same time

WASHINGTON — Republican and Democratic lawmakers at an impasse on reopening the federal government provided few public signs Sunday of meaningful negotiations talking place to end what has so far been a five-day shutdown.

Leaders in both parties are betting that public sentiment has swung their way, putting pressure on the other side to compromise. Democrats are insisting on renewing subsidies to cover health insurance costs for millions of households, while President Trump wants to preserve existing spending levels and is threatening to permanently fire federal workers if the government remains closed.

The squabble comes at a moment of troubling economic uncertainty. While the U.S. economy has continued to grow this year, hiring has slowed and inflation remains elevated as Trump’s import taxes have created a series of disruptions for businesses. At the same time, there is a recognition that the nearly $2-trillion annual budget deficit is financially unsustainable, and reducing it would require a coalition in support of potential tax increases and spending cuts.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, among those appearing on the Sunday news shows, said there have been no talks with Republican leaders since their White House meeting Monday.

“And unfortunately, since that point in time, Republicans, including Donald Trump, have gone radio silent,” said Jeffries (D-N.Y.). “And what we’ve seen is negotiation through deepfake videos, the House canceling votes, and of course President Trump spending yesterday on the golf course. That’s not responsible behavior.”

Trump was asked via text message by CNN’s Jake Tapper about shutdown talks. The Republican president responded with confidence but no details.

“We are winning and cutting costs big time,” Trump said in a text message, according to CNN.

His administration sees the shutdown as an opening to wield greater power over the budget, with multiple officials saying they will save money as workers are furloughed by imposing permanent job cuts on thousands of government workers, a tactic that has never been used before.

Even though it would be Trump’s decision, he believes he can put the blame on the Democrats for the layoffs because of the shutdown.

“It’s up to them,” Trump told reporters Sunday morning before boarding the presidential helicopter. “Anybody laid off, that’s because of the Democrats.”

Republicans on Sunday argued that the administration would take no pleasure in letting go of federal workers, even though the GOP has put funding on hold for infrastructure and energy projects in Democratic areas.

“We haven’t seen the details yet about what’s happening” with layoffs, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on NBC. “But it is a regrettable situation that the president does not want.”

Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said that the administration wants to avoid the layoffs it had indicated might start last week, after a Friday deadline came and went without any decisions being announced.

“We want the Democrats to come forward and to make a deal that’s a clean, continuing resolution that gives us seven more weeks to talk about these things,” Hassett said on CNN. “But the bottom line is that with Republicans in control, the Republicans have a lot more power over the outcome than the Democrats.”

Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California defended his party’s stance on the shutdown, saying on NBC that the possible increase in healthcare costs for “millions of Americans” would make insurance unaffordable in what he called a “crisis.”

But Schiff also noted that the Trump administration has withheld congressionally approved spending from being used, essentially undermining the value of Democrats’ seeking compromises on the budgets as the White House could decline to not honor Congress’ wishes. The Trump administration sent Congress roughly $4.9 billion in “ pocket rescissions” on foreign aid, a process that meant the spending was withheld without time for Congress to weigh in before the previous fiscal year ended last week.

“We need both to address the healthcare crisis and we need some written assurance in the law, I won’t take a promise, that they’re not going to renege on any deal we make,” Schiff said.

The television appearances indicated that Democrats and Republicans are busy talking, deploying internet memes against each other that have raised concerns about whether it’s possible to negotiate in good faith.

Vice President JD Vance said that a video putting Jeffries in a sombrero and thick mustache was simply a joke, even though it came across as racist mocking as Republicans insist that the Democratic demands would lead to healthcare spending on immigrants in the country illegally, a claim that Democrats dispute.

Immigrants in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for any federal healthcare programs, including insurance provided through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid. Still, hospitals do receive Medicaid reimbursements for emergency care that they are obligated to provide to people who meet other Medicaid eligibility requirements but do not have an eligible immigration status.

The challenge is that the two parties do not appear to be having productive conversations with each other in private, even as Republicans insist they are in conversation with their Democratic colleagues.

On Friday, a Senate vote to advance a Republican bill that would reopen the government failed to notch the necessary 60 votes to end a filibuster. Johnson said the House would close for legislative business this week, a strategy that could obligate the Senate to work with the government funding bill that was passed by House Republicans.

“Johnson’s not serious about this,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on CBS. “He sent his all his congressman home last week and home this week. How are you going to negotiate?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Sunday that the shutdown on discretionary spending, the furloughing of federal workers and requirements that other federal employees work without pay will go on so long as Democrats vote no.

“They’ll get another chance on Monday to vote again,” said Thune on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

“And I’m hoping that some of them have a change of heart,” he said.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Walker Lyons took his place in the slot and looked right. Lake McRee crouched on the opposite wing and looked left. The two Trojan tight ends had spent all last Saturday night moving around USC’s formations — split out wide, in the backfield, on the line of scrimmage — paving rush lanes and creating mismatches wherever they went.

Now it was third and short, early in the third quarter of USC’s win over Michigan State, and the two of them were on the field together again, forcing the Spartan defense to decide in a hurry just how Lincoln Riley planned to deploy them.

That unpredictability was precisely the point of the position. It’s why the tight end has been a critical tenet of his Riley’s offense since he started as Oklahoma’s offensive coordinator in 2015. No other position, Riley has come to believe, adds more versatility to an offense.

“It’s the one piece that really can truly do everything,” Riley said. “But it’s also the hardest piece to find.”

During his first three seasons as the Trojans coach, Riley struggled to find that unicorn for his USC offense. Let alone two — or even three — at the same time.

In his first season, in 2022, tight ends accounted for just over 3% of the Trojans’ receiving yards. That number rose to 6% in 2023, then 8% in 2024.

But through a spotless first third of this season, tight ends — and Lyons and McRee, primarily — have contributed 20% of USC’s total passing output in 2025. One reason being the availability of McRee, who has battled a multitude of injuries over his college career. Another being that Riley has used more 12 personnel, with two tight ends on the field, this season than he has before at USC.

“It keeps defenses on their toes,” McRee said. “You don’t really know what we’re going to do, run, pass, or do all of the above out of it.”

The use of 12 personnel has generally been on the rise across all levels of football, including in the NFL, where teams have used two tight end sets nearly 24% of the time through three weeks, according to ESPN. At USC, Riley has gone even further than that, utilizing two-tight end sets at least 35% of the time through four games.

It wasn’t hard to see last Saturday night why he’d lean on that particular scheme, as Lyons took off in motion from the slot. The sophomore tight end slowed just before the third-down snap, as if to prepare to run block, then took off sprinting into the flat. At the same time, McRee sprinted through the seam, taking a linebacker with him.

In the backfield, quarterback Jayden Maiava faked a handoff, forcing another linebacker to bite on the run, while Lyons sprinted into the open space the play design had created. Riley’s modern variation of a triple option would work precisely as planned, as Maiava lofted an easy pass to Lyons, who ran 10 yards for his second touchdown in three weeks.

USC tight end Walker Lyons (85) heads onto the field after talking to coach Lincoln Riley.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

It was just the sort of play that reminded what Riley was capable of as a playcaller with two talented tight ends at his disposal.

“I’ve missed it,” Riley said. “Because I love the matchups, I love what it creates. I’m excited about what that room has become for us. I think that room is just going to get better.”

When he first started as a college football coach, tight ends weren’t so much on Riley’s radar. Mike Leach, his mentor at Texas Tech, didn’t seek out or use a tight end unless he happened to have one on his roster.

It wasn’t until Riley left for East Carolina that he started to tinker more with the position.

“We started to get more creative, especially in the run game and some of the different things we could do off of it,” Riley said.

Those innovations accelerated at Oklahoma, where, as offensive coordinator, he was fortunate to inherit redshirt freshman Mark Andrews in 2015. By 2017, Sooner tight ends contributed more than 31% of the team’s passing offense. Andrews had 958 yards and eight touchdowns that season, the most of any tight end in college football. He now stars for the Baltimore Ravens.

“We started building more [at Oklahoma],” Riley said. “We started studying people. And, yeah, we got to the point where we were playing with tight ends, so much in so many ways, it became a comfort.”

He wouldn’t have the same security blanket at USC. The tight end room he took over was totally depleted of talent.

The Trojans two most productive tight ends from 2021, Malcolm Epps and Erik Krommenhoek, were out of eligibility. Their promising freshman, Michael Trigg, had transferred. McRee was the only returner with any real experience, and he’d only played in four games before redshirting.

“That room was a ways off, in terms of the depth and skillset and talent we had,” Riley said. “It’s definitely taken some time.”

Lyons’ arrival would be a major inflection point. A four-star recruit, he’d come to USC from a high school offense that regularly utilized two tight ends. He was used to having his hand in the dirt, as well as working as a receiver on the perimeter.

During his recruitment, Riley showed clips of all the different ways he used Andrews at Oklahoma. He felt Lyons could fill a similar role.

“All the things that he did with [tight ends] was definitely intriguing,” Lyons said, “and it definitely made an impact.”

The sheer amount that Riley asks of tight ends in his offense would add another hurdle in actually making that two-pronged role a reality. McRee, for instance, has technically lined up in 16 different spots through four games, according to Pro Football Focus.

“You’ve got to know protections, route concepts, run game — like, you really have to know it all,” Riley said.

Lyons admits it was overwhelming at first.

“But it’s great now,” he says.

The feeling is mutual for Riley, who knows how rare it is to have two tight ends to build an offense around.

“But when you get it,” he said, “it could be really powerful.”

On the night Los Angeles police claim he carried out an act of gangland vengeance, Oscar Eagle could barely walk.

In March 1998, Eagle was only 17 and using crutches to get around after he was wounded in a drive-by shooting. The bullet is still in his leg to this day, marked by a coin-shaped indentation on his calf.

At the same time that police allege Eagle opened fire on an 18th Street gang member in an act of retribution, he says he was at an East L.A. hospital because a friend’s cousin was giving birth, according to court records.

Oscar Eagle in his childhood neighborhood of Pico-Union in 1996.

(Courtesy of Megan Baca)

Eagle knew he was innocent. Witnesses placed him at the hospital and he said medical records could prove he wasn’t mobile enough to carry out the crime.

But a combination of dubious legal representation and an arrest made by members of a notoriously corrupt unit in the Los Angeles Police Department saw Eagle sentenced to 25-years-to-life in prison.

In July, a judge granted a joint motion from the California Innocence Project and the L.A. County district attorney’s office to vacate Eagle’s conviction, citing ineffective assistance of counsel and questions about the behavior of LAPD detectives on the case.

For reform advocates, Eagle’s case epitomizes the problem with prosecuting teens as adults, but it also marks a positive sign for the L.A. County district attorney’s office’s conviction review unit under Nathan Hochman, who personally appeared at the hearing where Eagle was set free.

“This is what I’ve been dreaming of every day,” a tearful Eagle, 45, said during an interview in late July.

Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California is surrounded by razor wire, tall fences and towers manned by guards with rifles.

(Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

Formed in 2015 and expanded under former Dist. Atty. George Gascón, Hochman has shown a continued commitment to the conviction review unit. After facing criticism for recording just four exonerations from 2015 to 2020, the unit has been involved in 12 in just the last four years, according to a district attorney’s office spokesperson.

“I think that a D.A. sends a strong message when you appear in court, that it’s both a case of serious concern to the D.A.’s office, and it’s one where you want to see justice done,” Hochman said.

Seeing L.A. County’s top prosecutor personally endorse his release is a stark turnaround for Eagle, who spent most of his life believing police would do anything to keep him behind bars.

After entering California’s adult prison system as a teenager, Eagle said he watched a friend die in a riot at Pelican Bay. He spent years in isolation after he says he was erroneously connected to the Mexican Mafia. Both of his parents died while Eagle was locked up, and he can’t even mention their names without tearing up to this day.

Eagle said he grew up in a section of Pico-Union where all his neighbors were affiliated with a local gang set, the Burlington Locos. A young tagger who went by “Clown,” he too wound up part of the crew.

In the late 1990s, Eagle became a target of detectives with an infamous LAPD unit known as C.R.A.S.H., short for Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums.

At the time, the LAPD’s Rampart division was home to C.R.A.S.H. officers who falsified reports and framed civilians, later triggering a scandal that ended with the U.S. Department of Justice placing the LAPD under a consent decree.

Officers watch from inside the front entrance of the LAPD’s Rampart Station in the Westlake district in 2010 as protesters demonstrate outside against police brutality.

(Reed Saxon / Associated Press)

Eagle says that in 1996 he was wrongfully arrested for gun possession as a juvenile by Rafael Perez, the central figure of the Rampart scandal. Perez later admitted the report that led to Eagle’s first arrest was falsified, according to court records.

But it was Eagle’s next run-in with police that proved far more consequential.

In March 1998, 18th Street Gang member Benjamin Urias was shot twice on Burlington Avenue in what police believed to be retribution for a prior attack on a Burlington Locos member, court records show. Urias, who was hospitalized for two days and released, told police the shooter walked with a limp.

Investigators from a C.R.A.S.H. unit based in Rampart locked onto Eagle, due to his gang connections and the fact that he was said to be walking with a limp after he was injured in a shooting, according to his attorney, Megan Baca, of the California Innocence Project.

Charges against Eagle were initially dismissed after Urias failed to show up for a preliminary hearing. But a month later, LAPD homicide detectives Thomas Murrell and Kenneth Wiseman prodded the shooting victim to pick Eagle out of a photo lineup, according to the motion to vacate his conviction.

Urias initially told police he did not recognize anyone in the lineup, records show.

“OK, circle that guy … Number 4 is the one you were pointing to,” Murrell said to Urias, according to a recording of the interview described in court records.

An LAPD spokesperson declined to comment. The audio recording that called the validity of the identification into question was never raised at Eagle’s trial, according to Baca.

Despite concerns about the behavior of the detectives, Hochman said he was not immediately ordering a review of other cases involving Murrell and Wiseman. Neither Rampart detective was part of a C.R.A.S.H. unit.

Murrell denied any wrongdoing and told The Times he remembered Eagle’s name because the then-teenager was a suspect in multiple gang homicides at the time.

He did not offer specifics, but dismissed Eagle’s medical alibi, contending the teen “wasn’t on crutches” when police arrested him.

“If he made an ID, we didn’t cheat, I can tell you that … I’ve never done that,” said Murrell. “We did everything by the book.”

Attempts to contact Wiseman were unsuccessful.

Eagle said things were only made worse by his former attorney, Patrick Lake, who didn’t make an opening statement at trial or raise any of Eagle’s alibi evidence. When Eagle questioned his lawyer, Lake joked that he was “saving the best for last.”

Oscar Eagle with his defense attorney, Megan Baca of the Innocence Project.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

As Eagle’s family grew frustrated in the gallery, he said his mother passed him a note that simply read “fire him.” Eagle tried to get rid of Lake, but a judge denied his request. Eagle was convicted of murder. And since he was tried as an adult, he faced 25-years-to-life.

Lake did not respond to a request for comment. Baca said she had one conversation with Lake, in which he claimed he didn’t remember Eagle or his case.

At the time, prosecutors in California could directly file charges against teens in adult court, sending hundreds of children every year to adult prisons such as Pelican Bay, where Eagle wound up. That practice has been abolished by a change in state law, but Baca said she’s encountered too many cases where teens had their lives stolen because they were wrongfully convicted and tried as adults.

“It’s egregious, but I think that it happens all the time,” Baca said. “So many of my clients were juveniles and they got adult life.”

Eagle said his stay in prison was long and painful. He spent six years in segregated housing, essentially isolation, after Baca said her client was wrongly labeled as a Mexican Mafia associate. He denied any affiliation with the powerful prison-based syndicate. Eagle said prison officials took a leap in logic to link him to the gang based on a “kite,” or prison note, sent by another inmate.

As he grew older behind bars, Eagle started to read voraciously. His father sent recommended books. Eagle says he gravitated toward the Bible.

Oscar Eagle at an L.A. County juvenile detention camp in 1997.

(Courtesy of Megan Baca)

Even though he knew he hadn’t committed the crime that put him in prison, Eagle said he still realized there were things about his life that needed to change.

“I was 30 years old. My perspective started to change. And I started to see this past life that I was living was nonsense,” he said. “I started to have a conscience.”

In 2023, after repeated failures to get his case overturned on appeal, some of Eagle’s friends got the attention of Baca and the California Innocence Project, which worked to bring the case before the conviction review unit. At the same time, Eagle said, he started exchanging letters with an ex-girlfriend from high school, a woman named Monica.

In July, the two squeezed next to each other on Baca’s couch at the lawyer’s Long Beach home, hands interlocked. They’ve since gotten married and are looking to move to Arizona, away from the city and county that nearly took everything away from Eagle.

There’s still a lot for Eagle to get used too — he’s never driven a car, the concept of Uber is still bizarre to him — but Monica says there’s one silver lining to the prison term Eagle never should have served. She wouldn’t have married the guy who was sent away all those years ago.

“He’s a whole new person from when he went in,” she said.

More than 35 years after murdering their parents in a volley of shotgun blasts, brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez are the closest to freedom since they were arrested and sentenced to life in prison.

The siblings — who infamously gunned down their mother and father in 1989 at the family’s Beverly Hills home — will go before a California parole board this week.

In recent years, the brothers have become a cause celebre amid mounting evidence that the slayings followed years of sexual abuse by their father.

A Los Angeles County judge agreed to resentence them earlier this year over the objections of L.A.’s top prosecutor.

Now, if the parole board finds they have been rehabilitated, the brothers could soon be sent home to reunite with the family members who have spent years fighting for their release.

But just because the brothers were resentenced doesn’t mean the parole process will be smooth sailing.

When are the hearings? Can I watch?

The brothers will each have individual hearings. Erik, 54, will go before the board at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday. The hearing for Lyle, 57, will take place at approximately the same time on Friday. Each hearing is expected to last between two and three hours, and the board will likely make a decision immediately, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Parole board hearings take place over video conference. The brothers will appear from a room in the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the brothers’ parole attorney, Heidi Rummel, will also appear remotely.

While parole hearings are a matter of public record, CDCR does not live stream the events. A Times reporter will watch the hearing live in Sacramento and publish the results immediately after.

How does a parole board hearing work? Who gets to speak?

The bulk of a parole board hearing involves the commissioners questioning the person who is seeking release from prison. But other parties play a role as well.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, or a prosecutor from his office, will be able to argue against release.

The district attorney’s office filed a 75-page “statement of view” with the parole board which details what prosecutors describe as the brothers’ “shifting stories” about the night of the murders. Such details include their attempts to arrange for an alibi and the fact that they “convincingly and repeatedly” lied to investigators and relatives that the killings must have been a mafia hit.

Hochman and his prosecutors have also attacked the idea that the brothers killed in self-defense. Despite the abuse allegations against their father, prosecutors say there is no evidence that Jose or Kitty planned to kill the brothers on the night of the murders.

Normally, the family of the victim in a case would also be able to speak against release if they so chose. However, the vast majority of Kitty and Jose Menendez’s living relatives want the brothers set free and formed a coalition to advocate for Erik and Lyle years ago. Several of them intend to speak and others have submitted letters in support of the brothers, according to Laziza Lambert, a family spokeswoman.

Milton Anderson, Kitty Menendez’s brother, was opposed to Erik and Lyle’s release but he died earlier this year. His attorney, R.J. Dreiling, said he does not have standing to take part in the hearings and it was unclear what, if any, record will be made of Anderson’s objections.

Why are the brothers eligible for parole? What factors will the parole board consider?

The brothers won their resentencing hearing in May. Former Dist. Atty. George Gascón sought to have the brothers resentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison last year, and L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic agreed because Hochman’s prosecutors could not prove that Erik and Lyle posed an unreasonable risk to the public.

Since the brothers were under the age of 26 at the time of the murders, the reduced sentence made them eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law.

The parole board must consider a wide array of factors, according to CDCR, including an applicant’s criminal history, level of self-control at the time of crime, their behavior while in prison and personal growth over that time, their post-release plans and the facts of the crime itself.

“The parole board must give great weight to the youth of the brothers at the time of the crime, and ultimately decide if they pose an unreasonable risk to public safety,” said Dmitry Gorin, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor.

While Gorin said there is a “strong case” for the brothers to receive parole, he also noted it is rare for the board to grant freedom to convicted killers, especially in a case with the level of brutality seen in the Menendez slayings. The fact that the brothers admitted to wrongdoing in the killings in open court earlier this year might aid them, according to Gorin.

The brothers could face blistering opposition from Hochman and his prosecutors, who sought to revisit the bloody crime scene time and time again during Erik and Lyle’s resentencing hearing.

“We have consistently opposed their release because they have not demonstrated full insight into their crimes or shown that they have been fully rehabilitated, and therefore continue to pose a risk to society,” the district attorney’s office said in a statement. “We will evaluate our final position based on the evidence presented at the hearing.”

The parole board can also consider any violations of CDCR rules in the brothers’ files, and some recent alleged slip-ups by Erik and Lyle have raised the eyebrows of legal experts.

“They have serious rule violations, including fights, including not coming in from the yards when they were told to. That doesn’t sound that bad, but it can be, depends on what they were doing in the yard,” said Nancy Tetrault, who successfully represented Leslie Van Houten, a devout follower of Charles Manson, before the parole board in 2023.

Tetrault also noted that the brothers have been caught with cell phones behind bars, a violation of prison rules that could be problematic for the parole board.

“It’s a very serious rule violation,” she said. “Why? Because that is the connection to criminality outside of prison.”

Both Gorin and Terault said it is unlikely that the board would render different decisions each day. Given they are accused of the same crime, the results of Erik’s hearing on Thursday will likely forecast what happens to Lyle 24 hours later.

What happens after the decision?

If the parole board grants release for one or both brothers, Gov. Gavin Newsom will have the right to review or reject the decision within 120 days. While Newsom hasn’t publicly commented on the case — and has separately considered granting the brothers’ clemency — his track record on high-profile parole cases doesn’t bode well for the brothers.

When the parole board granted release for Sirhan Sirhan — the man convicted of assassinating Robert F. Kennedy in downtown Los Angeles — Newsom overruled them. The governor also overruled the parole board multiple times when they sought to release Van Houten, though his decision was eventually thrown out by a California appeals court.

Newsom declined through a spokeswoman to comment before the hearing on whether he believed the brothers should be released.

If the board denies the brothers, a new hearing can be set anytime within the next three to 15 years. Applicants can petition for a new hearing earlier than that if they argue the circumstances of their case have changed.

“For example, if they completed, you know, an intense class on inside or something like that, and they think that they deserve to be heard within a year,” Tetrault said.

Newsom could also refer the decision to the entire state parole board for a second opinion, as he did in the case of convicted killer Stephanie Lazarus, a former LAPD detective.

The brothers would still have other paths to freedom even without parole. Newsom could still grant them clemency, and a motion for a new trial is still working its way through the legal system.

In Nicholas Boggs’ lively and vigorously researched biography of James Baldwin, the great writer’s search for the source of his art dovetails with his lifelong search for meaningful relationships. Black, gay, born without the benefit of money or guidance, repeatedly harassed and beaten in his New York City hometown, Baldwin physically removed himself from the turmoil of America, living abroad for long stretches to find proper distance and see his country plain. In “The Fire Next Time,” “Another Country” and “Giovanni’s Room,” among other works, Baldwin gleaned hard truths about the ways in which white people, white men in particular, deny their own sexual confusions to lash out at those who they feel may pose a grave threat their own machismo codes and their absolute dominion over Black Americans. In his novels and essays, Baldwin became a sharp beacon of hard truths.

Baldwin was reared in an oppressive atmosphere of religious doctrine and physical violence; his stepfather David, a laborer and preacher, adhered to an quasi-Calvinist approach to child-rearing that forbade art’s graven images in the home and encouraged austerity and renunciation. Books, according to Baldwin’s father, were “written by white devils.” As a child, Baldwin was beaten and verbally lashed by his father; his brief tenure as a religious orator in the church was, according to Boggs, a way to “usurp his father at his own game.” At the same time, Boggs notes, Baldwin used the church “to mask the deep confusion caused by his burgeoning sexual desires.”

As a child, Baldwin is marginalized for being too sensitive, too bookish, a “sissy.” At school, he finds mentors like Orilla “Bill” Miller and the Harlem Renaissance poet Countee Cullen, who introduced him to Dickens and the 18th century Russian novelists. When his stepfather loses his job, it is down to Baldwin to support his mother and eight siblings. Taking a job at a local army base, he is confronted with virulent race-baiting from his white supervisor and co-workers.

Baldwin leaves Harlem behind shortly thereafter and falls into the artistic ferment of Greenwich Village in the ‘40s. He shares ideas about art, music and literature with a fellow budding aesthete named Eugene Worth until he jumps to his death from the George Washington Bridge in the winter of 1946. His death “cast a pall over Baldwin’s life,” Boggs writes, “but it would also play a major and enduring role in his development as a writer.” Baldwin, who had developed strong romantic feelings for Worth but never made them plain to his friend, makes a promise to himself, vowing to adjoin his private life as a gay Black man to the public life of an artist, so that “my infirmities might be forged into weapons.”

Beauford Delaney, a respected painter and Village fixture, becomes Baldwin’s lodestar and encourages him to confront his sexuality head-on in his art. What that art might entail, Baldwin doesn’t yet know, but it would have something to do with writing. Delaney would become a lifelong friend, even after he began suffering from mental deterioration, dying after years of hospitalization in 1979.

Baldwin’s life as a transatlantic nomad begins in 1948, when he arrives in Paris after winning a scholarship to study there. More importantly, he meets 17-year-old Lucien Happersberger, a Swiss painter, and a relationship blossoms. Happersberger shares deep artistic and sexual affinities with Baldwin, but Lucien is also attracted to women and becomes a kind of template for Baldwin’s future partners, most notably the Turkish actor Engin Cezzar, that he would pursue until his death in 1987.

Baldwin held these romantic relationships in tantalizing suspension, his love affairs caught between the poles of desire and intimacy, the heat of passion and long-term commitment. The love triangles these relationships engendered became a rich source for his fiction. Boggs asserts that many of the author’s most enduring works, including “Go Tell It on the Mountain” and his breakthrough novel about gay love “Giovanni’s Room,” sprang from these early, formative encounters. “The structure of a not fully requited love was a familiar and even eroticized one for Baldwin,” Boggs writes, “and would come to fuel his art.”

Away from the States, Baldwin was freed “from the trap of color,” but he was pulled ever deeper into the racial unrest in America, taking on journalism assignments to see for himself how systemic racial oppression worked in the Jim Crow South. In Atlanta, Baldwin meets Martin Luther King Jr., who invites him to Montgomery to witness the impact of the bus boycott. Entering a local restaurant, he is greeted with stony stares; a white woman points toward the colored entrance. In Mississippi, he interviews NAACP organizer Medgar Evers, who is busy investigating a lynching. Baldwin notes the climate of fear among Black citizens in the city, speaking to him like “ the German Jews must have talked when Hitler came to power.”

Nicholas Boggs tracked down a previously unwritten-about lover of James Baldwin for his new biography.

(Noah Loof)

These eyewitness accounts would feed into Baldwin’s impassioned essays on race such as “Down at the Cross” and his 1972 nonfiction book “No Name in the Street.” For Boggs, Baldwin’s nonfiction informed his fiction; there are “continuities and confluences between and across his work in both genres.” The throughline across all of the work was Baldwin’s ire at America’s failure to recognize that the “so-called Negro” was “trapped, disinherited and despised, in a nation that … is still unable to recognize him as a human being.”

Baldwin would spend the rest of his life toggling between journalism and fiction, addressing racism in the States in articles for Esquire, Harper’s and other publications while spending most of his time in Turkey and France, where a growing circle of friends and lovers nourished his muse and satisfied his need for constant social interaction when he wasn’t wrestling with his work, sometimes torturously so. Boggs’ book finds Baldwin in middle age poised between creative fecundity and despair, growing frustrated with America’s failure of nerve regarding race and homosexuality as well as his own thwarted partnerships. Despite a powerful bond with Engin Cezarr and, later, the French painter Yoran Cazac, who flitted in and out of Baldwin’s Istanbul life across the 1970s, the picture of Baldwin that emerges in Boggs’ biography is that of an artist who treasures emotional continuity but creatively feeds on inconstancy.

In fact, Cazac had never been cited in any previous Baldwin biography. Boggs discovered him when he came across an out-of-print children’s book called “Little Man, Little Man,” a collaboration between Cazac and Baldwin that prompted Boggs’ search. After following a number of flimsy leads, he finally finds Cazac in a rural French village, and they talk.

The novels that Baldwin penned during his last great burst of productivity, most notably “If Beale Street Could Talk” and “Just Above My Head,” have been maligned by many Baldwin fans as noble failures lacking the fire and dramatic power of his early work. Yet Boggs makes a strong case for these books as successful formal experiments in which Baldwin once again transmuted the storms of his personal life into eloquent indictments of systemic racism. The contours of Baldwin’s romantic engagement with Cazac, in particular, would find their way into “Beale Street,” the first time Baldwin used a female narrator to tell the story of a budding young romance doomed by a gross miscarriage of justice. Boldly experimental in both form and content, “Beale Street” and “Just Above My Head” were, in Boggs’ view, unjustly criticized, coming at a time when Baldwin’s reputation was on the decline. Only novelist Edmund White gleaned something special in his review of “Just Above My Head,” Baldwin’s final novel, finding in his depictions of familial love a Dickensian warmth which “glow with the steadiness and clarity of a flame within a glass globe.”

A literary biography needn’t be an artful accretion of facts, nor should it traffic in salacious gossip and cheapen the subject at hand. Boggs’ even-handed and critically rigorous biography of James Baldwin is guilty of none of these things, mostly because Boggs never strays from the path toward understanding why Baldwin wrote what he did and how his private and public lives were inextricably wound up in his work. Boggs has dug much deeper than his predecessors, including Baldwin’s biographer David Leeming, whose book has been the standard bearer since its 1994 publication. “Baldwin: A Love Story” is superlative, and it should become the new gold standard for Baldwin studies.

Weingarten is the author of “Thirsty: William Mulholland, California Water, and the Real Chinatown.”

People thinking about starting a business or retiring early — before they’re old enough for Medicare — may want to wait until November, when they can see just how much their Affordable Care Act health insurance will cost next year. Sharp increases are expected.

Premiums for ACA health plans, also known as Obamacare, on which many early retirees and small-business owners rely for coverage, are going up, partly because of policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and Congress. At the same time, more generous tax subsidies that have helped most policyholders pay for coverage are set to expire at the end of December.

After that, subsidies would return to what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic. Also being reinstated would be an income cap barring people who earn more than four times the federal poverty level from getting any tax credits to help them purchase coverage. Although Congress potentially could act to extend the credits, people weighing optional life changes should factor in the potential cost if lawmakers fail to do so.

“I would hate for people to make a big decision now and then, in a few months, realize, ‘I’m not even going to qualify for a tax credit next year,’” said Lauren Jenkins, an insurance agent whose brokerage helps people sign up for coverage in Oklahoma. “Coupled with the rate increases, that could be significant, especially for someone at or near retirement, when it could easily cost over $1,000 a month.”

Still, how things play out in the real world will vary.

The key factor is income, as the subsidy amount people receive is primarily based on household income and local insurance costs.

People experiencing the biggest dollar increase in out-of-pocket premiums next year will be those who lose subsidies altogether because they earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level. This year, that’s $62,600 for a single person and $84,600 for a couple.

This “subsidy cliff” was removed in the legislation first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to create enhanced subsidies, but it will be back next year if they expire. About 1.6 million people who earn more than 400% of the poverty threshold bought ACA plans this year, many of them getting some tax credits to help with the premiums, according to KFF data. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“A lot of small-biz owners fall around that level of income,” said David Chase, vice president of policy and advocacy for the Small Business Majority, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, which is urging Congress to extend the credits.

And a good chunk of ACA enrollment consists of small-business owners or their employees because, unlike larger firms, most small businesses don’t offer group health plans.

In the Washington metropolitan area, “7 out of 10 people who qualify for lower premiums [because of the tax credits] are small-business owners,” said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority.

Congress must decide by the end of December whether to extend the subsidies a second time. Permanently doing so could cost taxpayers $335 billion over the next decade, but not acting could cause financial pain for policyholders and pose political repercussions for lawmakers.

Because new premiums and smaller subsidies would take effect in January, the potential fallout has some Republican lawmakers worried about the midterm elections, according to news reports.

Republican pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward warned the GOP in a memo that extending the enhanced credits could mean the difference between success and failure in some midterm races, because support for the premium help “comes from more than two-thirds of Trump voters and three-quarters of Swing voters.”

Although supporters credit the enhanced subsidies for a record 24 million sign-ups for this year’s ACA plans, critics have blamed them for instances in which brokers or consumers engaged in improper enrollment.

“The expanded subsidies were a temporary COVID pandemic policy enacted by congressional Democrats on a party-line vote and scheduled to end after 2025,” said Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank. “They have led to tremendous fraud and waste, they reduce employer coverage, and they should be permitted to expire.”

Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, acknowledged that people earning more than 400% of the poverty level would not be happy with losing access to subsidies, but he expects most to stay enrolled because they want to avoid huge medical bills that could threaten their businesses or savings.

“They are middle-class or upper-income people who are self-employed, or early retirees with significant income, which means they have a lot of assets behind that income,” he said. “These are people who view insurance as financial protection.”

He thinks lawmakers would win political support from voters in this category by addressing two of their other major ACA concerns: that annual deductibles are too high and insurers’ networks of doctors and hospitals are too small.

“If you just give these people money by extending subsidies, it’s only addressing one of their problems, and it’s the one they are least upset about,” Haislmaier said. “That is the political dynamics of this.”

Here’s how the expiration of subsidies could play out for some hypothetical consumers.

People in households earning less than four times the poverty rate would still get subsidies — just not as generous as the current ones.

For example, those whose earnings are at the lower end of the income scale — say, just over 150% of the poverty threshold, or about $23,000 — will go from paying a national average of about $2 a month, or $24 toward coverage for the year, to $72 a month, or $864 a year, according to a KFF online calculator.

On the other end of the income spectrum, a 55-year-old Portland, Ore., couple with a household income of $85,000 would take a big hit on the cost of their benchmark plan. They currently pay about $600 a month in premiums — about 8.5% of their household income — with subsidies kicking in about $1,000 to cover the remainder.

Next year, if the tax credits expire, the same couple would not get any federal help because they earn over four times the poverty limit. They would pay the full monthly premium, with no subsidies, which would be about $1,800, based on initial 2026 premium rates filed with state regulators, said Jared Ortaliza, a policy analyst at KFF.

People should begin to see insurance rates late this fall, and certainly by Nov. 1, when the ACA’s open enrollment season begins, said Jenkins, the Oklahoma insurance agent. That gives them time to mull over whether they want to make changes in their plan — or in their lives, such as quitting a job that has health insurance or retiring early. This year, open enrollment extends to Jan. 15. Under new legislation, that open period will shorten by about a month, starting with the 2027 sign-up period.

Those who do enroll for 2026, especially the self-employed and people retiring early, should closely track their incomes during the year, she said.

It would be easy to bust through that income cap, she said.

If they do, they’ll have to pay back any tax credits they initially qualified for. Their income might rise unexpectedly during the year, for example, pushing them over the limit. An income bump could come from drawing down more money from retirement accounts than planned, landing a new customer account, or even from winning big at a casino.

“Maybe they win $5,000 at the casino, but that puts them $500 over the limit for the year,” Jenkins said. “They might have to pay back $12,000 in tax credits for winning a few thousand at the casino.”

Appleby writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

When Eric Bana is not filming, he’s more than likely riding a motorcycle in a remote part of Australia. He’s been doing it since he was a kid, having grown up in a semi-industrial part of the suburbs of Melbourne on the verge of farmland. Now, it’s his solace on days off.

“It’s a vulnerable feeling, it’s an exciting feeling,” he says on a video call. “You have to be self-sufficient. You have to think worst-case scenario. What happens if I get a flat tire when it’s 120 degrees and there’s no water around? It keeps you awake.”

So when, back in 2019, Bana was given the pilot script for the Netflix limited series “Untamed,” he was immediately attracted. He would play the role of Kyle Turner, an agent in the Investigative Services Branch of the National Park Service in Yosemite — essentially a park detective. It’s a murder mystery yet set against the kind of wilderness that Bana loves.

“I just felt a kinship for Kyle immediately,” he remembers. “I don’t know if it was just like the shared love for the outdoors and how that affects our psyche and our well-being, our sense of self, our emotional journey in life — I just immediately felt very strongly for Kyle.”

In “Untamed,” Eric Bana plays Kyle Turner, an agent in the Investigative Services Branch of the National Park Service. The show is set in Yosemite National Park, though it was filmed British Columbia.

(Ricardo Hubbs / Netflix)

Bana stuck with the project through the COVID pandemic and the Hollywood strikes, allowing the series created by Mark L. Smith of “American Primeval” and daughter Elle Smith to finally hit the streaming service on Thursday. The show finds Bana’s character investigating the death of a young woman who plummets off El Capitan and into two rock climbers. The case unexpectedly connects two other traumatic incidents that have happened in the mountainous wilds — at least one of which directly involves the taciturn Kyle, grieving the death of his young son.

“He exudes that kind of sensitivity and strength at the same time,” Elle Smith says. “It allowed him to just really embody Turner. Because he’s been living in this show for so long, so many years and kept it alive and has remained passionate about it, once we got into production, he was Turner.”

“Untamed” also marks the latest in Bana’s unconventional career that has seen him touch nearly every corner of the Hollywood machine, even though he has always chosen to live in Australia when he’s not working. It never made sense for him to move to Los Angeles when many of his shoots were overseas anyway. When we chat, he’s briefly in town for “Untamed” press.

Though he started his career as a comedian in his home country, he was part of the superhero craze before it was a craze, playing the title role in Ang Lee’s “Hulk,” a movie that’s now undergone a critical reassessment. He’s been a “Star Trek” villain and a Steven Spielberg protagonist in the historical drama “Munich.” (Over the past 12 months, more and more people have been bringing up the role of the Mossad agent tasked to respond to the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics: “With the passing of time, you realize how incredible some of the observations were,” he says.)

Though his career has touched nearly every corner of the Hollywood machine, Eric Bana has continued to live in Australia.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

More recently, he ventured into the world of television, playing the sociopathic John Meehan in the first season of the anthology series “Dirty John.” Bana says he tends not to think about specifically playing characters that contradict his previous work, but he understands that coming off that role probably was one of the reasons he gravitated toward Kyle in “Untamed.”

“There was no doubt that the character of John had a level of toxicity to him that was just so high,” he says, adding, “I realized that Kyle was a warmer character for the audience to follow than John.”

Before he actually got to play Kyle, he started a mini-franchise in Australia with producing partner and director Rob Connolly thanks to “The Dry” and its sequel, in which he plays another investigator reeling from a traumatic past.

For creator Mark Smith, Bana was the ideal person to embody Kyle because of his ability to convey a lot with very little dialogue.

“We felt like he was just so expressive in his eyes and his face,” Mark says. “He can do so much without saying anything, and that was crucial to this guy who really doesn’t want to speak — he doesn’t want to talk to people. He just wants to be kind of off on his own, doing his thing in the wilderness.”

Because Bana got on board early, the Smiths could start writing the rest of the scripts with him in mind. One of Bana’s requests: The more he could be on a horse, the better. In the show, Kyle eschews motor vehicles for a trusty steed, which gives him more access to the less traversed areas of the park. Bana ended up loving his horse.

“I desperately wanted to smuggle him on the plane and take him home,” he says.

Eric Bana and Lily Santiago are often seen on horseback in “Untamed.”

(Netflix)

Mark and Elle Smith conceived of the series after being sent articles about the National Park Service’s Investigative Services Branch. They were not familiar with that world but were nonetheless fascinated by this strange profession that is part FBI agent and part park ranger. Bana had visited Yosemite years ago as a solo tourist but didn’t have the chance to go again before the shoot, which took place in British Columbia.

Still, he spoke to rangers and ISB employees to get a sense of “just how crazy” some of their work can be.

“When you mix drugs, when you mix people coming from all kinds of different backgrounds and having different entitlements to the places that they’re in, it’s really interesting,” he says.

Bana understands from personal experience that the attraction to the outdoors is partially based on the fact that danger is almost always lurking around the corner. In Australia, he adds, “there’s always something trying to get you, whether it be two-legged, four-legged, eight-legged or whatever.”

On the set of “Untamed,” he was incredibly eager to see a bear — and was disappointed when it never happened.

“We had a bear guy on set who was responsible for our and the bears’ safety,” he says. “We had very strict rules around food and all that sort of stuff. I was desperate, desperate to have an encounter with a bear of the positive kind, and I never saw one.”

Elle Smith confirms that most everyone else got to see a bear. “He had really bad bear luck,” she adds.

“We felt like he was just so expressive in his eyes and his face,” says “Untamed” creator Mark L. Smith.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

But even with his lack of bear sightings, Bana’s love of being outside was crucial for the entire production. Mark explains he’s not the kind of star who returns to his trailer, instead pulling up a chair to hang out.

“This was a tough landscape that we were shooting in,” Elle Smith adds. “I think it really helps in terms of tone setting if your movie star is willing to get out on the rock and do the climb. It really helps the crew also feel like they’re able to do the climb.”

Bana was intoxicated by his environment — so much so that he wouldn’t want to go back to the sterility of a soundstage.

“Going to work in a studio after doing something like this — the thought of it is just debilitating creatively,” he says. “There’s something about a camera coming out of a box when the sun rises and going back when the sun goes down. There’s an energy, there’s a cadence to that.”

For his follow-up, he went back into the elements for “Apex,” an upcoming film opposite Charlize Theron, where they play a pair of rock climbers. He says he did intense training in the skill or else he would have looked like a “fool.”

And just like how Bana is willing to let the weather dictate his shooting days, he is also patient with his career. It’s one of the reasons he was willing to wait for “Untamed.”

“I’ve been in this business for a period of time now where I realize you really do have to go with the ebbs and flows and you really do have to pace yourself, but at the same time when you find something that you love you just have to try and protect it,” he says.

It’s something you could also say about the natural world, and Bana hopes that “Untamed,” even with all its dark deeds and buried secrets, encourages audiences to go see for themselves.

“I hope people enjoy the feeling of being in that space, and in a perfect world, feel motivated to go and seek them out,” he says.

He certainly will be.

California lawmakers on Tuesday moved one step closer to placing more guardrails around artificial intelligence-powered chatbots.

The Senate passed a bill that aims to make chatbots used for companionship safer after parents raised concerns that virtual characters harmed their childrens’ mental health.

The legislation, which now heads to the California State Assembly, shows how state lawmakers are tackling safety concerns surrounding AI as tech companies release more AI-powered tools.

“The country is watching again for California to lead,” said Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, on the Senate floor.

At the same time, lawmakers are trying to balance concerns that they could be hindering innovation. Groups opposed to the bill such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation say the legislation is too broad and would run into free speech issues, according to a Senate floor analysis of the bill.

Under Senate Bill 243, operators of companion chatbot platforms would remind users at least every three hours that the virtual characters aren’t human. They would also disclose that companion chatbots might not be suitable for some minors.

Platforms would also need to take other steps such as implementing a protocol for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide or self-harm expressed by users. That includes showing users suicide prevention resources.

The operator of these platforms would also report the number of times a companion chatbot brought up suicide ideation or actions with a user, along with other requirements.

Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson, one of the bill’s co-authors, said she supports innovation but it also must come with “ethical responsibility.” Chatbots, the senator said, are engineered to hold people’s attention including children.

“When a child begins to prefer interacting with AI over real human relationships, that is very concerning,” said Sen. Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa).

The bill defines companion chatbots as AI systems capable of meeting the social needs of users. It excludes chatbots that businesses use for customer service.

The legislation garnered support from parents who lost their children after they started chatting with chatbots. One of those parents is Megan Garcia, a Florida mom who sued Google and Character.AI after her son Sewell Setzer III died by suicide last year.

In the lawsuit, she alleges the platform’s chatbots harmed her son’s mental health and failed to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to these virtual characters.

Character.AI, based in Menlo Park, Calif., is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. The company has said that it takes teen safety seriously and rolled out a feature that gives parents more information about the amount of time their children are spending with chatbots on the platform.

Character.AI asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, but a federal judge in May allowed the case to proceed.

WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers under the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy whose cases were closed — many for reasons beyond their control, including kidnappings and court rulings against the government — will now be able to come into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims, the Biden administration said Tuesday.

The administration on Wednesday will begin to allow the first of thousands with closed cases to pursue their asylum claims within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security announced. More than 30,000 migrants could potentially be eligible, according to government data.

“As part of our continued effort to restore safe, orderly, and humane processing at the Southwest Border, DHS will expand the pool” of asylum seekers eligible for processing, the department said in a statement, including those “who had their cases terminated or were ordered removed in absentia.”

Facing a policy riddled with administrative errors and questions of illegality, immigration judges across the United States ruled against the Trump administration, closing thousands of cases the government had brought against asylum seekers sent to Mexico to await U.S. hearings.

But when President Biden took office and began winding down the policy that he sharply criticized, his administration allowed only asylum seekers under Remain in Mexico — formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols — whose immigration cases remained open to enter the United States.

Since February, the Biden administration has permitted entry to some 12,000 asylum seekers with pending Migrant Protection Protocols cases, according to the United Nations refugee agency, the primary organization processing them. At the same time, Biden officials have urged patience from those whose cases were closed, promising a second phase.

Advocates and experts welcomed the move to begin admitting those asylum seekers, but criticized the administration’s slowness on restoring access.

“A delay of that kind would have to be driven by political considerations, not legal or purely administrative ones,” said Austin Kocher, an assistant professor at Syracuse University. “It flags a larger question: Is the Biden administration serious about following its national and international obligations to asylum law?”

For many asylum seekers, it is too late. From January 2019, when the Trump administration first implemented the policy in Southern California, to when Biden froze the program on his first day in office, roughly 70,000 migrants were sent by U.S. officials to wait in some of the world’s most dangerous cities just south of the border.

More than 1,500 of them suffered rape, kidnapping and assault, according to Human Rights First. And those numbers have continued to rise during Biden’s presidency, through a combination of policies that have left tens of thousands stuck on the southern side of the border.

An untold number missed their hearings while abducted, several were killed, and hundreds more made the wrenching decision to send their children across the border alone, believing they’d have a better chance of being allowed to stay under U.S. policies to protect unaccompanied minors. Thousands have given up, according to estimates from officials and advocates.

“Why it’s taken so long is obviously of concern, because those people who are still in Mexico are still suffering and in dangerous situations,” said Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued then-President Trump over the policy.

Biden administration officials have acknowledged this grim toll, even as they continue to send asylum seekers — some with Migrant Protection Protocols cases — to Mexico again, invoking a Trump-era coronavirus policy. Citing Title 42, an obscure 1944 public health law, border officials have summarily expelled more than 850,000 migrants, including asylum seekers, this time without a court date or due process.

“Having Title 42 still in place at the same time that the administration is claiming to try and fix cases in Remain in Mexico presents the administration with a fundamental contradiction between what they claim to be doing and the way that border control is actually working on the ground,” said Kocher.

Biden froze Migrant Protection Protocols on his first day in office, though it had already largely been supplanted by Trump’s coronavirus expulsions policy. But the Biden administration did not formally end Remain in Mexico until June 1.

In the memo ending the policy, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said it had further strained department resources and added to a record backlog in immigration court proceedings.

More than 25% of those subjected to the policy were apprehended by border officials when they attempted to enter again, Mayorkas said, and roughly 44% of cases were completed by judges’ orders to remove asylum seekers who missed their hearings.

That raised questions about whether the program provided them “adequate opportunity” to appear, he said, “and whether conditions faced by some MPP enrollees in Mexico, including the lack of stable access to housing, income, and safety, resulted in the abandonment of potentially meritorious protection claims.”

Still, the current chaos at the border — with thousands of migrants remaining stuck in northern Mexico and monthly border-crossing numbers still among their highest in years — stems in part from confusion over the administration’s continued pledges to undo Trump’s policies, while its promised asylum overhaul has yet to materialize.

Advocates argue that migrants subjected to Migrant Protection Protocols who received final decisions from immigration judges denying their asylum claims also deserve to be given another opportunity to seek asylum in accordance with U.S. law.

On Tuesday, the Homeland Security Department statement reiterated that others who may be eligible to enter in the future “should stay where they are currently located and register online” through a system administered by the United Nations.

Trump administration officials explicitly stated that the goal of the policy was to make it as difficult as possible to seek asylum and as a deterrent to others.

“This is what they wanted, and this is what they got: People couldn’t get asylum,” Rabinovitz said of Trump administration officials. Now with Biden in the White House, she continued, “we’re saying no — in order to unwind it, you need to give people a new opportunity to apply for asylum, free of that taint.”

U.S. border officials frequently committed errors while administering the Remain in Mexico policy, The Times found. That included serving asylum seekers paperwork in languages they did not speak, or writing the phrase “domicilio conocido” — “known address” — or simply “Tijuana” — a Mexican border city of some 2 million people — on their paperwork, instead of a legally required address. That made it nearly impossible for applicants to be notified of changes to their cases or court dates.

These missteps by U.S. border officials also fueled federal judges’ rulings against the policy.

In one ruling, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said Homeland Security’s procedures for implementing the policy were “so ill-suited to achieving that stated goal as to render them arbitrary and capricious.”

But the Supreme Court never ultimately ruled on the legality of Migrant Protection Protocols. In early February, the Biden administration asked the nation’s highest court to cancel arguments on the policy. Opponents in several states sued, arguing that the Biden administration cannot end it.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected that effort, ordering: “The motion to intervene is dismissed as moot.”