By Chris Jennewein, Times of San Diego, a member of the San Diego Online News Association
Photo: President Donald Trump addresses Congress. Screenshot from C-SPAN
March 5, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) - President Donald Trump told Congress Tuesday that “the American dream is surging bigger and better than ever before” and promised that new tariffs on Mexico — despite worrying San Diego businesses — will help achieve that goal.
He said tariffs are “about protecting the soul of our country,” though acknowledged they would cause “a little disturbance” to consumers, businesses and farmers.
It wasn’t an official State of the Union message — that happens in the second, third and fourth years of a presidency — but came with all the trappings. He spoke for a record one hour and 39 minutes, with Republicans repeatedly clapping and Democrats largely silent.
Trump ordered 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada earlier Tuesday, causing the stock market to swoon, erasing all of the gains since Trump was elected.
The president said that in addition to the tariffs on America’s closest neighbors, he would impose reciprocal tariffs on all countries April 2.
“We’re been ripped off for decades by nearly every country on earth,” said Trump.
“Whatever they tax us, we will tax them. … We will take in trillions and trillions of dollars.”
Tariffs are taxes on American companies that import products. So much of that money would actually come from American consumers if the tariffs continue.
Before the address, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce issued a statement opposing tariffs because of the potential economic damage to the San Diego region.
“Hardworking business owners in our region and across the country invest in their communities, create jobs, and drive innovation,” said Kenia Zamarripa, the chamber’s Vice President of International and Public Affair. “Using tariffs as a negotiation tactic on our North American trading partners is a threat to this very foundation.”
“It is a threat that is felt very acutely here in San Diego where our region’s economy is deeply tied to cross-border commerce,” Zamarripa said. “We are already seeing the strain these tariffs place on local businesses, from manufacturers to retailers.”
Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat who represents north coastal San Diego and south Orange counties, criticized the impact of the tariffs on American consumers.
“Every time Trump talks about tariffs tonight, ask this: How does this lower the cost of eggs? How does this help you afford a home? It does not — it raises prices on cars, food, and supplies,” said Levin, who after the speech accused the President of issuing a “blizzard of lies.”
San Diego Democrat Sara Jacobs’ criticism went beyond Trump’s proposals and extended to his entire party.
“Wild cheers for tax cuts for the 1% and corporations,” she posted on X. “Meanwhile, YOUR costs for groceries, gas, and housing are going up. Meet the Republican Party.”
Rep. Scott Peters, another Democrat representing San Diego, said on BlueSky: “I debated attending the President’s speech tonight given his blatant disrespect for Congress. I decided to attend to send a message from SD that his DOGE cuts are devastating critical research like that of my guest, @ucsdhealthsci.bsky.social Alzheimer’s researcher, Dr. Jim Brewer.”
And Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas, representing San Diego’s border district, said on X: “I joined more than 200 House Democrats to send a clear message to Speaker Johnson and Republicans: No cuts to Social Security. No cuts to Medicare. No cuts to Medicaid. Hands off these vital programs!”
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of East County cheered Trump’s revelation that a plotter of the Abbey Gate attack that killed 13 American troops during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan 3 1/2 years ago had been apprehended and was “right now on his way here to face the swift sword of American justice.”
“Best news of the night,” Issa said on X. He’s been among the most forceful members of Congress advocating for families of the dead service members.
Trump also vowed to boost America’s defense industrial base.
“We are also going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial shipbuilding and military shipbuilding,” he said in the longest such presidential address to a joint session of Congress.
He announced plans to create a new Office of Shipbuilding in the White House “that offers special tax incentives to bring this industry home to America where it belongs.”
That would be good news for San Diego Bay shipbuilder General Dynamics NASSCO, which calls itself the “only full-service shipyard on the West Coast.”
But Trump also asserted without basis: “We used it to make so many ships. We don’t make them anymore very much, but we’re going to make them very fast, very soon. It will have a huge impact.”
In fact, NASSCO says on its website: “Since the early 1960s, NASSCO has designed and built upwards of 70 large, ocean-going vessels for the Navy,” including combat logistics support ships, amphibious ships, destroyer tenders, hospital ships and a “variety of strategic sealift and other support ships.”
Local Assemblyman working to minimize surveillance pricing, while new FTC chairman blocks public comments
By G. A. McNeeley
March 5, 2025 (San Diego) -- Most people might not know that companies with an online presence are using personal information about customer’s buying habits to charge them a higher price for products, if they think you’re likely to pay it. This is a practice known as “surveillance pricing.”
This practice has spread in recent years, according to consumer and privacy watchdogs, and it’s become increasingly difficult to escape, no matter how often we clear our cookies or tighten our privacy settings.
But with the new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman blocking consumer comments and not taking action at a national level, state legislators are stepping up to the plate.
San Diego Assemblyman Introduces Bill To Prohibit Surveillance Pricing
Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-78) from San Diego told KPBS, “What we have found is a growing body of evidence where companies are being encouraged to use surveillance pricing, using your own personal data from your cell phone, from the IP address attached to your home computer, to modulate the pricing on goods and services that you pay.”
“That runs completely afoul to what we believe should be a direct, very basic consumer interest that you should pay the same price for the same product, regardless of who you are,” Ward adds.
Ward has introduced AB-446 (2025-2026 Legislative Session), to prohibit surveillance pricing in California.
“At a time when prices for basic necessities are rising across the board, it is more critical than ever to ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual or perceived characteristics,” said Ward, in a press release. “The right to fair pricing should not be a privilege for the few but a fundamental protection for all. One product, one price.”
Ward pointed out that price discrimination can prey on people in poorer neighborhoods.
“If they are farther away from some stores and it’s a lot harder to get certain products, companies know this and they are increasing the prices for some products at those very stores because you don’t have as many options,” Ward told KPBS.
Ward’s staff said his assembly bill, AB-446, will soon be heard by the California Assembly’s privacy committee.
Other California Lawmakers Are In Agreement
In many cases, surveillance pricing is legal, but some California lawmakers want to change that.
“You walk into a grocery store, you’re surveilled,” Kristin Heidelbach told KQED. Heidelbach is the Legislative Director for United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council, which is backing AB-446, which “would prohibit a person from setting a price offered to a consumer-based, in whole or in part, upon personally identifiable information, as defined, gathered through an electronic surveillance technology, as defined, including electronic shelving labels.”
“They have all the tools they need to track you from the time you walk inside the grocery store,” Heidelbach added. “Then retailers take those data points, and they will adjust the price… while you’re standing in a store. They can track on your phone how many times you’ve looked up something. You go to pick up a gallon of milk, and it’s one price, and then by the time you get up to the front, the price has already fluctuated.”
California already has some protections in place in the form of The California Consumer Privacy Act, which limits the amount of information that businesses can collect and use to make decisions about consumers. “But, more can be done,” Maureen Mahoney, Deputy Director of Policy & Legislation for the California Privacy Protection Agency, wrote in an email to KQED.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to worry that where they live or how they browse a store will be used to determine how much they pay for important purchases,” Mahoney added, in her email.
State Senator Aisha Wahab has introduced a couple of bills (SB-384 and SB-259) that would restrict companies from using algorithms for dynamic pricing. She said she expects pushback from a variety of industries, and not just in Silicon Valley, as dynamic pricing has become a big money maker.
“But I have always seen my job as a policymaker is to put safeguards there to protect the average person,” Wahab told KQED.
With an established history of leading in the consumer privacy space, California lawmakers are joining those in other states like Colorado, Georgia, and Illinois to pick up where federal regulators are expected to leave off.
FTC Publishes Surveillance Pricing Report
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its preliminary “surveillance pricing” report, which examined the hidden techniques companies can use when determining how much to charge particular individuals.
The FTC found that retailers use data such as scrolling habits, purchase history, and location in charging people different prices for the same product. Even how long we take to respond and engage with emails is tracked and incorporated into pricing.
The variables used by companies include, “where the consumer is, who the consumer is, what the consumer is doing, and prior actions a consumer has taken, such as clicking on a specific button or element on webpage, watching a video, or adding a particular item to their cart or wish list,” said the FTC study.
According to the report, companies could collect “real-time information about a person’s browsing and transaction history,” and then decide whether to offer coupons based on assumptions derived from that data.
The FTC’s report also cited how corporate consultants have been pushing for surveillance pricing. “Personalized pricing strategies, once considered a futuristic concept, have become a cornerstone of modern business strategy,” said the Cortado Group.
The FTC study is only preliminary, and doesn’t state whether the pricing is illegal or not.
New FTC Chairman Cancels Request For Public Comments
When the FTC initially published the report, it sought input from consumers and businesses about how surveillance pricing had affected them. After President Donald Trump took office, new FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson canceled the agency’s request for public comments to continue the inquiry.
Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented from the decision to release the report, arguing that it was premature.
“The Commission should allow staff to do its work and issue a final, fact-based report, rather than rush to meet a nakedly political deadline to present something, anything, to the public,” they stated last week.
Ferguson, the new Trump appointed FTC chairman, is a Big Law alumni who defended large companies from antitrust cases and opposed consumer gains such as the commission’s non-compete ban. He opposed releasing the pricing study, and one of the first things he did as chairman was to shut down public comments for it. So it looks like this might be the end of the FTC looking into surveillance pricing.
Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya called attention in a statement to Ferguson's move, writing that one of his first acts as agency head was “to quietly remove the opportunity for the public to comment” on surveillance pricing.
It’s too early in California’s legislative session to determine which prospective measures will succeed in making it to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. It’s common practice for lawmakers to change a measure’s language substantially as it moves through committees with the help of other lawmakers, lobbyists, and privacy and consumer advocates.
But the study said there is much more work to do. This means it is up to states like California to continue the work the FTC started, in the form of legislation, advocacy and legal action, as the study only presents a sliver of information the FTC hopes to acquire. As the study says, there is a lot they still don’t know about how surveillance pricing works.
Sources:
https://www.kqed.org/news/12028137/california-lawmakers-take-on-predatory-surveillance-pricing
https://consumerwatchdog.org/privacy/surveillance-pricing-is-up-to-us-now/
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/bedoya-statement-emergency-motion.pdf
By Miriam Raftery
March 3, 2025 (Washington D.C.) – Threats issued by President Donald Trump targeting colleges, universities and student protesters are illegal and unconstitutional, according to legal and civil liberties experts.
Today, Trump posted on his social media account, “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or depending on on the crime, arrested.NO MASKS!”
The post comes on the heels of two executive orders issued by Trump which seek to pressure higher education officials to target immigrant students and staff for exercising First Amendment freedom of spech rights, including pro-Palestinian protesterrs or students critical of the U.S. government, culture, institutions or founding principals. Today's Truth Social post goes further, demanding that even students who are U.S. citizens be expelled and imprisoned for participating in campus protests if deemed "illegal.".
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have both issued statements criticizing Trump’s actions for pressuring colleges and universities to engage in conduct that would violate the U.S. Constitution and other laws. While violence and/or intimidation of individuals based on religious views, such as anti-Semitism, or national origin are already illegal and should not be tolerated on campuses, freedom to express controversial ideas is a core principal of higher education—and the ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of our democracy, the civil rights legal experts make clear.
Below are their statements, both issued today.
Foundation for Individual Rights
Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’
President Trump posted a message on Truth Social this morning that put social media and college campuses on high alert. ...
Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow “illegal” protests.
If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding by taking it to federal court, or via notice to Congress and an administrative hearing. It is not simply a discretionary decision that the president can make.
President Trump also lacks the authority to expel individual students, who are entitled to due process on public college campuses and, almost universally, on private campuses as well.
Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.
As FIRE knows too well from our work defending student and faculty rights under the Obama and Biden administrations, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later.
Even the most controversial political speech is protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court reminds us, in America, we don’t use the law to punish those with whom we disagree. Instead, “[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard.
However, students who engage in misconduct must still receive due process — whether through a campus or criminal tribunal. This requires fair, consistent application of existing law or policy, in a manner that respects students’ rights.
President Trump needs to stand by his past promise to be a champion for free expression. That means doing so for all views — including those his administration dislikes.
American Civil Liberties Union
After Trump Admin Threats, ACLU Sends Letter of Support to Universities, Urging Them to Protect Campus Speech
ACLU makes clear the government cannot threaten funding to universities for fostering an environment of free speech and free inquiry
The American Civil Liberties Union today published an open letter to colleges and universities nationwide urging them to reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish international students and faculty based on constitutionally protected speech. This letter is prompted by two executive orders — Executive Order 14161, titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats” signed on Jan. 20, 2025, and Executive Order 14188, titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” signed on Jan. 29, 2025 — and related communications from the White House.
The guidance is especially timely after an early morning Truth Social post from President Trump threatening to stop federal funding for “any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” and proposing that “agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came.”
“It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly. We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU and co-author of the letter. “Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.”
According to the ACLU, the White House is attempting to pressure university officials to target immigrant and international students, faculty, and staff, including holders of non-immigrant visas and lawful permanent residents or others on a path to U.S. citizenship, for exercising their First Amendment rights. The letter outlines four key principles universities should adhere to when addressing campus speech:
- Colleges and universities should encourage robust discussion and exploration of ideas by students, faculty, and staff, regardless of their nationality or immigration status.
- Nothing obligates universities to act as deputies in immigration law enforcement — to the contrary, universities do not and should not veer so far from their core mission for good reasons.
- Schools must protect the privacy of all students, including immigrant and international students.
- Schools must abide by the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
“The federal government cannot mandate expulsion of students or threaten funding cuts to punish constitutionally protected speech on campus,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “While the administration can enforce Title VI to ensure a learning environment free from harassment, it cannot force universities into adopting restrictive speech codes that silence the viewpoints the government disfavors.”
This is the fourth set of guidance from the ACLU to universities since 2023. Dozens of ACLU affiliates have taken legal action, conducted know your rights trainings, or issued additional guidance related to protest on campuses.
Related Documents
East County News Service
March 4, 2025 (Jacumba Hot Springs) -- A man is facing assault with a deadly weapon and other serious charges after a search of his property in Jacumba uncovered firearms, explosives and booby traps, says Lieutenant Jeff Ford with the San Diego County Sheriff’s department.
On March 3,just before 6:00 a.m., the Sheriff's Special Enforcement Detail (SED/SWAT) and deputies assigned to Sheriff's Rural Enforcement served a search warrant in the 42000 block of Old Highway 80. The search warrant was related to an investigation of an assault with a deadly weapon incident that happened on February 22. 
During the service of the warrant, 40-year-old Ross Warren was found concealed inside a wall as he attempted to hide from deputies. A firearm, pellet gun and imitation firearm were located inside the wall with Warren.
During the search, deputies also found multiple fabricated explosives inside the home, as well as multiple improvised booby traps scattered around the exterior of the home.
The Sheriff's Bomb/Arson Unit responded to the scene for further investigation. A firearm, pellet guns, imitation firearms, ammunition, explosive devices, manufactured booby traps and other evidence related to the originating investigation were also found inside the home.
Warren was placed under arrest for assault with a deadly weapon, child endangerment, possessing/deploying booby traps and multiple counts of possessing/manufacturing destructive devices. He was transported and booked into the San Diego Central Jail.
Warren's live-in girlfriend, Brenda Beltran, 38, was also arrested for obstructing/delaying a peace officer. She was cited and released.
East County News Service
March 3, 2025 (Washington D.C.) – Calling a measles outbreak now in nine states a “call to action,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has posted a message on the agency’s website titled “MMR vaccine is crucial to avoiding potentially deadly disease.”
Kennedy, a noted skeptic of some vaccines, is now urging all Americans to get vaccinated for measles. The CDC recommends that adults born after 1957 who received the vaccine before 1968 should get a booster shot.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 164 measles cases have been reported in nine different states, including Alaska, California, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. In Texas, which has 146 cases since January, a child has died of measles and 20 patients have been hospitalized.
The World Health Organization reports that measles vaccination averted more than 60 million deaths between 2000 and 2023. Yet even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available, in 2023, there were an estimated 107 500 measles deaths globally, mostly among unvaccinated or under vaccinated children under the age of 5 years.
Kennedy’s advisory states, “Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons.”
He adds, “Prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the 1960s, virtually every child in the United States contracted measles. For example, in the United States, from 1953 to 1962, on average there were 530,217 confirmed cases and 440 deaths, a case fatality rate of 1 in 1,205 cases.”
Measles is a highly contagious respiratory illness with certain health risks, especially to unvaccinated individuals. An infected person can spread the disease by coughing, sneezing, or merely breathing. Early symptoms include high fever, cough, runny nose, and red, watery eyes, followed by a rash. Most cases are mild, but rare complications can be severe, including pneumonia, blindness, and encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain.
The current Texas outbreak has predominantly affected children under age 18. Of the 146 Texas cases, 79 had never received the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, while 62 cases had unknown vaccine status. Only five had received an MMR vaccine.
Dr. Philip Huang, director of the Public Health Department for Dallas County, said the outbreak is primarily impacting a Mennonite community. "They have not been vaccinated in that community," Huang told Scripps News. "I understand there's 25,000 in that community, so it's a large population that's susceptible." Health officials warn that additional cases are likely
Kennedy says he has directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response to work closely with the Texas health authorities to provide comprehensive support including technical assistance, laboratory support, vaccines, and therapeutic medications. The CDC is in continuous communication with Texas health officials, ensuring a coordinated and effective response to contain the outbreak.
I have spoken with Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas health officials,” said Kennedy, adding, “ I have also spoken to the bereaved parents of the deceased child to offer consolation. As healthcare providers, community leaders, and policymakers, we have a shared responsibility to protect public health. This includes ensuring that accurate information about vaccine safety and efficacy is disseminated. We must engage with communities to understand their concerns, provide culturally competent education, and make vaccines readily accessible for all those who want them.”
In addition to vaccines, while there is no approved antiviral treatment for measles, Kennedy says the CDC recently updated their recommendation supporting administration of vitamin A under the supervision of a physician for those with mild, moderate, and severe infection. Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.
“ The decision to vaccinate is a personal one,” Kennedy notes, but adds, “Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons.Tens of thousands died with, or of, measles annually in 19th Century America. By 1960 -- before the vaccine’s introduction -- improvements in sanitation and nutrition had eliminated 98% of measles deathslinks to an external website.”
In addition, he advises, “Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Vitamins A, C, and D, and foods rich in vitamins B12, C, and E should be part of a balanced diet.”
According to the CDC, symptoms of measles typically begin with a high fever, cough, runny nose, and watery eyes. Two to three days after these initial symptoms, tiny white spots may appear inside the mouth.
For more information about measles, visit the CDC’s official website or contact your local health department.
By Alexander J. Schorr
Photo: Screenshot of audience members
March 3, 2025 (El Cajon) – Grossmont Union High School District’s board voted 4-1 to fire 49 credentialed teachers, including all high school librarians, despite vocal objections from a large crowd at the Feb. 27 meeting held at El Cajon Valley High School’s multi-purpose room. All seats were filled with protesting students, teachers, classified staff, librarians, and mental health workers.
There were about 600 people present at the facility, with a petition readily available before the meeting for signatures to vote against the resolution ultimately passing. As of February 28 there were 1,531 petition signers.
The board made these drastic cuts even though the district’s reserves are 13.7%, which is 4.5 times the minimum amount required by the state. The board blamed the cuts on declining enrollment, a point disputed by some speakers.
The resolution cuts funding and terminates positions of faculty in the district starting this fall including Assistant Principal / Vice Principals (10), English Teachers (8), French Teachers (1), Home Economics Teachers (1), Library Media Specialists (9), Math Teachers (2), P.E. Teachers (2), Principal-Special Education Academy (1), Program Specialist (2), Psychologists (4), Social Science Teachers (2), Spanish Teachers (2), Special Education Teachers M/M (4), and Theatre Teachers (1).
Additionally, the Grossmont Education Association reports that the GUHSD Governing Board voted to eliminate 61 certificated and classified jobs; the board voted to close Reach Academy and The Child Care Center which teen moms and staff rely upon.
The meeting began at 4:46 p.m.with a pledge of allegiance, and shortly after, Doctor Gary Woods called for a brief five minute recess due to public outburst, and the meeting reconvened at 4:53 p.m.
Photos, right: screenshots of an email detailing the positions to be cut, as well as protestors at the facilityPublic speakers urged the board to protect the positions
There were 90 speaker cards submitted, but the board restricted speakers to two minutes each, with a total of only 40 minutes allowed, so only about 20 members of the public were allowed to speak.
Board President Dr. Gary Woods vacated the room twice for recess as a result of an inability to civilly direct and contain the frustrations and energies of the meeting.
These were some of the comments and statements made by many of those present who were against the Board’s Decision:
James Messina, President of the Grossmont Education Association (GEA), addressed that declining enrollment is not connected to decreasing revenue, as just “last year, we banked a record ending balance of over $100 million.” He stated that “increasing class sizes to 38, the largest in SD county, will not help improve A to G passing rates, will not help students graduate, or decrease suspensions and expulsions! These cuts violate all our LCAP goals. They do not create highly qualified programs… or recruit and retain highly qualified staff.” Messina added that “when a district has a deficit, it saves money through attrition and retirements and then balances again for the next year with fewer employees moving forward. This is what every district does and what Grossmont has done for over 20 years."
Laura Preble, a former high school librarian, stated that “most kids need an adult other than their parents… and that was a lot of what we did in libraries too; making connections with these kids. Connections are the root of education."
Granite Hills High School Site Learning Specialist Gavin Preston went on to say that “the staff cuts, particularly the decision to eliminate all district librarians… is horrifying. Not just because of its impact on students, but because of the complete absence of collaboration or consultation with site administrators and teachers before these decisions were made by a handful of people who do not work with students."
Jay Steiger, a teacher and former candidate for the GUHSD who has chaired the district’s bond oversight committee, said, “There is no need for the layoffs.” He maintained that declining enrollment is not significant enough to be a factor. “Additionally the harm done [last year] to district level special education teacher training and other essential roles has not been rectified,” he said.
Guidance Counselor Susan Lusk stated, "I will not be leaving… I will be one of the counselors. trying to absorb the mess you leave behind for us. If we were to take the numbers of a 30% [cut] it would be like increasing a classroom from 36 students to 47 in one year. That number is devastating. That number is staggering. If it were a classroom, we wouldn’t have enough desks; we wouldn’t even have rooms [that were] big enough to accommodate the desks. My room is not big enough to accommodate this."
Brent Enerva stated: “In my job as a digital learning coach, I was able to work with teachers and help them overcome their fears of technology… until you decided it was best to cut my position."
A former teacher at Granite Hills High School, Rachel McCurry gave her input: “I love libraries… felt proud of you all, not these other fellows… I remember how they treated students… They made me a better teacher."
A student from Monte Vista High School illustrated that according to the school report card at her school, “reading proficiency is down to 44%. Districtwide… proficiency is down to 66%. For those who need a little clarification… out of 100 students, only 66 can read at grade level."
Matthew Norris also spoke. “Every meeting that you’ve had this last month [has been] worse than the previous…I am just blown away by what you do to just gut schools so much… you cut their counselors, their librarians… yet you have these special meetings to hire all these other people, which will cost even more money than the people that you are replacing, so I’m confused: you say… stupid things to justify all the things you do."
Suzanne Sanwald, a West Hills High School Librarian, spoke as well.She referenced cuts the board members have made in the past. The first time she spoke was “In support of our LGBTQ students.” Additionally, the next time she spoke on behalf of the ED service team that was eliminated. “I worked closely with them and knew what a devastating loss this would be,” adding that each time she returns, people whose jobs have been eliminated are gone. “Silence is no protection when people are being hurt."
In a FOX 5 interview after the meeting, teacher librarian Stephanie Macceca at Valhalla High School stated, “My job is on the line right now. It's not going to save any money to cut my job because they’re going to have to hire other people to replace us.”
Jason Balistreri, a Mount Miguel High School Teacher Librarian, said, “Today this board [views] eliminating librarians as a necessity, but that is contrary to the facts… in this increasingly dystopian district… taxpayer dollars will be wasted."
Maria Schembri gave her allotted time to a student from Santana High School, who said, “School psychologists and counselors have made school a safer place for me. While I have help at home,” she said, cutting psychologists and counselors puts students “at risk of losing the only mental health support they have.”
Photos, left: screenshots of posters and protesters from the beginning and ending of the meeting.There was an outburst at around 5:41 pm. of audience members clamoring, “Let us speak.” A 10 minute recess was called, though board members were absent for about 15 minutes.
Concerned parents and students spoke out regarding alleged weaponization of ideology against students. Many of them were students not only from El Cajon Valley High School, but also West Hills, Monte Vista, Granite Hills and Grossmont.
Photos, right: Rachel McCurry [left] and an unnamed student protesting the librarian cuts, who also referenced the importance of support following “two bloody shooting events” the GUHSD had two mass shootings in the past at Santana and Granite HIlls high schools.Various students from El Cajon Valley, Mount Miguel and Grossmont High Schools spoke, preferring their identities remain anonymous. Many of these students were part of the LGBTQ+ community, who expressed disdain towards the “callousness” of the board members
.
Here were some of the quotes by students during the Board’s recess:
"Taking away mental health services yet again... you don't really know until it affects you."
"I will never let these board members... cut something that will save lives" referencing a fellow student who committed suicide.
"You are taking away our student's safe spaces.”
"It does not hurt you to care about one other person."
"Our libraries do not get sufficient credit."
"I don’t understand what these... old men... understand about my life."
Photos: left: the audience reacting to the Governing Board Proposal—Right: The Governing Board Chris Fite, Jim Kelly, Scott Eckert, Robert Shield and Dr. Gary Woods visible.A student continued speaking out when the board returned at 6:02 p.m.
As the audience protested, Gary Woods and the other members left the room with protests and chants hurled their way, such as “shame,” “cowards,” “recall,” “shame on you,”and “vote them out.”
Woods stated: “We are moving to another room, media please follow us.” It is not a Brown Act violation to move board discussion of an agenda item to a back room excluding the public, provided media is present, though the action infuriated the large crowd. This reporter did not hear the announcement amid the chaos, however other local media was present in the backroom meeting.
The governing board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the resolution, with trustees Gary Woods, Scott Eckertt, Robert Shield and Jim Kelly voting yes and Chris Fite voting no.
At approximately 6:15 p.m., Trustee Chris Fite spoke before the vote. Fite was the only member opposed to the action, and was allowed only two minutes to speak. Fite vigorously opposed the cuts, insisting that the cuts are not financially necessary and suggested reserves could be tapped. “We have the money to do this.” Additionally, he said, “There is chronic underrepresentation of everyone... We need more people…These kids need more services.” Of the staffers slated to be fired, he stated, ”We need to retain these people... and build up this district."
Fite referenced the California Resources Requirements to retain a surplus of $35-$45 million dollars, “They easily can go into our $40+ million dollar reserves and save us for a year, for this year of uncertainty. The fact is, that they don’t want to.”
Additionally, the state of California requires holding a reserve of 3% of the annual budget to plan for economic uncertainties (about $10 million). GUHSD’s Governing Board voted to hold a reserve of 4.5% (Roughly $15 million), a larger buffer than required; GUHSD currently has 13.7% ($46 million plus), which would be roughly 4.5 times the minimum amount.
The Governing Board members apparently left through the backdoor of the facility at around 6:20 p.m. without addressing public comment, after shutting out the public for the rest of their deliberations. When the board members left the room, they chose not to explain their votes.
Colin McGlashen, the district’s communications director, told KUSI news after the meeting, “It's about looking down the road at what's in the best interest of the district.”
Although the district is issuing pink slips to the educators being laid off, it’s possible the board could rescind its action and have the terminated instructors return next year, if it chooses to do so.
In total, GUHSD voted to eliminate 49 full-time credentialed teachers, including counselors, assistant principals, and all 9 librarians on staff. The board chose to do this even though it will not contribute to higher academic achievements of students. Nor did state budget reductions after the Los Angeles fires make such drastic cuts necessary at this time, given the district’s substantial reserves.
This story was originally published by ProPublica
By Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester, ProPublica
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Photo: Malnutrition, cc via Bing
March 3, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) - For weeks, some of the federal government’s foremost authorities on global health have repeatedly warned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other leaders about the coming death toll if they carried out the Trump administration’s plan to end nearly all U.S. foreign aid around the world.
In their clearest accounting yet, top officials have estimated the casualties: One million children will not be treated for severe acute malnutrition. Up to 166,000 people will die from malaria. New cases of tuberculosis will go up by 30%. Two hundred thousand more children will be paralyzed by polio over the next decade.
Instead of acting on the repeated warnings, top administration officials, including the State Department’s director of foreign assistance, Peter Marocco, thwarted their own experts’ efforts to keep the U.S. Agency for International Development’s most vital programs up and running, according to internal memos and estimates compiled by global health leaders at the agency and obtained by ProPublica.
President Donald Trump’s political appointees, along with billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, pressed ahead with their plan to dismantle USAID by ignoring and impeding staff who tried to protect lifesaving operations — even as the administration publicly insisted that those programs remained online — according to the memos and interviews with government officials.
During exchanges outlined in one of the memos, a DOGE engineer emailed staff and said they were not allowed to review the programs they were canceling. At another point, USAID’s then-deputy chief of staff, Joel Borkert, told agency personnel to take a “draconian” approach to approving waivers.
The explosive memos — which include summaries of email exchanges and top-level meetings inside USAID, as well as internal agency research — were sent by Nicholas Enrich, acting assistant administrator for global health. ProPublica also obtained detailed breakdowns of lifesaving programs managed by the bureau and the projected impact of cutting them. Enrich was placed on leave Sunday.
Enrich told The New York Times he released the memos, which multiple other officials contributed to, after learning he was being placed on leave, as thousands of others at the agency have been. The memos were circulated to the staff and obtained by ProPublica.
The documents identify several key senior policymakers behind the scenes while also puncturing the administration’s claims of a careful, deliberative review of USAID programming. The records also represent the government’s most explicit concerns to date memorialized by a senior official from inside Trump’s administration.
The State Department, USAID and Elon Musk did not respond to questions about this story. Rubio and Marocco did not respond to a request for an interview.
Since the inauguration, Rubio, Musk and Marocco have taken dramatic steps to incapacitate USAID, the largest foreign aid donor in the world, by firing its employees and halting operations. The global health bureau was one of the first parts of the agency targeted for mass layoffs.
Then, last week, they abruptly cancelled 10,000 foreign aid projects, which account for 90% of USAID’s humanitarian operations and about half of the State Department’s. Lifesaving programs that were still operating around the world were forced to close down immediately.
Following a series of lawsuits challenging their constitutional authority to lay off or place on leave thousands of employees and freeze nearly all foreign aid, Rubio and Marocco have defended their actions by arguing that the president has the right to cancel programs, and that they were conducting a careful review of the government’s foreign aid programs to make sure they aligned with Trump’s agenda. The administration says it is rooting out waste and fraud, while Musk has publicly vowed to destroy USAID altogether.
However, as ProPublica reported Saturday, officials throughout the government say the process was actually cursory and haphazard, so much so that the programs’ contract officers, who have oversight of individual programs and are aid groups’ primary contacts, had no idea what had been canceled or why.
Enrich’s memos offer additional evidence calling into question the administration’s claims in court while projecting the dire consequences that will play out for both the U.S. and vulnerable people around the world.
One of the documents said that the sweeping cuts to foreign aid promise to reignite outbreaks of preventable, deadly illnesses; fuel instability in war-torn areas; and put the U.S. at risk for outbreaks of infectious disease. “This will no doubt result in preventable death, destabilization, and threats to national security on a massive scale,” it says.Take tuberculosis, which kills more than 1.25 million people a year and is already the deadliest infectious disease on the planet. New infections are expected to surge by 30% more as a result of the terminations, and disruptions to treatment will cause people to develop drug resistance, making any future treatment options far more difficult and costly, the memo said.
That global surge will inevitably lead to more cases in the U.S. USAID staff forecast there would be around 80 additional cases of multi-drug-resistant TB here each year because of the cuts across USAID, the memo added. Even a few dozen cases would cost the U.S. millions in tax dollars; it takes nearly $500,000 on average to treat someone with the most drug-resistant forms of the illness, the memo notes.
Enrich’s bureau also warned that the foreign aid cuts will destabilize entire regions around the globe. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.S. withdrawal of aid has led health services to collapse as an ongoing conflict flares, the memos noted. They said more than 400 mpox patients were left stranded and that more than a million people face critical shortages of food and water, supplies the U.S. has promised to provide. Malnutrition, cholera and measles are all projected to increase as well.
Across the Sahel, the transition zone between Africa’s northern deserts and southern savannahs, malaria season is fast approaching. The U.S. has already purchased mosquito nets, diagnostic tests and treatments that cannot be delivered, according to multiple people with direct knowledge of the programs. Canceled programs there and elsewhere are expected to cause between 12 million and 18 million additional malaria infections over the next year, the document estimates.
And those infections are likely to be more deadly. Spread via mosquito, malaria is particularly lethal for children under 5. The U.S. was paying to help roll out drugs that are highly effective at preventing children from getting sick or dying. Those programs have been canceled.
The potential for death and the spread of disease is not new to Rubio or his top aides who ordered the mass termination of nearly all foreign aid programs, according to the documents and interviews.
USAID staff repeatedly lobbied to keep the most critical programs running, sharing specifics about patients served for individual programs and the likely harm of cutting them with political appointees, sometimes on multiple occasions. In response, political leadership “wholly prevented” staff from implementing Rubio’s promise to continue lifesaving aid, according to Enrich’s memo.
In public statements and court filings, Rubio and Marocco have said there was a waiver exemption process in place for lifesaving programs to remain funded and online.
But behind the scenes, the few employees remaining at USAID struggled to get basic information, like how to submit waivers to Marocco for approval. And when organizations did get an approved waiver, they couldn’t restart work because the administration still hadn’t paid them. (The Trump administration has refused to reimburse almost $2 billion to foreign aid contractors for work they’ve already completed.)
Agency staff had no way to send payments to organizations because their access to the financial systems had been severed, one memo said.
On Feb. 8, global health staff learned that Rubio planned to cancel many programs the bureau had identified as lifesaving. Those in the bureau appealed to Borkert and Mark Lloyd, an assistant administrator at the agency, to keep those operations alive. (Borkert and Lloyd did not respond to questions about this story.)
Lloyd asked for more information. But that same day, staffers in the bureau also received a response from DOGE. “I am hearing that Global Health is conducting supplemental reviews of awards slated for termination by Secretary Rubio and Acting Deputy Administrator Marocco,” DOGE adviser Jeremy Lewin emailed Enrich, according to one of Enrich’s memos. “This is delaying the timely processing of these termination notices and is unacceptable. … Bureaus should not be conducting their own policy and program reviews before acting on these termination instructions.” (Lewin did not respond to questions for this story.)
Enrich also said he received written instructions to pause approving waivers for lifesaving humanitarian assistance, a directive he passed along to the rest of his bureau, which had been working to identify the programs that needed money the most.
In a subsequent exchange spelled out in one memo that illustrates the frequently conflicting guidance, Enrich said that two political appointees, Tim Meisburger and Laken Rapier, along with Bokert, shouted at him during a Feb. 13 meeting that there had never been a pause, and instructed him to draft another memo to correct the “false narrative in the media that there had ever been a pause” on the bureau’s waivers for lifesaving programs. (Meisburger and Rapier did not respond to questions about this story.)
During a meeting on Feb. 24, Meisburger and Lloyd told those in the bureau to not bother trying to submit waivers for programs involving infectious diseases like mpox, polio and Ebola because they wouldn’t be approved, according to Enrich.
Then, two days later, the administration suddenly terminated about 10,000 programs across the State Department and USAID. Agency staff responsible for maintaining those contracts say they were not consulted before the move. Enrich immediately reached out to Borkert and others to warn them of the “grave impacts on lifesaving activities,” he said in the memo.
Borkert responded, indicating that many of the programs were terminated by mistake. “There is an acknowledgement some may have been sent out in error and we have the ability to rescind,” Borkert wrote to Enrich. “We need to identify what those are.”
In recent days, government officials and aid groups have told ProPublica that the administration appears to be trying to reverse-engineer its most sweeping actions to figure out which lifesaving operations were canceled. Staff have been told to report information about terminated contracts to agency leaders. It’s not clear what programs, if any, will be restored.
“It is an incompetent mess,” one official said.
ProPublica plans to continue covering USAID, the State Department and the consequences of ending U.S. foreign aid. We want to hear from you. Reach out via Signal to reporters Brett Murphy at 508-523-5195 and Anna Maria Barry-Jester at 408-504-8131.
Federal judge from Maryland temporarily blocks the Trump administration from using ICE to arrest migrants in certain sensitive locations
By G. A. McNeeley
March 3, 2025 (Washington D.C.) - A federal judge on Monday, February 24, in Maryland, temporarily blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting raids, and targeting and arresting migrants inside of a select few churches, temples, and other places of worship run by organizations that filed the lawsuit. View the ruling.
The lawsuit challenged an order by the Trump administration to allow ICE enforcement in sensitive locations, including places of worship, a change to a longstanding federal policy which prohibited enforcement actions in places of worship as well as schools and hospitals. The religious groups challenged this change as unconstitutional. The ruling came down on the side of the religious groups who sued the Trump administration in response to the policy change, after asking federal courts to intervene.
President Donald Trump ran on a platform of tougher immigration enforcement, and has promised the largest deportation effort in history. But educators and religious leaders say those efforts have already gone too far, and are also violating the rights of American citizens.
Federal Judge Favors Religious Groups
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, in Maryland, ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subdivision, ICE, not to conduct immigration enforcement actions "in or near any place of worship" associated with the case brought by Quakers, Baptists, Sikhs, Mennonites, and Jewish congregations.
Unlike other nationwide restraining orders judges have issued against Trump administration policies in recent weeks, the order issued by Chuang only applies to the facilities used by a handful of the Quaker, Baptist and Sikh denominations and congregations that sued last month.
“Violations of this preliminary injunction shall subject defendants and all other persons bound by this order to all applicable penalties, including contempt of court,” Chuang wrote. This order doesn't apply to arrests authorized by an administrative or judicial warrant.
Chuang’s ruling is another setback for President Trump’s goal of strengthening immigration enforcement and conducting mass deportations of migrants who are in the country without legal authorization.
Chuang, who is based in Greenbelt, said the policy likely violated the groups’ First Amendment right to freedom of association, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law which restricts government activities that impinge on religious practice.
Chuang emphasized that his analysis was tailored to the houses of worship that filed suit because they explicitly welcome immigrants, regardless of legal status, and would logically be a target for potential Trump administration enforcement actions.
“In issuing this injunction, the Court does not question that law enforcement, when necessary, must have the ability to conduct operations in or near places of worship,” Chuang concluded. “The court finds only that at this early stage of the case, on the sensitive and fraught issue of when and under what circumstances law enforcement may intrude into places of worship to conduct warrantless operations, the 2025 policy’s lack of any meaningful limitations or safeguards … does not satisfy these constitutional and statutory requirements.”
The Changes That Are Being Made
For decades, federal immigration agents have generally avoided conducting enforcement sweeps or detentions at what the federal government deemed "sensitive" areas, although there were exceptions in emergencies.
The Biden administration in 2021 expanded the order, and schools, churches, hospitals and local courthouses were deemed generally off-limits in order to permit everyone (including those living illegally in the United States) access to worship, healthcare, education and the courts to resolve speeding tickets or other legal matters. Biden’s expansion also included bus stops, playgrounds, food pantries, weddings and funerals.
The acting head of DHS, Benjamine Huffman, had issued a memo that immediately removed that long standing policy, and instead told agents to use "common sense" in making arrests where necessary.
"Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest," Huffman said. "The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense."
Chuang, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in a 59-page opinion that the removal of those limits threatened the religious freedom of the groups seeking relief from the court.
“The substantial burden that the Trump administration policy is far from speculative and is already occurring,” wrote Chuang, who noted reports that congregations with large immigrant populations have drawn fewer attendees since the Trump directive was issued last month. “It is reasonable to expect that such enforcement actions will occur at plaintiffs’ place of worship where DHS specifically stated in its press release announcing the 2025 policy that ‘criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.’”
What Religious Groups Have To Say
Chuang's action means that about 1,700 places of worship associated with the plaintiffs' organizations in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will be temporarily spared from immigration enforcement operations.
The policy change was among the Trump administration's immigration actions criticized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, although that organization did not join multiple lawsuits brought by faith communities.
The lawsuit argued that any government policy based solely on common sense was an unconstitutional violation of freedom of association under the First Amendment. The lawsuit also said the policy violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Quakers said it violated their exercise of religion because having ICE agents park outside services and interrupting to “drag a congregant out during the middle of worship” would discourage attendance.
“For over 30 years, it has been the government’s official policy to not enforce immigration laws in ‘protected areas,’ which include houses of worship (and other religious ceremonies like weddings and funerals), absent certain extraordinary circumstances. Rightly so,” the lawsuit said. “Enforcement in protected areas like houses of worship would, in the government’s own words, ‘restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities.’”
The groups that sued over the policy include Quaker congregations in Philadelphia; Richmond, Va.; Maryland and New England, as well as a Sikh temple in Sacramento, and a coalition of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches headquartered in Georgia.
What Other People Have To Say
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a group representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement, "For decades, the government has recognized that everyone, no matter their immigration status, should be able to attend houses of worship without fear of a warrantless government raid."
"Religious institutions should not have to go to court to fight for the right to worship and associate freely that is enshrined in our Constitution," Perryman said. "Our plaintiffs represent a unique and diverse coalition of religious groups that have been at the forefront in protecting values of religious liberty for centuries. We are grateful to the court for acting to limit this unlawful and harmful policy."
J. Kevin Appleby, senior fellow for policy at the Center for Migration Studies of New York and the former director of migration policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told OSV News, the judge's decision "is certainly a good sign because the court agreed that immigration enforcement at places of worship can be a violation of religious liberty."
Appleby added that "while the judge did not issue a nationwide ban on enforcement at churches, he opened the door to that possibility in future cases.”
In a statement provided to OSV News about the policy change, Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for public affairs, said, "We are protecting our schools, places of worship, and Americans who attend by preventing criminal aliens and gang members from exploiting these locations and taking safe haven there because these criminals knew law enforcement couldn't go inside under the previous Administration."
"DHS's directive gives our law enforcement the ability to do their jobs," McLaughlin added.
Sources:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/24/immigration-enforcement-places-of-worship-00205760
By Chris Jennewein, Times of San Diego, a member of the San Diego Online News Association
Photo: Zelensky in 2022
March 2, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) - Rep. Mike Levin said President Trump effectively sided with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in the acrimonious meeting Friday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“The meeting today between Presidents Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office was nothing short of an internationally embarrassing failure of American leadership,” said Levin, D-Dana Point, whose district includes Camp Pendleton.
“President Trump would rather side with a dictator than a democratic nation defending its freedom,” Levin said.
Zelensky had seen the meeting in the Oval Office as an opportunity to convince the United States not to side with Putin, who launched a bloody invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
Instead Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance laid into Zelensky, saying he showed disrespect to the United States. The Ukrainian leader was told to leave.
An agreement between Ukraine and the United States to jointly develop Ukraine’s rich natural resources, which Kyiv and its European allies had hoped would usher in better relations, was left unsigned and in limbo.
Levin said it is critical for the U.S. to stand with its European allies and Ukraine, and said Trump seems to want to turn over power in the world to Russia and China.
“I want to be clear: Putin is a murderous thug who illegally invaded Ukraine,” Levin said. “My grandfather and the Greatest Generation didn’t fight authoritarians in WWII to see the U.S. take the side of one today.”
East County News Service
March 2, 2025 (San Diego) – Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer held a public briefing this week to inform the community on how the Trump Administration is disrupting essential local services in San Diego County. This includes active federal funding freezes, administrative delays, and policy changes that are “making it harder for us to protect public health, provide housing assistance, and respond to emergencies,” Lawson-Remer warns.
Problems she highlighted include, in her words:
FEMA is refusing to release disaster relief funds—even after a federal court told them they had to. That includes funding for the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), which forced the closure of the Migrant Shelter run by Jewish Family Service (JFS)—leaving more people without a safe place to go and adding strain to our homelessness services.
The CDC has stopped regularly communicating with us about critical public health data. They haven't released the results of a federal study on chemical exposures in the TJ River Valley (ACE survey), leaving us without key information we need to protect public health. If there’s a toxic exposure risk, we don’t even have the data to act.
HUD has frozen grants for Public Housing Agencies and removed essential resources that local housing programs rely on. That means delays in rental assistance and real risks for affordable housing projects that were already in progress.
“This isn’t just frustrating—it’s dangerous,” Lawson-Remer states. “The Trump Administration is blocking federal funding that San Diegans already paid for, and instead of those dollars coming back to our community, Washington is playing games with the services people rely on.”