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 While President Donald Trump has not formally rescinded the policy, it’s clear from lawsuits, news reports and advocates for immigrants who are detained that it’s not being followed.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.”

This on-and-off rain is looking like good news ... for wildflower lovers.

We talked to Katie Tilford, our go-to wildflowers expert at the Theodore Payne Foundation here in L.A., which is dedicated to native plants and wildflowers in Southern California.

And she is holding out hope the rains this week and next will be just what we need to see California poppies and more bloom big in the upcoming weeks.

"A little more rain would be nice," she said, "Then I think we’ll have a really good bloom this year. Either way, I think there’s going to be some flowers for sure … but a little more rain would really just kick things up a notch.”

And as for the question we always ask this time of year … will it be a superbloom kind of year?

Only Mother Nature knows for sure. We plant nerds also know that that the term superbloom gets thrown around with regularity during wildflower season, even though it refers to very specific conditions created by a potent cocktail of early rains, cool temps, hot temps, and late rains. So, we repeat: Stay tuned.

But Tilford says she’s already seeing signs there will be plenty of wildflowers to enjoy in the coming weeks, so you might want to make a plan to get out there.

One surefire spot: the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, when the poppies hit full bloom. There is a live cam to help you time your trip for the best blooms.

Another great resource is also the wildflower hotline hosted by Theodore Payne. Starting in March, it will be updated each Friday with the latest wildflower news and tips on where to see it all. Call: 818 768-1802, Ext. 7. 

An annual meeting of the nation's governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

"If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year," the Democrats wrote. "Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states."

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, told fellow governors in a letter on Monday that the White House intended to limit invitations to the association's annual business meeting, scheduled for Feb. 20, to Republican governors only.

"Because NGA's mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program," Stitt wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The governors' group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has "discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House."

"It's the people's house," she said. "It's also the president's home, so he can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House."

Representatives for Sitt and the NGA didn't comment on the letter. Brandon Tatum, the NGA's CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an "important tradition" and said the organization was "disappointed in the administration's decision to make it a partisan occasion this year."

In his letter to other governors, Stitt encouraged the group to unite around common goals.

"We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us," he wrote. "The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America's governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics."

Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine's Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, "We'll see you in court."

Trump then predicted that Mills' political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

The back-and-forth had a lasting impact on last year's conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.
Copyright 2026 NPR

A booming industry that charges veterans for help in obtaining the benefits they earned through military service must shut down or dramatically change its business model in California by the end of the year under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday.

The law prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their Department of Veterans Affairs claims.

Technically, it was already illegal under federal law to charge veterans for that work, but Congress 20 years ago removed criminal penalties for violations, and scores of private companies emerged, offering to speed up and maximize benefit claims.

“We owe our veteran community a debt of gratitude — for their years of service and sacrifice," Newsom said in a written statement. "By signing this bill into law, we are ensuring veterans and service members get to keep more money in their pockets, and not line the coffers of predatory actors. We are closing this federal fraud loophole for good.”

Critics call the private companies “claim sharks” because their fees are often five times the monthly benefit increase veterans obtain after using their services. CalMatters in September, for instance, interviewed a Vietnam-era veteran who was billed $5,500 after receiving benefits that would pay him $1,100 a month.

Depending on a disability rating, a claim consulting fee under that model could easily hit $10,000 or more.

“We owe it to our veterans to stand with them and to protect them from being taken advantage of while navigating the benefits they've earned,” said Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk. Archuleta, a former Army officer, carried the legislation. “This is not about politics; it's about doing what's right. Making millions of dollars on the back of our veterans is wrong. They've earned their benefits. They deserve their benefits.”

California’s new law is part of a tug-of-war over how to regulate claims consulting companies. Congress for several years has been at a stalemate on whether to ban them outright, allow them to operate as they are or regulate them in some other way.

California is among 11 states that have moved to put the companies out of business, while another group of mostly Republican-led states has legalized them, according to reporting by the veteran news organization The War Horse.

That split in some ways reflects the different ways veterans themselves view the companies. The bill had overwhelming support from organizations that help veterans file benefits claims at no cost, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, as well as from Democratic Party leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

But the VA’s claims process can take months and sow uncertainty among applicants. Several of the claims consulting companies say they have helped tens of thousands of veterans across the country, and that they have hundreds of employees.

Those trends led some lawmakers to vote against the measure, including Democrats with military backgrounds.

“We're going to say to you, ‘Veteran, you know what, I don't know if you are too stupid or too vulnerable or your judgment is so poor you can't choose yourself,'” said Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat and former Army colonel, during a debate over the measure last month.

The new law was such a close call for lawmakers that nine of 40 senators did not vote on it when it passed that chamber last month, which counts the same as a “no” vote but avoids offending a constituency that the lawmaker wants to keep.

It was also one of the 10 most-debated measures to go before the Legislature last year, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Lawmakers spent 4 hours and 39 minutes on the bill at public hearings in 2025 and heard testimony from 99 speakers.

Two claims consulting companies spent significant sums hiring lobbyists as they fought the bill, according to state records. They were Veterans Guardian, a North Carolina-based company that spent $150,000 on California lobbyists over the past two years; and Veterans Benefit Guide, a Nevada-based company that spent $371,821 lobbying on Archuleta’s bill and a similar measure that failed in 2024.

Those companies view laws like California’s as an existential threat. Both have founders with military backgrounds. Veterans Benefit Guide sued to block New Jersey’s law prohibiting fees for veterans claim consulting, and a federal appeals court sided with the company last year.

"This was the hardest bill I’ve had to work on since I’ve been in the Legislature," said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Democrat who supported the law. "We know why that is, because there was so much money on the other side."

Charlotte Autolino, who organizes job fairs for former military service members as the chairperson of the Veterans Employment Committee of San Diego, criticized Newsom’s decision to sign the law. She spoke to CalMatters on behalf of Veterans Benefit Guide.

“The veterans lose,” she said. They lose the option. You’re taking an option away from them and you’re putting all of the veterans into one box, and that to me is wrong.”

But David West, a Marine veteran who is Nevada County’s veterans service officer, commended Newsom. West was one of the main advocates for the new law.

“The veterans of California are going to know that when (Newsom) says he’s taking care of everybody, he’s including us; that he values those 18- and 19-year-olds who are raising their hands, writing a blank check in the form of their lives; to then ensure that they aren’t writing checks to access their benefits,” West said.

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