The Brief

This story was originally reported by Shefali Luthra and Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Shefali and Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Cary López Alvarado, of Hawthorne, California, was nine months pregnant when she was arrested by immigration officials alongside her husband, an immigrant from Guatemala. Alvarado was held overnight but was never sent to a detention facility: After taking her into custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) learned she was a U.S. citizen.

Immediately after her release, she began to experience sharp pains in her stomach, according to a claim she filed against the federal government. She gave birth a few days later.

Angie Rodriguez, an immigrant from Colombia, was taken into ICE custody following a routine check-in with immigration officials in July, and soon after found out she was pregnant. At the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center where she was held, Rodriguez could hardly bring herself to eat the small meals that the detention facility served because of how they looked and smelled, and her only other option was buying processed food like instant noodles and chips.

Rodriguez went on to miscarry while in custody, according to a lawsuit she filed against the federal government.

Antonia Aguilar Maldonano, a mother of two from El Salvador, was arrested by ICE on her way to work and detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota for almost a month. Her youngest child is 22 months old and still nursing; he has acid reflux and an allergy to other forms of milk. The jail was not equipped to house someone who was nursing, said Gloria Contreras Edin, her lawyer: It did not have a breast pump when Aguilar Maldonado arrived, forcing her to use her hands to massage milk out until the facility was able to buy a pump.

Antonia Aguilar Maldonano, a mother of two from El Salvador, was arrested by ICE on her way to work and detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota for almost a month.

(

Courtesy Antonia Aguilar Maldonano

)

Lawyers successfully argued for her release on bond — $10,000, paid for by members of her church — while the government makes the case that she be deported.

A Biden-era policy restricts ICE from arresting or detaining immigrants who are pregnant, postpartum or nursing, except in extreme circumstances. While President Donald Trump has not formally rescinded the policy, it’s clear from lawsuits, news reports and advocates for immigrants who are detained that it’s not being followed.

Quantifying the exact number of pregnant, postpartum or nursing immigrants in custody has become impossible: This March, Congress let lapse a requirement that the administration report twice a year on how many of these immigrants are being held in immigration facilities. Since the fall of 2019, Congress had required the Department of Homeland Security to publicly report the count every six months and include “detailed justification” for every single detained immigrant who was pregnant, postpartum or nursing.

ICE did not respond to The 19th’s request for this data.

While the agency said in a statement in August that pregnant immigrants are receiving sufficient care in custody, medical professionals say the conditions in these facilities can heighten the risk for complications. Limited food can impact nutrition at a vulnerable time; access to medical appointments is spotty and often not aligned with standards of care; and pregnant, postpartum and nursing detainees also face the stress of arrest and separation from their families.

The impact of arrests and detention

In 2021, following public outcry against the first Trump administration’s immigration policies, the Biden administration directed ICE not to detain pregnant, postpartum or nursing people except in “exceptional circumstances" — they are a national security threat or pose immediate harm to themselves or other people. Those who are detained are supposed to be held in facilities suited to appropriate health care. ICE-employed medical professionals are supposed to provide weekly updates on those detainees to relevant agency directors. The ICE Health Service Corps is also supposed to keep consistent records of all pregnant, postpartum and nursing detainees, providing monthly updates to the organization’s leadership.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has not formally rescinded that policy, but administration officials argued in court that he had done so implicitly through a sweeping anti-immigration executive order that supercharged immigration enforcement. A federal judge refuted that argument, but on its website, ICE says the policy is “not reflective of current practice.”

“We're seeing more pregnant women detained again after not seeing much of that, at least not in ICE detention,” said Amanda Heffernan, a longtime nurse-midwife and professor of midwifery at Seattle University.

Rebecca Cassler, an attorney at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said her organization’s pro bono program has seen an increase in cases of detained pregnant, postpartum and nursing people. She says no one outside ICE really knows how many, but it’s enough to make her “very concerned.”

Though the federal government has not made public how many pregnant people have been detained, Democratic lawmakers have published multiple investigations documenting known cases.

One report, published this summer by the office of Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, identified 14 credible cases of pregnant women being mistreated in detention facilities. The report included a description of pregnant women sleeping on cell floors, one detainee being told to “just drink water” when needing medical support, and another miscarrying alone after days of bleeding.

ICE has disputed the report. "Pregnant women receive regular prenatal visits, mental health services, nutritional support, and accommodations aligned with community standards of care. Detention of pregnant women is rare and has elevated oversight and review. No pregnant woman has been forced to sleep on the floor," ICE said in a statement on its website.

A September 18 letter signed by 29 Democratic senators and addressed to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed federal officials to clarify just how many pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding people are being detained, how many have been deported and what health care is being made available to them. DHS has not acknowledged receipt, said a spokesperson for Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who organized the letter.

“We do not know how many pregnant women are in ICE custody, whether U.S. citizen babies have been born in ICE custody, and what provisions have been made for mothers’ and children’s health, safety, and wellbeing,” the senators wrote.

The Women’s Refugee Commission, an advocacy group, is seeking records from Homeland Security pertaining to pregnant, postpartum or nursing individuals who have been detained. It recently launched its own independent tracker, encouraging health providers, lawyers and family members to submit information about pregnant people who have been detained. The commission said it’s too early to provide an accurate count from its tracker.

Zain Lakhani, a lawyer and director of migrant rights and justice for the commission, said credible reports of pregnant people being detained suggest a frequency higher than ICE’s policy would suggest.

“It would be shocking that we would be able to have this level of detained pregnant people under the guidance,” she said. “We are seeing just this shocking number of detained postpartum and pregnant women.”

Dozens of people participate in an anti-ICE rally outside of the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center on Sept. 2, 2025, in New York City.

(

Spencer Platt

/

Getty Images

)

Workers helping integrate deported immigrants in Honduras told researchers from the Women’s Refugee Commission that nursing women who were deported had not received enough food and water to continue lactating.

“They arrive with hardly any milk — or milk that looks like water — and this affects the babies’ weight,” one worker said, according to a report published by the organization.

The impact of arrests and detention

By the time Aguilar Maldonado left the jail, her breast milk had started to dry up, Contreras Edin said. She is particularly worried about the impact of detention on her children, who were not with her and now follow her wherever she goes, including to the bathroom. Her boyfriend has been deported; she is asking a judge to let her leave voluntarily — a process that has fewer legal penalties than being deported — so she and her children can follow him.

“Her children were traumatized and her youngest was especially traumatized,” Contreras Edin said. “That bond was broken during detention and that left a permanent impression on her children.”

There is no way to ethically research how detention specifically may affect pregnancy outcomes, including whether it could increase the possibility of miscarriage, said Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins University who studies the reproductive health of incarcerated women. But evidence does show that physical and psychological strain — the kind people can suffer while detained — threatens the health of a pregnancy and can mean greater risk of preterm birth.

“I’m very concerned because of the conditions we’ve already heard about that could be increasing the risks of adverse outcomes,” Sufrin said. “I’m very concerned about the outcomes for these moms as well as for the outcomes for their babies.”

ICE did not respond to a request for comment on the conditions or available accommodations for pregnant, postpartum or nursing immigrants.

Alvarado, who is seeking $1 million following her arrest, citing “the unconstitutional conduct, unlawful arrest, and the tortious conduct of Border Patrol and ICE agents,” said her daughter is healthy and growing. But she’s still dealing with the aftermath of her detention.

Footage of the arrest shows federal agents holding her hands behind her — despite guidance advising that officers generally not use physical restraints on pregnant people and that, if they do, they should keep a pregnant person’s hands in front.

Her husband has now been deported, and Alvarado has no income. She’s watching her savings dwindle and relying on her family to help care for her little girl. She said she was unsure if she’d have to pick up multiple jobs to make ends meet — and if so, who would be able to care for her infant. She remembers the terror she felt while in government custody.

“Every time I see a news or video, it does rewind in my head,” she said. “It does get me very emotional, seeing stuff like that.”

Victoria Petty, an attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area who is representing Rodriguez — the woman who suffered a miscarriage in detention — said that she first connected with her client’s husband in late August, about a month after his wife’s detention.

He had left Petty a voicemail and text explaining that his wife was pregnant in a detention center and that he was really worried about her. Days later, he called again. “He’s crying on the other line, and he's like, ‘She had a miscarriage. I don't know what to do. She's in the hospital. Help,’” Petty recalled.

Rodriguez described in court records being “unignorably hungry” inside the Bakersfield, California, detention facility and lacking prenatal health care and education for weeks after her pregnancy was confirmed. Eventually, she began to see brown discharge and was taken to an off-site hospital where, days later, health care providers confirmed she had miscarried.

Petty moved quickly to file a lawsuit claiming unconstitutional detention. Court documents show that upon release from the hospital, Rodriguez was placed in medical isolation at the ICE detention center.

“It was very scary. She was in pain. So after this really traumatic experience, and her going to the hospital and confirming that they did not see the fetus on the ultrasound — after all of that, they brought her back to the detention center and put her in medical isolation,” Petty said, adding that her client was distraught.

Petty said it’s hard to determine whether detention conditions caused or contributed to Rodriguez’ miscarriage, a very wanted first pregnancy. But, she said, it’s important to consider the stress of being suddenly detained in a van — her client is from Colombia; kidnappings and murders have left lasting scars on the Latin American nation — along with the strain and lack of food options in detention.

“These are the conditions that she was in when she was pregnant. And we cannot rule out that having been under that level of stress and fear and having that little care contributed to her pregnancy loss,” Petty said.

Heffernan, who has worked with several immigrants who were detained while pregnant, said she has seen pregnant immigrants get a few small accommodations: being placed in a lower bunk instead of the top bunk for sleep or getting extra milk with their meals and sometimes an extra sandwich or snack before bedtime.

Medical care, she said, can be “very haphazard and spotty,” with prenatal appointments often not happening on schedule.

“You do see people getting a prenatal visit here and there, but not in a timely fashion, and not according to the standard of care for people that are outside,” Heffernan said. “For instance, in a couple of people that I've been in contact with recently, one had been in detention for several months and had had no prenatal care at all. Another had had one visit.”

Pregnant immigrants are also more vulnerable to more severe cases of COVID-19, flu and other illnesses, which spread quickly in crowded places like detention centers.

There is an extensive list of best practices for detained pregnant and postpartum people, Sufrin said, including but not limited to regular access to comprehensive physical and mental health care, nutrition, the ability to exercise and adequate housing.

But from a medical standpoint, she said, “The best practices would be not to detain them.”

California college students without legal immigration status still cannot work at public colleges and universities after Gov. Gavin Newsom again vetoed a bill Sunday that would have given them that right.

Assembly Bill 713 would have adopted an untested legal theory that argues that a 1986 federal law barring employers from hiring workers in the country without authorization doesn’t apply to state governments. The logic? That 40-year-old law doesn’t mention state governments as a type of employer that cannot hire workers without proper status.

But for the second time in three years, Newsom decided that adopting that theory for California would expose the state’s higher-education system to the wrath of the federal government.

“The current federal government has shown it is quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle — attacking California's public higher education institutions and terrorizing immigrant communities, including students, with reckless disregard for consequences and a desire for chaos,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

He added: “But given the gravity of this bill's consequences — including potential criminal and civil liability for state employees — the federal courts must resolve the legality of the novel legal theory behind this legislation before we proceed. Seeking declaratory relief in federal court would provide such clarity.”

Newsom vetoed a nearly identical bill in 2024.

The latest bill by Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat from Lakewood, was meant to allow the estimated 60,000 students without legal immigration status at California’s community college and public universities to earn paychecks safely on campuses instead of working for cash under the table. Backers of the bill say campus jobs could be tailored to fit the students’ academic schedules or align with the research interests, such as employment in labs.

Campus jobs are a key way these students can afford college given that they are ineligible for federal Pell grants — up to $7,400 annually — and federal student loans that come with more borrower protections than ones offered by private lenders. California provides eligible in-state students tuition waivers regardless of their immigration status, so many of them can at least attend a public institution tuition-free.

“While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache said at a bill hearing in June.

The University of California itself abandoned its review of employing students without legal status in 2024 out of fears that the federal government could punish the system by withholding federal money or prosecuting UC personnel.

That decision gutted a coalition of students who led the campaign to persuade the UC to voluntarily adopt the legal theory allowing them to work.

After Newsom vetoed the 2024 bill, a student and former lecturer at the UC sued the system. A state appellate court ruled that UC’s argument that the federal government might sue the system was an abuse of discretion under the state’s law that bans employment and housing discrimination. The court said UC’s policy of not hiring students without legal status was legally indefensible unless it can show that federal law requires the UC to continue its policy of not hiring undocumented students. The UC appealed, but the state Supreme Court let the appellate ruling stand. Still, the court ruling was silent on the soundness of the legal theory that the state can hire workers without legal status.

Newsom’s veto message indicated that a federal court must weigh in on the legal theory before California can adopt a law such as Solache’s.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Paramount's owners have made a series of concessions to a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general to resolve a lawsuit that endangered the media company's $111 billion takeover bid of its larger Hollywood rival, Warner Bros. Discovery, according to a person with knowledge of the arrangement.

The person who confirmed the deal spoke on condition of anonymity because the company and the attorneys general have not yet publicly released any information on it.

The agreement will bind Paramount to operate Warner Bros. Studios and Paramount Pictures separately — at least for now. Together, they will release at least 30 films a year, or risk a financial penalty. And the deal will also create a board intended to insulate Warner's CNN from corporate intervention in newsroom decisions, a demand from several of the attorneys general.

This is a developing news story and will be updated.
Copyright 2026 NPR

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are suing President Donald Trump jointly for violating their constitutional rights after his administration cut off their journalists' access to the White House. Trump claimed the news outlets were covering him unfairly.

"This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. Monday, says.

It cites the news organizations' First Amendment rights not to be punished by the federal government over their speech — in this instance, their news coverage. It also cites their Fifth Amendment rights to due process: the government cannot take away rights or privileges without any warning or process to intercede or appeal the decision.

"The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn't like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration," said the lead attorney for the news outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, in a statement. "This ban on the free press harms the American people, who are entitled to rigorous, fact-based coverage of the President of the United States."

In response to NPR's request for comment, the White House pointed to a Truth Social message the president posted early Monday: "The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!"

The latest front in larger battle

Boutrous tells NPR that legal precedents overwhelmingly support the news organizations' case.

Among them was a ruling Boutrous secured as attorney for NPR and three Colorado public radio stations. A federal judge found that a White House executive order barring any federal funds from going to the network or other public media outlets was unconstitutional. (Last year, the Republican-led Congress nonetheless pulled back all funding for public media at Trump's urging.)

Trump has lost many other legal challenges to his efforts to restrict the press, including in his first term the revocation of press credentials for Jim Acosta, then a CNN White House correspondent. A case filed by the Associated Press is still in the courts. It's over the White House's efforts to punish its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump's preferred name of the Gulf of America.

Trump was not subtle on Friday in explaining why he wanted to punish CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and Politico.

In a back-and-forth with reporters at the White House, he said his decision had not been sparked by any specific reporting, but the accumulation of what he called two years of unfair and negative coverage.

"There's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposefully negative things," Trump told reporters Friday. "Now, if they want to write them, that's fine, but I don't have to let them into my — into the people's house."

Starting over the weekend, journalists for the three news organizations said their reporting teams were barred from entry, even though they have permanent press passes.

Major tv networks stand by CNN

CNN is among five major television networks that make up what's called the White House video pool, which has provided constant coverage of the president's public appearances for decades. The outlets share the considerable expense and logistical burden of staffing those appearances and share the feed with all. The process ensures there are not myriad cameras crowding smaller spaces at the White House and other places the president appears.

CNN was to offer pool coverage of the president's departure from the White House and his visit to the United Nations in New York City Monday. But CNN was not listed as providing pool coverage on the White House daily guidance. Nor was any other member of the primary video pool — a group made up of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and, of course, CNN.

"Effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President," Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton said in a memo, which
was obtained by NPR. "There will be no replacement pool put in place."

Trump famously basks in the glow of TV news lights, coveting the attention they bring even as he rails against the accompanying coverage.

Tommy Evans, NPR's editor in chief, was among the news executives publicly condemning the White House stance and proclaiming solidarity with the three banned outlets. NPR is a key member of the radio feed providing parallel service to their TV counterparts.

"Barring journalists from the White House because the president dislikes their reporting is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and NPR condemns it without qualification," Evans said in a statement released Sunday. "The American public has a right to know what its government is doing in its name — not only the coverage a president finds flattering, but the full and accurate account of the use of power and public resources."

Trump himself has sued numerous news organizations, including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal (owned by his political ally, Rupert Murdoch), CNN, the BBC and others.

The Justice Department has aggressively sought to secure reporters' notes and devices as it hunts down the sources of leaks. The Defense Department expelled news organizations, including NPR, from the Pentagon for refusing to promise not to seek information not officially authorized for release. The president's pick as head of the Federal Communications Commission has launched formal investigations of all major television networks, save Fox (also owned by Murdoch). The agency is also investigating NPR.

In this instance, previous judicial rulings would appear to stand against the president.

Trump is correct that there is no constitutional or legal right that requires him to allow any particular journalist — or anyone at all — to report on federal matters from the White House grounds.

Once admitted, journalists cannot be prevented from returning simply because the administration does not like their coverage. That would be "viewpoint discrimination" that the courts have held violate their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Under a 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that still holds today, reporters cannot be barred from the White House or denied a permanent White House press pass without a clear explanation from the Secret Service that incorporates due process.

The lawsuit by CNN, MSNOW and Politico is seeking a return of full access to White House for their journalists and to operate the video pool, as previously planned.

Disclosure: This story was written and reported by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by NPR Acting Chief Business Editor Emily Kopp. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is warning the public of a potential measles exposure from someone who traveled through Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles earlier this month.

What happened

The unvaccinated passenger arrived at Union Station on Saturday, Sept. 12, by Amtrak train just after 7 a.m. and departed about four hours later on an Amtrak Thruway bus bound for Bakersfield.

People at Union Station during the exposure window of 8 a.m. to noon may be at risk of contracting measles seven to 21 days after exposure. The last day to monitor for symptoms is Oct. 3.

State health officials say the passenger was traveling on buses and trains through L.A. and at least five other California counties before leaving the state.

"This case, along with previous measles outbreaks in California this year, serve as reminders of the importance of vaccination against measles," said Dr. Rita Nguyen, assistant state public health officer. "Measles is one of the most contagious infections that can lead to severe lifelong consequences, including permanent brain damage, and can also be fatal, especially for children."

What to watch for

Symptoms of measles include fever, red, watery eyes, and a rash that usually develops several days after other symptoms and typically starts on the face.

As of Sept. 14, a total of 59 measles cases have been reported in California this year. In most cases, patients were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status.