reporters through the contact information listed on their bios. All our editorial staff, including the teams reporting, editing and producing news, are listed here.

How else you can be a part of LAist's reporting

Aside from contacting journalists directly, you can share your story with LAist through short surveys and meeting us in person. Learn more here.

This guide was originally written by former LAist early childhood producer Stefanie Ritoper, with contributions from Mariana Dale. Cato Hernández and David Rodriguez also contributed to this guide. 

File this under things that could only happen in L.A.

Paradise Dynasty, the Singapore-based chain known for its signature eight-flavor xiao long bao, has teamed up with Burritos La Palma — the SoCal burrito institution whose birria de res recipe traces back over 45 years — to create a limited-edition birria soup dumpling. The Birria XLB will be available starting Monday (May 11) for a limited time at Paradise Dynasty locations.

I've eaten my weight in both soup dumplings and burritos, so naturally, I'm a fan of both.

Paradise Dynasty has been on a steady ascent as a major player in L.A.'s dumpling scene, with locations at South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and The Americana at Brand in Glendale.

Meanwhile, Burritos La Palma — known for its simple, savory burritos and finely crafted flour tortillas — has been capturing hearts and stomachs since Alberto Bañuelos opened the first eatery in L.A. in 2012. It’s since grown to several spots across L.A. and Orange County, earning a Michelin Bib Gourmand award in 2024 for its high-quality, Zacatecan-style handmade flour tortilla burritos at an affordable price.

How the collab came together

So what exactly is a birria soup dumpling? A delicate wrapper, lightly packed with tender birria de res — slow-braised beef stewed in chilies and spices — juicy, savory and gone in one bite.

It all began with a call from Paradise Dynasty, when Jason Kuo, district manager for Paradise Dynasty USA, reached out to Bañuelos, calling it, simply, a perfect match between the two dishes.

Kuo said the idea came straight from the community.

"When we started asking guests and people around us what flavor they would want to see in a soup dumpling, birria kept coming up again and again — it was very clear. If we're going to do birria, it has to be done right. Burritos La Palma was the first name that came to mind."

Bañuelos was "beyond thrilled" to have been approached.

"We come from a small town in Mexico, and to be able to elevate to the level of Paradise Dynasty and that culinary perfection, I can't even really put it into words," he said.

It took months of R&D to get the right consistency. Bañuelos said the process required dialing down the moisture and upping the spice potency and landed on serving a fresh red salsa with thin slivers of serrano peppers alongside — a riff on the black vinegar and pickled ginger traditionally served with soup dumplings.

The Birria XLB's juicy interior is part of what makes it work — the dish is served with a fresh, tomato-based salsa and slivers of serrano pepper in place of the traditional black vinegar and pickled ginger.

(

Katrina Frederick

/

Courtesy Paradise Dynasty

)

How it tastes

I got a chance to try the dumplings ahead of the public launch and was struck by how well the combination worked. The juicy nature of birria is almost turbocharged in dumpling form, its savory, herbaceous flavors fully encapsulated in the thin skin, creating an exceptional texture in every bite. The dish hits even harder when dipped in the light tomato-based salsa — a rush of freshness that cuts through the richness, with a spike of heat from fresh serrano. (Feel free to skip the peppers if spice isn't your thing.)

But what's most impressive is how organic it all feels. This isn't fusion for fusion's sake — it's a natural meeting of two dishes that are deeply embedded in the Southern California diet, each playing to the other's strengths.

It feels like a logical meeting of the minds — birria and soup dumplings have both been part of L.A.'s culinary zeitgeist for the better part of a decade, and it makes sense that these worlds should collide.

When asked whether a collaboration like this could happen anywhere else, Bañuelos was quick: "It has to start in L.A. You just can't compete."

Where to try it

Nine Democratic House members from California are demanding information about how the Trump administration is treating unaccompanied migrant children who are pregnant and in federal custody. They’ve signed a letter, along with 39 other House Democrats, to Trump officials expressing their concern that the girls are not receiving adequate medical care or access to abortion.

The letter comes in the wake of an investigation by the California and Texas Newsrooms, public media collaboratives in those states. LAist is part of The California Newsroom.

The joint investigation found that the federal government is detaining pregnant migrant girls in a single group home in South Texas. Doctors and reproductive-health experts interviewed for the investigation said prenatal care is severely limited in that region.

The letter says the detention violates federal regulations because the children are “entitled to the full range of medical care, including reproductive health care.”

Rep. Gil Cisneros, who represents the central San Gabriel Valley, says he worries that pregnant migrants who are apprehended in California will be put at risk if they’re sent to a part of Texas that is short on obstetric care. Of particularly concern: High-risk pregnancies are common among minors.

“If they were in California," he said, "they would be able to have more choices of the type of health care that they would get when it comes to reproductive health care.”

Rep. Judy Chu, who represents the West San Gabriel Valley, wrote in a statement that “this administration is so intent on restricting abortion that it is using immigration detention as a tool to control these girls’ bodies.”

Mark Betancourt is a regular contributor to The California Newsroom. 

The U.S. Department of Education is investigating how the Los Angeles Unified School District responds to educators accused of sexual misconduct with students.

The department accuses the district of maintaining a policy that “automatically” reassigns teachers to other schools when they are accused of sexual misconduct with students and cites a 2024 agreement with the teachers union.

A Los Angeles Unified spokesperson wrote in a statement that it’s “not true” that staff being investigated for sexual misconduct are reassigned to other school sites.

“‘Reassignment’ typically means an employee is directed to remain at home and away from students and schools during an investigation,” the spokesperson wrote.

United Teachers Los Angeles called the DOE's accusations a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the district’s reassignment policy.

“[Employees] are not reassigned to another classroom or to any other setting where they would interact with students,” read a statement provided by the union. “This policy protects both students and staff and creates conditions for a thorough and appropriate investigation of allegations.”

What to expect from the federal investigation

The federal investigation, overseen by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, will assess whether the district’s policy violates Title IX, a law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.

Kimberly Richey, the assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a statement that Title IX requires schools to address claims of sexual misconduct in a “timely manner.”

“It is unconscionable that the district would simply ignore Title IX’s procedural requirements to protect teachers who cause life-changing harm to their kids,” Richey wrote. “The Trump administration will always fight to uphold the law, protect the safety of all students and restore common sense to our schools.”

The Trump administration also has recently targeted LAUSD's desegregation policy and transgender student protections.

Last year, the office failed to resolve any cases related to sexual harassment, sexual violence or racial harassment, according to a report released by Sen. Bernie Sanders in late April. Sanders is the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Education Committee.

In March 2025, the Trump administration pushed to cut over half of OCR’s nearly 600 staff members, which contributed to a growing backlog of cases. Those employees were placed on administrative leave pending the result of legal challenges, and many were later brought back.

The Education Department has also withheld records related to civil rights investigations, prompting a lawsuit from investigative nonprofit newsroom ProPublica.

What does LAUSD’s policy say? 

LAUSD protocol related to employee misconduct says administrators must remove accused employees from their classroom or worksite whenever there is a risk to the safety of students or staff.

The 110-page protocol document also lists several other requirements for allegations related to sexual misconduct, including contacting law enforcement and the agencies that license teachers.

“Los Angeles Unified takes all allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment with the utmost seriousness,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of every student and staff member in our care.” The statement also said the district follows Title IX procedures and continuously reviews its policies, training and reporting systems.

The UTLA settlement outlines several circumstances where an employee can be reassigned, including a law enforcement investigation of misconduct, sexual harassment of a student, behavior toward a student perceived to be motivated by a sexual interest and communicating with a student for non-school-related purposes.

School employees are “mandated reporters” who must, by law, notify local law enforcement or child welfare agencies of suspected child abuse or neglect. California Attorney General Rob Bonta reminded K-12 school district leaders in late April of their legal obligation to prevent sexual misconduct and protect students.

How prevalent is sexual misconduct in California schools?

There have been few comprehensive studies of sexual misconduct in schools. A 2004 report to the Department of Education estimated 1-in-10 students experiences sexual misconduct, ranging from inappropriate comments to physical abuse.

A new California law requires schools to train students and staff to recognize and report misconduct and write new policies on “appropriate behavior.” It also will create a new database of educators credibly accused of abuse.

More than 1,000 lawsuits related to sexual abuse that date to the 1940s have been filed against California school districts since the enactment of a 2019 law that gave victims a three-year window to sue.

LAUSD has authorized $750 million in bonds to pay for sexual misconduct settlements related to suits stemming from the law.