Maryland advocates rally in support of bills aimed at immigration protection rights
Maryland immigration advocates rallied in front of the State House on Wednesday in support of a bill aimed at protecting the state's immigrant communities from President Donald Trump's policies.
The Maryland Data Privacy Act Video, one of three bills that the immigrant-rights group CASA listed in its legislative agenda this session, had its first committee hearing on Wednesday.
The legislation aims to make it so federal agents enforcing federal immigration law can't get sensitive and personal information from state databases unless they have a warrant from a state or federal judge.
. @CASAforall is pushing for support for the Maryland Data Privacy Act/SB0977, one of 3 bills it's supporting this session that aims to bolster protections for immigrants.
The bill has its 1st committee hearing in less than an hour. pic.twitter.com/mCcOt7GToL
— Dennis Valera (@dennisreports) February 19, 2025
State Sen. Clarence Lam, The bill's sponsor, said this is a follow-up bill he passed during Trump's first term in the White House.
The two other bills in CASA's legislative agenda -- the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act and the Maryland Values Act -- have their first committee hearings on Thursday.
Rallying in support
Immigration advocates held signs and spoke out in support of immigration protection rights ahead of the bill's hearing with the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Wednesday.
Alex Vazquez, CASA's Director of Organizing, read an account of one of the group's members when private data was used by federal agents to find them.
"As I stood there in handcuffs, one of the agents casually admitted how they found me," Vazquez read. "They had used Maryland's [Motor Vehicle Administration's] database to track my location."
Protecting state data
Federal agents are now barred from accessing MVA data due to a bill Lam passed in 2021. But now he wants to expand that to all state databases.
Lam said this bill is even more important now because of the recent actions by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
A federal judge ruled against a group of 14 Democratic state attorneys general that tried to block DOGE and Elon Musk from accessing data systems and making personnel decisions at various federal agencies.
"What we're incredibly concerned about is the federal government coming into our state and trying to access our state's information, where we have built a level of trust with our residents...that we want to continue," Lam said.
Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman testified in support of the bill to the committee, saying immigrants may start avoiding giving their personal information to the state.
She adds that could lead to a reduction in tax revenue, among other impacts.
"In 2022 alone, [immigrants] contributed $5.3 billion in state and local taxes, and over $6 billion to social services programs like Social Security and Medicaid," Lierman said.
Clarity and safety concerns
During the committee hearing, State Sen. Chris West was one of several senators concerned that the bill doesn't lay out the parameters for federal agents to get a warrant.
Morningside Police Chief Daniel Franklin said he understood the bill's intention but is worried about unintended consequences that could lead to safety issues and loss of state-federal relationships.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance says the ‘blood feud' between Trump and Musk is ‘not going to be good for Elon' but admits he ‘suffered a lot' for the White House
Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the deepening feud between Elon Musk and President Trump but emphasized his hope that Musk could eventually reconcile with the Trump administration, praising Musk's past efforts with DOGE and calling him a 'transformational entrepreneur.' While defending Trump and dismissing Musk's Epstein-related claims as baseless, Vance warned that Musk's aggressive political stance could backfire, both for his companies and the broader national interest. It's been pointed out by many spectators that the feud between the world's richest man, Elon Musk, and arguably the world's most powerful man, Donald Trump, is not going to end well for any involved. And JD Vance, Trump's political right hand, agrees. The Tesla CEO and president have fallen out to a major extent, at first over the White House's 'Big, Beautiful Bill', which Musk says will undo all the work of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But since Musk's departure from Washington D.C. several weeks ago, his attacks on President Trump have continued to ramp up. He has encouraged voters to outright rebel against the bill by contacting their political representatives, with Trump saying he was 'disappointed' in Musk for such statements. The man worth $342 billion hit back that Trump would have lost the election without his backing, with the president then threatening to terminate a host of government contracts to Musk's private entities. In response, Musk claimed that the president's name was in the Epstein files—a jibe he provided no evidence to support. Speaking in an interview this week, Vice President Vance said any notion that Trump did 'anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein' is 'BS.' Yet while the relationship between the Musk and Trump seems to have gone past the point of no return, Vice President Vance says he still wants to see the SpaceX founder return to the fold of the Trump 2.0 team. 'My basic read on it, first of all I'm the vice president to President Trump, my loyalties are always going to be with the president. Elon [is] an incredible entrepreneur, I think DOGE was really good. The effort to root out waste, fraud and abuse in our country was really good,' Vance told the 'This Past Weekend' podcast with Theo Von. 'I hope that eventually Elon kind of comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear—I hope it is,' Vance added. Musk's decision to go 'nuclear', as Vance describes it, may not prove to be in the best interest of his companies, such as Tesla and Space X, which may now draw the attention of the Oval Office for the wrong reasons. As a result of this concern, in the past five days alone the share price of Tesla has sunk more than 14%, with Musk's net worth taking an eye-watering hit as a result. Vance suggested that Musk may be shooting from the hip instead of assessing the ramifications of going head-to-head with the White House, adding: 'Elon's new to politics … I think part of it is this guy got into politics and has suffered a lot for it.' Indeed even prior to a spat with the White House, Musk was suffering for his political interests. While heading up DOGE, protestors to his work and the Trump administration began targeting Tesla by damaging cars, showrooms, and charging points—not only in the U.S. but also across Europe. 'The process in D.C., if you're a business leader you probably get frustrated with that process because it's more bureaucratic [and] slow moving. So I think there's some frustrations there,' Vance added. 'But I think it's huge mistake for [Musk] to go after the president like that. I think that if he and the president are in some blood feud, most importantly it's going to be bad for the country but I … don't think it's going to be good for Elon either.' Concerns have been raised about the bill on account of the fiscal ramifications of the largest tax breaks 'in history,' with previous projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finding the legislation would add $3.8 trillion to the deficit while proposed cuts to Medicaid would shave only $1 trillion in spending. However the Trump administration said statements such as 'The One Big Beautiful Bill increases spending' and 'The One Big Beautiful Bill adds to the deficit' are false. For example, the White House points to the CBO's predictions that while tariffs will shrink the economy it will also reduce federal deficits by $2.8 trillion (the inclusion of the Big Beautiful Bill in its modeling is not mentioned). 'I think that it's a good bill and it does a lot of good for the American people,' Vance continued. 'Look, Elon's entitled to his opinion. I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying, I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man—I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever—to be at war with the world's most powerful man who I think is doing more to save the country than … anybody in my lifetime.' He added: 'I don't want to reveal too many confidences but [Trump] was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon … the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk, and I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine.' This story was originally featured on
Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Live updates: Los Angeles reels after three days of immigration protests
Tensions in Los Angeles escalated Sunday night as thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard, blocking off a major freeway and setting self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 13:10:36 Title: Trump was awake past midnight raging against the protests in LA and calling for a crackdown Content: 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he wrote on Truth Social at 12:16 a.m. ET. Trump has already deployed 2,000 members of the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The military said 500 Marines were on standby. 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' Trump wrote at 12:19 cited Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell's recent comments to defend his response to the protests. 'Don't let these thugs get away with this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' Trump wrote at 12:14 a.m. 'This thing has gotten out of control,' McDonell said Sunday. 'We have great cops in Southern California here that work together all the time,' he said. But he added that 'looking at the violence tonight, I think we gotta make a reassessment.' Update: Date: 2025-06-09 13:02:48 Title: PHOTOS: Protesters clash with law enforcement in Los Angeles Content: Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:56:19 Title: Australian reporter hit by nonlethal round during live report from the protests Content: An Australian television journalist was hit in the leg by a nonlethal round Sunday while reporting live from downtown Los Angeles. Video of the incident released by 9News shows correspondent Lauren Tomasi reporting live when an officer behind her suddenly raises their firearm and fires a nonlethal round at close range. Tomasi, who doesn't appear to be wearing personal protective equipment, cries out in pain and clutches her lower leg as she and her cameraman quickly move away from the police line. 'You just (expletive) shot the reporter,' a voice off-camera can be heard shouting. The shooting came after a tense afternoon in which Tomasi and her crew were caught between riot police and protesters. At one point, she struggled to speak over the sound of clashes, while a protester grabbed the camera mid-broadcast. 'They've told people to get out of this area, and protesters have been refusing,' she reported. 'We are safe here. It's just noisy. But you can see the volatility.' Speaking later Monday to 9News, Tomasi confirmed she was safe and unharmed. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:54:00 Title: Clashes escalated Sunday as National Guard troops arrived downtown Content: Starting Sunday morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:50:52 Title: Protests intensified on Sunday night in Los Angeles after Trump deployed National Guard troops Content: Sunday's protests in Los Angeles were centered in several blocks of downtown. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who don't leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention center where protesters concentrated. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend of protest. One was detained Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police, and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers. ▶ Read more about the weekend's protests
Atlantic
38 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
