PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – With President Trump calling for the largest mass deportation in the country’s history; it has some concerned about sending their children to school.
What are schools required to do and how are they planning to deal with this situation?
According to school districts, it’s their own policies they have to create on handling these situations if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to come to a school. While there is some ambiguity with the districts, there are some standards they are required to follow.
According to information from the U.S. Department of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services, districts can’t ask students about their immigration status.
“Our focus is protecting the students, protecting their records, and making sure they are safe in school,” Pittsburgh Public Schools solicitor Ira Weiss said.
He said school leaders have sent out memos to staff addressing if ICE comes to a school. It would include building administrators handling it. Any visit from ICE would need to be with a warrant. To this point, there’s been no raids at schools.
“We’ve had anecdotal reports of ICE vehicles being in certain neighborhoods,” Weiss said.
Other districts echo this. Belle Vernon sent out a memo telling staff that building administrators are to be contacted immediately. It adds that no one should interfere with any ICE activities, but they are not to share any student information.
Aliquippa is more of the same. Unless there is a valid warrant signed by a judge or an emergency, law enforcement including ICE can’t come into schools.
“This is a day-to-day situation, and we follow the announcements closely,” Weiss said.
According to Pittsburgh Public, their data doesn’t suggest there has been a chilling effect on attendance. They will have a better idea over the next few weeks.
Chris is an award-winning reporter who started with KDKA in May 2019. He is thrilled to tell your stories in his hometown!
In light of President Trump’s recent call for mass deportations, Pittsburgh area schools are scrambling to clarify their policies regarding the immigration status of their students.
Many school districts in the Pittsburgh area have released statements reassuring students and families that they do not inquire about immigration status and that all students are welcome regardless of their background. However, the fear and uncertainty surrounding the current political climate has left many families feeling anxious and unsure about what the future holds for their children.
School officials are working to provide support and resources for students and families who may be affected by the threat of deportation. This includes working with local organizations to provide legal assistance, counseling services, and other forms of support.
As tensions continue to rise, it is important for schools to remain a safe and welcoming environment for all students, regardless of their immigration status. Pittsburgh area schools are committed to providing a supportive and inclusive community for all of their students, and will continue to work to ensure that every child has access to a quality education, regardless of their background.
Thousands of protesters rallied in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday against President Trump’s crack down on immigration and his aggressive deportation policies.
Draped in Mexican and Salvadoran and flags, demonstrators gathered near City Hall shortly before noon, blocking traffic at Spring and Temple streets, amid honking horns and solidarity messages from passing motorists. Protesters blasted a mix of traditional and contemporary Mexican music from a loudspeaker, including “Por mi Mexico” by Lefty Sm & Santa Fe Klan.
By 1 p.m., the number of protesters ballooned to several thousand, with some carrying signs that said, “MAGA – Mexicans always get across,” “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” referring to the state’s agricultural workers, and, “I drink my horchata warm because f … I.C.E,” a reference to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Nailah Esparza, 18, said it was her first protest and that she learned about it roughly a week ago from TikTok videos. She held a sign in Spanish that read, “ No more I.C.E. raids, no more fear, we want justice and a better world.”
“I decided it was actually something that was very important, so we decided to show support, because of the youth,” said Esparza, who is Mexican American. “We’re very passionate about what we’re here for.”
Another protester, who identified himself only as Rey out of privacy concerns, brought a sign that read, “Trump eat caca. Beware the Nazis.” He said he protested Trump’s immigration policies during his first term as president.
“We thought we were done with his administration,” said Rey, who is Mexican American. “And now we have to do this again.”
The protest was mostly peaceful, but things appeared to ratchet up when the driver of a silver Mustang began doing donuts in the intersection. Soon after, police arrived on the scene as some protesters walked onto the nearby 101 Freeway, while hundreds more crowded overpasses, waving flags and holding signs.
Promising the largest deportation effort in U.S. history, President Trump, in his first days in office, declared a “national emergency” at the southern border, deploying troops there and releasing a dramatic series of executive orders and other policy changes intended to reshape the country’s immigration system.
Trump’s orders sharply limit legal pathways for entering the U.S., bolster enforcement efforts to seal off the U.S.-Mexico border, and promote aggressive sweeps to round up and deport people living in the U.S. illegally. Some of the orders have already been challenged in court, and advocates said others could be soon.
There are an estimated 11 million to 15 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., including more than 2 million in California.
That includes people who crossed the border illegally, people who overstayed their visas and people who have requested asylum. It does not include people who entered the country under various temporary humanitarian programs, or who have obtained Temporary Protected Status, which gives people the right to live and work in the U.S. temporarily because of disasters or strife in their home countries.
Times reporters Jessica Garrison and Rebecca Plevin contributed to this report.
On [date], thousands of protesters gathered in downtown Los Angeles to demonstrate against President Trump’s aggressive immigration policies. The crowd, made up of activists, community leaders, and concerned citizens, marched through the streets carrying signs and chanting slogans in support of immigrants and refugees.
Many protesters voiced their opposition to the administration’s policies, which have included separating families at the border, implementing travel bans on majority-Muslim countries, and increasing deportations of undocumented immigrants. They called for humane and compassionate immigration reform that respects the rights and dignity of all individuals.
The rally, organized by [name of organization], drew a diverse crowd of people from all walks of life who came together to show solidarity with immigrant communities. Speakers at the event highlighted the contributions that immigrants make to society and called for an end to the demonization and scapegoating of immigrants.
As the sun set over downtown Los Angeles, the protesters remained united in their message of unity and justice for all. The rally served as a powerful reminder that the fight for immigrant rights is far from over, and that the voices of the people will continue to be heard until real change is achieved.
Tags:
Immigration protests in Los Angeles
Anti-Trump demonstrations in downtown LA
Immigration policy protests in Los Angeles
Los Angeles rally against Trump’s immigration policies
Downtown LA protest against aggressive immigration policies
Thousands protest in Los Angeles against Trump
Immigration policy rallies in downtown LA
Trump immigration protests in Los Angeles
Los Angeles demonstration against immigration policies
In today’s digital age, cybersecurity has become a top priority for governments around the world. With cyber threats becoming increasingly sophisticated and widespread, it is crucial for governments to play a central role in safeguarding their citizens, businesses, and critical infrastructure from cyber attacks.
The role of government in cybersecurity encompasses a wide range of activities, including the development and implementation of policies and regulations to protect against cyber threats. Governments are responsible for setting the regulatory framework for cybersecurity, which includes establishing guidelines for securing critical infrastructure, protecting sensitive data, and responding to cyber incidents.
One of the key responsibilities of government in cybersecurity is to create and enforce laws and regulations that mandate cybersecurity measures for organizations and individuals. This can involve requirements for organizations to implement specific cybersecurity controls, such as encryption, access controls, and regular security assessments. Governments also have the authority to impose penalties on organizations that fail to comply with cybersecurity regulations, in order to incentivize adherence to best practices.
In addition to setting regulations, governments play a crucial role in coordinating cybersecurity efforts across different sectors and industries. This includes fostering collaboration between government agencies, private sector organizations, and international partners to share information about cyber threats and best practices for mitigating them. Governments may also establish cybersecurity information sharing platforms, such as Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), to facilitate the exchange of threat intelligence and incident response coordination.
Furthermore, governments have a responsibility to educate and raise awareness about cybersecurity risks among citizens and businesses. This can involve providing resources and guidance on how to secure personal devices, protect sensitive information, and recognize common cyber threats, such as phishing scams and malware attacks. By promoting cybersecurity awareness, governments can help empower individuals and organizations to take proactive measures to protect themselves from cyber threats.
Overall, the role of government in cybersecurity is essential for ensuring the security and resilience of digital systems and infrastructure. By developing and enforcing policies and regulations, coordinating cybersecurity efforts, and promoting awareness, governments can help mitigate cyber risks and protect their citizens from the growing threat of cyber attacks. As technology continues to evolve and cyber threats become more sophisticated, the role of government in cybersecurity will only become more critical in safeguarding our digital future.
Connecticut Sun player DiJonai Carrington incited fierce backlash by wearing an anti-Trump shirt last weekend, and now she’s taking that message even further.
During a press conference before an “Unrivaled” league game Thursday, Carrington declared it’s time for WNBA players to “take action” in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.
“We see that some of the policies are already going into action, and, of course, that means that as the WNBA and being at the forefront of a lot of these movements, it’s time for us to also take action,” Carrington said.
“It definitely needs to happen as women, women’s rights being taken away, like, now, LGBTQ rights being taken away now. They haven’t happened yet, but definitely in the works.”
DiJonai Carrington (21) of the Connecticut Sun dribbles during Game 2 of the first round of the WNBA playoffs against the Indiana Fever Sept. 25, 2024, at the Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, Conn.(Jesse D. Garrabrant/NBAE via Getty Images)
Carrington wore a shirt that said, “The F— Donald Trump Tour” Friday while walking into Wayfair Arena in Miami, Florida.
The player is most known for her interactions with women’s basketball phenom Caitlin Clark during Clark’s rookie WNBA season in 2024.
Carrington gave Clark a black eye after poking her during a game between Clark’s Indiana Fever and Carrington’s Connecticut Sun in the first round of the playoffs in September. Carrington laughed with teammate Marina Mabrey after the incident.
Connecticut Sun guard DiJonai Carrington (21) fouls Indiana Fever guard Caitlin Clark (22) in the second half in Indianapolis Aug. 28, 2024. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)
Carrington has said she didn’t intentionally poke Clark in the eye and that she wasn’t laughing about the incident. However, she made light of the controversy over Clark’s black eye in an Instagram Live video in October.
In the video, Carrington and her girlfriend, NaLyssa Smith, who plays on the Indiana Fever with Clark, were in their kitchen when Smith poked Carrington in the eye.
“Ow, you poked me in the eye,” Carrington said. Smith apologized, and the two laughed.
Connecticut Sun guards Marina Mabrey (4) and DiJonai Carrington (21) celebrate during the second half of a first-round WNBA basketball playoff game against the Indiana Fever Sept. 25, 2024, in Uncasville, Conn. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
Carrington provoked Clark fans prior to the eye-poking incident with multiple statements berating Clark and her fan base.
During a game in June, Carrington fouled Clark after Clark received an inbound pass from teammate Kristy Wallace. Clark caught the pass and started toward the basket. Carrington was late getting to Clark due to a screen by Aliyah Boston, and she bumped into Clark.
Later that month, Carrington posted on X, saying Clark should do more to speak out about people using her name for “racism” and other forms of prejudice. She also called the Fever fans the “nastiest” in the league.
Jackson Thompson is a sports writer for Fox News Digital. He previously worked for ESPN and Business Insider. Jackson has covered the Super Bowl and NBA Finals, and has interviewed iconic figures Usain Bolt, Rob Gronkowski, Jerry Rice, Troy Aikman, Mike Trout, David Ortiz and Roger Clemens.
WNBA star who hurt Caitlin Clark’s eye calls for league to ‘take action’ against Trump administration policies
WNBA star Liz Cambage has called on the league to take a stand against the Trump administration’s policies, following an incident in which she accidentally injured Iowa basketball star Caitlin Clark’s eye during a game.
Cambage, who plays for the Las Vegas Aces, expressed her frustration with the current political climate in a post-game interview, saying that she believes the league should use its platform to speak out against injustices.
“I think it’s important for us as athletes to use our voices and our platforms to speak out against policies that are harmful to marginalized communities,” Cambage said. “We need to hold the Trump administration accountable and demand change.”
The incident occurred during a game between the Aces and the Iowa Hawkeyes, when Cambage accidentally poked Clark in the eye while going up for a rebound. Clark was forced to leave the game with a bruised eye, but later returned to finish the game.
Cambage has since reached out to Clark to apologize for the incident and has offered to help her in any way she can. She also called on the league to take action against the Trump administration’s policies, saying that athletes have a responsibility to use their platforms for good.
“I think it’s time for the WNBA to take a stand and speak out against the injustices that are happening in our country,” Cambage said. “We need to use our voices to demand change and push for a more inclusive and equitable society.”
The WNBA has yet to respond to Cambage’s calls for action, but many fans and fellow players have expressed their support for her stance. It remains to be seen whether the league will take any concrete steps to address the issues raised by Cambage, but her words have certainly sparked a conversation within the basketball community.
A soon-to-expand prohibition on nursing homes’ use of third-party financial guarantees could lead to more operators using lawsuits to collect as residents’ unpaid debt becomes a bigger financial concern.
That warning comes as regulators move to target admission and billing policies that mimic financial guarantees — even if they don’t technically require third-parties to “guarantee” they’ll pay for a friend, family member or other associate’s stay.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has long forbidden the use of such third-party guarantees in nursing homes. But the agency now wants surveyors to scrutinize compliance more intensely, possibly further impeding collections related to care already delivered.
New CMS guidance on the issue is scheduled to go into effect March 24.
More restrictions on the ability of facilities to secure third-party guarantees to defray financial risk “creates a very tricky situation,” Callan Stein, a partner with Troutman Pepper Locke, told McKnight’s Long-Term Care News Monday.
“It is becoming harder and harder for facilities to mitigate the risk of resident payment shortfalls. As a result of this, we may come to see more frequent legal collection actions by nursing homes, for example, against the estate of a resident who passes away with a large outstanding balance owed,” he added. “It would also not be surprising to see nursing homes more frequently writing off bad debt, as permitted, for tax benefits.”
Under the expanded CMS interpretation, any language that seeks to hold someone beside the resident personally responsible could be problematic. And nowhere does the word “guarantee” need to appear to land a provider in regulatory hot water.
“Language can be noncompliant even if it does not specifically reference a ‘guarantee’ by a third party. Any language contained in an agreement that seeks to hold a third party personally responsible for paying the facility would violate this requirement,” CMS wrote in its update.
The guidance also now includes specific examples of noncompliance. Those include:
• Language that holds both the resident and the representative or other individual jointly responsible for any sums due to the facility;
• Language that holds the representative or other third-party personally liable for breach of any obligation in the agreement, such as failing to fully complete a Medicaid application on time;
• Language that implies the resident could be discharged if the representative does not voluntarily agree to personally pay to prevent the discharge; and
• Language that holds the representative personally liable for any amounts not paid to the facility in a timely manner because the representative or other individual did not provide accurate financial information or notify the facility of changes in the resident’s financial information.
Also of note: CMS said such language is noncompliant if it appears in the main document that a facility uses as its admission agreement or in other documents that are signed at admission. In addition, a facility cannot use financial guarantees in agreements regarding a resident’s continued stay.
Cosigning for healthcare?
Facilities can continue to “request and require a resident representative who has legal access to a resident’s income” to sign a contract saying they will use that resource to pay for care, without incurring personal financial liability.
But the updated guidance also explicitly prohibits the facility from making that request if an individual “does not actually have legal access to the resident’s funds.”
“The distinction makes sense because it’s not fair to expect someone to cosign. How much are they potentially liable for? We’re talking about nursing home expenses,” Eric Carlson, director of long-term services and supports advocacy at Justice in Aging, said during a Wednesday webinar on the new guidance.
“If you cosign for a car, you know what you’re responsible for: whatever the price of the car is. But if you cosign on a nursing facility admission agreement, what’s the bill going to be? $10,000, $50,000? You see bills of this size, and a third party shouldn’t be stuck with financial obligations like that,” he added.
The expanded CMS interpretation aligns with other measures by the federal government that have limited long-term care providers’ ability to collect payment for services.
In 2022, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra encouraged families to file complaints with his agency and at the state level. Chopra also asked nursing homes to “confidentially inform” state or federal enforcement agencies about the illegal practices of others to help “address the range of harms associated with medical debt.”
Early this month, Chopra’s agency finalized a rule removing about $49 billion in medical bills from Americans’ credit reports and banned the inclusion of medical bills on credit reports. The move is seen as limiting healthcare providers’ ability to collect on some debt, given fewer implications on borrowers’ credit scores.
More legal efforts ahead?
The latest pressure from CMS is unlikely to help, Stein said.
“Often, when a resident builds up a large outstanding balance, the facility is faced with the Hobson’s choice of either taking steps to try to help the resident transfer out of the facility or continuing to allow the resident to incur debt that may be unrecoverable, especially if the resident is in poor health or passes away suddenly,” he said.
He recommended that nursing homes enhance their initial resident screening processes to evaluate the ability of patients to pay and to develop and uniformly implement robust revenue cycle procedures to stay on top of billing.
“It may also be that some facilities begin to take a more aggressive approach during resident onboarding, for example by requiring residents to pay a security deposit or commit other security interests to cover unpaid balances,” Stein added. “This is not a trend we have seen utilized much to date, and facilities should very carefully consider such a requirement and discuss it with legal counsel before any implementation.”
While CMS is clear that deposits can be charged to non-Medicaid residents prior to admission, courts have been split on nursing homes’ ability to chase debt after a stay has started.
Consumer advocate Carlson said he’s seen some nursing homes turn to lawsuits to go after a “responsible party,” which was seen as triggering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s involvement on the issue.
“Assuming down the road the bill isn’t paid, then the nursing facility files suit against the third party … and says in [the nursing home’s] defense, well, this isn’t a cosigner,” Carlson said. “What we’re doing is we’re suing the adult daughter, let’s say, for her breach of the admission agreement. She was obligated to pay us, to use the resident’s money to pay us or to make sure that there was Medicaid eligibility, and that didn’t happen.”
Carlson said that using the courts to achieve the same goal as activities protected by the ban on third-party guarantees has led to a mixed bag of legal decisions; only some cases end up tossed. Surveyors weeding out some of those tactics upfront could help address what he calls “a bad state of affairs.”
“Nursing facilities are trying to sneak around the federal law, and the federal government here is saying, ‘No, that’s not going to work,’” he said. “‘We’re going to consider this non-compliant.’”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has recently issued updated guidance targeting nursing homes’ third-party pay policies. This new guidance aims to crack down on facilities that may be taking advantage of third-party pay sources, such as private insurance or Medicare Advantage plans, at the expense of residents.
CMS has stated that nursing homes must ensure that residents are not being improperly charged for services covered by third-party payers. This includes making sure that residents are not billed for services that are covered under their insurance plans or Medicare benefits.
Facilities are also being reminded that they must accurately report their residents’ insurance information to CMS in order to receive proper reimbursement for services provided. Failure to do so could result in penalties or even loss of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
This updated guidance comes as part of CMS’s ongoing efforts to improve transparency and accountability in the nursing home industry. By cracking down on improper billing practices and ensuring that residents receive the care they are entitled to, CMS is working to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Nursing homes that are found to be in violation of these policies may face fines, sanctions, or even closure. It is crucial that facilities review their third-party pay policies and ensure that they are in compliance with CMS guidelines to avoid any potential repercussions.
Overall, this updated guidance serves as a reminder to nursing homes that they must prioritize the well-being of their residents above all else. By following CMS’s regulations and guidelines, facilities can ensure that they are providing high-quality care to those who need it most.
Tags:
CMS guidance for nursing home pay policies
Nursing home third-party pay regulations
CMS updates on nursing home payment policies
Nursing home payment guidelines from CMS
Importance of third-party pay compliance in nursing homes
How CMS is cracking down on nursing home payment practices
Nursing home billing regulations under CMS guidance
CMS enforcement of third-party pay in nursing homes
Best practices for nursing home payment policies
Ensuring compliance with CMS guidelines for nursing home payments
On Monday, Trump signed a sweeping order aimed in part at reversing several Biden administration executive orders on health care, including efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs for people on Medicare and Medicaid, enhancing the Affordable Care Act and increasing protections for Medicaid enrollees. The so-called initial rescissions order, according to the Trump White House, is aimed at Biden policies that it says are “deeply unpopular” and “radical.”
The moves by Trump, experts say, are likely to be inconsequential to many Americans in terms of what they pay in out-of-pocket health care costs.
One Biden effort overturned by Trump, for example, had directed Medicare to look at ways to lower drug costs, including whether to impose a $2 monthly out-of-pocket cap on certain generic drugs.
That initiative, however, was only in the development stage, said Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and it was unclear whether it would be implemented at all.
“When administrations change over, many of them want to undo some of the actions of other presidents, even when those are more symbolic,” Dusetzina said.
Still, she said, Trump’s move signals that the incoming administration may be unwilling to move forward on any policies laid out by its predecessor.
“It could mean that the Trump administration is not interested in pursuing any of the work that has since developed out of these executive orders,” she said.
A change in priorities
Some of the actions Monday were expected, experts say, including weakening the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, a primary goal during Trump’s first term.
Trump overturned a policy that had extended Obamacare’s open enrollment period an additional 12 weeks in 36 states, giving uninsured adults more time to sign up.
He also rescinded an order aimed at strengthening Medicaid, which included providing more outreach funding to states.
Some of the policies eliminated, however, had previously aligned with Trump’s goals — possibly indicating a change in his priorities, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president of health policy at KFF, a nonprofit group that researches health policy issues.
In jettisoning Biden’s order to look into new ways to lower out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs, Levitt said, it could signal that Trump is less serious about addressing the cost of health care in the U.S.
“Trump is kind of wiping the slate clean,” he said. “If you contrast Day 1 of this Trump administration with the last one, it is a different approach to health care.”
Levitt said it remains unclear whether the Trump administration supports Medicare’s negotiating drug prices, a key provision in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Last week, Medicare announced the next round of prescription drugs up for negotiations, including Ozempic and Wegovy.
“Trump could signal that he wants to continue drug price negotiation, or, alternatively, try to repeal it,” Levitt said. “The Trump administration has quite a bit of leeway to choose to negotiate more aggressively or less aggressively.”
Arthur Caplan, the head of the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said that for now, it appears that Trump is proceeding on health care costs “with great caution,” leaving Biden’s bigger initiatives alone.
Although Trump has advocated for a minimalist approach to government, Caplan said Trump is aware that the U.S. pays much higher prices for care than other countries and that the government may need to intervene.
Caplan said he hopes Trump leaves the Medicare negotiation provision in place.
“Right now, he seems to be nibbling on the edges,” Caplan said. “But I hope he doesn’t go further.”
In a recent move, former President Donald Trump has reversed several key policies put in place by President Joe Biden regarding drug pricing and Obamacare.
One of the major changes made by Trump is the rescinding of Biden’s executive orders aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. Trump argued that these measures were harmful to pharmaceutical companies and could potentially hinder innovation in the industry. This decision has sparked outrage among advocates for affordable healthcare, who believe that drug pricing reform is crucial in making medications more accessible to all Americans.
Additionally, Trump has taken steps to dismantle parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. He has rolled back provisions that expanded Medicaid eligibility and required insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. These actions have reignited the debate over the future of healthcare in the United States, with many worried about the impact on millions of Americans who rely on these protections.
As the Biden administration pushes for healthcare reform and affordability, Trump’s reversal of these policies sets the stage for a contentious battle over the future of healthcare in America. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to pause the briefing in four cases slated for argument during the 2024-25 term. In filings by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, the government told the justices that, with the change in administrations from former President Joe Biden to President Donald Trump, government officials had determined that federal agencies in each case – the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education – should take another look at the regulations, agency determinations, or actions at the center of the dispute.
The solicitor general is the government’s top lawyer in the Supreme Court, sometimes referred to as the “tenth justice” because of respect that the court has for the lawyers in the solicitor general’s office and the respect that the justices give to that office. Perhaps because of that role, there has generally been a longstanding tradition that, even after a change from a Democratic administration to a Republican one or vice versa, the federal government maintains the same legal position in cases already before the court on the merits. However, in recent years, solicitors general in both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration departed from that practice, reversing course in several cases before the court.
Harris, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas who is serving as the acting solicitor general until D. John Sauer, Trump’s permanent pick for solicitor general, is confirmed, filed motions on Friday to put the briefing schedule on hold in four cases.
In Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, the court agreed to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that suspended the implementation of a rule intended to streamline the process for reviewing requests for student loan forgiveness from borrowers whose schools defrauded them or were shut down.
Harris wrote on Friday that, since the change in the administration, the Department of Education plans to “reassess the basis for and soundness of the Department’s borrower-defense regulations.” The challenger in the case, a group of for-profit colleges, consents to the request to put the briefing schedule on hold.
In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, the justices agreed to decide whether fuel producers have a legal right to challenge the EPA’s grant to California of a waiver that allows the state to set standards to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and require all passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035.
Harris told the justices that the EPA plans to take another look at its 2022 decision to reinstate that waiver. “Such a reassessment,” she explained, “could obviate the need for this Court to determine whether” the fuel producers have a legal right to sue, known as standing, “to challenge that decision.” The fuel producers oppose the government’s request and plan to file a response, Harris indicated.
In Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, the justices agreed to decide whether the EPA’s denial of states’ plans to implement national air quality standards under the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision can only be brought in the D.C. Circuit.
As in the Diamond Alternative Energy case, Harris indicated that the EPA will reconsider the decision that gave rise to the dispute. Similarly, she reasoned, as a result of that reassessment, the court may no longer need to decide where challenges to the EPA’s action may be filed. The challengers in the case have said that they intend to oppose the EPA’s request to put the case on hold.
And inEnvironmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, the justices had agreed to consider whether challenges by a group of small oil refineries to the EPA’s denial of their requests for exemptions from the requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standards program must be litigated in the D.C. Circuit.
Harris told the court that the EPA planned to take another look at the “basis for and soundness of” the underlying denial actions. The oil refineries, she said, plan to oppose the government’s request.
None of the four cases that the government seeks to put on hold have been scheduled for oral arguments.
In a recent development, former President Donald Trump has requested the Supreme Court to put a hold on four cases challenging Biden administration policies. Trump’s legal team has urged the justices to reconsider the decisions made by lower courts regarding these cases.
The cases in question involve issues such as immigration, climate change, and healthcare, all of which were hotly debated during the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s team argues that the new administration’s policies are detrimental to the American people and that the Supreme Court should take a closer look at these matters.
This move is seen as a strategic one by Trump, who has been vocal about his opposition to Biden’s policies since leaving office. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will respond to this request and what implications it may have on the future of these contentious issues.
Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.
Tags:
Trump administration challenges Biden policies
Supreme Court asked to reconsider Biden’s decisions
Legal battle between Trump and Biden administrations
Supreme Court requested to pause cases on Biden policies
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — On a face-numbingly frigid afternoon last week, Gov. Kristi Noem used a farewell address to South Dakotans to warn of an “invasion” far away from the state’s windswept prairies and freedom-loving farmers.
The “illegal aliens” and “got-aways” crossing the southern border, the governor said, pose an existential threat to the U.S. economy and national security, spreading cartel violence and deadly drugs.
“We see the consequences of Washington’s inaction here,” said Noem, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, a job that would put her at the forefront of the administration’s promised immigration crackdown. “Even known terrorists have crossed the border amongst the illegals – and they could be anywhere.”
But Noem’s heated rhetoric belies a stark reality: With unemployment at 1.9% — the lowest in the country — her state faces an acute labor shortage and has grown increasingly dependent on the same migrants she may be tasked with deporting.
It’s those migrants, many in the U.S. illegally, who provide the low-paid labor powering the booming slaughterhouses, dairy farms and construction sites in South Dakota. And any immigration actions spearheaded by Noem, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate in coming days, could have crippling consequences for businesses in her own backyard.
That disconnect reflects a broader clash with fellow Republicans here who say she’s put her own ambition for higher office ahead of local needs.
The tension is most apparent in her embrace of Trump’s hardline stance on immigration. Whether it’s expressing support for a “Muslim ban” during Trump’s first administration, or dispatching South Dakota’s national guard to the southern border “war zone” more than 1,000 miles away, Noem has left little doubt she will follow Trump’s orders.
And that is what is terrifying migrants, business owners and advocates alike.
“If strict enforcement comes into play, we’re going to drown in our own red meat,” said Ray Epp, a hog farmer and former Yankton County commissioner, who noted the unparalleled work ethic — and growing presence — of migrant laborers in the state’s pork industry. “There’d be a crash.”
Nitza Rubenstein, a community activist who works closely with migrants, was even more blunt: “Who’s going to milk the cows? If the Latinos don’t, nobody will.”
Nitza Rubenstein, owner of Julia’s Tienda Latina, a grocery store selling products from Latin America poses for a photo in Flandreau, S.D., Jan. 16, 2025. Rubenstein, who came to the U.S. from Honduras decades ago, is a community activist who assists younger generations of migrants, many in the U.S. illegally, who have flocked to this rural state seeking a brighter future. (AP Photo/Joshua Goodman)
Nitza Rubenstein, owner of Julia’s Tienda Latina, a grocery store selling products from Latin America poses for a photo in Flandreau, S.D., Jan. 16, 2025. Rubenstein, who came to the U.S. from Honduras decades ago, is a community activist who assists younger generations of migrants, many in the U.S. illegally, who have flocked to this rural state seeking a brighter future. (AP Photo/Joshua Goodman)
Freedom fighter brand of politics
In Noem’s telling, her father’s death in a farming accident in 1994 produced a political awakening that would come to define her small government, freedom fighter brand of politics.
Pregnant at the time, she dropped out of college to take the reins of the family business — soon feuding with bureaucrats over what she called a “death tax” that nearly bankrupted the ranch.
“Overseeing all the operations was eye-opening,” she wrote in “No Going Back,” an autobiography that drew scorn last year for describing how she killed a rambunctious puppy. “The government had its hand in everything we did.”
Twelve years later, at the urging of Tom Daschle, then the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate, Noem ran for the state Legislature — as a Republican. An unbeaten string of eight electoral victories followed on her way to Congress and then the top office in the Mount Rushmore State.
The South Dakota State Capitol building in Pierre, S.D., Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025. Gov. Kristi Noem, President Donald Trump’s pick to be Homeland Security Secretary, used a farewell address to South Dakotans to warn of an “invasion” at the southern border far away from the state’s windswept prairies and freedom-loving farmers. (AP Photo/Joshua Goodman)
The South Dakota State Capitol building in Pierre, S.D., Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025. Gov. Kristi Noem, President Donald Trump’s pick to be Homeland Security Secretary, used a farewell address to South Dakotans to warn of an “invasion” at the southern border far away from the state’s windswept prairies and freedom-loving farmers. (AP Photo/Joshua Goodman)
Noem won those races thanks to a homespun and hard-knuckled approach to politics. As if to emphasize her reputation for bashing opponents, she ended her State of the State address last week handing her longtime lieutenant governor a signed baseball bat.
“This used to be an old men’s club,” said Jim Smith, the Capitol’s longtime sergeant at arms, who remembers when lawmakers kept whisky bottles on their desk and filled the chambers with cigar smoke. “You need sharp elbows to survive.”
Wooing Trump
She catapulted to national prominence in 2020 as South Dakota rejected COVID-19 restrictions and remained open for business during the pandemic. That year she also wooed Trump to Mount Rushmore for a Fourth of July fireworks display over the objection of federal bureaucrats concerned about potential wildfires.
As her national profile has risen, South Dakota’s first female governor feuded repeatedly with state Republican lawmakers who said they believe she has been more focused on auditioning for Trump than on the state’s needs. Those fights range from her use of a government plane to attend out-of-state political events, state funding for a shooting range the Legislature previously rejected and a pipeline project she backed over the objections of landowners.
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump reacts with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem after dancing to the song “Y.M.C.A.” at a campaign town hall at the Greater Philadelphia Expo Center & Fairgrounds, Oct. 14, 2024, in Oaks, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump reacts with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem after dancing to the song “Y.M.C.A.” at a campaign town hall at the Greater Philadelphia Expo Center & Fairgrounds, Oct. 14, 2024, in Oaks, Pa. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
“Valuable time has been wasted on one person’s political aspirations while life-changing issues have gone on the back burner,” said Steven Haugaard, a former speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives who challenged Noem in 2022 for the Republican nomination for governor, garnering 24% of the vote.
As her political ambition outgrew the newly fenced-in governor’s residence in Pierre, Noem increasingly has turned her attention to immigration, though her record was not always as harsh as her rhetoric.
In 2019, for example, Noem rejected an offer by the first Trump administration to stop South Dakota’s cooperation with a U.S. State Department program to resettle refugees. It’s not clear how she feels about that program now. In her address last week, she criticized programs that have allowed “many thousands who caught a free plane ride over our borders courtesy of the federal government.”
At her Senate confirmation hearing last week, Democrats questioned Noem’s qualifications for the job. As DHS secretary, she’ll be charged with managing the third-largest federal agency, with 240,000 employees and a budget of $108 billion — more than 15 times the spending of South Dakota, with just 13,000 workers.
The sprawling department is not only responsible for running immigration and border policy but oversees agencies investigating terrorism and cybersecurity threats as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Secret Service.
When asked how she would protect rural states from work shortages while carrying out Trump’s deportation plans, she offered few details other than to say she’ll focus initially on what she claimed were 425,000 migrants with criminal convictions.
The number of migrants encountered trying to enter the U.S. skyrocketed under President Joe Biden, peaking in December 2023, when officials reported 301,000 encounters at the border. But they’ve since ebbed to less than a third that amount.
Noem, 53, didn’t respond to repeated interview requests but has left little doubt on how she will run DHS.
“We will ensure that our borders are secure,” she told the committee, “and we’re addressing all threats that may come in from any direction.”
Migrants, business owners are anxious about crackdown
Among those bracing for the crackdown is a young Guatemalan couple living without legal status in a prairie hamlet about an hour from Noem’s homestead.
Yoni and Petrona fell in love in South Dakota after each handed over their life’s savings to human smugglers, known as coyotes, to guide them across the U.S. border during the pandemic.
Like many migrants interviewed by the AP, the two lack health insurance, a driver’s license and can’t open a bank account. But that hasn’t stopped them from finding work.
Within two weeks of arriving, Yoni, just 15 at the time, landed a job at the local egg farm for $12 an hour with a fake green card he bought for $150. He now earns double that in construction and says he’s able to wire more remittances to family in Guatemala than friends who settled in California because rent in his state is cheap.
The couple’s dream is to gain legal status — or save enough to return home and provide their 18-month-old daughter, who was born in the U.S., a better upbringing than the one they had. The Associated Press agreed not to disclose the couple’s last names because they are afraid of being arrested and deported.
“Things are a little bit better here,” Yoni said in Spanish on a rare day off because his employer suspended work due to the extreme cold. “At least I know that if I work hard here I’ll get paid.”
The couple, who spoke to the AP days before Trump was sworn in, live in fear that Noem will follow through on the threats and one day separate them from their daughter.
“I’ve heard that they’re only going to deport the mothers and the kids will stay here,” said Petrona. “Imagine that.”
But those fears, stoked by Trump and Noem, don’t match the warm welcome migrants described in nearby Huron, where on a recent evening a red wolf moon flooded the desolate plains surrounding the town’s turkey plant.
A co-op of ethnic German Hutterite farmers, who arrived in the 19th century, own the Dakota Provisions plant. But migrants from Venezuela, Thailand and other countries, earning around $14 per hour, perform the dangerous, back-breaking work.
Huron, population 14,000, flourished with the arrival of the railroad in the 1880s, attracting migrants from all over Europe. But when the rail depot fell into disuse in the 1960s, the city began a long decline: a college closed, businesses shuttered and families uprooted.
Migrants are now fueling something of a rural renaissance.
The first contingent arrived some 20 years ago from Mexico and Central America. The latest are refugees fleeing ethnic violence in Myanmar. At the Beadle County courthouse, translation services are now offered in seven languages: Arabic, French, Karen, Nepali, Russian, Spanish and Swahili. A beef processing plant that is about to break ground is expected to attract even more foreign workers.
All the while, the town’s high school soccer team has become competitive. A half-dozen Latin bodegas sell exotic foods. And once-abandoned parks are brimming with families.
“It’s not an invasion — it’s an invitation,” said Todd Manolis, owner of Manolis Grocery on Main Street. “There were lots of growing pains at first. But without a doubt they saved us.”
Todd Manolis poses for a photo at Manolis Grocery, in Huron, S.D., Jan. 15, 2025. Residents of Huron have embraced the arrival of so many migrants to South Dakota, crediting them with saving a town that had been on the decline for decades. (AP Photo/Joshua Goodman)
Todd Manolis poses for a photo at Manolis Grocery, in Huron, S.D., Jan. 15, 2025. Residents of Huron have embraced the arrival of so many migrants to South Dakota, crediting them with saving a town that had been on the decline for decades. (AP Photo/Joshua Goodman)
On a recent afternoon, as Manolis waited on customers who chewed the fat and bought goods on store credit, the owner pointed to the store’s license hanging from a wall. It showed the business had been started a century ago — by Manolis’ grandfather, shortly after his arrival as an immigrant from Greece.
___
Associated Press writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report from Washington.
As South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem considers a potential role in the Department of Homeland Security, her immigration policies could have major implications for her home state. With a strong stance on border security and enforcement, Noem’s approach could impact the state’s economy, workforce, and overall demographics.
South Dakota relies heavily on immigrant labor in industries such as agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare. Any crackdown on immigration could lead to labor shortages and hinder economic growth in the state. Additionally, the state’s growing immigrant population contributes to its cultural diversity and vitality.
Noem’s policies could also strain relationships with neighboring states and tribal nations, as immigration enforcement often spills over into bordering areas. This could create tensions and disrupt the peace and cooperation that South Dakota relies on for regional stability.
As Governor Noem navigates her potential role in DHS, it will be crucial for her to consider the unique needs and challenges of her home state. Balancing national security interests with the well-being of South Dakota residents will be a delicate task, and the repercussions of her decisions could have lasting effects on the state’s future.
Tags:
Kristi Noem, immigration policies, Department of Homeland Security, South Dakota, immigration reform, border security, DACA, asylum seekers, refugee resettlement, immigration enforcement, immigration legislation.
Days after President Trump ordered federal agencies to investigate private sector entities for “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Target has become the latest major company to retreat on D.E.I.
Target announced on Friday that it will conclude its D.E.I. goals and will no longer participate in external diversity-focused surveys, including sharing data with the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit group that tracks corporate L.G.B.T.Q. policies.
“As a retailer that serves millions of consumers every day, we understand the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape,” wrote Kiera Fernandez, chief community impact and equity officer for Target, in a memo.
Target joins a fast-growing group of companies dropping diversity commitments and policies, as Mr. Trump makes clear his intent to fight D.E.I., in the federal government and beyond. Last summer, Tractor Supply, John Deere and Harley-Davidson ditched D.E.I. programs, in part in response to threats of boycotts led by the conservative activist Robby Starbuck. More recently, other companies have rolled back diversity programs too, including Meta, Walmart and Amazon.
JPMorgan, the country’s largest bank by assets, has so far taken a different tack, with its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, announcing this week that the bank does not intend to back down on diversity. “Bring them on,” he said in an interview with CNBC, referring to the activists agitating against the bank’s D.E.I. programs. Costco, too, has fought changes. On Thursday, its shareholders rejected a proposal brought by a conservative group that would have required the company to report the risks of its D.E.I. policies.
After the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, when many companies were making commitments to fighting racial injustice, Target’s chief executive, Brian Cornell, reacted emotionally and committed to spending $2 billion with Black owned businesses by 2025.
“I remember gathering my Black officers right after George Floyd’s murder,” Mr. Cornell said on CBS News. “Those team members had tears in their eyes and they were telling me how it affected them, their families.”
Target, which has its headquarters in Minneapolis, has had a rough time in the marketplace. A weak earnings report in November sent investors fleeing.
In a bold move, Target has announced plans to end its diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) policies in response to threats from former President Donald Trump.
The retail giant, which has been a leader in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace, cited pressure from Trump and his supporters as the reason for their decision. In a statement released today, Target CEO Brian Cornell said, “We have always been committed to creating a diverse and inclusive workplace, but recent threats from the former president have forced us to reconsider our approach.”
Trump has been vocal in his opposition to D.E.I. policies, claiming that they are discriminatory and divisive. In a recent tweet, he called on companies to “put America first” and end their diversity initiatives. Target is the first major corporation to publicly announce plans to comply with Trump’s demands.
The decision has sparked controversy, with many criticizing Target for bowing to political pressure and abandoning its commitment to diversity and inclusion. Critics argue that D.E.I. policies are essential for creating a more equitable and just society, and that companies should not cave to political pressure in this way.
It remains to be seen how this move will impact Target’s reputation and bottom line, but one thing is clear: the debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace is far from over. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.
Bahnsen Group founder and managing partner David Bahnsen joins ‘The Big Money Show’ to discuss companies reversing course on DEI and ESG investing, UFC CEO Dana White joining Meta’s board and the ongoing California wildfires.
Target announced on Friday that it is scaling back its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies following President Trump’s executive order to review such initiatives. The move adds Target to a growing list of companies scaling back or eliminating their DEI efforts as these programs come under increased scrutiny.
Kiera Fernandez, Target’s chief community impact and equity officer, said in a note to employees on Friday the retailer will implement changes as part of its “Belonging at the Bullseye” strategy that adapts to the evolving external landscape. This includes concluding its three-year DEI goals and ending its Racial Equity Action and Change (REACH) initiatives in 2025, as planned.
“As a retailer that serves millions of consumers every day, we understand the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape, now and in the future – all in service of driving Target’s growth and winning together,” said Fernandez.
The Minneapolis-based retailer said it has used “years of data, insights, listening and learning” to share the next chapter in its strategy.
Target’s announcement comes as pressure mounts on major corporations, particularly from social media influencers such Robby Starbuck, to scale back on initiatives that purport to increase racial and gender equality in the workplace. The initiatives have also faced fierce criticism from Trump, who on Tuesday signed an executive order directing government agencies to investigate DEI programs at publicly traded corporations, large nonprofit corporations or associations and foundations with assets of at least $500 million. Target falls under that category.
“Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system,” the executive order said.
An employee pulls a wheeler to restock shelves at a Target store in Chicago on Nov. 26, 2024. (KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images / Getty Images)
Fernandez said that Target recruits and retains employees “who represent the communities we serve,” but moving forward, she said it will stop all external diversity-focused surveys, including HRC’s Corporate Equality Index.
Target will also change its “Supplier Diversity” team to “Supplier Engagement” to reflect an “inclusive global procurement process across a broad range of suppliers, including increasing our focus on small businesses,” Fernandez said in the note.
It will also review corporate partnerships and ensure employee resource groups will focus on development and mentorship for all communities.
“We remain focused on driving our business by creating a sense of belonging for our team, guests and communities through a commitment to inclusion. Belonging for all is an essential part of our team and culture, helping fuel consumer relevance and business results,” Fernandez wrote.
Shoppers outside a Target store in Clifton, New Jersey, on Nov. 26, 2024. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)
A slew of companies, including Amazon, Lowe’s, Meta, McDonald’s, American Airlines and Boeing, have pulled back on their DEI programs as pressure increased over the past several months. In November, Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, announced plans to roll back its polices, including how it monitors products within its marketplace and reviews grant funding.
By contrast, some companies have resisted activist pressure, publicly reaffirming their commitment to maintaining DEI policies.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said in the tech firm’s annual report in October that it continues to ensure that its “workforce represents the planet we serve and the products we build always meet our customers’ needs” and that it continues to “hire, develop, and grow a global workforce that best supports each other and our customers.”
Shopping carts outside a Target store in Albany, on Nov. 18, 2024. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)
Pinterest Chief Legal Officer Wanji Walcott posted on LinkedIn that the company is “laser-focused on advancing inclusion and diversity both within our organization and on our platform, investing in critical initiatives like pay equity internally and body inclusivity externally.”
Still, anti-woke activist Starbuck, who has been taking credit for companies scaling back or ending their DEI programs, stated he has no intention of stopping his campaign anytime soon.
Target first introduced the “Belonging at the Bullseye” strategy to employees in early 2024, but its been working on it since 2021.
Target, one of the largest retail chains in the United States, has announced that it will be scaling back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies following President Trump’s recent executive order. The executive order, which prohibits federal contractors from conducting certain types of diversity training, has prompted Target to reevaluate its own DEI initiatives.
In a statement released by the company, Target explained that they will be making changes to their DEI programs in order to comply with the new regulations set forth by the executive order. This decision has sparked controversy among employees and customers, with many expressing disappointment and frustration over the apparent rollback of progress in promoting diversity and inclusion within the company.
Despite the changes being made, Target has emphasized that they remain committed to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for all employees and customers. However, critics argue that scaling back DEI policies sends a harmful message and undermines efforts to promote equality and diversity in the workplace.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how other companies will respond to the executive order and what impact it will have on the future of DEI initiatives in the corporate world.
