
California lawmakers struggle to find ways to hit back against Trump immigration raids
And yet - at least so far - nothing seems capable of deterring the White House or forcing a change in tactics.
In both Sacramento and Washington, observers said elected officials are coming up with proposals that seem to lack teeth.
Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and former senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said stopping the Trump administration from sending masked and unidentified immigration agents to snatch people off the street is proving difficult.
"They detain everybody and interrogate them all and then just figure out afterward who's unlawfully present, and that's blatantly illegal," he said. "We can write more laws, but there's already perfectly good laws that say this is unlawful, and they're doing it anyway."
A bill announced Monday by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, would expand police impersonation laws and require all law enforcement, unless undercover, to wear a name tag or badge number.
"While ICE has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency's use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and dangerous criminals," Renée Pérez's office said in a news release.
Another bill, introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, also seeks to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings.
U.S. Representative Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, announced similar legislation Tuesday at the federal level, but the Republican majorities in both congressional houses mean it stands little chance of becoming law.
The state bills have a better chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, but they still face opposition.
The Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the largest statewide law enforcement union in the country, said banning face coverings could inadvertently put local cops - who are already required to wear badges, nameplates or badge numbers on their uniforms - at risk of losing access to personal protective equipment like face shields and respirators.
"Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders. It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable," Brian R. Marvel, president of PORAC, said in a statement.
Marvel said he doubted California had the authority to regulate the attire of federal officers.
Arulanantham disagreed, saying that the state law could stand as long as the mask ban was neutrally applied to all law enforcement, not just federal actors.
Other potential measures in the state Legislature, Arulanantham said, could expand on SB 54, the sanctuary policy that limits collaboration between state law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. But even those protections are now under assault in the courts.
The Trump administration sued the city of L.A. on Monday, arguing its sanctuary policy hampered the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law.
"Our City remains committed to standing up for our constitutional rights and the rights of our residents," a spokesperson for the L.A. city attorney said in a statement. "We will defend our ordinance and continue to defend policies that reflect our longstanding values as a welcoming community for all residents."
Other bills advancing through the state Legislature include measures that would restrict school officials from allowing immigration enforcement inside the nonpublic areas of schools and prohibit healthcare workers from sharing a patient's immigration status without judicial warrants.
Democrats aren't alone in trying to get the White House to back off.
A group of state Republican lawmakers authored a letter to Trump, arguing that widespread immigration raids are crippling the economy by taking away workers from key industries.
"Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents," the letter said.
The Department of Homeland Security has insisted its agents are busy arresting "criminal illegal aliens" and said it will continue operations despite efforts by "rioters and politicians trying to hinder law enforcement."
"As bad faith politicians attempt to demean and vilify our brave law enforcement, we will only double down and ramp up our enforcement actions against the worst of the worst criminals," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a June 26 news release.
Local city and county governments, civil rights groups and even individuals could step in to sue the government and ICE on the grounds that they are infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights and harming the local economy - but no notable cases have been filed.
The city of Los Angeles is posturing for a suit and has already approved legal action against ICE, according to a proposal signed by seven members of the City Council.
But early struggles in the state's challenge to Trump's deployment of federal troops do not bode well for future litigation. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a lower court decision that would've limited Trump's authority, and litigation over whether the troops can be used for immigration enforcement remains ongoing.
While the court battle plays out, state Democratic leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, say they are working to fast-track some bills through the legislative process.
"The Speaker is deeply invested in protecting California's immigrant workers and families in the face of reckless ICE raids and Trump's abuses of power," Rivas' spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement.
Some observers said that, despite the struggles legislation may face in the near term, it may be up to Republicans to change focus from Trump's agenda to things that affect their electorates, said veteran Democratic political strategist Roy Behr.
"The Republicans seem more focused on doing whatever Trump wants, but at least these votes force them to show where their loyalties really lie. And you know, maybe one day they will actually start to pay the price for these votes and ultimately feel the pressure to change their minds."
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Iran strategy heavily banks on US getting good nuclear deal, sources say
Israel also hopes that Trump can successfully place limits on Iran's ballistic missile supply, but this is even more uncertain. Israel is feeling ascendant after its significant achievements against Iran during the June 13-24 war. Still, sources have said that the current strategy going forward is overwhelmingly banking on the US nailing Tehran down to a tough and long new nuclear deal. If the US does not secure such an airtight deal, Israel is unclear on what its strategy or next steps would be. In contrast to the ceasefire deal and end of the war with Hezbollah on November 27, 2024 which in and of itself set clear limits on Hezbollah's right to rearm and clearly outlined how Israel could proactively enforce those limits, the Iran ceasefire simply stopped the fighting between the sides with zero provisions regarding the future. This lack of a clear plan and certainty is true about how much Israel thinks it can hold back the Islamic Republic from rebuilding its heavily damaged nuclear weapons program, and sources have indicated that the plan may even be less clear regarding imposing and enforcing limits on Iran's ballistic missile program. Jerusalem's ideal world would be a US-brokered deal that ends Iran's nuclear program or ends its uranium enrichment and advanced centrifuges for a period of multiple decades, as well as keeps its quantity of ballistic missiles with a range to hit Israel down at the current 500-1,000 total missiles level. But what if Iran only agrees to certain concessions, but not others? For example, Iran could agree not to enrich uranium for the next year or two, during a period of time when it may not in any event be able to do so after the Israeli and American attacks, followed by enriching uranium at "low levels" like it did under the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal. This would basically be accepting the offer that US President Donald Trump was offering them before the war, except now they would be "losing" nothing because they cannot, at least for some period of time, do very much uranium enrichment right now anyway. Would Trump reject such a deal and potentially allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear program with no limits and no IAEA inspectors? The part about the IAEA inspectors is not theoretical, as since June 13, the UN nuclear inspectors have had no access to any aspects of the Iranian nuclear program. In fact, as of Wednesday, Iran also formally announced that it has indefinitely cut ties with the IAEA. This does not mean that Jerusalem and Washington are blind about what is happening in Iran. On Tuesday, The Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli satellites took tens of millions of photos of Iranian territory leading up to and ruing the 12-day war. But wherever the IAEA had electronic surveillance, it had 24-7 surveillance even indoors, even underground, something which is difficult even for top intelligence agencies to achieve. In short, IAEA inspections have never been sufficient by themselves, but they are crucial and invaluable. If the world was partially blind regarding Iran's nuclear program when Iran rolled back cooperation with the IAEA in 2021 and again in 2022, it is truly blind now. The only good news so far on the nuclear front is that even Iran is starting to admit that its nuclear facilities, including Fordow, were badly damaged. This means that even if the world is blind, there could be several months or more of little new progress by Iran toward reconstituting its nuclear program, no matter how hard it tries. Prior to the war, the Islamic Republic's ballistic missile program was not even on the table. Now, Israel will try to inject it onto the table, arguing that Iran's three massive ballistic missile attacks on the Jewish state in April 2024, October 2024, and this month make it a new existential threat. What if Trump settles for a nuclear deal, but with no limits on ballistic missiles? Israel was worried about Iran building a facility which could jump its missile inventory from 2,500 to 4,000 in around a year or so, and to 8,800 in around two years. Such numbers could overwhelm Israel's missile shield in a far more devastating way than even the 28 Israelis killed and 1,250 wounded from the 12-day war. Presumably, then, Israel would attack before the numbers ballooned that much. But how soon would Israel attack? When will the numbers get back to the pre-war 2,500 level? Earlier, such as when Iran builds and starts to operate a new ballistic missile production facility? Or yet earlier, as soon as it starts to build such a facility? Or maybe Israel can agree to Iran building unlimited ballistic missiles as long as their range falls below the 1,500 kilometer range to hit the Jewish state, given that many Iranian missiles do fall below that range. Will Jerusalem really risk ballistic missile attacks on hospitals, universities, and central Israel just to stop a facility from being built? And if it won't, will it get harder to respond even as the process goes forward because Israeli leaders will need to admit they are afraid of the Iranian response? Jerusalem has some time to let Trump try to resolve these issues. But if Trump cannot resolve them in the coming weeks or months, Israel will likely need to make some clear, hard, and uncompromising decisions about being ready to enforce certain limits, with coordination with the US and a yellow light to strike, even if there is not full-throated approval.


New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Zohran Mamdani set to pick up powerful NYC teachers union endorsement after primary win
The Big Apple's powerful teachers union will announce their endorsement of mayoral Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani — after its members passed on making a pic in the primary, The Post has learned. Two sources close to the United Federation of Teachers said that the endorsement is coming soon from the nearly 200,000 member union after the results of the Democratic Party primary were made official this week. The union had previously declined to endorse because members were split between Democratic socialist Mamdani, a 33-year-old state Assembly member, and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Advertisement 4 Zohran Mamdani delivers remarks at a primary victory celebration with leaders and members of the city's labor unions in Manhattan, New York, United States, on July 2, 2025. Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto/Shutterstock 4 A general view of a United Federation of Teachers sign or UFT sign as seen on an office building in the Bronx, NY on May 30, 2025. Christopher Sadowski Cuomo, who has supported charter schools when he was governor, toned down his support in his 25-point mayoral education plan that also embraced UFT pet programs like community schools, early childhood education and class size reductions in an apparent bid to nab the union's endorsement. Advertisement The union's decision comes off the heels of other power players like the Hotel Trades Council and Local 32BJ opting to endorse the Democratic nominee after previously backing Cuomo in the primary. 4 Michael Mulgrew, UFT President speaking at press conference in lower Manhattan. Robert Miller 4 Former NY Govrnor Andrew Cuomo takes two minutes outside to speak with the NY Post after losing in the Democratic mayoral primary election to Zohran Mamdani. Matthew McDermott A rep for the Cuomo campaign said that they will 'continue to assess the current situation in the best interest of the people of the City of New York' after his blistering loss to Mamdani. Insiders previously told The Post that Cuomo wouldn't mount a general election campaign without seeing an obvious path to victory. Advertisement UFT head honcho Michael Mulgrew sits on the board of the Central Labor Council, a federation of local unions who also recently threw their support behind Mamdani after his upset victory over former Cuomo. 'Political endorsements are made by the UFT's Delegate Assembly,' a UFT spokesperson said. 'The DA will be meeting in the coming weeks to discuss the general election.'


Politico
39 minutes ago
- Politico
How House Republicans could bypass their own budget
Mike Johnson is staring down the legislative challenge of his career. As soon as this morning, the speaker will attempt to ram the Senate-passed megabill through the House as dozens of Republicans threaten to vote it down. The detractors come from across the Republican conference after the Senate sent over a bill with deeper Medicaid cuts, steeper deficit hikes and less onerous clean-energy provisions than expected. And he's gunning to deliver by President Donald Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline, as severe thunderstorms in Washington threaten full attendance. 'We'll see. I've got to play the cards that are dealt to me,' Johnson said Tuesday, after admitting he was 'not happy' with the Senate's changes to the bill. 'And we're working through that. … But we remain optimistic we're going to land it at this point.' Johnson has 24 to 48 hours to persuade reluctant fiscal hawks and Medicaid moderates to swallow the Senate's bill. He spent Monday on calls with concerned lawmakers and caucuses, scrambling to figure out how to pass it this week without making changes to the bill. (John Thune and Johnson have been in contact through much of the process but did not speak in the hours leading up to the Senate vote, the majority leader told POLITICO.) But the Senate bill will be tough to sell. House Freedom Caucus members like Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) blasted the Senate's bill Tuesday for adding to the deficit and softening clean energy tax credits. Roy and Norman both voted against the bill in the Rules Committee overnight. House moderates are worried about the steep cuts to Medicaid, which Johnson has privately said could cost Republicans the House in 2026. Sen. Thom Tillis' (R-N.C.) speech torching the Senate's Medicaid provisions for similar reasons shook many vulnerable Republicans. And a substantial cross section of the two groups of holdouts would rather take time to rework the package and send it back to the Senate, instead of jamming the Senate version through the House under a self-imposed deadline. Norman said the House should go back to the original bill, leave town and come back when Senate Republicans are 'serious.' Some signs of progress for Johnson: Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) appeared more likely to support the bill Tuesday night after previously refusing a deal on a state and local tax deduction. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), previously a strong no on the bill over the Medicaid provider tax, told POLITICO a local provider tax tweak in the wraparound amendment for New Jersey and other states has him feeling better about the bill. But it would still be a gamble for Johnson to put it on the House floor: Many Republicans think the bill would fail without additional changes. However, the speaker has previously succeeded in putting bills on the floor without the votes — and relying on Trump to pressure holdouts to fold. What else we're watching: — Weather problems could delay House vote: Over 200 flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport were either canceled or delayed Tuesday amid thunderstorms in Washington, according to the flight-tracking service FlightAware. Johnson said Tuesday night that the travel issues could push back the House vote on the GOP megabill, which is expected as early as Wednesday. — More reconciliation packages: As the House looks to pass the current reconciliation package without further tweaks, Johnson is suggesting there could be future opportunities for lawmakers to get their priorities into party-line packages. In an interview on Fox News on Tuesday night, Johnson said the House will plan to do two more reconciliation bills during this session of Congress, which ends in 2026. Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Benjamin Guggenheim contributed to this report.