
Chris Newman is at the center of the immigration fight — again
One was a newish satchel holding his laptop and papers for the cases he's working on, which happen to involve some of the most infamous moments in the Trump administration's deportation deluge.
Newman was co-counsel on a lawsuit that won a temporary restraining order against the indiscriminate immigration raids that have afflicted Southern California since June. He also represents the family of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a day laborer who was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in the spring, then returned on the order of a federal judge. At the Border Patrol's takeover of MacArthur Park earlier this month, Newman was there shooting video and deriding the spectacle as 'a dystopian episode of 'The Apprentice.''
'If we can litigate the calamity [of Trump] at the local level to the widest degree, that can help democracy survive, dude,' Newman told me as he picked at black beans and two eggs over easy.
The other bag, a big straw tote, was filled with anti-Trump and anti-migra T-shirts, posters and stickers. Wherever Newman goes these days, he hands them out like a progressive Santa Claus.
'I want to keep the proper amount of anger to have the fuel to do all this,' he said. 'The pendulum is sweeping so wide and so fast. We need to be ready.'
For the past 21 years, Newman has been a pivotal, omnipresent part of Southern California's immigrant rights movement as legal director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, better known as NDLON. His work takes him from street corners advising jornaleros about their rights to my alma mater, UCLA, where he's on the faculty of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
Newman's influence extends far past Los Angeles, however. He's a regular presence on national media outlets, quick and eloquent with insights and righteous anger. Politicians from Sacramento to Washington know he isn't afraid to tear into them if he thinks they're too timid to publicly call out xenophobia or support laws that protect the undocumented.
'He does not mind being the bad cop,' said Angela Chan, assistant chief attorney at the San Francisco public defender's office. In her previous job last decade, she and Newman helped craft a trio of bills that made California a sanctuary state.
'It can make a meeting very uncomfortable, but Chris is cutting all the bulls— so you get much closer to having an honest conversation,' Chan said. 'He does not expect or pursue pomp or circumstance.'
Salvador Reza, a longtime organizer in Phoenix, first worked with Newman in the mid-2000s after asking NDLON to help pressure the city to let day laborers seek work. Newman participated in forums, organized rallies and ultimately convinced city officials to lay off by citing a 2006 lawsuit against Redondo Beach that he had worked on. In that case, an ordinance banning day laborers was ruled unconstitutional.
Newman and Reza went on to wage many successful campaigns in Arizona, from defeating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio at the ballot box to fighting local law enforcement agencies partnering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The two even convinced music legends like Zack de la Rocha, Los Tigres del Norte and the late Jenni Rivera to bypass the Copper State during their tours in 2010 to protest a state bill that sought to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants.
'He cares a lot about people, and he'll go out of his way to help out anyone who needs it who's being abused by the system,' said Reza, who saw Newman earlier this year when the two met with Home Depot managers over allegations that their stores in Phoenix were chasing off day laborers. 'He's super busy over there in California right now, isn't he?'
A fast talker who exudes confidence but isn't a braggart, Newman looks far younger than 49. His full head of hair, round-framed glasses and freshly sprouted mustache gives the Chicagoland native the look of a Depression-era do-gooder.
'I'm trying to hold onto the anger stage so I don't get into the sad stage,' he said. 'And I don't want to get there because that'll lead to the acceptance stage, and too much of L.A. is already there.'
Newman never planned for a career like this, even though his mother was from Denmark, his father is a Hungarian Jew and his brother is of Salvadoran descent. He attended law school in Denver, set on becoming a death penalty lawyer, until realizing 'it wasn't like I thought it was in the movies.'
A mentor suggested that Newman recharge his bleeding heart by volunteering with Minsun Ji, founder of Denver's first day laborers' center. 'I didn't even know day laborers were a thing,' Newman admitted. But he immediately 'loved everything — just hanging out there, chewing the fat and hearing the stories of the jornaleros.'
Ji assigned him to help clean the restrooms his first few weeks. Newman eventually graduated to handling wage theft cases and volunteered for whatever was needed, including driving a van full of day laborers to an NDLON conference in suburban Maryland in 2002. There, he heard Thomas Saenz, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund who led a successful lawsuit against Prop. 187, the 1994 California anti-immigrant ballot initiative. Saenz told the crowd about MALDEF's lawsuits against Southern California cities that were trying to ban day laborers.
'That's when I realized I could use my law degree to do the exact same thing,' Newman said. '[It was] something that I loved in theory, but I didn't realize it was happening in real life.'
About a year later, he called NDLON co-founder Pablo Alvarado.
'It was at eight at night, and I was still at the [NDLON] office,' Alvarado said in a phone interview. 'And Chris said, 'I want to do a fellowship with you. The fellowship deadline is at three in the afternoon the next day. Can I go right now so we can write it?''
He began to laugh. 'We didn't sleep all night, but we did it — we finished his application. And Chris never left.'
(Newman remembers the moment differently. He said he applied for the fellowship, but Alvarado forgot about it until the day before it was due.)
Twenty-one years later, Alvarado says Newman's energy and verisimilitude haven't changed.
'Even though he's a lawyer, his feet are on the ground — he's not an elitist. By 8 in the morning, he will have read every article written that day about immigration. He'll tell me what we need to do, and then he goes out and does it.'
Like the Abrego Garcia case.
Newman called Abrego Garcia's lawyer to offer help, then connected with the family to organize a GoFundMe campaign through NDLON. Next was enlisting artists in a social media campaign to make Abrego Garcia's predicament go viral. Soon, Newman was on a flight to El Salvador in an unsuccessful bid to visit the imprisoned Abrego Garcia, something he would try two more times.
'It felt like a Venn diagram of everything I've worked for over the past 20 years,' said Newman, who has yet to speak to Abrego Garcia. 'At the time, we had no idea whether he was innocent or guilty. What mattered is that he deserved due process.'
Soon after Newman's last visit to El Salvador, L.A.'s summer of deportation raids began.
I concluded our breakfast by asking if Newman was optimistic that things might get better. Instead of cowering under Trump's boot, L.A. has stood up. The day we met, the Pentagon announced that half of the 4,000 National Guard members deployed in Southern California in the wake of anti-ICE protests would leave.
'I'm a Cornel West disciple,' Newman responded. 'And he said there's a difference between hope and optimism.'
West defined optimism as based on a rational analysis of what's out there, while hope is an act of courage against what seems like impossible odds.
'No one has ever accused me of being an optimist,' Newman said.
He kept thinking about it.
'I don't know, but I think the tide will turn. I remember when Arpaio had an 85% approval rating. And he went down.'
He got more animated. 'I know people can turn the tide, but they have to do their part.'
He reached into his straw tote and brought out his anti-migra swag — a T-shirt emblazoned with 'Arrest Trump, Not Migrants,' bumper stickers reading 'ICE Out of LA!' with the 'LA' in Dodgers style, red-and-white signs declaring 'I.C.E. Off My Property Get A Warrant!'
Our waitress came with the bill, then looked at the T-shirt. 'That's really cool!' she exclaimed.
'Want it?' Newman replied as he handed it to her. Other Homegirl staffers grabbed stickers and signs.
As we exited the cafe, Newman left a stack on a table next to the door.
'I'm going to go to Highland Park later to ask businesses if they want to post them on their windows,' he said as a customer eyed the signs.
'Go ahead and take it, man,' Newman urged. 'Take a bunch!'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Laura Loomer runs ‘tip line' for Trump staffers eager to purge ‘disloyal' colleagues
Trump is famous for asking friends and outside allies for their opinions about his own staff. So much so that, during his first term, former chief of staff John Kelly tried to limit access to the Oval Office in an effort to exert some control over who was influencing the president. It backfired. Trump often refers to his current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, during Cabinet meetings as 'the most powerful woman in the world.' The now familiar riff almost always elicits chuckles in the room. But Wiles' power comes from not attempting to rein in the president's impulses or restrict his circle in any way. 'I know this from working for John Kelly, it's just impossible to control Trump this way. He has lots of different telephones,' said Kevin Carroll, a former CIA officer and lawyer representing intelligence officials fired by the Trump administration. 'He's just on some random cell phone…and it could be with Laura Loomer.' One of his clients, Terry Adirim, the former top doctor at the CIA, has alleged that Loomer played a key role in her dismissal. Adirim was terminated by the Trump administration earlier this year after some of the president's supporters criticized her for her role in the mandatory Covid vaccination of members of the military. This week, the White House requested that Congress delay a hearing for Brian Quintenz to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission after cryptocurrency billionaires Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss urged Trump to dump Quintenz in a conversation last weekend. Also this week, Trump ordered the removal of the FDA's top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, after just three months on the job. He did that despite opposition from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — and after hearing from Loomer. Loomer engineered a public backlash to Prasad that began with her labeling him on her website a 'progressive leftist saboteur undermining President Trump's FDA.' Other conservative voices, like former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum and The Wall Street Journal editorial board, piled onto the criticism of Prasad and his approach to rare disease therapies — a concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) raised with the White House on Monday, a day before Prasad was fired. Also on Tuesday, Trump removed the National Security Administration's top lawyer, April Doss, after Loomer shared the conservative magazine Daily Caller's investigation into Doss, which called her a 'transparently partisan activist.' Carroll said Loomer's influence created a 'dangerous situation' with 'somebody outside the government, no national security experience, who's got hire and fire authority over some of these really, really important jobs.' In the White House, administration officials appear unwilling to overlook the disruption associated with frequent staff changes. And Loomer says she has strong relationships in the West Wing. 'It is not only appropriate, but critical for the Administration to recruit the most qualified and experienced staffers who are totally aligned with President Trump's agenda to Make America Great Again,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. Desai added that the administration's record of 'peace deals to trade deals' show that Trump 'has assembled the best and brightest talent to put Americans and America First.'


Time Magazine
15 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Tracking Trump's Tariffs
President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again approach to his signature tariff policy has taken global economies on a rollercoaster in just the first six months of his second presidential term. Trump slammed nearly every country in the world with tariffs as high as 50% on April 2, so-called 'Liberation Day.' A week later, he announced a temporary reduction that was meant to end July 9, during which time he said he'd negotiate '90 deals in 90 days' to re-balance U.S. trade relationships. But as that deadline neared, Trump announced a new deadline of Aug. 1 and began unveiling a slate of new tariffs on more than a dozen countries. Throughout this all, Trump has also announced sectoral tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and copper, as well as threatened countries appearing to align against American interests, like members of the intergovernmental organization BRICS, with additional tariffs. Read More: Trump's Trade Deals, Negotiations, and New Tariffs for Each Country On the eve of Trump's Aug. 1 trade deal deadline, the White House once again unveiled new tariff rates on much of the world, most of which will take effect Aug. 7. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus—meaning that it exports more to those countries than it imports from them—the 'universal' tariff is 10%, which remains unchanged from April 2. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit, the new baseline rate is 15%, which will apply to around 40 countries. More than a dozen other countries will face higher tariff rates, either imposed by Trump in a more recent announcement or obtained through trade agreements with the U.S. The U.S. has reached trade deals or framework agreements with a number of countries: the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, the U.K., and Vietnam. The U.S. also reached an agreement with China, although the two sides are continuing to negotiate the details ahead of a later deadline of Aug. 12, which the White House has indicated could be extended. And Trump has granted Mexico a 90-day extension to facilitate further trade talks. The White House has bragged about raising more than $150 billion from tariffs over the past six months, while Trump has said 'tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again.' (A Monthly Treasury Statement from June shows that the government has collected around $108 billion in customs duties since October 1, 2024, while the Treasury Department reported the collection of upwards of $28 billion in duties in July.) Revenue from tariffs is likely to increase as higher tariffs for dozens of countries go into effect. Many economists, however, say tariffs are effectively a tax on American consumers and have warned that trade tensions could trigger a U.S.—or even global—recession. Here's a breakdown of all Trump's tariffs. Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs Trump has said his tariffs are aimed at balancing the U.S.'s trade relationships with the rest of the world in two main ways: firstly, by pressuring countries to negotiate trade deals more favorable to the U.S., and secondly by incentivizing firms to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The President has railed against the country's trade deficits with much of the rest of the world, though he's also imposed tariffs on countries that the U.S. has a trade surplus with, like Brazil. It's true that the U.S. imports much more goods from most countries than it exports, but economists have pointed out that that's a position many other countries are striving to be in. The U.S. exports mainly services—like banking services, software, and entertainment—while many poorer countries have much larger and lower-paying manufacturing sectors. Economists have also said tariffs aren't necessarily an effective way to address trade deficits and are instead likely to cause higher prices for American consumers, unsettle American businesses, and erode trust between the U.S. and its trading partners, leading trade and diplomatic partnerships away from the U.S. in the long term. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, imposed April 2, were 'reciprocal' based on what he said were tariffs and other manipulations against the U.S. by other countries, although economists have criticized his method of calculating those rates: each country's trade surplus with the U.S. was divided by its exports to the U.S. and then divided by two. It's not yet clear how the new rates, some of which Trump began announcing July 7 in 'letters' sent to each country and shared on his Truth Social platform, were determined. Trump has said they are based on countries' 'Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.' For certain countries though he cited reasons unrelated to trade. The 50% tariff on Brazil, for example, is based partly on what Trump called a 'Witch Hunt' against the country's former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally who has been charged with attempting to launch a coup to stay in office in 2022. Other Trump tariffs Trump has also imposed tariffs on specific sectors, including a 25% tariff on cars and car parts and a 50% tariff on most foreign imports of steel, aluminum, and copper. Several more sectoral tariffs may be introduced pending Section 232 Commerce Department investigations, such as on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, and commercial aircraft and engines. Imports subjected to section 232 tariffs do not always 'stack' on top of other tariffs. For example, a car imported from overseas will be tariffed at 25%, but will not be subject to tariffs on aluminum, steel, or other 'stacking' tariffs. Metals tariffs supersede country 'reciprocal' tariffs but both steel and aluminum tariffs can apply to the same product. Some trade agreements, like the U.S.-E.U. deal, also cap sectoral tariffs at a lower rate. For example, the 15% 'reciprocal' tariff on the E.U. also applies to cars and car parts. Some sectoral tariffs predate Trump's second term. Trump introduced tariffs on various sectors and countries in his first presidential term. In January 2018, he imposed tariffs on all solar panels, for which China is the world's largest producer, and washing machines. In June that year he also introduced 25% tariffs on over 800 products from China. Trump also imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum from Canada, Mexico and the E.U. These tariffs set off retaliatory moves from the impacted countries, though most U.S. and retaliatory tariffs from Trump's first term eventually expired or were rolled back. The U.S. and China reached a truce in January 2020 after escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, but former President Joe Biden extended the solar panel tariffs in 2022. Some countries might also be subject to additional tariffs based on political reasons. Trump announced on July 6 that he would tariff countries aligning themselves with BRICS at an additional 10% rate. Among the countries whose new rates have been announced so far, that includes Brazil, South Africa, India and Iran. It's not yet clear whether it affects countries that the U.S. has cut a deal with, like China or Indonesia. Trump has also cracked down on what was known as the de minimis exemption, which exempted small shipments valued at $800 or less from customs duties and declarations. The tax provision, which was introduced in 1938, has largely benefitted fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu, which have sent millions of packages a day to the U.S. Trump closed the exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong in an April 2 executive order, tariffing the low-value shipments from those exporters effectively at a 120% rate from May 2 (after tit-for-tat tariff hikes). He then reversed course with a May 12 executive order that eased levies on low-value imports. Then, he reversed course again with a July 30 executive order, ending the tariff exemption for all countries around the world.