The Brief

Facing a long horizon of budget deficits, California officials stretched and scrimped and massaged the numbers to stabilize the state’s finances last year. But an unforeseen economic downturn, spurred by President Donald Trump’s chaotic tariffs strategy, has knocked California out of fiscal balance once again.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is now forecasting a $16 billion, or 4%, decline in tax revenues in his revised budget proposal, according to a memo provided by his office in advance of the announcement Wednesday. That plan is the opening salvo in negotiations with the Legislature, ahead of the start of the fiscal year in July.

It’s a sharp turnaround from January, when Newsom projected a modest surplus in his $322 billion spending plan. The memo, which dubs the revenue shortfall the “Trump Slump,” does not provide an updated figure for California’s budget deficit.

“We are seeing the slow-rolling impact of 'Liberation Day' and it's not a good one,” spokesperson H.D. Palmer said. “Conditions have definitely changed for the worse since January, in significant part because of those federal tariffs.”

California’s financial picture was troubled even before the recent turmoil. Newsom and the Legislature took extraordinary steps last summer to close a budget gap projected in the tens of billions of dollars over two years, including by making sweeping cuts to state agencies and positions, clawing back funding increases for health care providers, eliminating affordable housing programs, delaying money for schools, suspending business tax credits and dipping into reserves.

And while tax revenues came in $6.8 billion above forecast through April, other problems were brewing.

A one-man 'wrecking ball' to California economy

Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for low-income people, has reported a more than $6 billion cost overrun this year — in part because an expansion to include immigrants without legal status brought in more new enrollees than expected — and it needed an emergency cash infusion in March.

The devastating fires that hit Los Angeles in January also introduced new uncertainty for the budget, because the tax deadline for Los Angeles County — where a quarter of all Californians live — was delayed until October.

But the biggest risk is undoubtedly from Trump’s tariffs, which Newsom sued last month to block. Stock market declines are poised to take a bite out of future income tax revenue, because California relies disproportionately on capital gains earned by the wealthiest taxpayers; that accounts for $10 billion of the projected revenue decline. Higher costs from the tariffs are also imperiling major sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, tourism and shipping in California, whose largest trading partner is China.

"It's one person that is taking a wrecking ball to our economy," state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, a Healdsburg Democrat, said last week during an event in Sacramento. "That is the existential threat to the state of California right now."

The grim outlook will almost certainly force more reductions to state programs, and legislative leaders will have their own ideas about what to target after Newsom puts forward his priorities today.

Bargaining will ramp up over the next month, with a June 15 deadline for the Legislature to pass a balanced budget or forgo its pay, though sometimes provisions of an overall deal drag out beyond that.

A binder showing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised budget proposal for 2023-24 during a press briefing at the state Natural Resources Agency in Sacramento on May 12, 2023.

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

“Anyone who thinks we’re not going to make cuts this year is not in touch with reality,” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat who leads the Assembly budget committee, told CalMatters. “Advocates who are proposing major expansions of programs should stop wasting people’s time.”

One likely exception is a proposed $420 million annual increase of California’s film and television tax credit, more than doubling the pot of available subsidies and boosting the amount that individual productions can receive. It’s a priority for Newsom, with the strong backing of many Los Angeles-area legislators, especially as the region seeks a comeback after the fires.

Trump’s effort to slash federal spending is another looming question mark. Congressional Republicans have floated shifting more of the cost of social safety net programs to the states, though they are struggling to reach a budget agreement.

If they ultimately push through major changes to federal funding, lawmakers could be back in Sacramento later this year or early next year revising the state budget once again.

“Ninety percent of the ball game is in Washington,” Gabriel said. “It’s frustrating to me that this is beyond our control.”

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

For decades, Californians have generally said that immigrants, who make up more than a quarter of the state’s population and a third of its labor force, are beneficial to the state and its economy. But budget instability and concerns about rising costs are spilling into a debate over the controversial and expensive policy of allowing low-income immigrants without legal status to receive state-funded health coverage.

Now, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present a stark choice to voters in the race to be the next governor at a moment when public support for the state’s generous safety net is starting to fray.

Both frame the choice as an economic one.

Becerra, former secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, has said it would be “foolish” to exclude the poorest immigrants from routine care and push them into expensive emergency rooms on the taxpayer’s dime. Hilton, a conservative commentator backed by President Donald Trump, has promised to eliminate their coverage and has echoed national Republicans who have skewered California’s expansions to bolster their claims of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.

With voters nationwide worried about inflation and the rising cost of living, some Californians might feel less inclined to provide full healthcare coverage to those lacking legal status. What the state does next could have profound implications for its healthcare system and sprawling economy.

Over the past decade, California lawmakers used state dollars to expand Medi-Cal, offering all low-income residents comprehensive coverage regardless of immigration status. But enrollment surpassed initial projections, as did the cost. Medi-Cal coverage of immigrants without legal status costs the state roughly $10 billion a year, according to California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, more than double the initial estimates.

California lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who championed the program, have approved major rollbacks of benefits for those residents. They said the state can’t afford ballooning healthcare costs amid massive federal cuts from the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the California Health and Human Services Agency projected up to 3.4 million Medi-Cal enrollees could lose coverage and the state could lose more than $30 billion a year in federal funding under the law, causing major disruptions in the safety net health program.

Medi-Cal’s budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year is $217 billion, and the program serves more than 14 million Californians.

Meanwhile, many legal U.S. residents and citizens have seen their health premium payments skyrocket this year after Congress let enhanced federal Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of December.

As the state grappled with a deficit last year, a majority of likely voters in California said — for the first time in nearly a decade — that they opposed providing health insurance to immigrants without legal status, according to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The state faces major challenges, and healthcare is one of the major expenditures,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC survey director. “People have become more selective about how they want to see those limited healthcare dollars spent.”

Hilton, running on a platform of affordability and lowering taxes, has seized on the sentiment, casting health coverage for immigrants without legal status as deeply unfair and a direct threat to the state’s ability to help citizens.

“Stop taking money from California taxpayers who can barely afford their healthcare to give free healthcare to citizens of other countries who shouldn’t even be here,” Hilton said in a Facebook video the morning of the June 2 primary.

In campaign stump speeches, Hilton promised to use the savings to lower healthcare costs for other Californians without detailing how. Hilton did not respond to requests from KFF Health News for comment.

“Their messaging is very, very simple: It’s an us vs. them,” said Roger Salazar, a Democratic political consultant who represents a coalition of healthcare advocates who argue providing coverage to people who can’t afford it strengthens the workforce and, as a result, the economy. “It’s just a question of convincing the average voter that it’s much better economically.”

A son of immigrants, Becerra for decades pushed to extend safety net benefits in Congress and has made a similar pitch in his campaign for governor. He did not respond to requests for comment.

“Immigrants, whether documented or not, work hard. They pay taxes, and sometimes they get injured on the job or their children get sick,” Becerra said during a debate in May. “It would be foolish to tell a family that they don’t have access to the pediatrician or the family doc.”

Becerra, who could become California’s first elected Latino governor, objected last year when Newsom and legislative leaders decided to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for adults without legal status, cut benefits, and impose monthly premiums.

"Stop treating coverage as a budget variable that expands in good years and contracts when revenue dips,” Becerra wrote in May in response to an Orange County Register candidate questionnaire. He has vowed to pursue new, steady revenue to fund basic services, such as by upping taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Californians.

In 2023, California was home to about 2.3 million people without legal status, representing roughly 8% of the state’s labor force, according to the Pew Research Center. And 1 in 5 California children live in a family that includes at least one member without legal status, according to the California Department of Education. Healthcare economists say giving people access to preventive healthcare saves taxpayers money in the long run by keeping the workforce healthy and relieving pressure on an overburdened system.

That, Baldassare said, wasn’t a hard argument to make during the covid pandemic, when immigrants were celebrated as essential workers and the link between individual well-being and public health was more obvious.

But Medi-Cal costs to cover roughly 1.4 million immigrants have ballooned, according to the latest estimates from the Department of Health Care Services. Because only some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for federal Medicaid benefits, states like California that cover other populations must do so exclusively with state funding.

California’s budget experts have warned that maintaining full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without seeking additional revenue would destabilize the state’s long-term fiscal outlook.

In a legislative hearing last year, Republican Assembly member Carl DeMaio questioned whether California taxpayers would prioritize the expansions, saying he doubted “illegal immigrant healthcare in the general fund would be at the top of their list.”

After lawmakers approved the spending reductions, support for immigrant health coverage dropped, Baldassare said. Democratic lawmakers and Newsom agreed to delay several Medi-Cal cuts until July 2027, leaving decisions for the next governor.

David Hayes-Bautista, who has spent his career studying the economic contributions of Latinos and immigrants, said Californians without legal status have higher labor force participation and tend to work in industries and occupations that don’t offer employer-based health insurance. As a result, many resort to Medi-Cal, saddling the state with the healthcare costs instead of employers.

“California, as a state, has the world’s fourth-largest GDP, which is true thanks to Latinos,” said Hayes-Bautista, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at UCLA. Without contributions from Latinos, many without legal status, it drops to eighth place, about the size of Italy’s economy, he added.

Immigrant advocates hope to have a more vocal champion in Becerra, the favorite to become governor in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1.

“He will fight, he will push back, he will do all that he can,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, a former labor leader who has championed the immigrant healthcare expansions. “That’s the most we could expect.”

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Trump administration's sweeping effort to slow down the rate of legal migration has affected a group traditionally immune from such efforts: spouses of U.S. citizens.

The administration has implemented a slew of policy changes since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year, ranging from pausing immigrant visas for people from 75 countries to imposing greater scrutiny of applicants at green-card interviews and widening the scope of who is a target for deportation. The changes have hit all immigrants hard, including those who sought to enter and stay in the country through marriage.

Some non-U.S.-citizen spouses have been separated from their American loved ones and are afraid to engage with the U.S. immigration system, according to lawyers and NPR interviews with affected families.

"Life has become a lot more difficult for Americans who are married to somebody who is not born in this country," said Ashley DeAzevedo, executive director of American Families United. The organization advocates for U.S. citizen spouses and immediate family members of those engaged in various immigration processes.

The organization's membership has grown over the last year as more people are affected by the rapid policy changes, she said. Now there are about 1.4 million people seeking the group's support in the U.S., and about 300,000 outside the country — made up of people who have left the U.S., as well as those who want to come in.

"We saw so many of our members make the decision to self-deport, to leave the country for fear of this indefinite detention," DeAzevedo said. "We saw some members who had their spouses detained — and that was something we had not experienced previously because there was always this prioritization of who was going to be detained."

Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the United States government has always vetted and scrutinized immigrants who sought to stay in the U.S. through marriage.

However, while applying to stay, spouses of U.S. citizens were generally not swept up in broader immigration enforcement efforts.

"This group of individuals have always had a special place under the law," Dalal-Dheini said. "Spouses of U.S. citizens aren't subject to the immigrant quotas. They don't have to have a cap. Spouses of U.S. citizens don't [have to have maintained] their legal status here in order to adjust. And so the law has considered them to be a privileged class.

"But this administration is treating them like all other immigrants."

The administration says prior presidents should also have scrutinized such marriage-related applications more closely, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is just complying with the law.

In a statement to NPR, USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said verifying identities and personal histories of all people seeking immigration benefits, like a green card or citizenship, requires a rigorous process — "one that prioritizes the safety of the American people by more thoroughly screening and vetting all aliens."

He said just marrying a U.S. citizen and beginning the petition process does not protect someone from deportation.

"A pending or approved Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, does not confer any immigration status. All aliens are expected to comply with U.S. immigration laws," Kahler said. "Those who entered without inspection or who remain in the United States beyond their permitted stay are illegal aliens who may be subject to immigration enforcement action."

Family and fiancé petitions make up nearly half of green-card approvals

Immediate family sponsorship, including for spouses and fiancés, is one of the top ways U.S. citizens interact with the immigration system.

The latest data released by the Homeland Security Department, from 2024, shows that about 343,000 people received their green cards through their spouses — about a quarter of all green-card approvals. For about a decade, the number has hovered somewhere between 200,000 and 340,000 people.

The number of approved green cards doubles when accounting for other immediate family members who can provide sponsorship for immigrants, like children and parents. That suggests how important this pathway is for U.S. citizens and their immigrant family members.

The average processing time for each petition was 13 months for family members, and seven months for fiancés — largely in line with wait times from early 2025, before Trump's policies took effect.

In the first quarter of the 2026 fiscal year, 167,401 immediate family relative petitions were approved, and 8,612 fiancé petitions were approved.

The number of petitions approved has generally increased and decreased across administrations.

Chaos for U.S. citizens, including military members

The data may mask other ways noncitizen spouses could be affected. That's particularly true for those from one of over 70 countries that face holds for a wide range of travel and immigrant visas.

One such case is Es', a green-card holder married to a U.S. citizen. She was born in one of the 39 countries subject to a travel ban to the U.S., which was implemented last year. The pause means that although she has been in the country for three decades, her application for citizenship filed last year has not yet been reviewed.

There is no exception to the travel ban, even for spouses of U.S. military members.

The last few months have thrown the couples' lives into chaos.

"We are due to [move] to Germany," Es said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because her husband is in the Army and her immigration case is pending. "We were actually due to leave in July but had to push it to October to see if we can get [my citizenship] done."

The couple is now grappling with what to do with the house they own, whether they would have to travel separately, and what Es' lack of citizenship means for their two young U.S. citizen children — as well as their belongings.

"That'll mess up his readiness [for military service]," Es said in an interview. "He'll be thousands of miles away and he has to think about his job and will be worried about us and that is just not fair." A federal judge ruled the pause was unlawful, but her case has still not moved.

"This is not impacting people who have done anything wrong. This is impacting everyone," she said.

It's not just the bans and pauses. Several people told NPR that delays at the consulates are also contributing to strain, and leaving some spouses or fiancés without any legal status at all.

"People who are marrying U.S. citizens often are no longer in status, whether they came in legally and then their status expired or their status was terminated, like if they had [temporary protected status]," Dalal-Dheini said.

"And then there's extra scrutiny being applied to them now," she said, in reference to the USCIS approach to all applications.

Chilling effect on engaging with the process

Advocates say recent policy changes have amped up scrutiny of all immigration applications and chipped away at families' willingness to engage with the government.

USCIS officers are instructed to conduct more interviews. A memo last month encouraged officers to consider if someone had returned to their home country to apply for a green card when reviewing their application; those who stay in the U.S. may face longer and more intrusive vetting. Trump has also asked financial institutions to review the bank accounts of those in the U.S. without permanent status.

Eric Welsh, an immigration attorney in California, said clients must prepare for questions about when and how they applied for a green card, including providing evidence of "good moral character" and other information — something that previously wasn't required for those seeking to gain permanent residency or U.S. citizenship through marriage.

"What's important to keep in mind is that spouses are vulnerable," Welsh said, noting that while there are some pathways to be granted something like a green card or citizenship, it's not guaranteed. "There's no absolute right to remain and there's no absolute right to be afforded adjustment to status. And so I think that's something that most people don't commonly understand, especially not the U.S. citizens."

He and DeAzevedo have seen some families hesitate to move forward in their immigration cases.

"[This] has had an absolute chilling effect on many people in this country and their desire to put their spouse in that position," DeAzevedo said.

Copyright 2026 NPR

GENEVA — An all-time controversy in the World Cup's 96-year history was raging Monday ahead of the co-host United States and forward Folarin Balogun facing Belgium with a quarterfinals place at stake.

The Belgian soccer federation said it is challenging FIFA's ruling to let Balogun play despite getting a red card in his previous game — a shocking move made Sunday after pressure on the world soccer body's leader Gianni Infantino from his close ally, U.S. President Donald Trump.

The "deeply concerned" Belgians' statement just 11 hours before starting their round of 16 game in Seattle showed clear frustration with FIFA at what seemed a lack of good faith in shaping an urgent legal process.

European soccer body UEFA earlier criticized FIFA for an "incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision," that it said "crossed a red line" by not enforcing Balogun's mandatory one-game ban for his foul tackle against Bosnia-Herzegovina last Wednesday.

FIFA's ruling Sunday — to defer Balogun's ban for one year of probation — deviated from soccer's traditional rule of law and drew stinging criticism globally including from former World Cup stars and coaches at this tournament.

"It's a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad decision that will hurt the World Cup," Norway coach Ståle Solbakken said Sunday after his team beat Brazil to reach the quarterfinals.

UEFA, whose member federations include Belgium, insisted: "Sometimes rules are open to interpretation. In this case not."

"When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined," said the European soccer body, which has often clashed with Infantino during his decade in FIFA power.

"We express our disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision," said UEFA, where Infantino was its CEO-like general secretary from 2009 until being elected to lead FIFA in February 2016.

FIFA was asked Monday to comment on the UEFA criticism.

Infantino's predecessor Sepp Blatter, who was forced from office in 2015 in fallout from corruption scandals, posted Monday on social media: "Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence and independent bodies."

Belgium's legal options

Belgian officials had been preparing an appeal in Seattle in the early hours of Monday to challenge the Balogun ruling with a FIFA-appointed appeals judge. They said FIFA had not provided documents key to filing a valid appeal.

The round of 16 game against the U.S. is due to kick off at 5 p.m. local time.

"Regardless of the sporting outcome of the match," the Belgian federation said, "(we are) deeply concerned by the way these events have unfolded and will continue, in the hours, days and months ahead, to pursue every available avenue to uphold the fundamental principles of ethics, sporting fairness and the interests of football as a whole."

Soccer rules require teams ultimately judged to have fielded an ineligible player to default the game as a 3-0 loss. Belgium must first appeal to FIFA and then to the Court of Arbitration for Sport based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Balogun's tackle

Balogun was sent off directly for planting his cleated foot on the ankle of Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemovic during a 2-0 win for the U.S. in the round of 32.

That kind of challenge has been a routine red card all season in competitions worldwide, and Balogun could have expected a two-game ban for serious foul play under the FIFA disciplinary code.

Still, similar challenges by star players have gone unpunished at this World Cup — by Lionel Messi for Argentina against Algeria and Morocco's Achraf Hakimi vs. Brazil. Bernardo Silva of Portugal got just a yellow card against Congo.

"I think a yellow card would have been fair," Balogun later suggested.

FIFA's interventions

This World Cup has been remarkable for FIFA under Infantino seeming to rewrite the norms of disciplinary action even before the tournament began.

A pattern of pardons opened FIFA to suggestions of executive intervention in the statutory independence of its judicial bodies, including the disciplinary committee that formally reprieved Balogun.

Cristiano Ronaldo was cleared to play in Portugal's opening World Cup game despite getting a red card for serious foul play in a qualifying game against Ireland last November. He struck an opponent with an elbow.

Ronaldo served his mandatory ban in Portugal's final qualifying game but he was reprieved from an expected two-game ban because FIFA introduced the idea of probation. An imposed three-game ban was less meaningful as two games were deferred during a one-year probationary period.

At the opening game on June 11, South Africa's Themba Zwane got a red card against Mexico for a similar offense to Ronaldo's and FIFA imposed a three-game ban with no probation. Zwane did not play again at the World Cup.

Three players sent off in their teams' qualifying games last year were surprisingly told by FIFA in May they could serve their bans in a future competition instead of at the World Cup, which was the long-standing norm.

Ecuador midfielder Moisés Caicedo, Argentina defender Nicolás Otamendi and Qatar defender Tarek Salman all had their bans waived for the World Cup.

US exceptionalism

This, FIFA said in May, was to ensure teams "can compete with their strongest possible squads on the biggest stage of men's international football."

The Balogun decision simply took this policy further, though not for other players shown a red card so far who were mandated to miss at least one game.

"It is a principle embedded in regulations, which cannot be made subject to exceptions," UEFA said, "let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension."
Copyright 2026 NPR

SEATTLE — When the U.S. men's national soccer team steps on the field Monday to face Belgium in the FIFA World Cup Round of 16, it will do so with its star striker back in the lineup and a cloud of controversy hanging overhead.

Before the weekend, there were already plenty of questions about U.S. forward Folarin Balogun and the red card he received in last week's Round of 32 match against Bosnia-Herzegovina that should have sidelined him this game with an automatic suspension:

Was his contact with the Bosnian defender's leg intentional? Had the video referee followed regulations when he scrutinized the play in slow motion? Should it have been escalated all the way to a red card when the referee on the field initially thought there was no foul at all? Why had Balogun been punished so severely when other seemingly similar plays in this World Cup had avoided punishment altogether?

By the time the U.S. team had arrived in Seattle, Balogun and his teammates seemed to set those questions aside and accept their fate: The American men would prepare for their biggest game in a generation without their leading scorer.

Then came Sunday's one-two punch of stunning and controversial developments.

First, a FIFA disciplinary panel made the surprise announcement that Balogun's one-game suspension would be suspended for a year-long probationary period, allowing the striker to play against Belgium.

Then, soon after, reports broke that President Trump spoke personally with FIFA President Gianni Infantino after the Round of 32 game. According to an official with knowledge of the extraordinary call, who spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation, Trump directly asked Infantino about the red card and the one-game suspension. (FIFA has not responded to NPR's request for comment.)

By Sunday afternoon, when Belgian coach Rudi Garcia arrived at the Seattle stadium for a routine pregame press conference, he was in disbelief at the news. "I didn't know that, in the FIFA offices, July 5th was April Fool's Day," he said.

Christian Pulisic (center) of the United States participates during a training session for the 2026 World Cup at Husky Soccer Stadium on Friday in Seattle.

(

Jamie Squire

/

Getty Images

)

The bare-bones statement from the FIFA disciplinary committee did not explain why Balogun's suspension would be delayed. The lack of transparency, followed so soon by reports of the Trump-Infantino call, led to an uproar in the world of football.

The Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) said Sunday it was "astonished" by FIFA's surprise decision and vowed to pursue "all potential options" for recourse. "The Belgian federation isn't only defending itself or the national team — it is defending all of football, its integrity and its ethics," Garcia said.

"Regardless of the sporting outcome of this match," the RBFA said in an updated statement Monday, "[we are] deeply concerned by the course of events and will continue to fight in the coming hours, days and months in [defense] of the fundamental principles of ethics, fair competition, and the interests of football as a whole."

For its part, the U.S. team was content to put its head down and accept the good news.

"It was a fair decision because it was never a red card. It was a mistake," said U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino on Sunday. "Everyone has said it, 99.9% of people, that it was an unfair punishment."

FIFA had already been criticized in this World Cup for delaying a suspension for Portugal star Cristiano Ronaldo, who received a red card during a qualifying match last November. The resulting three-game suspension could have sidelined Ronaldo for Portugal's first two World Cup games, but FIFA put the suspension on hold under the same regulation that allowed Balogun to play.

Belgium is the toughest opponent the U.S. has faced so far at this World Cup. The Belgians entered the tournament ranked No. 9 by FIFA; the U.S. was No. 17. In March, the two teams met in an international friendly match in which the Americans took an early 1-0 lead, but shortly after, Belgium took control and won easily, 5-2.

"The result didn't quite go our way. But that's OK, we learned from it," said U.S. defender Chris Richards on Sunday. "Ultimately, we're looking to the game tomorrow as a tough one, but also going into this game with confidence because of what we've done so far in the tournament."

A win would send the U.S. through to the quarterfinals for the first time since 2002, which remains the deepest run by an American men's team in the modern era of the World Cup. There, the U.S. would face the winner of Monday's early match between European powerhouses Spain and Portugal.

Yet a U.S. victory — especially one that hinges on Balogun's performance — would surely be dogged by criticism and questions about whether the result was fair, given FIFA's extraordinary intervention.

After Norway advanced to the quarterfinal with a 2-1 win over Brazil on Sunday afternoon, coach Ståle Solbakken called the decision to allow Balogun to play "a big mistake by FIFA."

"What about the next red card? What happens then? Is there going to be some committee somewhere that is going to take that card away?" he said. "It's a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad decision that will hurt the World Cup."
Copyright 2026 NPR