The Brief

An immigration judge issues a stern warning: "If you don't show up, there is a good chance the court will order you removed."

She speaks to an immigrant from El Salvador in a quiet immigration courtroom in Hyattsville, Md., in November. Clad in an all-black dress jacket and shirt, the immigrant — who was identified only by the number of his case — swears that his last immigration notice was lost in the mail.

The judge tells him to check his mail regularly, ahead of his next appearance in January.

As the room empties out, the judge says out loud that there are a number of no-shows that day. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney in court files motions to remove five people "in absentia." The judge grants it. Those people can now be deported.

A similar scene has played out, and increasingly so, in nearly every immigration court nationwide over the past year, according to immigration attorneys and NPR's early analysis of court data. The results mirror those of Joseph Gunther, an independent researcher, who has also been tracking the data closely. More immigrants are not showing up for their mandatory immigration court hearings, allowing the government to order their immediate deportation.

"What happened is that the word spread that if you go to court, you could get picked up from ICE," said Ruby Powers, an immigration lawyer based in Texas with cases all over the country.

In 2025, ICE turned to arrests directly from federal or immigration courtrooms in order to meet arrest quotas set by the Trump administration.

"Those instances weren't consistent around the country, but at least the word had spread, the fear had spread. And so individuals were really hesitant to go into court," Powers said.

The number of in absentia removals was generally already on an upward trend each year since 2022, said Andrew Arthur, resident law and policy fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit that advocates for lower levels of migration. Still, the number of such removal orders in fiscal year 2025 nearly tripled that of the previous year — topping over 50,000.

NPR calculated just how many people were ordered removed "in absentia."

Each of the top 10 cities with the largest number of completed immigration cases in those courts is on track to end the year with a higher rate of in absentia removals than they started. That is according to data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review — part of the Department of Justice — from January through November.

Each of these courts experienced an uptick in this kind of removal order starting in the summer months. That timeline is consistent with when immigration attorneys say ICE officers began arresting people inside the courts.

NPR has spoken with the family members of immigrants who came to court in New York, for example, in place of their parents or partners — out of concern their loved ones might be detained. New York's courts have become notorious this year for scenes of violent arrests and confrontations with federal officers.

Powers said that there are other reasons people may fear coming to court, including that they may not win their case or get deported to a third country. There are logistical barriers, too.

"A lot of times people don't even know that they have a hearing, or hearing dates can change without receiving the notice in the mail," Powers said. Sometimes immigrants can move and addresses are not immediately updated with the court, or go to places like apartment buildings that have less consistent mail delivery, she said. Notices can also be sent to completely incorrect addresses, which lawyers said has been an issue in years past.

Immigration attorneys across the country have noticed an uptick in this kind of removal order. Organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies have also spotted it.

In many cases, the Department of Homeland Security has to receive a removal order issued by an immigration judge before it can physically deport any person from the U.S., Arthur said.

"The more orders of removal in absentia or at the end of proceedings that are issued, the more people that ICE can then target for removal from the United States," he said.

Arthur said that immigrants who fail to appear opt to not take the government up on the offer for due process.

"The more people who are under final orders for removal … the more people who are going to end up in ICE custody because the law requires that ICE take into custody everybody who's under a final order of removal, notwithstanding the administration's stated focus on the worst," Arthur said.

"This appears to be well in excess of those historical trends," Arthur said.

Immigrants may have the opportunity to reopen their cases. However, most people in immigration court do not have legal representation, which they must pay for themselves.

Nonprofits like the organization Mobile Pathways have tracked a low rate of arrests in courts. But immigrant advocates said that doesn't mean the fear and negative perceptions go away.

"It probably falls into the narrative that the administration wants to be portrayed, that these individuals are not participating in the process that they're supposed to," Powers said, about the rise in no-show removal orders.

Some families she represents have fled violence, are working through trauma, or are navigating language and other barriers in addition to the immigration law system.

"[They] are just making the best decisions they can with the information they have provided to them," Powers said, adding that most immigrants are still showing up for their court appointments. "It's just because a lot of things are being stacked up against them. And that's why we're seeing these numbers."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol from a violent mob on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Trump administration, arguing that the newly-announced $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is both illegal and dangerous. At the same time, former Jan. 6 defendants are already preparing their applications to the fund and anticipating major payouts.

The Justice Department has indicated that the fund will be used to compensate an unspecified group of people "who suffered weaponization and lawfare" under previous presidential administrations. It is widely expected that at least some of the money will go to Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, and later received presidential pardons.

Facing questions from members of Congress and reporters, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Vice President JD Vance did not rule out payments to Jan. 6 rioters convicted of violent crimes against police officers.

"We're not making commitments to give anybody money," Vance said Tuesday at the White House. "We're just making commitments to look at things case by case."

A screenshot of a video showing D.C. Metropolitan police officer Daniel Hodges being attacked at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

(

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia

)

Daniel Hodges, a Washington, D.C., police officer who was repeatedly assaulted and crushed in a door frame by Jan. 6 rioters, is one of the plaintiffs seeking to block the fund.

"Why would you pay people who attacked the police at the Capitol of the United States who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power?" Hodges told NPR. "Why would you pay people who wanted to assassinate the vice president? You know, the list goes on and on. It doesn't make any sense."

Hodges said he and other officers who defended the Capitol continue to receive death threats, and that giving money to the people convicted of assaulting police could feed further harassment and violence.

"If they get this payout, then they'll have significant financial resources," Hodges said, "and they have no ethical qualms about it, so what would stop them from carrying out any more violence?"

Hodges continues to serve on Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department and spoke to NPR in his personal capacity.

Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn joined the lawsuit, which names acting Attorney General Blanche, as well as President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants.

Dunn and Hodges are represented by Brendan Ballou, a former federal prosecutor who worked on Jan. 6 cases and now leads the anti-corruption group Public Integrity Project.

Former Department of Justice Special Counsel Brendan Ballou speaks during a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Capitol Hill on Jan. 7.

(

Mark Schiefelbein

/

AP

)

"The Trump slush fund is potentially the most corrupt act of presidential power in American history," Ballou told NPR.

The lawsuit targets the unusual way in which the fund was created. Trump sued the federal government — of which he is the head — for $10 billion over the IRS leak of his private tax records, and then created this fund as part of a settlement over the claim.

"Donald Trump was functionally on both sides of the case," Ballou said.

The lawsuit also notes that Trump's mass pardons restored gun rights for many Jan. 6 defendants. The "Anti-Weaponization Fund," Ballou argues, could also provide them with a major financial windfall.

"They can get money, they can get guns," Ballou said. "And right now they have the endorsement of the president showing that they will be financially rewarded for their violence."

Rioters expect to be 'rewarded'

Jake Lang used a bat to attack police protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6. His trial for assault and other charges was pending when Trump ordered the case dismissed and released him from jail.

Lang does not dispute that he used the bat against police, but argues that his actions were justified as self-defense, because he believed that the 2020 election had been stolen.

Since his release from jail, he has become a white power, anti-immigrant, antisemitic and anti-Muslim activist and provocateur. He has been recorded on video using racist slurs, including the n-word, and giving a Nazi salute.

When contacted by NPR for comment on Wednesday, Lang answered the phone by saying, "Jake Lang's office, America's newest billionaire."

Lang said he was joking about becoming a billionaire, but confirmed that he plans to apply for compensation through the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" and expects other Jan. 6 defendants to do the same.

"The misdemeanor cases should be looking to receive several hundred thousand dollars," Lang said, "and some of the cases like mine may be looking at upwards of a million dollars."

Lang said Trump's message in establishing the fund was clear.

"If you sacrifice for your country, if you do the right thing in the face of evil, you will be rewarded for your bravery, for your patriotism, for the love of your country," Lang said. "That's the message President Trump is sending."

Jake Lang (right), who was charged with eight counts of assaulting officers before his pardon, threatens D.C. Metropolitan Police officer, including Commander Jason Bagshaw (left), during a Jan. 6 rally and memorial march marking five years since the attack on Jan. 6, 2026 in Washington, D.C.

(

Chip Somodevilla

/

Getty Images

)

If Lang receives compensation from the Trump administration, the money could go towards his legal expenses. He is currently facing criminal charges in Minnesota, where he was recorded knocking down an ice sculpture protesting federal immigration enforcement, and in Washington, D.C., where he was charged with threatening a police officer. Lang has denied all wrongdoing in both cases.

Using 'Trump bucks' as hush money

Lang is one of dozens of former Jan. 6 defendants who have been charged or convicted of additional crimes since Trump issued mass pardons to the rioters.

In Florida, defendant Andrew Paul Johnson is currently serving a life sentence in prison for sexually abusing two young children. According to a police affidavit filed last year, Johnson told his victims that he would share a portion of restitution money that he expected to receive from the Trump Administration. "This tactic was believed to be used to keep [the victim] from exposing what Andrew had done to him," the affidavit said.

Andrew Paul Johnson was sentenced to life in prison for sexually abusing children. He received a full pardon from President Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 riot.

(

Hernando County Sheriff's Office

)

The mother of one of the victims, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her child's privacy, told NPR that Johnson told the children he would buy them things with "my Trump bucks."

Johnson made those comments well before the announcement of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," but at a time when some Trump Justice Department officials, including U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, were publicly discussing restitution for Jan. 6 defendants.

"He said not to tell anybody," one of Johnson's victims testified at his trial.

"We were scared," Johnson's other victim testified. "Like, we didn't realize that this stuff was not okay because we were 12 years old."

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., pressed Blanche about Johnson's case at a congressional committee hearing.

Blanche said the facts of the case were "disgusting" and "it's horrible that that happened."

But he did not state whether Johnson would be eligible to apply for compensation through the "Anti-Weaponization Fund."

Speaking at the White House, Vance said that law schools and the media are biased against Jan. 6 rioters and Trump supporters compared with other criminal defendants.

"There are people who objectively committed heinous crimes, but the American media and the American legal academy has decided that even though they committed bad crimes, their sentence was disproportionate — they were mistreated in some way," Vance said. "You know who never ever gets an ounce of sympathy when it comes to that disproportionate sentencing is people who voted for Donald Trump and participated in the Jan. 6 protest."

According to NPR's database of the nearly 1,600 Jan. 6 criminal cases, the median prison sentence for Capitol riot defendants was 30 days. About a third of the rioters who went through sentencing received no jail time.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Los Angeles city property owners should have received a ballot for voting on whether to pay more for streetlight repairs — an area of funding that has been frozen since the 1990s. An increased budget could mean faster repair times and more efficient maintenance.

But — why is voting on this issue set up this way? Why vote now now? And what will your vote mean?

Why the vote?

L.A. established the Bureau of Street Lighting in 1925 — when the city was much smaller. In partnership with property developers, the bureau helped build a patchwork of streetlights.

In 1996, Proposition 218 required municipalities to seek voter approval for general taxes and fees, such as increasing streetlight funding. Since then, assessment funds, which account for 90% of the bureau's revenue, have been frozen, leaving the bureau chronically underfunded, according to Miguel Sangalang, the executive director and general manager for the Bureau of Street Lighting.

The city's Bureau of Street Lighting says that it takes one year on average to complete repairs due to budgetary constraints.

Last year, the bureau had a third party verify and assess the funding it needed to operate — an estimated $125 million.

This year, the L.A. City Council approved a putting an increase before voters — in this case, property owners near streetlights.

What to know ahead of voting

• If you received a ballot, you must return it by allots are coincidentally due on June 2. This is a separate ballot from the primary election.
• Every property gets one vote, though each ballot is weighted based on how much a property owner is expected to pay.
• Approval of the new assessment would also institute a three-year audit, meaning a third party would account for how the Bureau of Street Lighting spends the money.

Can't vote but want to participate?

Funding doesn't need to come purely from assessments.

The L.A. City Council could also supplement the bureau's budget, which it has done in the past, according to Sangalang.

City Council offices can assist with repairs in their districts through discretionary funds. The mayor also has the ability to fund such projects through an executive order.

Calling your local council member's office and asking for more funds to go to local street light improvements could help expedite the repair completion process.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

If you’ve ever dined at Chef Debbie Lee’s restaurant Yi-Cha, you’ve likely noticed the colorful, cartoon-style mural at the entrance. The vibrant painting features food, animals, nature and bold Korean words such as “Awesome” and “Let’s Eat.” It also captures the lively spirit of Highland Park in Northeast Los Angeles.

Last week, in honor of Asian American and Pacific Islander History Month, Lee hosted a meet-and-greet with  the mural’s artist, Korean visual artist ZiBeZi.  

“This event [was] our way of saying thank you to him, and to our guests who have fallen in love with his work,” Chef Lee told The LA Local. She commissioned ZiBeZi to paint the mural last fall when she opened her restaurant. 

ZiBeZi, whose given name is Jung Jae-hoon, did not begin as a visual artist. For more than a decade, he worked as a rapper, shaping stories through rhythm and lyrics. Painting came later, after what he describes as a difficult period in his life, when drawing became a form of recovery — a way, he said, “to breathe and heal.”

That origin still lingers beneath the surface of his work. His paintings, at first glance, lean whimsical: rounded forms, bright palettes, a sense of motion that feels almost childlike. But look longer and the compositions begin to open up into something more layered and introspective.

“I enjoy creating scenes where humans, nature, animals and the universe coexist without boundaries,” ZiBeZi told The LA Local. “On the surface, the work may feel playful or cartoon-like, but underneath, there are emotions, memories and questions about life.”

Artist ZiBeZi poses with acclaimed Parasite director Bong Joon-ho alongside ZiBeZi’s painting that was featured in the film.

(

Couresty of ZiBeZi

)

His work has traveled farther beyond Highland Park. In Bong Joon Ho’s Oscar-winning film “Parasite,” one of ZiBeZi’s abstract paintings appears as a prop — a child’s drawing that seems innocent but quietly signals something more unsettling. The placement introduced his work to a global audience, a moment that helped shift the trajectory of his career.

By 2024, the Grammy Museum had commissioned him to create a mural for its K-pop exhibition, another sign of his growing visibility. Still, he describes these milestones less as turning points than as affirmations.

“Those experiences gave me confidence to continue creating,” he said, “while also reminding me to stay true to my own voice and artistic identity.”

At Yi-Cha, that voice takes on a distinctly local resonance. Lee said ZiBeZi approached the mural less as a commission and more as a process of immersion. “He didn’t just paint a mural he spent time in Highland Park, walked Figueroa, felt the neighborhood. That kind of intention shows in every inch of the wall.”

The result is a piece that bursts with joy. An alien figure hovers near the words “Highland Park,” rendered in Hangul, the Korean alphabet. There are subtle nods to Yi-Cha’s menu and broader references to Los Angeles, woven together in a way that resists a single interpretation.

It is, above all, a mural meant to be lived with and experienced over meals.

“Painting for a restaurant feels very different from exhibiting in a gallery,” ZiBeZi said. “Here, art becomes part of people’s everyday experience — it lives with their laughter, their meals and their memories.”

The mural wall at Yi Cha, a Korean restaurant on Figueroa Street in Highland Park, fills floor to ceiling with whimsical illustrations celebrating the neighborhood and Korean culture.

(

Courtesy of Stan Lee

)

Federal officers handle security screening at all but a small fraction of U.S. airports, but the Trump administration is hoping to change that. Under the Transportation Security Administration's new program called TSA Gold+, private companies would play a much larger role in airport security than they have in decades.

The TSA is set to host officials from airports and security contractors to an "industry day" at its Springfield, Va., headquarters on Thursday, as it looks to develop TSA Gold+, a public-private program that the agency calls "transformative."

The agency is billing the program as an update to the Screening Partnership Program, or SPP, in which 20 U.S. airports currently use private security screeners rather than federal workers.

"TSA Gold+ marks a significant evolution in the agency's approach to aviation security," a TSA spokesperson told NPR via an emailed statement.

The agency says airports that opt into the program would be able to tailor security systems for their facility — and avoid the TSA staffing shortages that became a very public headache at airports during the recent government shutdown over Homeland Security funding.

It also says the program would bring "the latest technology" such as AI tools to airport screening operations, to increase capacity and cut wait times, although the agency did not specify how those gains would be achieved. From the details shared so far, the equipment would be the contractors' responsibility — a departure from the current SPP system, in which TSA controls the equipment and oversees the security contract. The TSA says it would perform the oversight role it currently does.

"Industry partners can manage equipment and introduce innovations, while travelers enjoy a smooth, predictable, and bespoke experience," the TSA said as it unveiled TSA Gold+.

Airports currently using the private Screening Partnership Program range from San Francisco and Kansas City to Sarasota, Fla., and Atlantic City, N.J., along with smaller facilities in Montana, Wyoming and other states.

Calls for privatizing airport security screening have come from President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress, echoing a recommendation in the conservatives' Project 2025 handbook for a second Trump term. But there are also signs of bipartisan interest in some level of private control over airport security, as seen in Atlanta, where city leaders recently voted to explore joining the Screening Partnership Program.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, touted that bipartisan interest on Wednesday during a hearing on TSA Modernization. But Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees union, which represents TSA officers, said he opposes further privatization — including the TSA Gold+ program, warning that it would hamper accountability and transparency.

Under the new program, Kelley said, contract workers would earn less than TSA officers. He added that while many transportation security officers hold security clearances, under the new plan, the government "would be ceding direct operational control of the most sensitive technology in the aviation security enterprise to private vendors."

The White House budget released last month promises to save some $52 million by privatizing airport screeners and requiring small airports to enroll in the SPP.

But officials at the hearing urged lawmakers to preserve airports' ability to choose.

Chris McLaughlin, CEO of Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, noted that the SPP has been in place since aviation security underwent drastic changes following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led to the creation of the TSA and the SPP system.

"We've had federalized screening for 25 years, almost," McLaughlin said. "Large airports like San Francisco have had an SPP program for 25 years."

Both airports' arrangements work well for them, he told Garbarino.

"The system has been safe for 25 years," he said. "It's important that airports have options."

The new "Gold+" program echoes the Trump administration's promise to bring a "golden age of travel" to the American public. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy touted those plans earlier this week, as he unveiled $970 million in funding to improve passengers' experiences at airports, from adding family-friendly security screening lanes to improving restrooms and children's play areas.

The money for those projects comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a Biden-era law aiming to update airports' aging infrastructure.
Copyright 2026 NPR