The Brief

Andrew Do has resigned as Orange County supervisor and agreed to plead guilty to a conspiracy to steal millions of dollars meant to feed needy seniors, following a months-long LAist investigation and federal probe.

The criminal charges and plea deal were announced Tuesday morning by U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada at a news conference in downtown Santa Ana. Out of $9.3 million in taxpayer dollars that were supposed to feed people, only 15% went to people in need, Estrada said.

“Mr. Do and his co-conspirators stole money from the poor,” said Estrada, who called the conspiracy “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Do agreed to plead guilty and signed a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and faces a possible five year prison term. He accepted over $550,000 in bribes for directing and voting in favor of more than $10 million in COVID funds to a charity affiliated with his daughter Rhiannon Do, according to a U.S. attorney's office news release.

In what that office described as a “package deal,” Rhiannon Do admitted to filing a falsified mortgage application that disguised her use of taxpayer dollars in the purchase of a house in Tustin. The deal calls for Rhiannon Do, a 23-year-old law student, to be placed on three years’ probation through a pretrial diversion program. Do admitted in his plea agreement that $381,500 in public funds were transferred to an escrow company and used by his daughter Rhiannon Do to purchase the home in Tustin for $1,035,000.

Through the investigation, Estrada said, investigators seized more than “$2.4 million in illicit proceeds generated in the scheme.” Andrew Do, he said, has agreed to forfeit his rights to any of that as well as “forfeit two properties, one in Santa Ana and one in Tustin, related to the scheme to purchase using proceeds from the scheme.”

Andrew Do will also forfeit his pension accrued from June 2020 when the scheme began.

O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do at the county Board of Supervisors meeting on Jan. 23, 2024.

(

Nick Gerda

/

LAist

)

'Media reports' led to federal investigation

Estrada said the U.S. attorney’s office began their investigation when they saw media reports about how then-Supervisor Do had directed money to Viet America Society. LAist was the first to report on how Andrew Do directed the money to the nonprofit, without disclosing his familial ties. That report last November has been followed by a series of exclusive investigative pieces into alleged misuse of public funds in Orange County.

“We take action when we see those reports," Estrada said. "We brought our federal partners into the case to fully investigate, and we discovered this extensive and very troubling bribery."

Orange County DA Todd Spitzer echoed the seriousness of the findings.

The money “was literally stolen out of the mouths of our most vulnerable residents,” Spitzer said.

Spitzer said the charges marked the first time in 50 years that an O.C. supervisor faced criminal conviction.

Following the money: Credit card payments, property taxes

According to Spitzer, Rhiannon Do received around $8,000 a month in taxpayer money while Andrew Do’s other daughter, who was not named at the news conference, received over $100,000 funneled through COVID federal funds.

“The monies were used to pay off American Express cards, Mr. Do's American Express card, pay the property taxes of their home in Westminster and the home in North Tustin,” Spitzer said.

Spitzer was also sharply critical of the Orange County Board of Supervisors for allowing the allocation of tens of millions of dollars in COVID relief money to be distributed outside of public view. That lack of transparency, Spitzer said, allowed Andrew Do to "fill the pockets of insiders, himself and his loved ones — his family members” instead of helping the public.

"This was while Do was bragging about [providing] 2,700 meals a week, meanwhile the elderly were dying," Spitzer said.

Attorneys Paul S. Meyer and Craig Wilke, who represented former Anaheim Mayor Sidhu on federal corruption charges, are now representing Andrew Do.

Meyer said in the statement Tuesday: “Out of respect for the legal process, no statement is appropriate at this time. However, it is appropriate to convey Andrew Do’s sincere apology and deep sadness to his family, to his constituents in District One and to his colleagues.”

They previously said that the former supervisor looked "forward to a thorough and fair investigation.”

David Wiechert, an attorney for Rhiannon Do, reached Tuesday said they have no comment.

Andrew Do’s wife is O.C. Superior Court Assistant Presiding Judge Cheri Pham. Spitzer said she is entitled to a thorough investigation and she’s “entitled to a presumption of innocence.”

Last week, Andrew Do’s Chief of Staff Chris Wangsaporn resigned from his role.

Chris Wangsaporn, chief of staff to O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do, at the O.C. Board of Supervisors meeting on Dec. 19, 2023.

(

Nick Gerda / LAist

)

“I can only say that there's an ongoing investigation with respect to Mr. Wangsaporn and his wife,” Spitzer said.

LAist reported earlier this month that Wangsaporn’s then-girlfriend, now wife, Josie Batres, was hired by a nonprofit, Mind OC, to carry out a $275,000 mental health contract funded by the county. County officials told LAist the county paid out the full contract, but none of the required work turned in to the county. Batres and Wangsaporn got married about one year into the two-year contract.

“This is like a spiderweb of involvement and so it's going to take time. We know a lot,” Spitzer said. “We obviously have a lot of documents, we've seized a lot of information from homes, we have a lot of electronic data that's being analyzed that we do not have all the results.”

Do submitted his resignation on Tuesday to O.C. Supervisors Board Chair Don Wagner, according to a county spokesperson who provided the resignation letter to LAist. Wagner will oversee District 1 duties until a new supervisor is elected in the upcoming elections, according to a county spokesperson.

LAist's investigation

The former supervisor's funding of Viet America Society — and the lack of answers about what happened with the funds — has been the focus of nearly a year of investigative articles by LAist.

Starting last November, LAist reporting uncovered millions of taxpayer dollars then-Supervisor Do directed to his daughter’s nonprofit without disclosing the family relationship, and that have gone unaccounted for.

In all, LAist’s investigation reported Andrew Do directed more than $13 million to the group using a process outside of public view, which was not illegal at the time. (Those laws are now changing, under recently signed legislation introduced in response to LAist’s reporting on Do’s awarding of the funds.)

LAist also revealed in December that the group failed to submit required audits showing whether the money was spent appropriately.

Read the U.S. Attorney's allegations

Read Andrew Do's plea agreement

Listen

What do other supervisors say now?

In a joint statement, the four remaining board members reacted separately to their colleague's resignation and plea agreement.

Board Chairman Donald P. Wagner thanked federal investigators and added that the county's lawsuits remain active.

"The County remains committed to continuing its civil lawsuits in order to hold all responsible parties accountable and to recover misused public funds," Wagner said.

Supervisor Doug Chaffee called it "a troubling moment for our County. It's disheartening to witness a betrayal of public trust by someone in a position of responsibility. This highlights the critical need for ethical leadership. The Board remains dedicated to serving the people with integrity."

Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento underscored that investigations must continue.

"The unsealing of the indictments demonstrates years of unethical and illegal acts that directly harmed the most vulnerable in our County," he said. "We must not discontinue the investigations until all parties involved are brought to justice, and the systemic problems that led to these abuses are reformed."

And Supervisor Katrina Foley expressed disgust at what she called "the staggering level of corruption, greed, and deception described in the unsealed federal indictment."

"Andrew Do and his associates carried out an overt scheme to enrich themselves off our hard-earned tax dollars, "Foley said. "Andrew Do must pay for his crimes. This Board is united in continuing to do the people's business of governing and moving forward from this dark day in Orange County."

The backstory

Law enforcement searched the Tustin home of Rhiannon Do, on Aug. 22, 2024.

(

Jason Armond

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

FBI agents outside of Andrew Do and Cheri Pham's home in Orange County on Aug. 22, 2024.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

In August, federal agents searched homes owned by Andrew Do and his wife — Assistant Presiding Judge Cheri Pham of O.C. Superior Court — and their daughter, Rhiannon Do. That same day, agents also searched a home owned by Viet America Society founder Peter Pham, a restaurant that received millions from VAS and another home associated with Peter Pham.

From left supervisors: Don Wagner, Doug Chafee, Andrew Do, Vicente Sarmiento and Katrina Foley.

(

Yusra Farzan

/

LAist

)

For almost a decade, Do had been one of the most powerful government officials in Orange County. For years during his time on the Board of Supervisors, he’s had a key role in overseeing how billions of dollars in funding were spent to address homelessness and mental health.

He’d been one of the five elected county supervisors since winning a 2015 special election by a razor thin margin of 43 votes, and ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer in 2022. Prior to resigning, Do already was termed out of office this December.

He was also one of the highest ranking Vietnamese American officials in Orange County, home to one of the largest Vietnamese communities in the United States.

The week before the federal searches in August, county officials sued the nonprofit Viet America Society (VAS) and its leaders, including Rhiannon Do — accusing them of an “illegal and fraudulent scheme” to divert federal COVID dollars then-Supervisor Do directed to the group. The nonprofit’s leaders also were accused by the county of using the money to purchase homes in Orange County and converting the taxpayer dollars to cash through “voluminous, unaccounted for” ATM withdrawals.

Andrew Do has not returned dozens of requests for comment from LAist since last November asking about his funding of his daughter’s group. In a Vietnamese-language radio broadcast in August, a few hours after the county sued his daughter, Do defended his family and Viet America Society from accusations of wrongdoing. He said the nonprofit was complying with the law, and that allegations otherwise are “slander.”

Rhiannon Do’s attorney, David Wiechert, previously told LAist she’s a "very honest, law-abiding, hardworking young woman" before declining to comment Tuesday.

"It’s our intention to demonstrate to the government the error of their ways if they think she’s done something wrong,” he said.

Judge Pham has previously declined to comment through the court’s spokesperson, citing a statewide ethics rule barring judges from commenting on cases or issues that are likely to come before the courts.

FBI agents carry material out of a home owned by Supervisor Andrew Do and his wife Orange County Superior Court Assistant Presiding Judge Cheri Pham during searches in August.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

Since the federal searches in August, Do faced increasing calls to resign from his elected position. That includes calls from two of his four colleagues on the Board of Supervisors and six of the seven city council members in Huntington Beach, the largest city in his district. Until Tuesday, he'd given no public indication he’d considered doing so.

He had not attended a county supervisor meeting in the two months since the federal searches.

In early September, his four fellow supervisors unanimously voted to strip Supervisor Do of all his committee assignments, including to the high-profile governing board of the Orange County Transportation Authority.

Two weeks later, all four of his colleagues voted to publicly condemn Supervisor Do with a censure. It cites “reckless judgment and favoritism he has demonstrated in directing millions of dollars” to “organizations with no proven track record,” while not disclosing his family ties.

Catch up on LAist’s investigation so far

In November 2023, LAist began investigating how millions in public taxpayer dollars were spent. In total, LAist obtained and reported public records showing more than $13 million in public money that was approved to a little-known nonprofit that was led on and off by Rhiannon Do, the now 23-year-old daughter of former Supervisor Do.

Most of that money was directed to the group by Andrew Do outside of the public’s view and never appeared on public meeting agendas. He did not publicly disclose his family ties. The law at the time didn’t require it. Much of the known funding came from federal coronavirus relief money.

• Read the first article in LAist’s investigation: Top OC official helped direct millions to his daughter’s center without disclosing family connection  
• LAist also reported that VAS was two years overdue in completing a required audit into whether the meal funds were spent appropriately.
• And LAist reported, based on county records we obtained, that the amount of taxpayer money directed to the nonprofit was much larger than what appeared on public agendas.. It totals at least $13.5 million in county funding — tallied from government records obtained and published by LAist. 
• After our reporting, O.C. officials wrote demand letters to the nonprofit saying millions in funding were unaccounted for. They warned it could be forced to repay the funds.
• LAist found government records and reported that the nonprofit went on to miss multiple deadlines set by county officials to provide proof about how funding for meals were spent.
• On Aug. 2, LAist reported O.C. officials were demanding the refund of more than $3 million in public funds awarded by Do to VAS and another nonprofit, Hand to Hand.
• Six days later, LAist reported Orange County officials had expanded demands for refunds of millions in tax dollars from the nonprofits and threatened legal action.
• On Aug. 15, LAist reported O.C. officials sued VAS and its key officers and associated businesses, including Rhiannon Do. The lawsuit alleges that county money was illegally used to purchase five homes and was converted into cash through ATM transactions. 
• Then, on Aug. 19, LAist reported O.C. officials had announced a second lawsuit against Hand to Hand and its CEO to recover millions of taxpayer dollars that were directed by Andrew Do.
• LAist broke the news on Aug. 22 that federal agents were searching Rhiannon Do's home in Tustin. Later that day, Andrew Do's home, and other properties, were also searched by the FBI and IRS.
• On Sept. 10, the O.C. Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to remove then-Supervisor Do from his committee assignments, including his role as a board member for the Orange County Transportation Authority.
• Later in September, three bills inspired by LAist’s investigation that will increase public transparency were signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
• On Oct. 16, LAist reported that the wife of Andrew Do's top aide was hired for a $275,000 contract. County officials say the work was never turned in.

How to watchdog local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.

Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The next scheduled board meeting is Tuesday, Oct. 22. You can check out the O.C. Board of Supervisors full calendar here.
• Learn how to submit a public comment to the O.C. Board of Supervisors.

Listen to Imperfect Paradise for the story on how the LAist investigation unfolded...

Listen 38:22

Apple

Spotify

An LAist investigation uncovered more than $13 million in public funds directed by Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do to Viet America Society (VAS) without disclosing his daughter was a leader at the nonprofit. County officials now allege that money was “brazenly plundered” for personal gain. Imperfect Paradise host Antonia Cereijido speaks with LAist correspondent Nick Gerda, who broke the story, about the ongoing investigation.

OC Supervisor Andrew Do to plead guilty to corruption charge following LAist investigation

An LAist investigation uncovered more than $13 million in public funds directed by Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do to Viet America Society (VAS) without disclosing his daughter was a leader at the nonprofit. County officials now allege that money was “brazenly plundered” for personal gain. Imperfect Paradise host Antonia Cereijido speaks with LAist correspondent Nick Gerda, who broke the story, about the ongoing investigation.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

In November, California voters may have to referee a multimillion-dollar battle among Uber, attorneys and doctors. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for anybody who uses the state’s roads and highways.

Uber last fall filed a proposed ballot measure that would cap personal injury lawyers’ contingency fees and limit medical damages for all vehicle crashes in California, even those not involving an Uber. The company paints its effort as a way to rein in attorneys who take advantage of those who get hurt in a crash. Crash survivors often hire attorneys on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyers only get paid if they win the case.

That got attorney groups fired up: They responded by proposing three ballot initiatives that would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger injuries; increase its liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers; and ban new state laws that interfere with people’s ability to retain lawyers.

Doctors and other medical providers also got organized and formed a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, last October to oppose Uber’s initiative.

Despite the substantial opposition, legal experts acknowledge Uber’s proposed ballot initiative could appeal to Californians.

“This measure could backfire for Uber, but it’s certainly possible that California voters will approve (the company’s) initiative because it has a ‘bumper sticker quality’ to it,” said Stanford University law professor Nora Engstrom, a litigation expert. She said she has no formal role in the opposition to Uber’s initiative, but she has researched contingency fees’ effects on competition and has written an op-ed opposing the measure.

Engstrom told CalMatters the measure might look good because it seems “unthreatening”; who would oppose crash survivors keeping more of their settlements? But capping contingency fees is equivalent to a price control, and economists generally agree that price controls hurt consumers, she said. She and other lawyers say the initiative could discourage attorneys from taking on cases and helping crash survivors secure compensation for any losses or injuries.

Arriving passengers walk with their luggage as they prepare to board vehicles at the 'LAX-it' ride-hail passenger pickup lot at LAX.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

A very expensive battle

Uber has put about $32.5 million into its effort since last fall, according to campaign finance records. The opposition has committed about $55 million to fight Uber as well as to promote its own competing initiatives. Consumer Attorneys of California, whose members are lawyers who represent consumers, has led the way with $30 million so far, while more than 400 other attorneys and law firms have spent a combined $20 million to fight the Uber initiative and promote their three measures. The medical providers have raised about $5 million so far and are aiming to raise a total of $10 million, said Pamela Lopez, a campaign representative.

As each side collects signatures to try to get their initiatives on the ballot, they have also spent that money on two different TV commercials that aired during the Super Bowl.

The last time Uber spent tens of millions of dollars on a California ballot measure was on Proposition 22 in 2020, when the state’s voters approved a law written by Uber and other gig companies, which allowed them to create a carveout from labor law and continue to treat their drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Top spender Uber — along with its Postmates subsidiary — funded more than $70 million out of the total $205 million the winning campaign.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who focuses on labor and opposed Uber’s Prop. 22 five years ago, said: “Uber is trying once again to misuse the democratic process and to disclaim legal responsibility — this time, not just towards their drivers but also towards consumers.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote that if Uber’s ballot measure passes, the state could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars of increased Medi-Cal costs, such as for health care that the state wouldn’t be able to recover. On the other hand, the state could save tens of millions of dollars a year in court costs because there could be fewer auto accident cases, the LAO wrote.

Uber’s ‘expansive’ measure

Uber’s proposed initiative calls for victims of vehicle crashes to retain 75% of any settlement they receive. In addition, it limits how much can be awarded for medical expenses and raises the burden of proof for recovering them. For liens and future medical expenses, the limit would be 125% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a service, and 170% of the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. The measure would also ban law firms from referring clients to a health care provider in which they have a financial interest.

The company says it’s necessary to stop lawyers from inflating crash victims’ medical costs then pocketing a big chunk of a settlement. Uber has sued lawyers and medical practices in California, New York and Florida over such allegations.

“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over ambulance lawyers, and that’s exactly what this measure does,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Uber’s campaign, in a statement.

Opponents of the measure said that if it qualifies for the November ballot and voters approve it, accident victims may not be able to sue for the compensation they deserve because lawyers will not have enough incentive to take on their cases if they know they will get only 25% of the settlement — or less — as opposed to the average 33% or more.

“Uber wrote it to be expansive, to keep victims from finding attorneys,” said Doug Saeltzer, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, which is spearheading the opposition to Uber’s initiative and proposed the competing ballot measures.

Lawyers and Uber are also battling over legalese about who would be responsible for paying medical bills after a crash. The lawyers say Uber’s initiative would require medical expenses to get paid from the attorney’s share of the settlement. Uber says the medical bills are likely to get paid by the client.

The way Saeltzer and other opponents of the measure read it is that medical expenses from a vehicle accident must come out of an attorney’s 25% share of a settlement. Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said it’s because of the language that a victim must retain 75% of the total amount recovered, and this part: “Medical expenses, including liens incurred by the automobile accident victim… are not deductible disbursements or costs.”

Uber spokesperson John Finley told CalMatters in an email that the company strongly disputes the lawyers’ interpretation. He said medical bills are likely to be paid by the client, “which is why the client needs a guarantee that they’ll have enough to pay those bills instead of being left with little to no portion of their recovery.”

Engstrom, the Stanford law professor, said: “No doubt, the language is pretty convoluted… If Uber wanted to create a clear medical bill carveout, it surely could have. They have lots of smart lawyers. You have to wonder why they didn’t.”

Changing medical-cost recovery

Mary-Beth Moylan is a University of the Pacific law professor and an expert on California initiatives. When she read that Uber’s measure also proposes limits for medical costs for crash survivors, she said: “I mean, what?”

Moylan said the many details in Uber’s initiative could have unintended consequences. “This is the danger of this particularized policy-making by initiative,” she said.

Lopez, the Providers for Patient Care representative, said uninsured or underinsured survivors of vehicle crashes may not get the medical care they need because the limits mean providers may decline to treat some patients out of fear they will not be reimbursed for most of the costs.

“This is an attempt by Uber to get out of paying for patient care,” Lopez said, adding that such care could be needed long term and that limiting what a responsible party would pay would affect those without health insurance. That could help drive up medical costs for everyone else, she said.

“This will affect you, me, anyone who’s ever injured in an auto accident in California,” Lopez said.

Uber based its proposed limits on a state law that caps payments to out-of-network providers at 125% of Medicare reimbursement rates, said Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab in an email.

“The current system creates incentives to overbill and overtreat auto accident victims, which increases legal costs and raises premiums statewide,” Arab said.

Because it would be a constitutional amendment, Uber’s measure requires a higher threshold to qualify for the ballot: more than 874,000 signatures by June 8. By the first week of February, it had collected at least 25% of that number, according to the California Secretary of State.

Lawyers’ initiatives

Two of the attorney groups’ proposed measures would treat Uber and other ride-hailing providers like other common transportation carriers such as taxis, buses and trains.

One initiative would expand Uber and other ride-hailing companies’ liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers. It would require additional background checks for drivers; monthly reports of sexual assaults and misconduct; disclosure of a driver safety-risk assessment score based on the driver’s history of sexual misconduct to customers; and more. As an initiative statute, it needs to collect 546,651 signatures by July 1 to get on the ballot and reached the 25% threshold a couple of weeks ago.

Another measure would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger and public injuries. It would hold the companies responsible for harm to their riders and the public, regardless of the classification of drivers as independent contractors.

The third measure would prohibit new laws that interfere with people hiring lawyers of their choice. It would be a constitutional amendment, and would void Uber’s initiative if both that one and this one are approved by voters.

Uber by the numbers

Uber’s top executives have told investors during their most recent earnings calls that they expect the company’s lower insurance costs to help drive higher revenue growth. The San Francisco-based company brought in more than $14 billion in revenue last year. The executives have mentioned “legal abuse” and their legislative efforts in different states to drive Uber’s legal and insurance costs down.

The company has tried to enact measures similar to the one it’s pushing in California elsewhere. Last year, the Nevada Supreme Court found that Uber’s description of the effects of a measure that would have capped attorneys’ contingency fees in civil cases to 20% was “misleading and confusing.” The company and lawyers in that state later reached a deal on a bill related to insurance liability.

In California, Uber recently won a bid to reduce its costs by going not to the voters but through the Legislature. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that reduced how much insurance ride-hailing companies are supposed to carry for crashes involving uninsured and underinsured motorists, from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. State Sen. Chris Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, said he wanted to help lower fares for rides.

Fares for Uber rides in California have generally risen in the past several years. From 2019 to 2025, the average Uber fare in the state rose from $14.11 to $27.15, according to Gridwise, which makes an app that allows gig workers to track their earnings and expenses. Gridwise says its data encompasses more than 800 million trips and more than $8.5 billion in tracked driver earnings.

That aligns with the trajectory of the data from Obi, an app maker that allows users to compare ride-hailing and taxi fares, which shows that from 2021 to 2025, the average Uber fare in California rose from $26.96 to $29.93. Obi’s data is based on information it collects from its 1 million users.

President Donald Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight for his first State of the Union address since returning to the White House just over one year ago.

It's an opportunity for the president to tout his agenda and shape his party's messaging ahead of this year's midterm elections.

But the prime-time address comes at a moment when the president has seen his agenda complicated on multiple fronts. That includes trade, where his tariff policies were dealt a rebuke last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, and immigration, where Trump and congressional Democrats are deadlocked over funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Plus, Americans are divided on whether Trump's first year has been a success. Six in 10 believe the country is worse off than last year, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, and a majority think the state of the union is not strong.

Here's what you need to know ahead of tonight's speech.

What time is the address?

The president is expected to begin at 6 p.m. PT., and if history is any indication, prepare for a long night. Last year, in what was technically not a State of the Union speech, Trump addressed Congress for over 90 minutes, breaking records as the longest joint address in at least 60 years.

NPR will be covering all of it with live special coverage and analysis. You can listen on NPR.org, on many public radio stations, in the NPR app or by telling your Alexa device to "Ask NPR to play Special Coverage" starting at 6 p.m.

Why does this happen every year? 

This is part of the gig for every president. The Constitution requires that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." It's intended to be a recap of sorts of their previous year in office.

So it's a formality, yes, but there are political stakes. Trump's speech comes at the start of a crucial election year, and his party is on the defensive. GOP lawmakers are fighting to maintain control of the Senate, where they currently hold a 53 to 47 majority, and the House, where their margin is even smaller, 218 to 214. Trump is battling low approval numbers, which are often seen as a warning sign, given that since World War II the party controlling the White House historically loses an average of 27 House seats in the midterms and four in the Senate.

What will Trump talk about?

Expect a big focus on immigration, which has been a key pillar of Trump's second term. The administration has defended its enforcement agenda, arguing it's aimed at removing people living in the country illegally who have committed dangerous crimes. However, lawmakers have raised concerns about the tactics used by federal immigration agents in cities around the country, especially after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month.

It will also be worth watching how Trump talks about tariffs. He has long defended imposing import taxes on foreign goods as a way to strengthen American manufacturing, but in a major ruling last Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the main lever the president has used to carry out this policy.

The tariff ruling is part of a broader economic messaging challenge facing the White House. A majority of Americans already say they think tariffs are more likely to hurt than help the economy. Trump has also dismissed affordability concerns as a Democratic "hoax," even though voters report struggling to keep up with the cost of living.

Tonight's address is also happening at a crucial moment in U.S. foreign policy. Trump is pressuring Iran to disband its nuclear program, and he has not ruled out using force to make that happen. In recent days, the American military has expanded its presence in the Middle East, sending additional fighter jets and a second aircraft carrier to the region.

It's the latest move by Trump in what has been a more muscular approach to foreign policy compared to his first term. The president has approved strikes on countries around the world, announced the U.S. will "run" Venezuela after arresting the country's leader and has threatened to buy Greenland. At the same time, Trump has repeatedly labeled himself a peacemaker, despite facing steep challenges in achieving his goals of rebuilding Gaza and brokering an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.

What will the response from Democrats look like?

Newly sworn-in Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is slated to provide the party's official rebuttal. Spanberger was one of several Democrats who won their races last November, delivering some of the most high-profile victories since the party's bruising losses across the country in 2024.

She may also provide a potential preview of how Democrats may approach their own midterm messaging. On the campaign trail, Spanberger centered her message on affordability concerns and criticized the administration's treatment of federal workers through mass layoffs and the longest government shutdown in history.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger speaks after being sworn in to office at the Virginia State Capitol in January. Spanberger will deliver the official Democratic response to President Trump's State of the Union address.

(

Win McNamee

/

Getty Images

)

California Sen. Alex Padilla is tapped to deliver the Spanish-language response for Democrats. It's another notable pick for Democrats as they refine their election message, particularly on immigration. Padilla has been an outspoken critic of Trump's immigration agenda and was forcibly removed from a Homeland Security press conference over the summer.

There's also a group of roughly a dozen House and Senate Democrats who plan to boycott Trump's speech and instead hold a counter-rally dubbed the "People's State of the Union." It comes as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has urged lawmakers to either "attend with silent defiance" or skip the event.

Follow for more coverage:

📧 NPR Politics newsletter: Breaking down the big stories and why they matter
🎧 NPR Politics Podcast: Our experts provide insights into what's happening
Copyright 2026 NPR

Last month, Colleen Fagan was observing an immigration enforcement operation at an apartment complex in Portland, Maine, when federal agents scanned her face with a smartphone and appeared to record her car license plate number.

In a social media video she recorded, Fagan can be heard asking why the agent was taking her information. What the agent said next made the video go viral.

"Cause we have a nice little database," the masked agent said. "And now you're considered a domestic terrorist."

Fagan, who is a social worker, has now joined a federal class action lawsuit that argues the Department of Homeland Security and a number of its sub-agencies are violating the First Amendment and are taking actions "designed to chill, suppress, and control speech that they do not like."

"A federal agent called me a domestic terrorist just because I recorded agents operating in public in my community. But I have a right to do that, and so do others," Fagan said in a statement. "I want people to know how important it is to use our First Amendment rights to observe and document what is happening. Peaceful dissent is not a crime."

Though Fagan's video went viral, her full name had not been widely publicized until this lawsuit.

The suit, filed by the legal nonprofit Protect Democracy and the law firms Dunn Isaacson Rhee and Drummond Woodsum, alleges federal agents are unconstitutionally retaliating against people who are lawfully observing and recording federal immigration enforcement operations by gathering their personal information and labeling them domestic terrorists.

"Plaintiffs must either abandon their constitutional rights or accept being cataloged and branded as 'domestic terrorists,'" reads the lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in Maine on Monday. "That is a choice the Constitution does not require Plaintiffs, or anyone, to make."

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. DHS officials have denied the existence of a database of alleged domestic terrorists since Fagan's video was widely shared.

"There is NO database of 'domestic terrorists' run by DHS," the agency's spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin (who has recently departed) told CNN last month about the video. "We do of course monitor and investigate and refer all threats, assaults and obstruction of our officers to the appropriate law enforcement. Obstructing and assaulting law enforcement is a felony and a federal crime."

After federal agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minnesota last month, DHS officials labeled both of them domestic terrorists in the immediate aftermath.

Federal agents have access to facial recognition tools that can be used to identify people in the field, as well as the mobile app Mobile Companion, which allows agents to use a smartphone to scan license plates.

These kinds of surveillance tools have allowed federal agents to intimidate observers and protesters by revealing they know their names and addresses, the lawsuit says. Several Minnesota observers who have followed federal agents in their cars have described the experience of agents leading them to their own homes to show they know where they live. The lawsuit names other Maine observers who have had the same experience.

It is legal for observers to film and follow federal agents at a safe distance, Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told NPR earlier this month. But dozens of people in Minnesota said in declarations collected by the ACLU that they were observing federal agents but were told they were impeding, interfering or acting illegally.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a press conference in July that violence against DHS agents "is anything that threatens them and their safety," and went on to say that included "doxing them" and "videotaping them where they're at when they're out on operations."

DHS has crafted a wide definition of doxing. McLaughlin told The American Prospect in September that "videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents."

A memo issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi in December lists "doxing" law enforcement as domestic terrorism.

Elinor Hilton, another resident of Portland, Maine, is also listed as a plaintiff in the new lawsuit. Federal agents captured her face and license plate with their phones on Jan. 21, after she began recording them conducting an immigration enforcement operation at a Home Depot, the lawsuit says.

She says one told her, "I hope you know that if you keep coming to things like this, you are going to be on a domestic terrorist watchlist. Then we're going to come to your house later tonight," according to the lawsuit.

Hilton did not stay at her home that night for fear the agent would make good on the threat, the lawsuit says. She has reduced how often she observes federal agents and no longer uses her own car when she observes. She now parks her car several blocks away from her home and those of family members "out of concern that federal agents might recognize her car and trace it to her home." She says on a recent trip she left her personal phone at home out of concern that if she was placed on a government list, federal agents might detain her and search her phone.

Fagan is concerned about being placed on a "no-fly" or similar list, the lawsuit says, and worries her current or future employment could be affected by any labels DHS gives her.

Less than a week before Hilton's interaction with federal agents, Tom Homan, President Donald Trump's immigration adviser, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he wanted to create a "database" of people who impede ICE.

"These people who want to say follow ICE and film ICE, you know what, you can protest, they have that right." Then he added that for those who cross a legal line, "We're going to create a database where those people that are arrested for interference, impeding, and assault, we're going to make them famous," Homan said. "We're going to put their face on TV. We're going to let their employers, in their neighborhoods, in their schools, know who these people are."

But in other public appearances, federal officials have denied a database of protesters exists.

At a congressional hearing earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) asked Todd Lyons, acting director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to respond to what the federal agent in Maine said about "a little database" in the video Fagan recorded.

"I can't speak for that individual, sir," Lyons said. "But I can assure you that there is no database that's tracking United States citizens."

The lawsuit says, "If Defendants' denials are true—and the actions captured on video simply involved federal agents pretending to add observers to a database—then they are deliberately lying about domestic terrorist watchlists or databases to unlawfully intimidate observers."

The lawsuit is asking a federal judge to stop DHS from collecting records on people and from "threatening, harassing, and otherwise retaliating against" them for exercising their protected first amendment rights, and to expunge records that have already been collected.

JoAnna Suriani, counsel at Protect Democracy, said the lawsuit will "ensure that the federal government can no longer use unconstitutional surveillance tactics to silence its critics and sideline the observers who protect our communities."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Watch the interview

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

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

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

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