Department

NEW YORK — New York City’s former interim police commissioner is suing Mayor Eric Adams and his top deputies, accusing them of operating the NYPD as a “criminal enterprise.”

In a federal racketeering lawsuit filed Wednesday, the ex-commissioner, Thomas Donlon, alleges Adams and his inner circle showered unqualified loyalists with promotions, buried allegations of misconduct and gratuitously punished whistleblowers.

It is the latest in a series of recent lawsuits by former NYPD leaders describing a department ruled by graft and cronyism, with swift repercussions for those who questioned the mayor’s allies.

In a statement, City Hall spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus called the allegations “baseless,” blasting Donlon as a “disgruntled former employee who — when given the opportunity to lead the greatest police department in the world — proved himself to be ineffective.”

Donlon, a longtime FBI official, was appointed last fall by Adams to stabilize a department shaken by federal investigations and high-profile resignations.

He stepped down less than a month into the job, after federal authorities searched his home for decades-old documents that he said were unrelated to his work at the department.

During his brief tenure, Donlon said he uncovered “systemic corruption and criminal conduct” enabled by Adams and carried out by his hand-picked confidants who operated outside the department’s standard chain of command.

Their alleged corruption triggered a “massive, unlawful transfer of public wealth,” the suit alleges, through unearned salary increases, overtime payments, pension enhancement and other benefits.

In one case, Donlon said he caught the department’s former top spokesperson, Tarik Sheppard, improperly using his rubber signature to give himself a raise and promotion. When Donlon confronted him, Sheppard allegedly threatened to kill him.

Later, when Donlon’s wife was involved in a minor car accident, Sheppard leaked personal family details to the press, according to the lawsuit.

Sheppard, who left the department in May, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit also accuses police leaders of blocking internal investigations requested by Donlon and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities. And it outlines several instances in which officers with little experience — but close connections to Adams’ allies — received promotions, sometimes in exchange for favors.

The lawsuit names Adams and eight current and former high-ranking NYPD officials, including Chief of Department John Chell and Deputy Mayor Kaz Daughtry.

It calls for a federal takeover of the NYPD and unspecified damages for Donlon, whose professional reputation was “deliberately destroyed,” according to the suit.

Before joining the NYPD, Donlon spent decades working on terrorism cases for the FBI, including the investigation into the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He also led New York state’s Office of Homeland Security before going into the private sector security industry.

He was replaced as commissioner by Jessica Tisch, who has pledged to restore trust within the department. But as Adams seeks reelection on a platform touting decreases in crime, he now faces renewed scrutiny over his management of the police force.

Last week, four other former high-ranking New York City police officials filed separate lawsuits against Adams and his top deputies, alleging a culture of rampant corruption and bribes that preceded Donlon’s appointment.

In response to that suit, a spokesperson for Adams said the administration “holds all city employees — including leadership at the NYPD — to the highest standards.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

Early this month, the U.S. military and masked federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from Customs and Border Protection invaded a park near downtown Los Angeles — ironically, a park named after Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They came ready for battle, dressed in tactical gear and camouflage, with some arriving on horseback, while others rolled in on armored vehicles or patrolled above in Black Hawk helicopters. Although the invasion force failed to capture anyone, it did succeed in liberating the park from a group of children participating in a summer camp.

The MacArthur Park operation sounds like a scene from “South Park,” but it really did happen — and its implications are terrifying. As Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol agent in charge, said to Fox News: “Better get used to us now, ’cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” And President Trump is sending the same message to every Democratic governor and mayor in America who dares oppose him. He will send heavily armed federal forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants and for any reason.

The United States stands at the threshold of an authoritarian breakthrough, and Congress and the courts have given Trump a lot of tools. He’s learned from Jan. 6, 2021, that he needs tight control over the “guys with the guns,” as retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley put it. And that’s what he got when Congress dutifully confirmed Trump loyalists to lead all of the “power ministries” — the military, the FBI and the Department of Justice, the rest of the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security.

As commander in chief, the president can deploy troops and, under Title 10, he can also put National Guard troops under his command — even against the wishes of local officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the legality of Trump’s exercise of this authority in Los Angeles last month, and we will see what the courts say — but based on its initial rulings, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appears likely to defer to the president. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the troops cannot currently enforce laws, but Trump could change that by invoking the Insurrection Act, and we have to assume that the current Supreme Court would defer to him on that as well, following long-standing precedents saying the president’s power under the act is “conclusive.”

Trump could send the military into other cities, but the most dangerous weapon in his authoritarian arsenal might be the newly empowered Department of Homeland Security, which has been given $170 billion by Congress to triple the size of ICE and double its detention capacity.

No doubt, this will put Trump’s “mass deportation” into overdrive, but this is not just about immigration. Remember Portland in 2020, when Trump sent Border Patrol agents into the city? Against the wishes of the Oregon governor and the Portland mayor, the president deployed agents to protect federal buildings and suppress unrest after the killing of George Floyd. Under the Homeland Security Act, the secretary can designate any employee of the department to assist the Federal Protective Service in safeguarding government property and carrying out “such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.”

Under that law, DHS officers can also make arrests, on and off of federal property, for “any offense against the United States.” This is why, in 2020, Border Patrol agents — dressed like soldiers and equipped with M-4 semi-automatic rifles — were able to rove around Portland in unmarked black SUVs and arrest people off the streets anywhere in the city. Trump could do this again anywhere in the country, and with the billions Congress has given to immigration and border agencies, DHS could assemble and deploy a formidable federal paramilitary force wherever and whenever Trump wishes.

Of course, under the 4th Amendment, officers need to have at least reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts before they can stop and question someone, and probable cause before they arrest. And on Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order blocking ICE and Customs and Border Protection from making such stops without reasonable suspicion, and further holding that this could not be based on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location, such as a Home Depot parking lot; or the type of work a person does. This ruling could end up providing an important constitutional restraint on these agencies, but we shall see. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling.

However, this litigation proceeds, it is important to note that the DHS agencies are not like the FBI, with its buttoned-down, by-the-book culture drilled into it historically and in response to the revelations of J. Edgar Hoover’s abuses of power. DHS and its agencies have no such baggage, and they clearly have been pushing the envelope in Los Angeles — sometimes brutally — over the last month. And even if Frimpong’s ruling stands up on appeal, ICE and Customs and Border Protection will no doubt adapt by training their officers to articulate other justifications for stopping people on the street or in workplaces. Ultimately, these agencies are used to operating near the border, where, in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s words, the federal government’s power is “at its zenith,” and where there are far fewer constitutional constraints on their actions.

These are the tools at Trump’s disposal — and as DHS rushes to hire thousands of agents and build the detention facilities Congress just paid for, these tools will only become more formidable. And one should anticipate that Trump will want to deploy the DHS paramilitary forces to “protect” the 2026 or 2028 elections, alongside federal troops, in the same way they worked together to capture MacArthur Park.

A fanciful, dystopian scenario? Maybe, but who or what would stop it from happening? Congress does not seem willing to stand up to the president — and while individual federal judges might, the Supreme Court seems more likely to defer to him, especially on issues concerning national security or immigration. So, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, “the last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people, you and me.” Suit up.

Seth Stodder served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for borders, immigration and trade and previously as assistant secretary for threat prevention and security. He teaches national security and counterterrorism law at USC Law School.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi suggested Tuesday that she has no plans to step down as she dodged questions about Jeffrey Epstein and her clash with a top FBI official, seeking to press ahead with a business-as-usual approach in the face of right-wing outrage that has plunged the Justice Department into turmoil.

Pressed by reporters during an announcement touting drug seizures, Bondi sidestepped questions about the fallout of the Trump administration’s decision not to release more records related to the wealthy financier’s sex trafficking investigation that has angered high profile members of President Trump’s base. With some calling for her resignation, Bondi made clear she intends to remain attorney general.

“I’m going to be here for as long as the president wants to be here,” Bondi said. “And I believe he’s made that crystal clear.”

The announcement at the Drug Enforcement Administration headquarters of recent methamphetamine and fentanyl seizures represents an effort by Bondi to turn the page on the Epstein controversy and show that the Justice Department is forging ahead after days of mounting criticism from figures in the MAGA movement furious over the administration’s failure to deliver long-sought government secrets about Epstein. But her refusal to address the turmoil may only further frustrate conservative influencers who have been calling for transparency and accountability over the wealthy financier’s case.

“This today is about fentanyl overdoses throughout our country and people who have lost loved ones to fentanyl,” Bondi said in response to a question from a reporter about the Epstein files. “That’s the message that we’re here to send today. I’m not going to talk about Epstein.”

Trump has been seeking to tamp down criticism of his attorney general and defended her again earlier Tuesday, saying she handled the matter “very well.” Trump said it’s up to her whether to release any more records, adding that “whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.”

Asked about Trump’s comment, Bondi said the Justice Department memo released last week announcing that no additional evidence would become public “speaks for itself and we’ll get back to you on anything else.”

The turmoil over the department’s handling of the Epstein matter spilled into public view last week with reports of a internal clash between Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Part of the dispute centered on a story from the news organization NewsNation that cited a “source close to the White House” as saying the FBI would have released the Epstein files months ago if it could have done so on its own. The story included statements from Bondi, Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel refuting the premise, but not Bongino.

Asked Tuesday whether she believes Bongino should remain in his role, Bondi said only that she would not discuss personnel matters. Bondi stressed that she had spent the morning with Patel, adding that: “I think we all are committed to working together now to make America safe again and that’s what we’re doing.”

Bondi had already been under scrutiny after an earlier document release in February that she hyped and handed out in binders to conservative influencers at the White House lacked any new revelations. When that first release flopped, Bondi accused officials of withholding files from her and claimed that the FBI later turned over a “truckload” of evidence with thousands of pages of additional documents.

Despite promises that more files were on their way to the public, however, the Justice Department determined after a months-long review that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” according to the memo released last week.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Court reverses lower court ruling that said large staff cuts would effectively hamstring the Education Department.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can proceed with plans to slash funding and resources for the federal Department of Education.

The conservative-majority court ruled on Monday that the government could move forward with plans to lay off nearly 1,400 employees as part of Trump’s push to effectively dismantle the department.

“While today’s ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the US Constitution,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement celebrating the decision.

Monday’s ruling cancels a previous order on the administration’s efforts to fire about 1,400 workers at the Education Department, which US District Judge Myong Joun had ruled against in May, stating that it would “likely cripple the department”.

A US Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling on June 4 that the cuts would make it “effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions”, which include overseeing student loans and enforcing civil rights law in US education, the site of previous political battles over issues such as federal efforts to combat racial segregation.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of working to effectively abolish federal agencies, established and funded by Congress, through a maximalist interpretation of executive power.

Trump and his Republican allies have depicted federal agencies as being at odds with their political agenda, and as hotbeds of leftist ideology and bureaucratic excess.

The Trump administration has also sought to impose greater control over US universities, seeking a larger role in shaping curricula and threatening to withdraw federal funds if universities do not comply with government demands concerning issues such as cracking down on pro-Palestine student activism.

In response to the court’s decision on Monday, a liberal legal group that helped bring the challenge to Trump’s efforts lamented that the ruling “dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children”.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump the authority to dismantle the Education Department and to fire about half of its staff.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservatives set aside a Boston judge’s order and cleared the way for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to carry out her plans to shut down much of her department.

The court issued a brief order with no explanation, followed by a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that spoke for the three liberals.

“Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” she wrote.

“Yet, by executive fiat, the President ordered the Secretary of Education to ‘take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department’ … Consistent with that Executive Order, Secretary Linda McMahon gutted the Department’s work force, firing over 50 percent of its staff overnight. In her own words, that mass termination served as ‘the first step on the road to a total shutdown’ of the Department.”

McMahon called the decision a “significant win for students and families. … It is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.”

The Department of Education was created in 1979 under President Carter, and it has been a favorite of Democrats since then. It sends funds to school districts across the nation to support extra help for students, including those with disabilities, and it administers programs for grants and loans for students in colleges and universities.

Republicans have been anxious to dismantle the Education Department for decades. They say education policy should be left mostly to states and argue that the teachers unions have too much sway in Washington.

But they also say they would not change or block the federal funding that now goes to support schools and higher education students.

Last week, the court upheld the Trump administration plans for mass layoffs in the more than 20 departments and agencies.

Attorneys for California and 10 other Democratic-led states had sued to block the planned layoffs of about 1,400 Education Department employees, and they won before a federal judge in Boston and the 1st Circuit Court.

Those judges said Congress could reduce or redirect funding from the Education Department, but the president was not free to do it on his own.

But in last week’s order as well as Monday’s, the court’s majority sided with Trump and his broad view of executive power.

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the administration decided it can “carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared down staff” at the Education Department.

Democracy Forward, a progressive group that sued on behalf of educators, said it was “incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward. This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation.”

The Trump administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to allow immigration agents to resume unfettered raids across Southern California, seeking to overturn a federal judge’s order in Los Angeles that barred “roving patrols” in seven counties.

The order “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced, severely infringing on the President’s Article II authority,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a motion asking for an emergency stay on Monday. “These harms will be compounded the longer that injunction is in place.”

After weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked and heavily armed federal agents, the operations seemingly ceased in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties following a temporary restraining order granted Friday night by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sown terror and sparked widespread protest since June 6.

“It should tell you everything you need to know that the federal government is rushing to appeal an order that instructs them only to follow the Constitution,” said Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “We look forward to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring that communities across Southern California are safe from the federal government’s violence.”

Despite arguments from the Trump administration that its tactics are valid, Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The judge found that preventing detainees from meeting with lawyers violates the right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

“What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening,” she wrote.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem incorrectly referred to Frimpong as a man when responding to the order during a news conference Saturday, saying of the judge’s order: “He’s an idiot.”

“We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we’re going to do. So none of our operations are going to change,” Noem said. “We’re going to appeal it and we’re going to win.”

In addition to blocking roving patrols, the judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open part of its detention facility in Downtown Los Angeles to attorneys and legal aid groups.

“While the district court injunction is a significant victory for immigrants, the whiplash of court orders and appeals breeds uncertainty,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco. “That form of real-world insecurity weakens communities and undermines democratic values in places like LA.”

The Trump administration did not immediately contest the 5th Amendment portion of the ruling. Instead, its attacked the 4th Amendment claim, seeking a stay that would immediately restore the status quo for immigration agents across Southern California while the case is heard by judges from the higher court.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

But some experts say that’s unlikely.

“Their argument [is] the sky’s falling,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “They make very extreme arguments, and that doesn’t necessarily help their case in the 9th Circuit.”

The appeal escalates an already fierce and sprawling legal battle over Trump’s promised mass deportations and the means used to achieve it.

After the president deployed troops to quell anti-ICE protests in June, California sued and won a temporary restraining order that would have stripped the president of command.

The appellate panel swiftly blocked that decision, before overturning it in mid-June, leaving thousands of soldiers in Trump’s hands.

But the Trump appointee who authored the June 19 ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, also bristled at the government’s argument that the president’s actions in the case were “unreviewable.”

“Some of the things they say are unorthodox, arguments we don’t usually hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as executive overreach, they’re saying the judiciary’s efforts to put limits on executive power is judicial overreach.”

Last week, another 9th Circuit judge challenged that June decision, petitioning the court to rehear the issue with a larger “en banc” panel — a move that could nudge the case to the Supreme Court.

“Before [courts] became so politicized, many judges would often defer to the 3-judge panels that first heard appeals, because they trusted their colleagues,” Tobias said. “Increasing politicization of most appeals courts and somewhat decreased collegiality complicate efforts to predict how the Ninth’s judges will vote in this case.”

Meanwhile, California is gathering evidence to bolster its claim that Marines and National Guard forces participating in immigration enforcement run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids using soldiers to enforce civilian laws.

Compared to those questions, the legal issues in the L.A. appeal are simple, experts said.

“What makes this case different is how much it’s based on facts,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It’s much harder for an appellate court to overturn a trial court finding of fact then it is with regard to legal conclusions.”

Five years after her son was beaten so badly by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies that he needed more than 30 stitches and staples to his face and head, Vanessa Perez is still looking for answers. So are county officials tasked with holding the department accountable for misconduct.

Despite a subpoena and an ongoing legal battle, obtaining a complete account of what happened to Vanessa’s son Joseph Perez has proved impossible — at least so far.

The sheriff’s department has released a heavily redacted report outlining its version of what transpired in the San Gabriel Valley community of East Valinda on July 27, 2020.

According to the report, deputies from the Industry Station stopped Joseph, 27, on suspicion of breaking into a car. He punched and kicked them multiple times, the document states. Three deputies injured their hands and a fourth broke his leg falling off a curb. Six deputies punched Joseph and deployed various holds and takedowns before he was arrested and charged with five counts of resisting an executive officer, court records show.

But entire pages of the department’s “use of force” report are blacked out, leaving Vanessa and members of the Civilian Oversight Commission wondering what details are being kept secret.

County oversight officials issued three subpoenas in February for cases under scrutiny, including one seeking an unredacted copy of the Perez file. The County Counsel’s Office has resisted, arguing the files should remain confidential, and the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department has declined to hand them over.

Amid the subpoena standoff, Vanessa, 43, shows up to speak at nearly every monthly meeting of the oversight commission in a black T-shirt with a picture of her son’s bloodied face.

“Surviving an arrest shouldn’t look like Joseph. And it shouldn’t look like 121 punches either. That’s what they admitted to,“ she told The Times, referring to an unofficial tally she made based on the deputies’ statements in the redacted document.

Vanessa Perez holds a photograph of her son, Joseph Perez, taken after he was beaten by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in July 2020.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The beating was so severe, she said, it left her son struggling to carry on a conversation.

“He’s not able to do that anymore,” she said. “It’s just hard for him to socialize, period, with the constant fear.”

A month after the oversight commission‘s subpoena, L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna responded by filing a lawsuit, asking a court to determine whether his department must comply. Luna said at the time that the County Counsel’s Office had advised the department that releasing the documents “violates the law.”

In a statement to The Times, the sheriff’s department said it is “taking deliberate steps to resolve the dispute and ensure its actions align with both the law and the principles of transparency.”

Last month, the County Counsel’s Office said in a statement that it “has fully supported” the commission “in its efforts to seek the information it needs to play a powerful oversight role on behalf of LA County citizens. This includes assisting with a declaratory relief action that will hopefully bring judicial clarity to the commission’s ability to obtain the information it seeks.”

Joseph maintains he was not the aggressor in the July 2020 incident. His mother said he was in the middle of a “mental health episode.”

Court records show Joseph has been jailed multiple times since on a range of charges, including methamphetamine possession and damaging a vehicle. In August 2022, he pleaded no contest to one of the five charges from the beating incident and was sentenced to 32 months in state prison.

He is currently incarcerated at Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic after violating his probation from a separate case in which he was convicted of resisting two West Covina police officers.

He has struggled with addiction and been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression and psychosis, according to his mother.

Anne Golden, Joseph’s public defender, said in a recent court hearing that he suffers from impaired executive functioning due to a traumatic brain injury inflicted by the deputies.

In a brief phone call last month from jail, Joseph told The Times he believes the full report about what happened to him should be released to “show that I was in the right.”

Vanessa Perez holds a photo of her and her son, Joseph Perez.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

“They’re lying about a lot of stuff with my case,” he said. “They lied about how it went down; they’re saying I’m the aggressor when I wasn’t. The reality is they beat me up — they left me for dead.”

The sheriff’s department said the deputies involved in the incident declined to comment.

The department said in a statement that every use of force “incident is thoroughly reviewed to evaluate if policies and procedures were followed,” adding that in “this incident, the use of force … was determined to be within policy.”

Oversight officials seeking records related to Joseph’s case and others have been stymied at every turn, according to Loyola Law School professor Sean Kennedy. Kennedy resigned from the commission in February following a dispute with county lawyers over another matter.

“To have effective and meaningful civilian oversight, it’s necessary for the commission to be able to review confidential documents about police misconduct and use of force,” Kennedy said. “Without that, this is all just oversight theater.”

Last month, Robert Bonner, the oversight commission’s chair, revealed that L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger intended to replace him despite his desire to stay on and finish ongoing work.

Barger said in an email last month that the move “reflects my desire to continue cultivating public trust in the oversight process by introducing new perspectives that support the Commission’s vital work.”

During the commission’s June 26 meeting, Bonner, 84, alleged that powerful people in county government do not want meaningful oversight over the sheriff’s department. A former federal judge who once served as U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and led the Drug Enforcement Administration, Bonner was fiery in his remarks.

He said he believed the County Counsel’s Office was advising the sheriff to withhold documents as a means of “telling this commission what it can and can’t do, and that goes over the line.”

“They treat our subpoenas like public record requests,” Bonner said.

The Civilian Oversight Commission has said it is willing to go into closed session to review the full reports, but the county’s lawyers argue that’s not legal.

On Tuesday, the state Senate’s public safety committee approved a bill previously approved by the state Assembly that would allow oversight commissions across California to conduct closed sessions to review personnel records and other confidential materials.

But the proposal, AB 847, still requires approval from the full state Senate and governor. And even if it does become law, the county counsel’s office argues that the L.A. County code explicitly bars the commission from reviewing sensitive documents in closed session.

Robert Bonner, chair of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Civilian Oversight Commission, speaks during the commission’s meeting at St. Anne’s Family Services in L.A. on June 26.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Bonner has pushed for the county code to be changed, saying he and other members of the oversight body “vigorously disagree with County Counsel’s interpretation” of it.

“This commission needs subpoena power to be effective, and it needs to have effective subpoena power, which means it needs to be able to go into closed session,” Bonner said during the commission’s June meeting.

The sheriff’s department said it “will abide by the ultimate judicial determination as to whether those records can be lawfully disclosed.”

Whether the oversight body can issue subpoenas is not in dispute. In March 2020 — four months before Joseph was beaten — L.A. County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure R, a ballot initiative that granted the commission subpoena power.

But the county is thwarting the legal orders, according to Bert Deixler, former special counsel to the Civilian Oversight Commission. That intransigence, he said, contributes to a culture of impunity in the sheriff’s department.

“More momentum will be built in the wrong direction, the county will continue to get sued, the county continues to have more and more financial challenges, and it’s a race to the bottom,” he said.

On June 3, Vanessa Perez drove in from her home in West Covina to attend a hearing for her son at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown L.A.

After waiting several hours for him to emerge, she became emotional as Joseph finally walked into the courtroom through a side door. His hands were cuffed in front of his wrinkled yellow jail T-shirt and his ear lobes were stretched with white paper plugs over his tattooed neck.

Vanessa Perez stands at the location in East Valinda where her son, Joseph Perez, was beaten by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in July 2020.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

But despite his lawyer’s pleas for the court to allow Joseph to enter a job training program and immediately begin receiving treatment for his mental health problems, Judge James Bianco ordered him to remain behind bars pending a mental health diversion reinstatement hearing.

“Mr. Perez has been given all the chances that I’m inclined to give him,” Bianco said.

Joseph looked back at his mother once before being escorted back out of the courtroom.

While her son remains locked up for now, Vanessa is demanding the unredacted version of the beating report be made public. She wants to understand why his beating didn’t warrant an internal affairs investigation or discipline for the deputies involved.

“We know Joseph wasn’t the first and won’t be the last,” she said. “With Joseph’s story exposed we … will know how they lied, how they covered their asses, from the deputies to the sergeant to the captain.”

July 12 (UPI) — The State Department on Friday began notifying 1,353 affected workers of their pending job losses as the department reduces its workforce by 15%.

The people losing their jobs amid the downsizing work in positions that are being eliminated or consolidated, a State Department official told media on Thursday, NBC News reported.

“This is the most complicated personnel reorganization that the federal government has ever undertaken,” the official told reporters during a briefing. “It was done so in order to be very focused on looking at the functions that we want to eliminate or consolidate, rather than looking at individuals.”

The State Department notified 1,107 civil service and 246 foreign service workers of their pending job losses, CBS News reported.

The department plans to eliminate nearly 3,400 positions, including many who have already accepted voluntary departure offers this year.

The State Department also will close or consolidate many U.S.-based offices as part of the reduction in force that is being done in accordance with a reorganization plan, which members of Congress received in March.

The Trump administration says the downsizing is needed to eliminate redundancy and better enable the State Department to focus on its primary responsibilities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio created the downsizing plan, which he said is needed due to the department being too costly, ideologically driven and cumbersome, The New York Times reported.

The downsizing isn’t going unchallenged on Capitol Hill.

All Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Friday opposed the downsizing in a letter sent to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“During a time of increasingly complex and widespread challenges to U.S. national security, this administration should be strengthening our diplomatic corps — an irreplaceable instrument of U.S. power and leadership — not weakening it,” the Democratic Party senators said.

“However, [downsizing] would severely undermine the department’s ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy interests, putting our nation’s security, strength and prosperity at risk.”

The Senate Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee include Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Chris Coons of Delaware, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Tim Kaine of Virginia.

The Senate committee’s other Democratic Party members are Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Jacky Rosen of Nevada.

July 11 (UPI) — Employees of the U.S. State Department could receive a layoff notice via email very soon as part of the Trump administration’s plan to downsize the government, according to an in ternal memo.

The Washington Post reported late Thursday night it had obtained a memo from Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Michael Rigas that informed State Department employees to be on the lookout for an email “in the coming days” in regard to layoffs. CNN reported Thursday that the email would come from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that will say “Soon, the Department will be communicating to individuals affected by the reduction in force,” and that firings could begin as soon as Friday. A draft reduction-in-force notice acquired by CBS News said the objective is “streamlining domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities,” and that the terminations “have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions.”

The State Department had told Congress in May it planned to fire more than 1,870 people within its domestic workforce of 18,730, and over 1,570 have said they would voluntarily exit.

More than 300 offices and bureaus would be impacted and will include members of the foreign and civil service whose offices are being either retooled or outright eliminated.

Uncertainty over the status of the plan has negatively impacted morale at the department, as workers wait to see if they are to receive the axe, some of which have worked there for years or even decades, The Washington Post reported.

CBS also reported that the department told reporters it intends to conduct the reductions-in-force over a single day.

One State Department employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Washington Post last month that the move showed the department’s leadership “either doesn’t appreciate or just doesn’t care” about its workforce.

“We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year,” Rubio said in a X post Tuesday.

“When you reorganize the State Department, there were certain bureaus we wanted to empower, the regional bureaus, and there were certain bureaus, these functional bureaus, that were closed,” he told reporters Thursday.

The State Department officially told Congress in May that it planned to eliminate around 3,400 U.S.-based jobs and will either close or merge nearly half of its domestic offices.

However, those working at overseas posts are reportedly safe from termination.

American Foreign Service Association President Thomas Yazdgerdi told CNN Wednesday that the expected layoffs are coming at “a particularly bad time.”

“There are horrible things that are happening in the world that require a tried-and-true diplomatic workforce that’s able to address that,” he continued. “The ability to maintain a presence in the areas of the world that are incredibly important, dealing with issues like Ukraine, like Gaza, like Iran right now that require great diplomatic attention.”

The plan will also integrate the functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development into the State Department.

The State Department had told Congress it planned to complete its reorganization by July 1, but those plans were temporarily paused by rulings from a lower court until earlier this week, when the Supreme Court cleared a path for the Trump administration to begin mass firings and changes at 19 departments and agencies.

The lower court had blocked the layoffs, as the administration did not first consult with Congress.

Mass layoff came days after the Supreme Court cleared the way for US president to gut entire government positions.

More than 1,350 US State Department employees have been fired in a major diplomatic shake-up ordered by President Donald Trump, in a move critics predict would curb the United States’ influence around the world.

Friday’s mass layoff, which affect 1,107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, come at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia’s war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran.

Diplomats and other staff clapped out departing colleagues in emotional scenes at the Washington headquarters of the department, which runs US foreign policy and the global network of embassies.

Some were crying as they walked out with boxes of belongings.

“It’s just heartbreaking to stand outside these doors right now and see people coming out in tears, because all they wanted to do was serve this country,” said US Senator Andy Kim, a New Jersey Democrat who worked as a civilian adviser for the State Department in Afghanistan during the administration of former President Barack Obama.

The layoffs at the department came three days after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin carrying out its plan to gut entire government positions.

The conservative-dominated top court lifted a temporary block imposed by a lower court on Trump’s plans to lay off potentially tens of thousands of employees.

The 79-year-old Republican says he wants to dismantle what he calls the “deep state”. Since taking office in January, he has worked quickly to install fierce personal loyalists and to fire swaths of veteran government workers.

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the foreign policy department is too cumbersome and requires thinning out of some 15 percent.

“It’s not a consequence of trying to get rid of people. But if you close the bureau, you don’t need those positions,” Rubio told reporters on the sidelines of his ASEAN meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. “Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people.”

The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) – the union representing State Department employees – condemned the “catastrophic blow to our national interests”.

“We oppose this decision in the strongest terms.”

The State Department employed more than 80,000 people worldwide last year, according to a fact sheet, with about 17,700 in domestic roles.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID), long the primary vehicle to provide US humanitarian assistance around the world, has already been mostly dismantled.

According to The Washington Post, State Department employees were informed of their firings by email.

Foreign Service officers will lose their jobs 120 days after receiving the notice and will be immediately placed on administrative leave, while civil service employees will be separated after 60 days, the newspaper said.

Ned Price, who served as State Department spokesman under former Democratic President Joe Biden, condemned what he called haphazard firings.

“For all the talk about ‘merit-based,’ they’re firing officers based on where they happen to be assigned on this arbitrary day,” Price said on X. “It’s the laziest, most inefficient, and most damaging way to lean the workforce.”

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The U.S. State Department is firing more than 1,300 employees on Friday in line with a dramatic reorganization plan from the Trump administration that critics say will damage America’s global leadership and efforts to counter threats abroad.

The department has begun sending layoff notices to 1,107 civil servants and 246 foreign service officers with assignments in the United States, according to a senior department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Staff began to receive notices shortly after 10 a.m. Friday saying their positions were being “abolished” and that they would be losing access to the department’s headquarters in Washington as well as their email and share drives by 5 p.m., according to a copy of one of the notices obtained by the Associated Press.

Foreign service officers affected will be placed immediately on administrative leave for 120 days, after which they will formally lose their jobs, according to a separate internal notice. For most civil servants, the separation period is 60 days, it said.

“Headcount reductions have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices,” the notice says.

While lauded by President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their Republican allies as overdue and necessary to make the department leaner, more nimble and more efficient, the cuts have been roundly criticized by current and former diplomats who say they will weaken U.S. influence and the ability to counter existing and emerging threats abroad.

The layoffs are part of big changes to State Department work

The Trump administration has pushed to reshape American diplomacy and worked aggressively to shrink the size of the federal government, including mass dismissals driven by the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency and moves to dismantle whole departments like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Education Department.

USAID, the six-decade-old foreign assistance agency, was absorbed into the State Department last week after the administration dramatically slashed foreign aid funding.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court cleared the way for the layoffs to start, while lawsuits challenging the legality of the cuts continue to play out. The department had advised staffers Thursday that it would be sending layoff notices to some of them soon.

The job cuts are large but considerably less than many had feared. In a May letter notifying Congress about the reorganization, the department said it had just over 18,700 U.S.-based employees and was looking to reduce the workforce by 18% through layoffs and voluntary departures, including deferred resignation programs.

Rubio said officials took “a very deliberate step to reorganize the State Department to be more efficient and more focused.”

“It’s not a consequence of trying to get rid of people. But if you close the bureau, you don’t need those positions,” he told reporters Thursday during a visit to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. “Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people.”

He said some of the cuts will be unfilled positions or those that are about to be vacant because an employee took an early retirement.

Critics say the changes will hurt U.S. standing abroad

The American Foreign Service Assn., the union that represents U.S. diplomats, said Friday that it opposed the Trump administration’s cuts during “a moment of great global instability.”

“In less than six months, the U.S. has shed at least 20 percent of its diplomatic workforce through shuttering of institutions and forced resignations,” the organization said in a statement. “Losing more diplomatic expertise at this critical global moment is a catastrophic blow to our national interests.”

If the administration had issues with excess staffing, “clear, institutional mechanisms” could have resolved it, the group said.

“Instead, these layoffs are untethered from merit or mission. They target diplomats not for how they’ve served or the skills they have, but for where they happen to be assigned. That is not reform,” AFSA said.

Former U.S. diplomats echoed that sentiment, saying the process is not in line with what Congress had approved or how it’s been done under previous administrations.

“They’re doing it without any consideration of the worth of the individual people who are being fired,” said Gordon Duguid, a 31-year veteran of the foreign service under Trump and Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “They’re not looking for people who have the expertise … they just want people who say, ‘OK, how high’ ” to jump.

He added, “That’s a recipe for disaster.”

In a notice Thursday, Michael Rigas, deputy secretary for management and resources, said that “once notifications have taken place, the Department will enter the final stage of its reorganization and focus its attention on delivering results-driven diplomacy.”

The State Department is undergoing a big reorganization

The department told Congress in May of an updated reorganization plan, proposing cuts to programs beyond what had been revealed a month earlier by Rubio and an 18% reduction of U.S.-based staff, higher than the 15% initially floated.

The State Department is planning to eliminate some divisions tasked with oversight of America’s two-decade involvement in Afghanistan, including an office focused on resettling Afghan nationals who worked alongside the U.S. military.

Jessica Bradley Rushing, who worked at the Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, known as CARE, said in an interview with AP that she was shocked when she received another dismissal notice Friday after she had already been put on administrative leave in March.

“I spent the entire morning getting updates from my former colleagues at CARE, who were watching this carnage take place within the office,” she said, adding that every person on her team received a notice. “I never even anticipated that I could be at risk for that because I’m already on administrative leave.”

The State Department noted that the reorganization will affect more than 300 bureaus and offices, saying it is eliminating divisions it describes as doing unclear or overlapping work. It says Rubio believes “effective modern diplomacy requires streamlining this bloated bureaucracy.”

That letter made clear that the reorganization is also intended to eliminate programs — particularly those related to refugees and immigration, as well as human rights and democracy promotion — that the Trump administration believes have become ideologically driven in a way that is incompatible with its priorities and policies.

Lee and Amiri write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Amiri from New York.

Democrats in the United States Senate have released a string of text messages and email correspondences that they say raises questions about the executive branch’s commitment to complying with court orders.

On Thursday, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, released what he described as “whistleblower” evidence about government lawyer Emil Bove.

In his role as acting deputy attorney general for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bove directed his colleagues to ignore or mislead courts about President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts, according to Durbin.

“Text messages, email exchanges, and documents show that the Department of Justice misled a federal court and disregarded a court order,” Durbin wrote on social media.

“Mr Bove spearheaded this effort, which demanded attorneys violate their ethical duty of candor to the court.”

Bove – formerly a personal lawyer to President Trump during his criminal trials – was recently nominated to serve in a lifetime position as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. But the Senate must first vote to confirm him to the role.

“Emil Bove belongs nowhere near the federal bench,” Durbin wrote. “This vote will be a litmus test for Senate Judiciary Republicans.”

Durbin indicated the emails and texts he released come from a Justice Department source: Most of the names in the correspondences have been redacted.

But they appear to corroborate allegations made in a complaint in June by Erez Reuveni, a Justice Department lawyer who worked under Bove until his dismissal in April.

In his complaint, Reuveni alleged that Bove told Justice Department lawyers that they “would need to consider telling the courts ‘f*** you’” if they interfered with President Trump’s deportation plans.

The expletive came up in the context of Trump’s controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law that, until recently, had only been used in the context of war.

Trump, however, has argued that undocumented immigration constituted an “invasion” and has attempted to deport people under the law’s authority, without allowing them to appeal their removal.

According to Reuveni, Bove explained to the Justice Department that Trump planned to start the deportation flights immediately after invoking the Alien Enemies Act. He “stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what”.

Reuveni understood that interaction as an attempt to circumvent the power of the courts.

In another instance, Reuveni said he was discouraged from asking questions about the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite a court protection order.

When Reuveni admitted before a Maryland court that he did not have “satisfactory” answers about Abrego Garcia’s return, he said Trump officials pressured him to make assertions against Abrego Garcia that “were not supported by law or the record”. He was fired shortly afterwards.

The documents gathered by Senate Democrats appear to offer a look inside those incidents.

In one series of emails, dated March 15, Reuveni responded to a notification that planes bearing deportees under the Alien Enemies Act were still in the air.

“The judge specifically ordered us not to remove anyone in the class, and to return anyone in the air,” he wrote back.

The emails reflected an injunction from District Judge James Boasberg barring deportations and ordering the planes to turn around.

Nevertheless, the planes landed in El Salvador and delivered their human cargo to a maximum security prison, where many remain to this day.

In another instance, a member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) replied to an email thread by saying: “My take on these emails is that DOJ leadership and DOJ litigators don’t agree on the strategy. Please keep DHS out of it.”

Text messages also show Reuveni and an unnamed colleague discussing Bove’s request to tell the courts “f*** you”.

“Guess we are going to say f*** you to the court,” one text message reads.

In another, the colleague appears to react to Trump officials lying before the court. “Oh sh**,” they write. “That was just not true.”

In an interview published with The New York Times on Thursday, Reuveni underscored the grave dangers posed by an executive branch that he sees as refusing to comply with judicial authority.

“The Department of Justice is thumbing its nose at the courts, and putting Justice Department attorneys in an impossible position where they have to choose between loyalty to the agenda of the president and their duty to the court,” he told the Times.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has responded with defiance, repeating its claim that Reuveni is simply a “disgruntled employee” lashing out at the employer who fired him.

“He’s a leaker asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame, conveniently timed just before a confirmation hearing and a committee vote,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

“No one was ever asked to defy a court order. This is another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts.”

Bove himself denied ever advising his colleagues to defy a court order. The Senate is set to decide on his confirmation to the circuit court in the coming weeks.

If he passes the Senate Judiciary Committee – in a vote scheduled for July 17 – he will face a full vote on the Senate floor.

Homicides across Los Angeles fell by more than 20% in the first half of the year, leaving the city on pace to end 2025 with its lowest total for that crime category in nearly 60 years, according to an LAPD tally.

Although violent crime persists in parts of the city, homicides overall in L.A. have dropped to 116 through June 28, the most recent date for which reliable data were available, compared to 152 in the same period last year.

Homicides have been on a steady downward trajectory since 2021, when total killings eclipsed 400 amid the tumult of the COVID-19 pandemic. The falling homicide rate in the years since mirrors a national trend, with Baltimore, Detroit and other major cities recording similar declines.

Experts say the country may be in the midst of the sharpest decline in killings in history — one that can’t be attributed to any single factor.

“What we’re seeing is a broader trend that goes over several years,” said Charis Kubrin, a professor of criminology, law and society at UC Irvine. “We’re seeing homicide rates go down all across the United States.”

The Los Angeles Police Department did not release homicide data in the 1970s, but it confirmed that the recent totals are on track for the lowest annual count since at least 1968.

Cities and unincorporated areas patrolled by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department are also recording fewer killings. Through May 31, the most recent date for which data was published, those parts of the county had recorded 58 homicides. Over last year, 184 people were killed in areas that fall under the agency’s jurisdiction, down nearly 100 from 2021.

The deflated crime numbers paint a decidedly different picture than the dystopian image of the city offered by President Trump and other senior U.S. officials as justification for the deployment of military troops in L.A. in recent weeks.

Areas in the city’s more southern neighborhoods that have historically borne the brunt of L.A.’s violent crime trends have seen some of the most impressive turnarounds.

Take the LAPD’s 77th Street Division in South Los Angeles, which in years past has logged higher homicide tallies than the entire San Fernando Valley combined. But killings there dropped from a recent high of 63 in 2021 to 38 last year. The neighboring Southeast Division, which covers Watts and surrounding communities, saw its tally decrease by more than a third in that span.

Kubrin and other researchers have long cautioned about reading too much into year-to-year crime data. She said the reasons for the improvements are likely rooted in the complicated and intertwined ways that cities have responded to the “stress, the political divisiveness and the economic downturn” since 2020.

“With all its diversity and challenges and issues, L.A. still reports lower homicide rates than other major cities,” she said.

A theory that violence dips during economic boom times gained traction after studies found that high homicide counts of the early 1990s coincided with a recession, but a similar downturn in the mid-2000s didn’t necessarily translate into more people being killed.

Conservatives point to mass tough-on-crime strategies, but Kubrin said other Western industrialized countries that lock up only a small fraction of the people as the U.S. also saw drops in crime.

The Trump administration has proposed slashing hundreds of millions in federal funding from school safety grants, youth mentoring programs and gang intervention networks, which research shows can help curb crime.

Jeff Asher, a leading expert in the field of criminology, deemed the recent period “the great murder decline,” which he attributed to “strong investment in communities from private and public sources after the shock of the pandemic.”

While the LAPD is already shrinking, some police critics continue to argue for shifting resources from the multibillion-dollar police budget to pay for programs that pull people out of poverty and provide them with stable income and housing.

LAPD Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton told The Times that beefed-up police presence on city streets in response to recent emergencies has almost certainly had a deterrent effect that reduced killings, in addition to efforts by gang interventionists and social workers.

But Hamilton, who runs the department’s detective bureau, warned that such gains could be eroded if the department continues to lose officers amid the city’s ongoing fiscal crisis. The city could also see an increase during the hot summer months when bloodshed tends to spike, he cautioned.

“Obviously we flooded the streets during the fires and during the unrest,” he said. The department’s strategy typically involves going after the small group of hardcore offenders driving most of the violence, an approach Hamilton said is paying off.

“I think we’re seeing the dividends of that, as opposed to casting a wide net,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for the Trump administration to lay off tens of thousands of federal employees and downsize their agencies without seeking the approval of Congress.

In an 8-1 vote, the justices lifted an order from a federal judge in San Francisco who blocked mass layoffs at more than 20 departments and agencies.

The court has sided regularly with President Trump and his broad view of executive power on matters involving federal agencies.

In a brief order, the court said “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful,” referring to the plans to reduce staffing. But it said it was not ruling on specific layoffs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the decision on the grounds that it was narrow and temporary.

Dissenting alone, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should not have intervened.

“Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions,” she wrote.

Since mid-April, the court has handed down a series of temporary orders that cleared the way for Trump’s planned cutbacks in funding and staffing at federal agencies.

Litigation will continue in the lower courts, but the justices are not likely to reverse course and rule next year that they made a mistake in allowing the staffing cutbacks to proceed.

The layoff case posed the question of whether Congress or the president had the authority to downsize agencies.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said Congress, not the president, creates federal agencies and decides on their size and their duties.

“Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress,” she said on May 22.

Her order barred more than 20 departments and agencies from carrying out mass layoffs in response to an executive order from Trump.

They included the departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation and Veterans Affairs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration and the National Science Foundation.

She said the planned layoffs are large. The Health and Human Services department plans to cut 8,000 to 10,000 employees and the Energy Department 8,500. The Veterans Administration had planned to lay off 83,000 employees but said recently it will reduce that number to about 30,000.

Labor unions had sued to stop the layoffs as illegal.

Illson agreed that the agencies were not acting on their own to trim their staffs. Rather, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget under Russ Vought was leading the reorganization and restructuring of dozen of agencies. She said only Congress can reorganize agencies.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, turned down the administration’s appeal of the judge’s order.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers insisted the president had the full authority to fire tens of thousands of employees.

“The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said in his appeal, “and the President does not need special permission from Congress.”

He said federal law allows agencies to reduce their staffs.

“Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has ever intended to make federal bureaucrats a class with lifetime employment, whether there was work for them to do or not,” Sauer wrote.

July 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of the Interior on Tuesday took steps to make it easier for oil and gas companies to “commingle” multiple U.S. onshore drilling lease applications.

The proposed updates to oil and gas regulations in DOI’s Bureau of Land Management would allow gas and oil company operators to combine, or commingle, multiple federal leases as a means to boost productivity and, the department added, to “better reflect modern industry practices.”

“This is about common sense and catching up with today’s technology,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

The move is a facet to U.S. President Donald Trump‘s recently passed tax and spending law to permit production via different leases, often under different ownership, and using the same well pad, which is the the cleared site where production facilities operate.

“Commingling” is an industry term to define the intentional or unintentional blending of fuels either to mix similar products together for transport and storage, or to create a newer product with specific characteristics.

Currently, the bureau restricts commingling to leases only with identical mineral ownership, royalty rates and revenue distribution.

The proposed policy switch has a July 15 effective date, barring no unforeseen issues, and overwhelmingly favors corporate interests.

Burgum says the current rules were written “for a different era.”

The administration said the proposed commingling of applications would reduce environmental effects, lower operating costs and increase corporate efficiency.

“These updates will help us manage public resources more efficiently, support responsible energy production, and make sure taxpayers and tribes get every dollar they’re owed,” Burgum continued in a statement.

The department argues it will unlock “energy potential that is currently tied up in regulatory red tape,” and further claimed it could result in nearly $2 billion in annual savings for the oil and gad industry.

Federal regulators for decades treated separate reservoirs with slightly drilling pressures as different reservoirs. The redundancy cost companies about $1.8 billion in avoidable annual costs, which was the same figure cited by DOI as corporate savings.

DOI officials went on to state how those savings could give corporate entities the ability to reinvest in new energy production which, officials added, would help “drive domestic energy development while reducing the need” for a company to invest in extra equipment.

The changes in federal rules could result in a 10% spike in production and over 100,000 extra barrels per day added to American output, Energy Department officials said.

On Tuesday, the administration said the Bureau of Land Management plans to “move quickly” to update the proposed federal regulations after a period of public comment and before the July 15 start date of the new policy.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is ending the temporary status for nearly 80,000 Hondurans and Nicaraguans that has allowed them to live and work in the U.S. for a quarter of a century after a devastating hurricane hit Central America, according to federal government notices — a move that comes as the White House pushes to make more immigrants in the U.S. eligible for deportation.

The notices are part of a wider effort by the current administration to make good on campaign promises to carry out mass deportations of immigrants. It’s doing this by going after people in the country illegally or those who’ve committed crimes that make them eligible for deportation but also by removing protections from hundreds of thousands of people, many admitted under the Biden administration.

Temporary Protected Status is a temporary protection that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people of various nationalities who are in the United States, which prevents them from being deported and allows them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively been seeking to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal.

Administration says conditions have changed

The Department of Homeland Security said Monday in the Federal Register — in a notice set to become official on Tuesday — that Secretary Kristi Noem had reviewed the country conditions in Honduras and Nicaragua. She concluded the situations there had improved enough since the initial decision in 1999 that people currently protected by those temporary designations could return home.

The department estimated that roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans in the U.S. are covered by the status that will now expire in about two months. However, the TPS Alliance, which advocates for immigrants covered by these temporary protections, estimated that about 40,000 Hondurans would be affected because many had obtained legal residency through various immigration channels.

Temporary Protected Status for both nationalities expired Saturday. The notices said the protections will be terminated 60 days after the notices are officially published in the Federal Register.

TPS is usually granted when conditions in someone’s home country make it difficult to return. People covered by it must register with the Department of Homeland Security and then they’re protected from being deported and can work.

However, it does not grant them a pathway to citizenship and the secretary must renew it regularly, often in 18-month intervals.

When their status officially ends, Hondurans and Nicaraguans currently covered by the Temporary Protected Status can be deported and their work permits will be terminated if they can’t find another avenue to stay in the country.

Critics say ‘temporary’ became permanent

Critics say that successive administrations — especially the Biden administration — essentially rubber-stamped these renewals regardless, and people covered by what’s supposed to be a temporary status end up staying in the United States for years.

The Trump administration has already terminated TPS for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians, and thousands of people from Afghanistan, Nepal and Cameroon. Some of them, like Venezuelans, Haitians and Ukrainians, have pending lawsuits at federal courts.

An additional 250,000 Venezuelans are still protected under TPS until September, as well as thousands of Syrians. TPS for Ethiopians expires in December, for Yemenis and Somalians in March 2026, and for Salvadoreans in September 2026.

During the Biden administration, the number of people protected by TPS grew significantly. Nearly 1 million Venezuelans and Haitians were protected.

Jose Palma, co-coordinator at the National TPS Alliance, said the termination announced Monday will affect people who have lived in the United States for nearly three decades.

“They have established families. Investments. It is a community that …. has undergone annual background checks, that has shown … all its contributions to this country,” Palma said. “It’s cruel what’s happening.”

Litigation delayed ending the protections

Temporary protections for both countries were initially granted in 1999 following 1998’s Hurricane Mitch. The first Trump administration attempted to end the protections but they both remained in place after litigation.

Homeland Security wrote in the Federal Register notice that Honduras had “witnessed significant changes in the 26 years since Hurricane Mitch’s destruction.”

“Honduras has made significant progress recovering from the hurricane’s destruction and is now a popular tourism and real estate investment destination,” the department wrote. The department said the Honduran government in January had launched a plan called “Brother, Come Home,” which aims to help Hondurans deported from the U.S. with money and help finding a job.

Of Nicaragua, Noem wrote: “Nicaragua has made significant progress recovering from the hurricane’s destruction with the help of the international community and is now a growing tourism, ecotourism, agriculture, and renewable energy leader.”

Honduras Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Antonio García expressed disappointment at the announcement Monday.

“They argue that Honduras has foreign investment, tourism and its program ‘Honduran come home’ and that there are conditions to return,” García said. But he said it was the anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump administration that was really behind it.

“They came to power with that and they’re getting it done for their electorate,” he said.

Francis García has lived in the United States for almost 30 years and has been a TPS beneficiary for 25. Her three adult children were born in the United States, a country she considers her own.

“I feel sad, worried and scared,” said Garcia, 48, who never went back to her country. “I am very afraid to return to Honduras. I can’t imagine it; I wouldn’t want to.”

Like Garcia, Teofilo Martinez, 57, has lived half of his life in the U.S., most of it under TPS protection. He arrived with nothing but now has his own construction company and he is also a Realtor.

“We ask that our good behavior and contributions be taken into consideration,” Martinez said. “There are no conditions in Honduras for us to return.”

Santana and Salomon write for the Associated Press. Salomon reported from Miami. Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, contributed to this report.

The government’s admission about sex offender signals a retreat from a narrative once pushed by President Trump’s administration.

A United States government review has found no evidence that sex offender Jeffrey Epstein kept a secret client list, and reaffirmed that he died by suicide in federal custody in 2019, undercutting years of conspiracy theories.

The acknowledgement that Epstein did not maintain a list of clients who received underage girls marks a clear retreat from a narrative once promoted by members of US President Donald Trump’s administration. Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi even claimed in a Fox News interview that such a document was “sitting on my desk”, awaiting her review.

The memo, released on Monday by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, stated that a “systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list’.” It also found no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent figures, or grounds to pursue investigations against uncharged third parties.

“After a thorough investigation, FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10, 2019,” the memo said. “This conclusion is consistent with previous findings, including the August 19, 2019 autopsy findings of the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the November 2019 position of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with the investigation of federal correctional officers responsible for guarding Epstein, and the June 2023 conclusions of DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General.”

It concluded by saying that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted”.

The Justice Department also released 10 hours of surveillance footage from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. The footage revealed that no one entered Epstein’s cell on the day he died by suicide.

‘We were all told more was coming’

Conservatives who have sought proof of a government cover-up of Epstein’s activities quickly expressed outrage at the announcement.

Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec posted: “We were all told more was coming. That answers were out there and would be provided. Incredible how utterly mismanaged this Epstein mess has been. And it didn’t have to be.”

Separately, former Trump ally, billionaire Elon Musk, shared an image of a scoreboard reading, “The Official Jeffrey Epstein Pedophile Arrest Counter”, which was set at zero.

On June 5, Musk claimed that Trump appeared in the Epstein files and later posted a video on X showing Trump at a party with Epstein. These posts, now deleted, were part of an ongoing feud between Musk and Trump linked to Trump’s new tax cuts and spending bill.

What’s the time? Oh look, it’s no-one-has-been-arrested-o’clock again … pic.twitter.com/CO9xJz68Tf

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 7, 2025

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones wrote, “Next the DOJ will say ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed’,” calling the conclusion “over the top sickening”.

‘Epstein’s crimes and death’

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the Justice Department’s “exhaustive investigation”.

When questioned about the client list mentioned in February’s Fox News interview, Leavitt clarified that Bondi was actually referring to the broader collection of Epstein case files.

Epstein was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019, weeks after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, in a suicide that foreclosed the possibility of a trial.

The Justice Department and FBI’s disclosure that Epstein took his own life is hardly a revelation, even though conspiracy theorists have continued to challenge that conclusion.

In November 2019, for instance, then-Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press news agency that he had reviewed security footage that revealed that no one entered the area where Epstein was housed on the night he died, and expressed confidence that Epstein’s death was a suicide.

However, Epstein’s ties to the rich and famous have led many to believe, without evidence, that others were behind his death, in an effort to cover up their own crimes.

If you or someone you know is at risk of suicide, these organisations may be able to help.

GREENBELT, Md. — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he’s released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday.

The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him.

Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia’s American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him being expelled again.

Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he’s released from jail and send him to a “third country” that isn’t his native El Salvador. Guynn said he didn’t know which country that would be.

Abrego Garcia became a flash point over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family.

Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have characterized the case as “preposterous” and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation.

A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns that the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were “contradictory statements” by the Trump administration.

For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a “third country” that isn’t El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans.

Later that day, Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia “will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working in construction and raising a family with his wife.

Xinis is still considering Abrego Garcia’s lawyers’ request to send him to Maryland if he’s released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia’s mistaken deportation can continue.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.

WASHINGTON — Jeffrey Epstein did not maintain a “client list,” the Justice Department acknowledged Monday as it said no more files related to the wealthy financier’s sex trafficking investigation would be made public despite promises from Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi that had raised the expectations of conservative influencers and conspiracy theorists.

The acknowledgment that the well-connected Epstein did not have a list of clients to whom underage girls were trafficked represents a public walk-back of a theory that the Trump administration had helped promote, with Bondi suggesting in a Fox News interview earlier this year that such a document was “sitting on my desk” in preparation for release.

Even as it released video from inside a New York jail meant to definitively prove that Epstein died by suicide, the department also said in a memo that it was refusing to release other evidence investigators had collected. Bondi for weeks had suggested that more material was going to be revealed — “It’s a new administration and everything is going to come out to the public,” she said at one point — after a first document dump she had hyped angered President Trump’s base by failing to deliver revelations.

That episode, in which conservative internet personalities were invited to the White House in February and provided with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified” that contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain, has spurred far-right influencers to lambast and deride Bondi.

After the first release fell flat, Bondi said officials were pouring over a “truckload” of previously withheld evidence she said had been handed over by the FBI. In a March TV interview, she claimed the Biden administration “sat on these documents, no one did anything with them,” adding: “Sadly these people don’t believe in transparency, but I think more unfortunately, I think a lot of them don’t believe in honesty.”

But after a months-long review of evidence in the government’s possession, the Justice Department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” the memo says. The department noted that much of the material was placed under seal by a court to protect victims and “only a fraction” of it “would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.”

The two-page memo bore the logos of the Justice Department and the FBI but was not signed by any individual official.

“One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to victims,” the memo says. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.”

Conservatives who have sought proof of a government cover-up of Epstein’s activities and death expressed outrage Monday over the department’s position. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec posted: “We were all told more was coming. That answers were out there and would be provided. Incredible how utterly mismanaged this Epstein mess has been. And it didn’t have to be.”

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones wrote that “next the DOJ will say ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed,’ calling it “over the top sickening.” Elon Musk shared a series of photos of a clown applying makeup appearing to mock Bondi for saying the client list doesn’t exist after suggesting months ago that it was on her desk.

Among the evidence that the Justice Department says it has in its possession are photographs and more than 10,000 videos and images that officials said depicted child sex abuse material or “other pornography.” Bondi had earlier suggested that part of the reason for the delay in releasing additional Epstein materials was because the FBI needed to review “tens of thousands” of recordings that she said showed Epstein “with children or child porn.”

The Associated Press published an article last week about the unanswered questions surrounding those videos.

Multiple people who participated in the criminal cases of Epstein and former British socialite girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell told AP that they had not seen and did not know of a trove of recordings along the lines of what Bondi had referenced. Indictments and detention memos also don’t allege the existence of video recordings and neither Epstein nor Maxwell were charged with possession of child sex abuse material even though that would have been easier for prosecutors to prove than the sex trafficking counts they faced.

The AP did find reference in a filing in a civil lawsuit to the discovery by the Epstein estate of videos and pictures that could constitute child sex abuse material, but lawyers involved in that case said a protective order prevents them from discovering the specifics of that evidence.

The Justice Department did not respond to a detailed list of questions from AP about the videos Bondi was referencing.

Monday’s memo does not explain when or where they were located, what they depict and whether they were newly found as investigators scoured their collection of evidence or were known for some time to have been in the government’s possession.

Epstein was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019, weeks after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, in a suicide that foreclosed the possibility of a trial.

The department’s disclosure that Epstein took his own life is hardly a revelation even though conspiracy theorists have continued to challenge that conclusion.

In 2019, for instance, then-Atty. Gen. William Barr told the AP in an interview that he had personally reviewed security video that revealed that no one entered the area where Epstein was housed on the night he died and Barr had concluded that Epstein’s suicide was the result of “a perfect storm of screw-ups.”

More recently, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have insisted in television and podcast interviews that the evidence was clear that Epstein had killed himself.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

When a group of armed, masked men was spotted dragging a woman into an SUV in the Fashion District last week, a witness called 911 to report a kidnapping.

But when Los Angeles Police Department officers arrived, instead of making arrests, they formed a line to protect the alleged abductors from an angry crowd of onlookers demanding the woman’s release.

The reported kidnappers, it turned out, were special agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell defended the officers’ response, saying their first responsibility was to keep the peace and that they had no authority to interfere with the federal operation.

In political and activist circles, and across social media, critics blasted the LAPD for holding back the crowd instead of investigating why the agents were arresting the woman, who was later found to be a U.S. citizen.

“What happened downtown on Tuesday morning certainly looked and felt like LAPD was supporting ICE,” said Mike Bonin, a former City Council member who is now executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A.

Kimberly Noriega, left, speaks with her aunt, Anita Neri Lozano, at Veterans Memorial Park in Culver City on Sunday. The family was attending a news conference regarding the arrest of a beloved street vendor, Ambrocio Lozano.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

The incident was one of more than half a dozen in recent weeks in which the LAPD responded to federal immigration enforcement actions that were called in as kidnappings.

The presence of local police officers at the scenes — even if they are not actively assisting ICE — has led some city leaders to question the department’s role in an ongoing White House crackdown that has swept up hundreds of immigrants and sown fear across Southern California.

Incidents of impostors masquerading as law enforcement have compounded the situation, along with rumors — so far unverified — that federal authorities have enlisted bounty hunters or private security contractors for immigration arrests.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called coverage of one reported kidnapping a “hoax” in a post Tuesday on X and said: “ICE does not employ bounty hunters to make arrests.”

In a letter to the Police Commission last week, City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said the LAPD should make sure federal agents who cover their faces and often use unmarked vehicles are who they claim to be.

“Our residents have a right to know who is operating in their neighborhoods and under what legal authority,” wrote Rodriguez, whose district includes the San Fernando Valley. “Allowing unidentified actors to forcibly detain individuals without oversight is not only reckless — it erodes public trust and undermines the very rule of law.”

She said that city leaders couldn’t allow “bounty-hunter-style tactics to take root in our city,” and urged the commission, the LAPD’s civilian policymaking body, to “develop proper legal and safe protocol that provide for officer safety, transparency and accountability to our communities.”

Residents stand behind a line of Vernon police officers after an immigration raid in the city of Bell on June 20.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“This lack of identification is unacceptable. It creates an environment ripe for abuse and impersonation, enabling copycat vigilantes to pose as federal agents,” Rodriguez wrote.

State and local officials have proposed legislation to increase transparency around officer identification, but it’s unclear if the bills will become law — and whether they could actually be enforced against federal agents.

Police Commission President Erroll Southers said Tuesday that he and another commissioner met with City Council members to discuss the Police Department’s response to the Trump administration’s aggressive sweeps. Several commissioners questioned McDonnell about how LAPD officers are supposed to respond to reported kidnappings.

Los Angeles police officers stand guard as community members protest recent immigration raids in front of the Federal Building in downtown L.A. on June 18.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

McDonnell said the department created new guidelines that require a supervisor to respond and instruct LAPD officers to verify the purported ICE agents are legitimate, preserving a record of the interaction on body-worn cameras.

The chief said the top priority for officers is maintaining the safety of all those present, but ultimately officers have no authority to interfere with a federal operation.

According to a new poll from YouGov, a public opinion research firm, nearly three-quarters of Californians believe local police officers should arrest federal immigration agents who “act maliciously or knowingly exceed their authority under federal law.”

The same survey also found that a majority of state residents want to completely forbid California officials from collaborating with immigration enforcement and make it easier for citizens to file lawsuits when “authorities violate the due process rights of immigrants.”

The LAPD has long claimed that it has no role in civil immigration enforcement, but the department is now facing pressure from City Hall and beyond to go further and protect Angelenos who are undocumented.

A motion considered this week by the L.A. City Council would, among other things, limit the LAPD’s “support to agencies performing immigration enforcement.”

Eastside residents and others march in Boyle Heights on Tuesday as part of a series of “Reclaim Our Streets” actions being conducted in protest of federal immigration enforcement operations.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

LAPD officials say that the department has responded to at least seven calls in which people contacted 911 to report a kidnapping that turned out to be an ICE operation.

One emergency call came in when a group of masked federal Border Patrol agents was spotted staging near Dodgers Stadium last week, sparking a wave of speculation online about potential immigration enforcement at the ballpark. LAPD officers responded to the scene and again provided crowd control after a group of protesters showed up.

Several police supervisors said that in the past, it was customary for federal agents conducting surveillance in a given LAPD division to give the area’s watch commander a heads-up as a courtesy. But that longstanding practice has ended, leaving them largely left in the dark about the timing and location of planned immigration raids.

Cmdr. Lillian Carranza said it was irresponsible for people to describe the arrests as “kidnappings” and encourage people to call 911, saying that there is misinformation circulating online about how and when federal authorities can arrest someone. Authorities don’t need to present a warrant when encountering someone on the street, she said; all they need is probable cause.

“If people have concerns about the conduct of federal agents, they need to seek justice in court,” she said. “That is the place to litigate the case. Not the streets.”

In a testy exchange last month, McDonnell told the City Council that even if he knew about an immigration operation beforehand, he would not alert city leaders.

The LAPD’s relationship with ICE has been the subject of intense debate on social media platforms such as Reddit, where some commenters argued that the department’s focus on policing protesters was a tacit endorsement of the federal government.

Much of the discussion has fixated on an incident that occurred last week in downtown Los Angeles in which a woman named Andrea Guadalupe Velez was detained by agents clad in bulletproof vests with gaiters over their faces.

A livestream video showed a man, Luis Hipolito, who was later arrested, asking agents for their names and badge numbers.

“I’m calling 911 right now,” he told the agents.

“911, I want to report a crime. I want to report a crime,” Hipolito is heard saying on the phone.

“What are you reporting?” an operator is heard asking.

“They’re kidnapping kids, they’re kidnapping people on Nine and Main Street,” he is heard saying. “I need LAPD right here, right now. Nine and Main Street. They’re kidnapping, they’re kidnapping people.”

After several agents were seen piling on top of Hipolito, LAPD officers arrived at the scene. They formed a line between the agents and the angry crowd, members of whom were shouting to release Hipolito.

Homeland Security’s McLaughlin said Velez “was arrested for assaulting an ICE enforcement officer.”

Federal authorities said in court filings that Velez “abruptly” stepped into the path of an agent in “an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.”

Velez, a Cal Poly Pomona graduate who is 4 feet 11, allegedly stood in the path of the agent with her arms extended. The agent couldn’t stop in time and was struck in his head and chest, federal authorities allege.

Velez’s mother, Margarita Flores, was watching in her rearview mirror, having just dropped her daughter off at the scene.

Flores said she saw a man running toward her daughter and then Velez falling to the ground. Flores said the men didn’t have identification or license plates on their car.

Fearing a kidnapping, she told her other daughter, Estrella Rosas, to call the police. When the LAPD arrived, Rosas said, her sister “went running to one of the police officers in hopes that they could help her.”

“But one of the ICE agents went back after her and fully [put] her in handcuffs,” Rosas said. “He physically had to carry her to put her inside the car and they drove away in the car that had no license plates.”

Velez spent two days in a federal detention facility. Charged with assaulting a federal officer, she made her initial court appearance last week and was released on $5,000 bail. She has not yet entered a plea and is due back in court July 17.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.