Latest news with #Clinton-era
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Here's how Democrats win back voters
Donald Trump is losing support fast. Voters are souring on the president due to his mishandling of the economy and brazen attacks on constitutional rights and the rule of law. Yet a coherent roadmap for how progressives can take back the House in 2026 — likely the single most important short-term step to push back against the MAGA agenda — has yet to emerge. James Carville's advice for Democrats to sit back and watch Trump unravel is a dangerous gamble. What's more, it would do nothing to help Democrats reverse the long-term bleed of working-class voters that allowed Trump's victory in the first place. To win the future, Democrats need a positive and convincing message that resonates with the many Americans who either voted for Trump in 2024 or who stayed home because they didn't like the options on offer. Centrists will try to convince progressives to moderate their critiques of elites and their economic proposals, but don't be fooled: they are evoking the failed Clinton-era strategies that pushed the working class away from Democrats in the first place. So what should Democrats do? Join team economic populism, using three key steps in the economic populist playbook. First, welcome hatred of billionaires and corporations, and don't be afraid to attack the party establishment. To succeed as an economic populist, you must first pick a real fight with economic elites. Democrats must offer a whole-cloth condemnation of the corporate takeover of our country, delivered in a visceral, raw style that makes working-class voters take note. It's not that Democrats never critique economic elites. Even Kamala Harris — not widely regarded as a raging populist — regularly talked about corporate price-gouging and the need to rein in bad actors on the 2024 campaign trail. But these never came anywhere close to conveying that she really understood how angry people feel, or that she would do anything meaningful to put economic oligarchs in their place. Too many Democrats talk about jobs, unions and the economy in safe, bloodless terms that fail to acknowledge the resentment that working-class voters feel after decades of economic devastation. They must do more than just acknowledge that 'families are struggling to make ends meet.' Democrats in competitive districts need to speak compellingly about how the economy was rigged against ordinary Americans by both corporate elites and the political leadership of both major parties. They must acknowledge that trade deals like NAFTA, corporate deregulation and financialization — championed by centrist Democrats and Republicans alike — decimated millions of good jobs and left entire communities hollowed out. Research from the Center for Working-Class Politics suggests that both parts of this equation — attacking elites as well as the establishment — are winning strategies for reaching working-class voters. Second, craft a bold, bread-and-butter policy platform that pushes the limits of what's possible. Tapping into voters' distrust of politicians and the government is crucial, but so too is an accompanying set of policies that gives voters a sense of how you would translate critique into action. Democrats must adopt a comprehensive economic agenda that tackles the structural challenges faced by working-class Americans. It's not enough to talk about 'good jobs.' Candidates must outline an aggressive plan to create new and better jobs for Americans left behind, and reject the trade, tax and other policies that that cruelly pushes them aside. This means proposing major investments in infrastructure and industrial policy, using government contracts and incentives to keep jobs in the U.S. and closing loopholes that allow big companies to shift jobs out of communities. It means putting an end to stock buybacks and renegotiating unfair trade deals to include built-in protections for workers. It means raising taxes on mega-corporations and increasing access to vocational training to help give American workers a fighting chance. Candidates must also fight to give workers a stronger seat at the table. They must strengthen labor rights through legislation such as the PRO Act, which would make it easier to form a union, and the No Tax Breaks for Union Busting Act, which would penalize employers who undermine union activities. It's important to note the only sustainable path forward to rebuild communities hit hard by job loss and deindustrialization is through massive, targeted investments. This includes a federal jobs program, alongside broader spending on infrastructure, industrial policy and workforce training. Not only are these policies popular — the jobs guarantee proposal, for example, consistently receives majority support in surveys — but it is hard to paint such policies as unearned government handouts. The scale of the economic challenges at hand means that without such ambitious initiatives, many working-class communities will continue to fall farther behind — further eroding Democratic support. Third, Democrats must show the base that economic populism doesn't conflict with core progressive values. In the short term, the left's electoral priority must be to defeat more Republicans, while its long-term strategy hinges on building durable majority coalitions in traditionally purple and red districts. This can only be accomplished by reversing the trend of working-class voters drifting toward Republicans. The 2024 data are clear: Democrats dominated in the 12 states where the percent of college graduates was above 40 percent, none of which were swing states. In contrast, Democrats captured only one of the 29 states with college-educated shares below 35 percent. This is the structural and cultural backdrop that has enabled Trump's pseudo-populist rhetoric to resonate with so many working-class voters, increasingly across race and ethnicity. Trump's 'anti-elitism' focuses on highly educated cultural elites who occupy roughly the top 10-20 percent of the economic spectrum. His favorite targets include the news media, academia, Hollywood and, of course, Democratic politicians. In targeting cultural elites, Trump deflects attention away from the concentrated economic power at the tippy top: billionaires, Wall Street and mega-corporations. It's important to understand why this strategy works. First, there is the undeniable reality that many cultural elites have earned their share of blame for enabling the rise of neoliberalism, runaway inequality and the consolidation of wealth and rising power of the ultrarich. For decades, politicians and operatives from both parties embraced 'free trade' deals that threw American workers into a global race to the bottom, along with a suite of policies that were bad for working people (e.g., cuts to social programs and tax breaks for the rich). This is why it's so essential for candidates to openly criticize the political establishment, to establish even a baseline of credibility with disaffected voters. Trump then lumps these blameworthy political actors and institutions together with everyone in the educated classes (at least the liberals), who can be viewed as condescending and oblivious to the realities and hardships of the majority of Americans. People tend to feel resigned to economic forces (like they are to the weather), but condescension has a human face. When affluent liberals parrot phrases like 'basket of deplorables,' people see red. It's not hard to tap into and channel this anger. Then, when Trump goes after vulnerable communities, he weaves these attacks together with this anti-elitist rhetoric. For example, the subtext of Trump's final 2024 campaign ad (which targeted transgender students) was that 'Kamala Harris cares more about catering to this special group (that you harbor prejudice against) than she cares about hard-working people like you.' But efforts to connect with working-class voters must not lead Democratic candidates to become 'Trump-lite' versions of themselves on cultural and social issues. The solution isn't to throw vulnerable communities under the bus. Democrats must lead with popular economic fights while also showing genuine commitment to stand up for the rights and freedoms of everyone. Consider Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who visibly opposed a law that would have banned discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools and allowed teachers to refuse to use transgender students' chosen pronouns. Bashear built the popular support he enjoys in Kentucky by fighting visibly for the working class, including to protect public education, for better jobs and better pay, to expand Medicaid and more. Because of how Bashear has defined himself, it makes it much harder for MAGA opponents to define him on social wedge issues. We think there's a lesson here for other Democrats. To be clear, the lion's share of blame for increased social division lies with Trump and Republicans who actively demonize marginalized groups, using wedge issues to keep working people divided. But when Democrats are unwilling to pick these fights with the economically powerful, Trump and the GOP get to tell people who to blame, uncontested. So long as Democrats fail to open up an offensive battlefront, they'll be stuck fighting defensive battles on the terrain where the GOP much prefers to fight. The antidote to Trump's psuedo-populism is a full embrace of real progressive economic populism. This requires the courage to name the real culprits: the billionaires and powerful corporations that have rigged our economy and political system against working people, along with the political actors that enabled them — including when they are in our own party. Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics. Jonathan Smucker is a political organizer, campaigner and strategist. He is co-founder of Popular Comms Institute, PA Stands Up, Lancaster Stands Up, Common Defense, Beyond the Choir and Mennonite Action, and author of 'Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Here's how Democrats win back voters
Donald Trump is losing support fast. Voters are souring on the president due to his mishandling of the economy and brazen attacks on constitutional rights and the rule of law. Yet a coherent roadmap for how progressives can take back the House in 2026 — likely the single most important short-term step to push back against the MAGA agenda — has yet to emerge. James Carville's advice for Democrats to sit back and watch Trump unravel is a dangerous gamble. What's more, it would do nothing to help Democrats reverse the long-term bleed of working-class voters that allowed Trump's victory in the first place. To win the future, Democrats need a positive and convincing message that resonates with the many Americans who either voted for Trump in 2024 or who stayed home because they didn't like the options on offer. Centrists will try to convince progressives to moderate their critiques of elites and their economic proposals, but don't be fooled: they are evoking the failed Clinton-era strategies that pushed the working class away from Democrats in the first place. So what should Democrats do? Join team economic populism, using three key steps in the economic populist playbook. First, welcome hatred of billionaires and corporations, and don't be afraid to attack the party establishment. To succeed as an economic populist, you must first pick a real fight with economic elites. Democrats must offer a whole-cloth condemnation of the corporate takeover of our country, delivered in a visceral, raw style that makes working-class voters take note. It's not that Democrats never critique economic elites. Even Kamala Harris — not widely regarded as a raging populist — regularly talked about corporate price-gouging and the need to rein in bad actors on the 2024 campaign trail. But these never came anywhere close to conveying that she really understood how angry people feel, or that she would do anything meaningful to put economic oligarchs in their place. Too many Democrats talk about jobs, unions and the economy in safe, bloodless terms that fail to acknowledge the resentment that working-class voters feel after decades of economic devastation. They must do more than just acknowledge that 'families are struggling to make ends meet.' Democrats in competitive districts need to speak compellingly about how the economy was rigged against ordinary Americans by both corporate elites and the political leadership of both major parties. They must acknowledge that trade deals like NAFTA, corporate deregulation and financialization — championed by centrist Democrats and Republicans alike — decimated millions of good jobs and left entire communities hollowed out. Research from the Center for Working-Class Politics suggests that both parts of this equation — attacking elites as well as the establishment — are winning strategies for reaching working-class voters. Second, craft a bold, bread-and-butter policy platform that pushes the limits of what's possible. Tapping into voters' distrust of politicians and the government is crucial, but so too is an accompanying set of policies that gives voters a sense of how you would translate critique into action. Democrats must adopt a comprehensive economic agenda that tackles the structural challenges faced by working-class Americans. It's not enough to talk about 'good jobs.' Candidates must outline an aggressive plan to create new and better jobs for Americans left behind, and reject the trade, tax and other policies that that cruelly pushes them aside. This means proposing major investments in infrastructure and industrial policy, using government contracts and incentives to keep jobs in the U.S. and closing loopholes that allow big companies to shift jobs out of communities. It means putting an end to stock buybacks and renegotiating unfair trade deals to include built-in protections for workers. It means raising taxes on mega-corporations and increasing access to vocational training to help give American workers a fighting chance. Candidates must also fight to give workers a stronger seat at the table. They must strengthen labor rights through legislation such as the PRO Act, which would make it easier to form a union, and the No Tax Breaks for Union Busting Act, which would penalize employers who undermine union activities. It's important to note the only sustainable path forward to rebuild communities hit hard by job loss and deindustrialization is through massive, targeted investments. This includes a federal jobs program, alongside broader spending on infrastructure, industrial policy and workforce training. Not only are these policies popular — the jobs guarantee proposal, for example, consistently receives majority support in surveys — but it is hard to paint such policies as unearned government handouts. The scale of the economic challenges at hand means that without such ambitious initiatives, many working-class communities will continue to fall farther behind — further eroding Democratic support. Third, Democrats must show the base that economic populism doesn't conflict with core progressive values. In the short term, the left's electoral priority must be to defeat more Republicans, while its long-term strategy hinges on building durable majority coalitions in traditionally purple and red districts. This can only be accomplished by reversing the trend of working-class voters drifting toward Republicans. The 2024 data are clear: Democrats dominated in the 12 states where the percent of college graduates was above 40 percent, none of which were swing states. In contrast, Democrats captured only one of the 29 states with college-educated shares below 35 percent. This is the structural and cultural backdrop that has enabled Trump's pseudo-populist rhetoric to resonate with so many working-class voters, increasingly across race and ethnicity. Trump's 'anti-elitism' focuses on highly educated cultural elites who occupy roughly the top 10-20 percent of the economic spectrum. His favorite targets include the news media, academia, Hollywood and, of course, Democratic politicians. In targeting cultural elites, Trump deflects attention away from the concentrated economic power at the tippy top: billionaires, Wall Street and mega-corporations. It's important to understand why this strategy works. First, there is the undeniable reality that many cultural elites have earned their share of blame for enabling the rise of neoliberalism, runaway inequality and the consolidation of wealth and rising power of the ultrarich. For decades, politicians and operatives from both parties embraced 'free trade' deals that threw American workers into a global race to the bottom, along with a suite of policies that were bad for working people (e.g., cuts to social programs and tax breaks for the rich). This is why it's so essential for candidates to openly criticize the political establishment, to establish even a baseline of credibility with disaffected voters. Trump then lumps these blameworthy political actors and institutions together with everyone in the educated classes (at least the liberals), who can be viewed as condescending and oblivious to the realities and hardships of the majority of Americans. People tend to feel resigned to economic forces (like they are to the weather), but condescension has a human face. When affluent liberals parrot phrases like 'basket of deplorables,' people see red. It's not hard to tap into and channel this anger. Then, when Trump goes after vulnerable communities, he weaves these attacks together with this anti-elitist rhetoric. For example, the subtext of Trump's final 2024 campaign ad (which targeted transgender students) was that 'Kamala Harris cares more about catering to this special group (that you harbor prejudice against) than she cares about hard-working people like you.' But efforts to connect with working-class voters must not lead Democratic candidates to become 'Trump-lite' versions of themselves on cultural and social issues. The solution isn't to throw vulnerable communities under the bus. Democrats must lead with popular economic fights while also showing genuine commitment to stand up for the rights and freedoms of everyone. Consider Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who visibly opposed a law that would have banned discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools and allowed teachers to refuse to use transgender students' chosen pronouns. Bashear built the popular support he enjoys in Kentucky by fighting visibly for the working class, including to protect public education, for better jobs and better pay, to expand Medicaid and more. Because of how Bashear has defined himself, it makes it much harder for MAGA opponents to define him on social wedge issues. We think there's a lesson here for other Democrats. To be clear, the lion's share of blame for increased social division lies with Trump and Republicans who actively demonize marginalized groups, using wedge issues to keep working people divided. But when Democrats are unwilling to pick these fights with the economically powerful, Trump and the GOP get to tell people who to blame, uncontested. So long as Democrats fail to open up an offensive battlefront, they'll be stuck fighting defensive battles on the terrain where the GOP much prefers to fight. The antidote to Trump's psuedo-populism is a full embrace of real progressive economic populism. This requires the courage to name the real culprits: the billionaires and powerful corporations that have rigged our economy and political system against working people, along with the political actors that enabled them — including when they are in our own party. Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics. Jonathan Smucker is a political organizer, campaigner and strategist. He is co-founder of Popular Comms Institute, PA Stands Up, Lancaster Stands Up, Common Defense, Beyond the Choir and Mennonite Action, and author of 'Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals.'
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Military notes — perceptual battle between India and Pakistan
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article In a series from this week, we shall explore the various dimensions of the May 2025 India-Pakistan stand-off after the Pahalgam carnage on April 22, 2025. First, what happened in the perceptual world? The aftermath of Pahalgam and Operation Bunyan Marsus (Iron Wall) should demonstrate 'strategic humility'. Miscalculations by Indian leaders – political and military – should never be forgiven in silence. In 'teaching Pakistan a lesson', India not only 'altered the regional equation', it also rehyphenated with Pakistan, something it loathed, after its hard-won Clinton-era de-hyphenation. And New Delhi unwittingly exposed itself to a parity with Islamabad that it vehemently denied under hubris, arrogance and over-confidence. Rabid anchors like Arnab Goswami and military analysts like the froth-fuming Maj Gen Gagandeep Bakhshi and Major Gaurav Arya steered the debate about complex realities into loud nationalism, muting the voices of reason from the few and far between. They turned national strategy into a charade of slogans without substance. India, in doing so, lost its strategic narrative. Intoxicated with its new-found economic relevance, India walked into the trap of 'buying and bullying into influence', only to lose both. It triggered the most dangerous regional escalation since Kargil without any investigation, without any shareable proof, without any satellite imagery, without any international inquiry and without remorse, just guided by 'nationalist theatrics', media jingoism and short-term political gains – all to abrogate Indus Water Treaty and humiliate Pakistan. And it failed. A 'pauper' Pakistani response sent India suing for ceasefire, after being forced out of the skies, after targeted destruction on land, and a good drubbing in Kashmir. New Delhi 'mistook Pakistan's composure for collapse'. Islamabad's response was doctrinal and not theatrical. Pakistan's 'digital kill web' proved far more dangerous than terrorism, which India blames on Islamabad. The 16-hour skirmish diminished India's role as a counterbalance to China, as a rising regional power and as a reliable partner. Instead of teaching a lesson to Pakistan, India was taught one – worth inclusion in the syllabi of all staff colleges and war courses. From the skirmish, neither Pakistan emerged as a dwarf two-foot David, nor India as a loud-talking 10-foot Goliath. India was humbled by the unkindness of the event. Karachi did not fall, Islamabad remained steadfast, and Lahore kept pulsating, with daredevil Pakistanis eulogising their soldiers who were busy firing their deadly arsenal towards India from their fields, from their neighborhoods, and praying elders overseeing salvo after salvo. It was a national Bunyan Marsus. Pakistan did not escalate; it equalised India's perceptual superiority. It emerged not as a weakened state, but an awakened country. Pakistan didn't blink, and stood its ground with dignity, restraint, precision and strategy. Modi 'perceptually' had a bigger stick that now lies broken, and his power stands exposed not only to Pakistan, but to the admirers of 'shining India' worldwide. India, in public perception, lost its 'dominance' not through outright defeat, but through overreach, despite the 'theatrical illusion of victory' that Indian media continues to showcase for psychological conquest of its citizenry. India's myth of conventional superiority, built and carefully managed for such an eventuality, lies in chaotic collapse before the public eye. Pakistan's poverty, touted repeatedly over a berserk India media, is recognised by the world as its 'cool hardiness'. Islamabad emerged as a calm, articulate player and as a disciplined nuclear power, which can demonstrate restraint, resolve and resilience. And that its dwarfed defence spending, compared to New Delhi's $85 billion defence budget, still enables and equips its armed forces with doctrine, deterrence and determination to hold its nerve under fire. Pakistan absorbed Operation Sindoor with a resolute defensive response and then responded with its own 'Bunyan Marsus', rewriting the rules of deterrence. Consequentially, Pakistan gains more confidence and relevance, which is already buttressed by its geostrategic location at the crossroads of Karakoram, the Silk Road, South and Central Asia; and it being key to regional stability for 2.8 billion South Asians. The strategic map has shifted and with it the world's perspective. Pakistan once branded as a 'failing state', today emerges as a reliable strategic balancer. This isn't just a strategic shift in the regional power dynamics, it is a psychological jolt and a rude awakening for Modi's Hindutva-laced, RSS dominated, bigoted brand. Just when detractors thought Pakistan was sliding into a second fiddle status, Modi burnished its image by becoming Pakistan's unlikely brand ambassador, through his absurd persistence and stubborn obsession to turn Pakistan into a pliant state. From being overlooked to being overanalyzed and over-examined, Islamabad is back in global conversations especially among the dithering Arab world. Second, India suffered doctrinal collapse. This brief war demonstrated India's 'doctrinal collapse', militarily as well as in the perceptual domains. Ajit Doval's sinister scheming to flush TTP, BLA and BRA with cash, incite synchronised uprising in KP and Balochistan, exploit Pakistan's many cleavages and turn Afghan borderlands and Pakistan into an inferno for Pakistan's military backfired squarely, roundly and embarrassingly. The operation, contrarily, jelled Pakistan's inner front like hell. India mistook Pakistan's doctrinal maturity as fragility. Literature, at break-neck speed, is coming out with analysts reading, re-reading and analysing the 16 hours of combat that shaped South Asia and the world's military balance. Dassault Aviation's share prices plunged, whereas Chinese defense stocks AVIC, ALD Chengdu surged. Modi's India miscalculated militarily, decided to ignore geopolitics, misread the doctrine, misjudged Pakistan's internal dynamics and resolve and overplayed its hand in trying to redefine South Asia's balance of power. A leaf from Israel's playbook did not match Chanakya Kotalia's script. India's doctrine of punitive retaliation through swift operations is broken operationally not just symbolically. By denying truth to its own people and by constantly lying to unfathomable extents during this war, India lost any remaining credibility for its media, official and unofficial. Modi's strongman image took an irreparable hit, and his tattered ego is littered with strategic miscalculation, economic overreach, doctrinal unpreparedness and moral bankruptcy, exposing India's own multiple fault lines. The dictum of the history is clear, New Delhi is not the victor in this round, Islamabad is. Bunyan Marsus was 'Pakistan's rendezvous with history' an existential moment of great peril, handled with dignity and precision. Allah be praised! Continues...
New Indian Express
22-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Unmade in America: Policy contortions of a misguided giant
America's decline in manufacturing was not inevitable—it was a choice. In the late 20th century, policymakers prioritised low interest rates and financial speculation over industrial strength. By keeping borrowing cheap and the dollar strong, they diverted capital into Wall Street, consumer debt, and stock buybacks rather than factories, worker training, or technological advancement. This short-term thinking hollowed out the economy, making any attempt to revive traditional manufacturing a near impossibility. America's future now lies in embracing the digital economy and empowering small businesses—sectors far better suited to modern realities. The genesis of American deindustrialisation resides in the late Cold War-era consensus that conflated financial market vitality with national economic strength. The Federal Reserve's strong-dollar policies controlled inflation and attracted foreign investors, but they also made American goods uncompetitive abroad, leading to an influx of cheaper imports. Manufacturing struggled to keep pace. An appreciating currency rendered US exports prohibitively expensive abroad while flooding domestic markets with cheap imports, eviscerating profit margins for industries from textiles to semiconductors. Concurrently, the Clinton-era embrace of financial deregulation—such as repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, which aimed to protect depositors from the risks of commercial banks' speculative investments, in 1999—encouraged corporations to focus on stock buybacks and mergers instead of upgrading equipment or training workers.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump probe into Calif. program for elderly, disabled legal immigrants attacks 'most vulnerable,' groups say
A federal investigation into a state program providing monthly cash benefits to elderly and disabled noncitizens legally present in the U.S. is raising alarms among immigrant rights groups in California, who say the probe unfairly attacks the community's "most vulnerable people" at a time when immigration authorities are working to deliver on President Donald Trump's campaign promise of mass deportations. The Department of Homeland Security said Monday it has launched an investigation into the California Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants to see if ineligible undocumented immigrants received federal benefits from the Social Security Administration over the past four years. But no federal funds go toward the state assistance program and undocumented immigrants are not eligible to participate, Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, or CHIRLA, told NBC News on Tuesday. Salas is one of the immigration advocates who helped make the state cash assistance program a reality almost 30 years ago. She said the state program was established after Clinton-era welfare reforms excluded most noncitizens from receiving Supplemental Security Income, a federal benefit from the Social Security Administration that provides monthly payments to qualifying elderly and disabled people. In response, California created its own version of the program to provide state aid to immigrants legally present in the U.S. who are not eligible for the federal version of the program. These include legal permanent residents or green-card holders, asylees, humanitarian parolees and individuals permanently residing under color of law as well as victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, according to the California Immigrant Policy Center, an immigrant rights organization. "Undocumented people are not eligible for the program," Salas said, adding that the DHS investigation has "no merit because it's a legal immigrant program." As part of the probe, DHS issued a wide-ranging subpoena requesting records that include information of program participants such as applicants' name and date of birth, copies of applications, immigration status, proof of ineligibility for benefits from the Social Security Administration and affidavits that supported the application. Salas said that by targeting immigrant families, regardless of status, the Trump administration is "scraping at every single place where they can get data that could somehow lead them to somebody who's undocumented in this country." To achieve this, Salas said, the administration is going after "our most vulnerable people — legal immigrants that are blind, in wheelchairs, in hospice care, in hospital beds, who are 65-year-olds, who are grandmas and grandpas — that's who they're going after. It infuriates me." According to the California Department of Social Services, which administers the state cash assistance program for immigrants, about 9,700 individuals in Los Angeles County are receiving an average of $1,077 per month in benefits. These are '100% funded by the State of California,' the California Department of Social Services said in a statement Tuesday. "No federal funding is utilized." Last year, Los Angeles County received $108,560,000 in state funding to administer the program. DHS did not respond to questions from NBC News asking what kind of probable cause the agency has to believe the state program has provided federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. Instead, it directed NBC News to a statement from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem saying, 'The Trump Administration is working together to identify abuse and exploitation of public benefits and make sure those in this country illegally are not receiving federal benefits or other financial incentives to stay illegally. If you are an illegal immigrant, you should leave now. The gravy train is over. While this subpoena focuses only on Los Angeles County — it is just the beginning.' The actions are consistent with a presidential memorandum Trump signed last month directing Noem "to ensure ineligible illegal aliens do not receive funds from Social Security programs and prioritize civil or criminal enforcement against states or localities for potential violations," according to DHS. The California Immigrant Policy Center said the Trump administration's statements about the DHS investigation into the state cash assistance program are "inaccurate and misleading at best." "It is simply another attempt by the Trump administration to demonize and attack immigrant Californians," the organization told NBC News in a statement Tuesday. 'This investigation's only objective is to cast a negative light on California's inclusive policies and sow misinformation and confusion.' Salas said the probe may also have a "chilling effect" that can discourage tax-paying immigrants from participating in programs they're eligible for out of fear that their information will be shared with immigration authorities. "That's very corrosive in a society where we all pay taxes," she said. Immigrant-led households in California pay an estimated $120 billion in federal, state and local taxes — including nearly $8.5 billion in state and local taxes paid by undocumented immigrants — helping fund social services programs for all Americans. This article was originally published on
