The Brief

President Donald Trump returned to office last month with a major show of force on immigration, issuing numerous orders and directives to dramatically crack down on enforcement.

They’ve sparked glee from his supporters, condemnation from his opponents, fear from immigrant communities amid nationwide raids — and also plenty of false alarms.

The flurry of new policies — some pushing long-held legal boundaries — are part of a “shock and awe” strategy meant to amplify the promises of a military-assisted mass deportation, experts said. Among the administration’s goals is for fearful immigrants to “voluntarily depart.”

“The big issue is this basically full-court press (from the administration) on immigration enforcement and the fear it’s generated,” said UC Davis immigration law professor Kevin Johnson. The fear "probably is the biggest impact of all.”

The uncertainty over immigrants’ futures has led communities to question whether workers should continue to show up to businesses, children to school and patients to doctors’ offices — and whether there will be economic disruptions and school funding consequences as a result.

Many immigrants are staying home. Others have little choice but to continue their routines.

In Kern County, an immigrant citrus picker who spoke on the condition that her name not be used because she fears deportation said like many of her coworkers, she stayed home for a day in the wake of a Border Patrol operation last month — conducted before Trump took office — that seemed to target farmworkers.

But she has bills to pay, so she’s continued going to work and sending her child to daycare. Rumors of immigration authority sightings have also continued to spread, including one that prompted the contractor she works for to keep her crew in the orange grove at the end of a recent workday. The contractor didn’t release them to go home until checking that the roads were clear, she said.

“Everybody goes out with fear,” she said. “But one has needs. And my needs are bigger than the fear.”

Trump’s actions have the potential to drastically remake the immigration landscape. Here’s what’s changed so far and how California is responding.

Targeting birthright citizenship

One of Trump’s first-day executive orders sought to end the century-plus-old practice of granting citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil even if their parents are undocumented. Courts have affirmed the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship since 1898, in the case of a San Francisco man whose parents were from China.

Two federal judges, responding to separate lawsuits, quickly halted the order.

A third lawsuit, brought by 18 states including California and the city of San Francisco, was heard in a Massachusetts federal court last Friday. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office says the executive order would strip citizenship rights from about 24,500 children who are born in California each year.

Expanding ICE’s reach

The administration has directed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to expand use of a process called “expedited removal”: deportations that are allowed to bypass immigration courts, where a judge would normally decide the merit of allowing someone to stay in the country. In the past, immigrants without legal status and who did not make an asylum claim could be placed in this process if they were arrested within 14 days of entering the country, and within 100 miles of the border.

That already covered most of California. The new order expands the process to the entire country, and to immigrants arrested within two years of entering.

“That could have a huge effect” on the number of people authorities can arrest and put in the fast-tracked deportation process far from the border, said UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham.

Immigration courts have a longstanding backlog that in late 2024 rose to 3.5 million cases.

Other Trump actions could also dramatically increase those cases:

• He revoked a policy prohibiting agents from making arrests in “sensitive locations” such as churches, schools and hospitals; 
• And he signed the Laken Riley Act, a GOP bill that had some Democratic support, directing ICE to detain and deport immigrants who are charged — not just convicted — with certain crimes.

Experts say much of how this is carried out still depends on how much Congress is willing to allow ICE to spend. The agency, which operates on about $9 billion a year, estimates it needs $27 billion to carry out the Laken Riley Act, NPR has reported.

The reach of ICE’s recent activity is also unclear. The agency in the last week of January posted daily arrest numbers on the social media platform X, showing nationwide an average of about 800 arrests a day. That’s far higher than daily arrests during the Biden administration, which averaged about 300 in 2024, according to ICE.

But it’s not clear how many people have been held in detention, released with immigration court cases pending, or deported: ICE spokesperson Richard Beam said those figures aren’t available, nor was a state-by-state breakdown.

The agency also would not provide figures of how many of those arrested have the criminal convictions the administration says it’s targeting. An NBC News report in late January found for one of the days, nearly half of those arrested were nonviolent offenders or had no criminal record.

Cancelling legal immigration paths

In addition to targeting immigrants without legal status, Trump is revoking pathways for immigrants to arrive legally, often on humanitarian grounds.

Trump suspended refugee admissions in one Day One order. In other actions, he’s gone after the temporary legal statuses of immigrants whom the Biden administration allowed to enter. Trump’s administration has called those statuses another way to allow illegal immigration under the guise of government support.

For example, his Homeland Security department canceled the temporary status of about 300,000 Venezuelans that had allowed them protections from deportation and work permits. That status, intended to protect people from tumultuous home countries, expires in April, and another 250,000 protected Venezuelans’ status expires in September.

The administration also is preparing, according to the New York Times, to strip the temporary legal status of immigrants from four countries (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti) that the Biden administration had allowed to enter — and gain work permits — if they found American sponsors, as a way to curb illegal border crossings.

Similarly, on Day One, Trump ended a Biden-era program allowing migrants at the border to schedule appointments to be temporarily allowed into the U.S. with work permits while they wait for immigration cases to be decided.

Because many of those immigrants are newer arrivals, Kathleen Bush-Joseph, policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute said, they’re particularly likely to be put in the fast-tracked deportation process.

Trying to secure local cooperation

The administration is again trying to overturn local and state sanctuary laws, meaning we’re likely to see a return to the California-versus-federal showdown from the first Trump administration on how much the state can be required to help immigration agents.

Those fights, Arulanantham said, “really are fundamental to balance of power between the federal government and states with respect to how immigration enforcement plays out on the ground.”

From the arresting immigration agents to the detention bed space to the judges considering whether to order deportations, the Trump administration doesn’t have nearly the capacity to carry out the level of crackdown he vows.

So his orders seek to sign on more local police as partners in the effort. The administration is also suing Chicago and Cook County over their non-cooperation policies, accusing the cities of “thwarting” enforcement, and has threatened to prosecute local officials who fail to cooperate with immigration agents.

On her first day as attorney general, Pam Bondi ordered the Justice Department to once again pause grants for sanctuary cities and states. That could include California, which in 2017 passed a law barring police and sheriffs from arresting or detaining immigrants on behalf of federal agents.

In the previous iteration of this standoff, California won in court when the federal government tried to withhold funding. On Friday, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties renewed the fight, suing Trump over his latest threats.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Friday said he hadn’t seen any interruptions to grants yet, but “if that happens, we will sue.”

California conservative sheriffs are now in an odd position between a blue state and a red federal administration. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, in a video Thursday, sought to quell fears and “misinformation” among constituents that his agency was involved in immigration enforcement. Yet in the same video, he said he hoped to assist ICE “within the confines of the sanctuary state laws” with arresting undocumented immigrants who are being held in his jails.

California’s response

The Legislature recently passed $50 million in a special session Gov. Gavin Newsom called to help “Trump-proof” the state — $25 million for the state Department of Justice to sue the federal administration on a variety of matters including immigration, and $25 million toward legal aid to represent immigrants in deportation proceedings.

Democratic lawmakers have introduced a series of bills seeking to discourage the presence of immigration authorities near or at schools.

Newsom has scaled back his own criticisms of the president in recent weeks as he seeks to secure federal wildfire aid.

Bonta has continued to push back with a series of press statements encouraging immigrants to know their rights, and advising school employees they don’t have to assist immigration agents in apprehending immigrant students.

California notched some big wins in court opposing many policies during the last Trump administration, including halting the Muslim ban and Trump’s efforts to undo temporary legal status for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

But Bush-Joseph noted the Supreme Court in 2023 limited the states’ powers to challenge presidential immigration policies when Texas and other red states tried to sue Biden.

“The inverse can be true under the Trump administration if blue states try to bring lawsuits,” Bush-Joseph said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday banning local, state and federal law enforcement officers from using gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks to people.

The ban on shock gloves will take effect next year and remain in place until 2030. It comes weeks after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement moved to equip its officers with the gloves, which are designed to gain compliance from combative individuals. Last month, the agency awarded a nearly $17 million contract to buy 6,000 pairs.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state.”

The law is the latest example of how Democratic-led states have been pushing back against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts since he took office last year. In California, lawmakers passed at least two dozen bills this year seeking to fortify immigrants’ rights, restrict cooperation with federal immigration agents and tighten regulations on immigrant detention facilities, among other things.

Nationwide, 17 states with Democratic-led legislatures have passed a total of more than 100 pro-immigrant bills this year, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill tracking software Plural. The most common purpose is to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents.

Democratic California Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins said she introduced the shock-gloves legislation to “put a pause” on law enforcement’s use of the devices while the state examines their potential risks. The law requires the state’s Justice Department to study their safety and report to lawmakers by 2029.

“There’s a lot of unrest and a lot of uncertainty,” she said in an interview. “A lot of people are scared.”

The law will again test the state’s authority to restrict federal agents amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. A federal judge earlier this year blocked the state’s first-in-the-nation law barring federal officers from wearing face coverings, deeming it too selective because it applied to local and federal law enforcement but exempted state officers.

Lawmakers passed a new bill this year to make the ban apply to all officers. Newsom signed that legislation.

Kevin Johnson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, said courts are likely to ultimately rule that the state cannot bar federal officers from wearing shock gloves or face coverings. The laws are well-intentioned, he said, but likely conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally sets federal law as supreme over conflicting state law.

“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed,” he said.

California law enforcement groups broadly opposed the ban.

Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper, a Democrat and former state lawmaker, said banning shock gloves “really makes no sense” because they are among the non-lethal tools officers can use if necessary.

“When the federal government does something, the state Legislature wants to ban it,” he said at a news conference. “They’re making our job harder.”

Sharp-Collins said ICE’s plan to use shock gloves was the catalyst for the ban. But she cited their use by other officers, including a case in which a Kentucky family alleges a man died after being tased and shocked with the gloves dozens of times while in law enforcement custody in 2024.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who wrote last year’s mask ban, also authored this year’s measure to expand it to state officers.

“California must use every available tool to stand up for our communities under attack from ICE’s secret police terror campaign,” he said in a statement after it passed the Legislature.

Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report from Jefferson City, Missouri.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills that would have helped improve the insurance-claims process for consumers but signed one that also addresses claims-related issues, leaving Los Angeles County fire survivors and others wondering whether the vetoes were retaliatory.

One bill, Senate Bill 877, would have required insurance companies to explain in more detail to their customers how their claims payments are calculated. Another, SB 878, would have required insurers to pay claims within a certain amount of time, and imposed penalties for delays.

In his veto statement Sunday, the governor said the bills codified existing regulations and were “unnecessary at this time.”

But he signed SB 876, which among other things requires insurers to send their customers a status report within 15 days of assigning a new adjuster to their claims; doubles penalties during a declared emergency when insurers violate fair claims practices and settlement law; and mandates that insurers send a disaster-recovery plan to the Insurance Department.

Newsom’s office would not provide more information. Spokesperson Anthony Martinez said the governor’s veto message speaks for itself, and pointed to other legislation Newsom signed that helps survivors, such as setting new smoke-damage standards.

Martinez did not respond to a question about an accusation that the governor vetoed the two bills because they were sponsored by fire survivors and a consumer advocacy group who fought against his failed effort to reduce utilities’ liability for wildfires they cause.

Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, told CalMatters that all three bills “were along the same vein, addressing claims-handling problems,” although they did not overlap. The difference, she said, was that the two bills Newsom vetoed were sponsored by her group and Every Fire Survivors Network.

“It’s a real black mark on the governor that he would throw survivors under the bus in that way for what appears to be a petty reason,” Balber said.

Democratic state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez wrote SB 877 and 878, prompted by experiences of fire survivors she represents in Altadena. She pushed back against the governor’s veto statement, saying existing regulations have not been enough to avoid insurers’ delays and denials of survivors’ claims. As an example, she pointed to the insurance department’s findings that State Farm violated laws in its handling of L.A. fire survivors’ claims.

“I would hope (the decision) is not because of politics and petty infighting,” Pérez told CalMatters.

The senator added that her bills got bipartisan support and that the insurance industry eventually dropped their opposition to them. She noted that some survivors of the January 2025 fires are still navigating their claims. “The reality is that this decision is going to have an impact on survivors’ recovery,” she said.

Every Fire Survivors Network agreed.

“These vetoes mean more families will face what we have faced: rebuilding stalled, bills piling up, and lives on hold while waiting for insurance money they are owed,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the group, in a statement.

Pérez, Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivors Network vowed to try again next session.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara was also a co-sponsor of SB 878 but had no comment on the governor’s veto, although his office issued a statement celebrating the signing of SB 876: “It holds insurers accountable when they drag their feet.”

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

Los Angeles County will begin sending mail-in ballots starting this Thursday ahead of the Nov. 3 elections. Counties across the state have until next Monday, Oct. 5, to begin mailing out ballots.

In the June primary, nearly 82% of the total ballots cast in L.A. County were through vote-by-mail ballots.

State and local officials are encouraging people to vote early.

When can I turn in my ballot?

L.A. County elections officials say voters can turn in their ballots by mail as soon as they receive them. No postage is necessary.

They can also turn them in starting this week at official dropboxes across the county, which are often found at parks, community centers or libraries.

Voters can also turn them in or vote in person at the county’s Vote Centers, which L.A. County officials say will start to open on Oct. 24. Officials say all Vote Centers will be open by Halloween.

What about in Orange County?

Orange County officials say U.S. Postal Service officials are scheduled to pick up about 1.9 million ballots from the county elections office on Saturday and start delivering them on Monday, Oct. 5.

The Trump administration has tried to restrict mail-in ballots. Will my ballot be affected?

The California Secretary of State’s office says nothing has currently changed. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month issued an injunction on President Trump’s executive order requiring states to turn in lists of voters and ordering the USPS to send mail-in ballots to the people on the approved lists.

"Voters will be able to cast their ballots without uncertainty, without hesitation, and without fear that their voices will be questioned or their ballots rejected," said Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

Los Angeles County is reporting the highest number of rabid bats on record, a to-date total of 69, officials said.

This year’s rabid bat count has already matched 2025’s total, according to the L.A. County Department of Public Health, which released the count Monday, marking World Rabies Day.

Health officials emphasized that rabid bats have been found all over the county "from suburban areas such as the San Fernando Valley to urban areas like downtown Los Angeles, in office buildings, parks, schools, businesses, and residential backyards."

That said, a large share of rabid bats — 68% of the 69 found so far — were in the Santa Clarita Valley, and they were mainly canyon bats, which are common in California.

When to be on high alert

Officials warned that a third of human encounters with rabid bats happened indoors, where the risk of exposure to the virus is higher.

Bat bites are small and can be hard to detect. Rabies can also be spread through scratches or other transfers of saliva.

“If you find a bat indoors or think you may have had contact with one, contact your medical provider or Public Health right away,” Dr. Muntu Davis, a Los Angeles County Health officer, said in a statement. “And remember, never touch a bat or any wild animals. Immediately report any bat found indoors, or outdoors if it appears sick, active during the day, unable to fly, or dead, to your local animal control.”

Who to call

Veterinary Public Health

Phone: 213-288-7060
Email: vet@ph.lacounty.gov
Website: publichealth.lacounty.gov/vet

*Call 211 to find your local animal control

What to know about rabies

Rabies in humans is treatable with a series of vaccines. Rabies is always fatal in animals, the county said in a release, so vaccinate your pets.