Latest news with #Bonta
Los Angeles Times
16 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
A.G. Rob Bonta will move to take control of scandal-plagued L.A. County juvenile halls
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Wednesday he will ask a judge to allow the state to take control of L.A. County's juvenile halls. The move that comes after years of failure to comply with court-ordered reforms that have been marked by riots, drug overdoses, allegations of child abuse and the death of a teenager. In a statement, Bonta said he will ask a judge to place the county's halls in 'receivership,' meaning a court-appointed official would takeover 'management and operations of the juvenile halls' from the L.A. County Probation Department, including setting budgets and hiring and firing staff. Bonta is expected to discuss the move at a press conference in downtown L.A. around 9:45 a.m. A probation department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The scandal-plagued halls have failed to see significant improvement under the probation department's management. Two facilities were shut down in 2023 after repeatedly failing to meet basic standards to house youth under California law. That same year, 18-year-old Bryan Diaz died of a drug overdose at the Secure Youth Treatment Facility and reports of Xanax and opiate overdoses among youths in the halls have become a regular occurrence in recent months. Nearly three dozen probation officers have been charged with crimes related to on-duty conduct in the past few years, including 30 indicted earlier this year by Bonta for staging or allowing so-called 'gladiator fights' between juveniles in custody. Officers also routinely refuse to come to work, leaving each hall critically short-staffed. 'This drastic step to divest Los Angeles County of control over its juvenile halls is a last resort—and the only option left to ensure the safety and well-being of the youth currently in its care,' Bonta's statement Wednesday said. 'For four-and-a-half years, we've moved aggressively to bring the County into compliance with our judgment—and we've been met with glacial progress that has too often looked like one step forward and two steps back. Enough is enough. These young people deserve better, and my office will not stop until they get it.' Bonta first suggested he might seek receivership in May, in response to a questions for a Times investigation on the probation department's years of defiance of state oversight. The California attorney general's office began investigating L.A. County's juvenile halls in 2018 and found probation officers were using pepper spray excessively, failing to provide proper programming, and detaining youths in solitary confinement in their rooms for far too long. A 2021 court settlement between L.A. County and the state Attorney General's office was aimed at improving conditions for youth and tamping down on use-of-force. But the situation has seemingly only gotten worse in the last four years. Incidents in which staff use force against youths have increased over the life of the settlement, records show. The L.A. County inspector general's office has published six reports showing the department has failed to meet the terms of the state oversight agreement. Oversight officials have caught several probation officers lying about violent incidents in the halls after reviewing video footage that contradicted written reports. After the state shutdown the county's other two major detention centers, Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey was reopened but quickly became a haven for chaos. In its first month of operation, there was a riot and an escape attempt and someone brought a gun inside the youth hall. Late last year, California's Board of State and Community Corrections order Los Padrinos closed too after it failed repeated inspections, but Probation Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa ignored the order, leading some to call on Bonta to intervene. Eventually, an L.A. County judge ordered the probation department to begin emptying Los Padrinos until it came back into compliance with state standards.
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California sues Trump for blocking undocumented immigrants from ‘public benefit' programs
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Monday over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen federally funded 'public benefit' programs, arguing the restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country. One of the programs facing new restrictions is Head Start, which provided some 800,000 low-income infants, toddlers and preschoolers with child care, nutrition and health assistance. Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather conditions; soup kitchens, community food banks and other food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta's office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration's 'abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent' amounted to a 'cruel' and costly attack on some of the nation's most vulnerable residents. 'This latest salvo in the President's inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,' Bonta said. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.' The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an 'arbitrary and capricious' manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Bonta's office said 'requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.' It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be 'devastating — and immediate.' The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The states' claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services. About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non-citizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining 'the principles and limitations' of that law. Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. In response to Trump's order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding 'noncitizens' from more programs, including previously exempted ones. 'For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,' said Education Secretary Linda McMahon. 'By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we're protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration's commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,' said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer. The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states' lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that 'many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,' which the department's notice said would continue to apply. Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of the Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.
Politico
6 days ago
- Business
- Politico
‘A beacon to the field': OpenAI advisers urge robust role for nonprofit
The company's board of directors thanked the commission and the community leaders who gave input in a statement, saying it was valuable in ensuring OpenAI's technology benefits everyone. 'As we carry this mission forward, we remain committed to listening, learning, and building in partnership with those on the front lines of change,' as part of the board's commitment to the nonprofit, the statement said. Vision for the nonprofit OpenAI announced last year it would make its nonprofit parent company a shareholder of a for-profit parent company, and tasked the commission with advising on how the new nonprofit could be most impactful. The company later changed course in May amid public pressure, saying its nonprofit would instead oversee a for-profit public benefit corporation. 'Even if those external things hadn't been in motion … we still would have landed on 'a nonprofit is a good thing in AI. We need more of them,'' Zingale said. 'Putting the nonprofit in charge is even better.' Bonta is already responsible for regulating the state's charities and making sure their resources aren't misused. But the commission — whose report repeatedly references the importance of the California and Delaware attorney generals' oversight over the nonprofit, due to where it's headquartered and incorporated — thinks Bonta should get more involved in the AI industry's development, much of which is housed in his state. 'We think it should be over AI more broadly, not just the one who chose to be a nonprofit,' said Zingale. 'We'd like to see that kind of oversight more evenly distributed across the sector.' The commission's vision for the nonprofit is far more ambitious than that of a traditional grant-making organization. It argues OpenAI's nonprofit should fund various democratic, economic and social causes to prepare society for AI's future disruptions, while also nurturing human pursuits in arts and culture. Those ideas span investments in statewide advocacy networks to gather public input on AI deployment, initiatives focused on algorithmic fairness in the workplace, apprenticeship pipelines within unions and AI literacy programs at libraries. They also want support for local museums, influencer cohorts and offline spaces. Among the more risk-focused proposals are that OpenAI fund environmental groups exploring the harms of AI, as well as independent safety research and efforts to pressure-test AI systems by mimicking hackers. Behind the scenes The commission has been holding meetings and taking written comments from California nonprofits, civic groups, faith-based institutions and others over the past three months. Altogether, more than 500 people and 100 organizations gave their feedback, including the YMCA, the Clinton Foundation and the Greenlining Institute.
San Francisco Chronicle
14-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California sues over school funding freeze as SCOTUS OKs killing Education Department
The Trump administration's decision to freeze $6.8 billion in education funds to states is illegal and a betrayal of schools, students and their communities, California and other states argued in a lawsuit Monday. The freeze — announced June 30, a day before states were scheduled to receive their first round of funding — 'has threatened the existence of programs that provide critical after-school and summer learning opportunities, that teach English to students, and that provide educational technology to our classrooms,' state Attorney General Rob Bonta said in announcing the suit by 24 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. 'Only Congress can decide how our tax money is spent,' said Attorney General Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, where the suit was filed in federal court. Education is being defunded, he told reporters, to pay for 'the tax cuts (Trump) wants to give to rich Americans.' Hours after the suit was filed, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a separate case, reinstated an order by President Donald Trump's secretary of education, Linda McMahon, to fire more than half of the department's 4,100 employees as a step toward abolishing the department. The court's conservative majority did not state reasons for its 6-3 decision, which set aside an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts blocking the dismissals. But the court's action could signal deference to Trump's decision to abolish the Department of Education, created by federal law in 1979. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's other two Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Kentanji Brown Jackson, spoke much like Bonta and his state-level colleagues: 'Congress created the Department, and only Congress can abolish it.' The department's roles include providing federal funds for schools serving low-income students, administering federal aid for higher education and managing programs for students with disabilities. Declaring that education management should be sent 'back to the states,' Trump has ordered McMahon to 'take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure' of the federal department. In addition to the firings, those steps have included the $6.8 billion funding freeze on June 30. Bonta said California would lose nearly $940 million from the cutoff. It's not clear how much California could restore from its own funds, after having to fill a $12 billion deficit in its budget for the fiscal year that started July 1. 'After-school, tutoring, teacher training, some programs have already been shuttered, including summer programs,' the attorney general said. He said the state's 5.8 million public school students 'stand in the crosshairs.' The affected programs include funds for teacher training and English learning; a six-decade-old program for the children of migrants; drug and violence prevention; community learning centers and tutorial programs in low-income neighborhoods, and education and career guidance for adults who lack high school diplomas and for inmates in prisons and jails. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at Monday's press briefing that school districts in her state had already approved their budgets for the upcoming year when they were notified of the funding cutoff 'in a three-sentence email.' The Trump administration 'has proven yet again that it doesn't care about the well-being of our kids or our educators,' Campbell said. Said Bonta: 'President Trump can shout, 'America first! ' all he wants. His anti-education agenda will only ensure we come in dead last.'
USA Today
14-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump paused funding for after-school programs. States are suing.
Unable to adequately budget for the upcoming year, school districts have been scrambling for two weeks. Now, Democratic attorneys general are stepping in. WASHINGTON – A coalition of states is suing the Trump administration to restore billions of dollars in federal education funding, including money for after-school and summer learning programs. The group of Democratic attorneys general, representing 24 states and the District of Columbia, filed the lawsuit on July 14 in a federal court in Rhode Island. In the complaint, the top lawyers in several blue states say the funding pause is unconstitutional and ask the court to restore the money in their states immediately. Since the U.S. Department of Education's decision two weeks ago to withhold the funds – which have been available to schools annually without interruption for decades – many districts nationwide have been mired in financial uncertainty. Read more: Billions in federal funding for schools on hold In some places, summer learning programs have been forced to shut down, said Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, during a press conference. In other locations, school leaders have announced hiring freezes. Budgets and staffing plans for the upcoming year at countless schools "hang in the balance," he said. "President Trump and Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon have dealt a debilitating blow to our schools, throwing them into chaos just weeks ahead of the first day of school for many districts," Bonta said. The Education Department did not immediately respond to questions about the lawsuit. The controversy began on June 30, when Brandy Brown, an Education Department official, sent a notice to congressional staffers warning that states wouldn't be getting some of their education funding on time this year. In the notice, viewed by USA TODAY, Brown cited the change in presidential administrations as part of the reason for the delay. "The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President's priorities and the Department's statutory responsibilities," Brown wrote. Which school programs are affected? There are six streams of federal education funding directly impacted by the Trump administration's pause. Those programs include: If a judge agrees to stall the Trump administration's funding review, the federal government would be compelled to release roughly $3.6 billion for schools in 24 states and the District of Columbia. The broader funding pause, which includes red states that are not involved in the new lawsuit, has halted more than $6 billion for school programs. Republican attorneys general, Bonta said, are "going to have to step up now and fight for the funding they feel they deserve, if they feel they deserve it, or do some explaining to the children and students in their states." Peter Neronha, Rhode Island's attorney general, said he anticipates the judge will rule on a preliminary injunction in the coming days or weeks. "The school year is upon us," he said. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
