Justice Department requests lists of undocumented immigrants in LA County jails
During a news conference on Thursday, Luna said the federal government has threatened to charge him if his agency does not cooperate.
"I've personally received, I'm going to call it, threatening letters from the federal government to make sure that we are cooperating with them, doing civil immigration enforcement," Luna said. "A lot of them say, if you don't, there's going to be consequences up to the point of you being charged federally."
The Justice Department said they have sent requests to sheriff's departments across California asking "for lists of all inmates in their jails who are not citizens of the United States, their crimes of arrest or conviction, and their scheduled release dates."
Luna said he hasn't seen the request. He added that even if he did, the Sheriff's Department wouldn't be able to help the DOJ.
"We don't ask for immigration status," Luna said. "I don't know how we're going to provide a list to anybody, whether it's the fed or anybody else."
Sanctuary laws in California and Los Angeles also bar local law enforcement from sharing information with immigration agents unless the federal government has a warrant. Luna said federal agents secured warrants for 20 incarcerated people this year, but the Trump administration is requesting more data without warrants.
"At least for this year, there's 435 people that they've asked for in 2025," Luna said. "We have not fulfilled any of them because of state law."
Republicans said California's sanctuary laws are hurting public safety.
"You're not allowed to talk to ICE. You're not allowed to coordinate," Rep. Kevin Kiley said. "You're not allowed to coordinate. You're not allowed to honor a detainer request. So, what happens is that these individuals get released back out into the community."
Luna emphasized that his department is not conducting immigration enforcement.
"We cannot do our jobs without public trust in our community," Luna said.
The Trump administration has granted Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access to the personal information of 75 million Medicaid recipients, enabling the federal government to verify the citizenship status of all individuals. The database also has home addresses. Gov. Gavin Newsom said he will fight against any attempt to access information on those enrolled in MediCal, which is paid for with state revenue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
Ghislaine Maxwell Speaks With DOJ: What To Know About Her Alleged Perjury About Epstein
Justice Department prosecutors interviewed Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell on Thursday, after officials said they would ask her about Epstein's other associates—but critics have raised concerns about whether her testimony can be trusted, pointing to Maxwell's ongoing prison sentence and history of allegedly lying under oath. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Cipriani Wall Street on March 15, 2005 in New York City. Patrick McMullan via Getty Images DOJ officials are interviewing Maxwell at a courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida, on Thursday, with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Maxwell's attorneys reportedly arriving around 9 a.m. EDT on Thursday morning. Blanche previously said the agency wanted to speak with her to find out 'information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims.' The interview comes as the DOJ has controversially refused to otherwise release documents about its investigation into Epstein, and as Maxwell serves a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted on charges of sex trafficking and transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts. Maxwell is also still in the process of appealing her conviction, most recently asking the Supreme Court to take it up, and critics and legal experts have expressed concern she could use the interview to her own benefit to get a more lenient sentence from the federal government. Those fears have been amplified by Maxwell's history of alleged perjury, as the socialite was charged with perjury in 2020 based on allegedly lying during a 2016 deposition in a civil lawsuit about Epstein's alleged sexual abuse. Maxwell was never tried or convicted of perjury: The charges were separated from her other counts prior to her 2021 trial, and when she sought a retrial of her sex trafficking charges, prosecutors offered to drop the perjury charges as long as her conviction on the other, more serious, counts was allowed to stand. It still remains to be seen what Maxwell has told prosecutors during her interview, and if her testimony will be made public or lead to any reprieve in her prison sentence. Blanche denied comment when he arrived at the courthouse Thursday morning, ABC News reports, while Maxwell's attorney David O. Markus only said, 'We're looking forward to a productive day.' DOJ officials are expected to meet with Maxwell all day Thursday, and the interview could stretch into a second day, according to sources cited by the Tallahassee Democrat. Why Was Ghislaine Maxwell Charged With Perjury? Maxwell was charged with perjury based on answers she gave in a 2016 deposition regarding Epstein's alleged abuse and her own complicity. The indictment against her cited multiple comments she made denying any knowledge of Epstein's alleged abuse: When asked if Epstein had a 'scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages,' she responded, 'I don't know what you're talking about,' for instance, and she said she 'was not aware of anybody that I interacted with' at Epstein's properties being underage, other than a plaintiff involved in the civil lawsuit. Maxwell also testified under oath she was not aware of any 'sex toys or devices' being used at Epstein's properties, and that she had never personally given Epstein or any of his victims a massage. She also claimed she was unaware of Epstein engaging in 'sexual activities' with anyone besides herself and two women she and Epstein had 'three-way sexual activities with,' saying in her deposition, 'I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself.' When asked again by attorneys to confirm that her testimony was that she was 'not aware' of Epstein having any other sexual partners, Maxwell doubled down, saying, 'That is my testimony, that is correct.' Her statements conflict with charges in the indictment that Maxwell was later convicted on, which alleged Maxwell conducted massages and was 'present for and participated in the abuse of minor victims,' among other allegations. Maxwell's perjury charges weren't dealt with at her trial in 2021 alongside her sex trafficking charges, as she successfully requested to have those charges separated before her trial. Maxwell argued, and the court agreed, that the charges should be tried separately because they would have involved evidence that could have prejudiced the jury on the other charges, and it may have disqualified one of her attorneys from the trial because they participated in the earlier case. The perjury counts were still slated to proceed to trial after Maxwell was convicted in 2021, but prosecutors then offered to have the charges dropped in exchange for letting the conviction stand, rather than going through the whole process of having the sex trafficking charges tried again. The government suggested it was willing to drop the lesser perjury charges for the benefit of Epstein's victims, given that Maxwell had already been convicted, citing 'the victims' significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again.' Chief Critic Multiple legal experts and critics have raised concerns about Maxwell's testimony, given her history of alleged perjury and the fact she could benefit from giving the Trump administration favorable testimony, such as exonerating Trump from Epstein's crimes or suggesting that individuals who are opposed to Trump were involved. 'Any 'new' testimony [Maxwell] offers is inherently unreliable unless backed by evidence,' former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance said on X on Thursday. Bradley Edwards, an attorney representing Epstein victims who was involved in the case where Maxwell was deposed, told MSNBC on Wednesday that victims are 'alarmed' by the DOJ speaking with Maxwell and that she is being 'somehow given some credibility and a platform on this particular topic.' 'We're going to go and ask somebody to tell the truth who was indicted on perjury charges related to this particular topic,' Edwards said. 'Now, does she have information that could potentially help? Yes. Will she be truthful about it? Who knows.' Edwards called for anyone interviewing Maxwell to be well-versed in the Epstein case and what Maxwell has testified previously, arguing, 'Sending somebody there who knows nothing, she's going to say whatever she wants to say.' How Could Ghislaine Maxwell's Testimony Impact Her Case? The Trump administration could grant Maxwell some leniency in exchange for her testimony through a 'Rule 35 motion,' which allows prosecutors to request the court reduce a defendant's sentence because of actions they took post-sentencing. That could include providing 'substantial assistance' to the government in a different prosecution, such as if Maxwell were to provide information about other Epstein associates who are implicated in his alleged crimes. Trump could also theoretically pardon Maxwell or commute her sentence, though the optics of doing so would likely cause considerable public backlash. The Supreme Court is still deliberating on whether to grant Maxwell's request for justices to reconsider her conviction, as Maxwell argues a non-prosecution agreement Epstein made in 2008, which allowed him to plead guilty to some charges in order to avoid a life sentence in prison, also shielded her from liability. (Epstein was later indicted in 2019 after more information about his alleged abuse became public, and died in prison before his trial.) The Trump administration has so far opposed Maxwell's request at the Supreme Court, filing a brief on July 14 that argues the court should not take up the case and should let her conviction stand. Tangent In addition to the DOJ, the House Oversight Committee is planning to interview Maxwell, voting Wednesday in favor of issuing a subpoena for her testimony. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., suggested lawmakers could also tie Maxwell's testimony and its truthfulness to her sentence, giving her incentive to be helpful. 'The one thing we've got holding over her head is that if we find out she lies, she goes back to her original sentence,' Burchett said. 'If she's looking at maybe parlaying this into reducing her sentence, then we could have some leverage there.' Epstein has been accused of assaulting more than 100 women prior to his 2019 arrest, many of whom were underage, and Maxwell has been identified as his primary co-conspirator in helping him to allegedly coerce and assault his victims. The DOJ's interest in speaking with her comes as interest over the Epstein files has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, following the agency's memo that announced it would not release any further files and debunked various conspiracies linked to Epstein, such as the existence of a 'client list.' The memo has sparked widespread backlash against the DOJ, as officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi had long promised the files would be released, with even Trump's supporters criticizing the administration and calling on Bondi to resign. While the DOJ has remained steadfast on not releasing the files in response to the public outcry, its decision to speak with Maxwell is one of several more minor steps the administration has taken in regards to the Epstein case. Prosecutors have also asked courts in cases against Epstein and Maxwell to unseal grand jury documents that reflect the decisions to bring indictments against the two defendants. Those filings are expected to be much more limited than the full tranche of documents the government has in its possession, however, and it's unclear when or if they could be publicly released, with one court already rejecting the government's request for materials to be unsealed. Further Reading Forbes Top DOJ Official Will Meet With Ghislaine Maxwell Amid Epstein Files Drama By Alison Durkee Forbes Here's What Jeffrey Epstein Was Accused Of, Convicted For—And The New Questions By Zachary Folk Forbes U.S. Prosecutors Offer To Drop Ghislaine Maxwell Perjury Charges If No Retrial In Sex Trafficking Case By Robert Hart
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Day After Explosive Epstein-Trump Report, Convicted Sex Trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell Meets with DOJ Official
Top officials at the Department of Justice are scheduled to meet Thursday with convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, reportedly in hopes of obtaining information about potential criminal activity by associates of her late confidante, Jeffrey Epstein. The meeting between Maxwell and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is taking place at the U.S. Attorney's office in Tallahassee, Fla., near where Maxwell is incarcerated, ABC News reported Thursday morning, citing sources. Blanche declined to speak with reporters as he walked into the building, which is housed in Tallahassee's federal courthouse. Maxwell's lawyer, David Markus, told reporters he was "looking forward to a productive day," ABC reported. Maxwell was convicted on child sex trafficking charges in 2021 in relation to her activities as a "madam" for Epstein, the billionaire financier and convicted child sex criminal. Maxwell recruited girls, including minors, for Epstein to sexually abuse. Maxwell has appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing she is immune from prosecution through a 2007 deal that required Epstein to plead guilty to procuring a child for prostitution and register as a sex unclear whether Maxwell may attempt to use the meeting to secure a lighter sentence or even a pardon from the government in exchange for cooperation. The meeting with Maxwell comes one day after the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena for her deposition and voted to subpoena the DOJ, ABC reported. In response to the subpoena, Markus said it "remains a big if" whether she would testify before Congress and not invoke her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination — but if she did, she would "testify truthfully, as she always has said she would." The Trump administration has faced significant blowback over its handling of the Epstein scandal. Months after claiming Epstein's long-rumored "client list" was sitting on her desk, Attorney General Pam Bondi's DOJ effectively closed the case, claiming no such client list existed and there was not enough evidence to prosecute any potential Epstein co-conspirators. Epstein was arrested in July 2019 and charged with sex trafficking but died a month later in a Manhattan jail cell, leaving unanswered questions about his associates and alleged crimes. His death was ruled a suicide but the ruling has generated suspicion. President Donald Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before a falling out, has urged his followers to forget about the disgraced financiar, to little avail, as questions swirl over whether the commander-in-chief is named in the government's "Epstein files." Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that one such file in the government's possession is an alleged birthday card from Trump to Epstein, drawn inside the outline of a naked woman, where the president allegedly wrote to the disgraced financier that they have "certain things in common." PEOPLE has been unable to verify this information. Trump called the letter fake and sued the Journal for $20 billion. On Wednesday, the Journal reported that DOJ officials told Trump he was named in the Epstein files as far back as May, before the administration publicly announced there was no client list. Trump's team again called the story "fake" on Wednesday. Read the original article on People
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Trump rollback on clean energy subsidies stalls major solar, wind projects and manufacturing plans
Singapore-based solar panel manufacturer Bila Solar is suspending plans to double capacity at its new factory in Indianapolis. Canadian rival Heliene's plans for a solar cell facility in Minnesota are under review. Norwegian solar wafer maker NorSun is evaluating whether to move forward with a planned factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And two fully permitted offshore wind farms in the U.S. Northeast may never get built. These are among the major clean energy investments now in question after Republicans agreed earlier this month to quickly end U.S. subsidies for solar and wind power as part of their budget megabill, and as the White House directed agencies to tighten the rules on who can claim the incentives that remain. This marks a policy U-turn since President Donald Trump's return to office that project developers, manufacturers and analysts say will slash installations of renewable energy over the coming decade, kill investment and jobs in the clean energy manufacturing sector supporting them, and worsen a looming U.S. power supply crunch as energy-hungry AI infrastructure expands. Solar and wind installations could be 17% and 20% lower than previously forecast over the next decade because of the moves, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie, which warned that a dearth of new supplies could slow the expansion of data centers needed to support AI technology. Energy researcher Rhodium, meanwhile, said the law puts at risk $263 billion of wind, solar, and storage facilities and $110 billion of announced manufacturing investment supporting them. It will also increase industrial energy costs by up to $11 billion in 2035, it said. 'One of the administration's stated goals was to bring costs down, and as we demonstrated, this bill doesn't do that,' said Ben King, a director in Rhodium's energy and climate practice. He added the policy 'is not a recipe for continued dominance of the U.S. AI industry.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has defended its moves to end support for clean energy by arguing the rapid adoption of solar and wind power has created instability in the grid and raised consumer prices – assertions that are contested by the industry and which do not bear out in renewables-heavy power grids, like Texas' ERCOT. Power industry representatives, however, have said all new generation projects need to be encouraged to meet rising U.S. demand, including both those driven by renewables and fossil fuels. Consulting firm ICF projects that U.S. electricity demand will grow by 25% by 2030, driven by increased AI and cloud computing – a major challenge for the power industry after decades of stagnation. The REPEAT Project, a collaboration between Princeton University and Evolved Energy Research, projects a 2% annual increase in electricity demand. With a restricted pipeline of renewables, tighter electricity supplies stemming from the policy shift could increase household electricity costs by $280 a year in 2035, according to the REPEAT Project. The key provision in the new law is the accelerated phase-out of 30% tax credits for wind and solar projects: it requires projects to begin construction within a year or enter service by the end of 2027 to qualify for the credits. Previously the credits were available through 2032. Now some project developers are scrambling to get projects done while the U.S. incentives are still accessible. But even that strategy has become risky, developers said. Days after signing the law, Trump directed the Treasury Department to review the definition of 'beginning of construction.' A revision to those rules could overturn a long-standing practice giving developers four years to claim tax credits after spending just 5% of project costs. Treasury was given 45 days to draft new rules. 'With so many moving parts, financing of projects, financing of manufacturing is difficult, if not impossible,' said Martin Pochtaruk, CEO of Heliene. 'You are looking to see what is the next baseball bat that's going to hit you on the head.' About face Heliene's planned cell factory, which could cost as much as $350 million, depending on the capacity, and employ more than 600 workers, is also in limbo, Pochtaruk said in an interview earlier this month. The company needs more clarity on both what the new law will mean for U.S. demand, and how Trump's trade policy will impact the solar industry. 'We have a building that is anxiously waiting for us to make a decision,' Pochtaruk said. Similarly, Mick McDaniel, general manager of Bila Solar, said 'a troubling level of uncertainty' has put on hold its $20 million expansion at an Indianapolis factory it opened this year that would create an additional 75 jobs. 'NorSun is still digesting the new legislation and recent executive order to determine the impact to the overall domestic solar manufacturing landscape,' said Todd Templeton, director of the company's U.S. division that is reviewing plans for its $620 million solar wafer facility in Tulsa. Five solar manufacturing companies – T1 Energy, Imperial Star Solar, SEG Solar, Solx and ES Foundry – said they are also concerned about the new law's impact on future demand, but that they have not changed their investment plans. The policy changes have also injected fresh doubt about the fate of the nation's pipeline of offshore wind projects, which depend heavily on tax credits to bring down costs. According to Wood Mackenzie, projects that have yet to start construction or make final investment decisions are unlikely to proceed. Two such projects, which are fully permitted, include a 300-megawatt project by developer US Wind off the coast of Maryland and Iberdrola's 791 MW New England Wind off the coast of Massachusetts. Neither company responded to requests for comment. 'They are effectively ready to begin construction and are now trapped in a timeline that will make it that much harder to be able to take advantage of the remaining days of the tax credits,' said Hillary Bright, executive director of offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward.
