The University of Virginia’s research funding has been reduced following nationwide cuts to “indirect cost” support by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a major source of federal funds for biomedical research. 

The cuts, led by the Trump administration, will impact everything from research and equipment to some staff positions.

In addition to awarding grants that fund scientific research, the NIH gives institutions that host the research projects a percentage to help cover infrastructure and maintenance expenses. These rates for “indirect costs” vary by institution and are negotiated with the NIH.

The NIH said on Feb. 7 that funding for indirect costs will now be set at 15% for all grantees. 

This rate will replace any individual rate negotiations by UVA or other recipients, starting Monday, Feb. 10, according to an email sent by UVA’s office of the Vice President for research  and signed by Executive Vice President and Provost Ian Baucom and Vice President for Research Lori McMahon.

“This news is concerning, and we are actively assessing the implications for research at UVA,” the email said.

On Feb 10, attorneys general representing 22 states filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to temporarily block this major policy change. Virginia was not among the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit.

This cut could mean UVA’s funding for indirect costs was cut nearly in half compared to 2023. That year, NIH covered 29% of those expenses for the UVA School of Medicine, according to the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR), a nonprofit that tracks such funding. While it remains unclear which UVA research programs will be affected, the email advised researchers to “continue to do your research (unless you are in receipt of a stop order).”

According to Baucom’s email, indirect cost funding covers, among other things, cutting-edge research laboratories, high-speed data processing, national security measures (such as export controls), patient safety protocols (such as human subject protections), radiation safety, hazardous waste disposal and personnel required for administrative and regulatory compliance work.

UVA and UVA Health spokespeople did not answer Charlottesville Tomorrow’s inquiry about the programs that might be affected.

While indirect cost funding is lower than direct cost funding — which covers staff salaries, graduate students and equipment and accounted for 71% of NIH funding to UVA medical school in the 2023 fiscal year, according to BRIMR — the cuts could still have a significant impact.

In the 2023 fiscal year, UVA received $198.5 million in NIH funding for both direct and indirect costs, according to BRIMR. Of that total funding for UVA, $174.2 million was awarded to the medical school.

According to UVA’s letter, while institutions like the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and others are working on their responses to the cuts, UVA is awaiting further clarity. In the meantime, it is encouraging all researchers, regardless of their funding agency, to continue training their PhD students and working with their postdocs.

“Be mindful of your spending against federal grants,” the letter advised.

Take Action

The University of Virginia’s medical research funding was reduced due to a federal policy change at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Have you or someone you know been affected by the funding cuts? Let us know and reach out to share confidentially here.

The post Federal policy change hits UVA’s medical research funding appeared first on Charlottesville Tomorrow.

” width=”224″ height=”168″ align=”right” hspace=”10″ alt=”Montana-made whiskey isn’t the only commodity affected by trade with Canada” title=”Montana-made whiskey isn’t the only commodity affected by trade with Canada” />Fast-moving announcements of U.S. trade wars against Canada, Mexico and China leave state stakeholders bracing for market turmoil.

Read More

As a result of significant storms in early February, which resulted in high runoff inflows into Northern California reservoirs, the federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is implementing flood control operations at the Shasta Reservoir. Those operations include doubling water releases from the reservoir, beginning Friday, February 7. 

The actions are being undertaken with close coordination between Federal, State and local agencies, according to a press release from Mary Lee Knecht, a spokesperson for the BOR. The BOR coordinates its flood management operations in order to maximize hydropower created by releases from Central Valley Project facilities, including Shasta Dam. 

“Federal pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta are currently operating at maximum capacity and storing water in San Luis Reservoir to support south-of-Delta delivery to farms, communities, and wildlife refuges when needed later this year,” according to a press release from the BOR on February 6.

Releases from the Shasta Reservoir will be double from the current rate of 30,000 cubic feet per second to 60,000 cfs, beginning Friday, February 7. The releases will be implemented over the day on Friday, increasing to 40,000 csf by 2 pm, and reaching a full 60,000 by 10 pm. 

Keswick Dam, which is located not far downstream from Shasta Dam, will help regulate the flow of the releases from the Shasta Reservoir, which are expected to last at least through the weekend and could be adjusted next week as needed. 

Similarly, on the Trinity River, the BOR said, Lewiston Dam releases will increase from 1,500 cfs to 3,500 cfs on Friday. Whiskeytown Dam releases, which are currently at 300 cfs, will remain in place. 

Since January 31, the Shasta Reservoir has risen by more than 22 feet, the BOR says. A coordinated team that includes local and state agencies as well as the United States Army Corps of Engineers is working together to implement the water releases.

2.7.25 10:18 pm We have corrected a misspelling in the article’s subheading.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.

Some have done it quietly. Others publicly. In eliminating diversity initiatives, North Carolina is joining a host of companies and colleges.

Feeling emboldened, NC agencies taking ASAP approach to DEI efforts is a story from Carolina Public Press, an award-winning independent newsroom. Our breakthrough journalism shines a light on the critical overlooked and under-reported issues facing North Carolina’s 10.4 million residents. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Jourdan Bennett-Begaye and Kalle Benallie
ICT

WASHINGTON — The anger, resilience and ready-to-fight energy radiated from tribal college and university presidents and students as they packed into the conference room Tuesday, Feb. 4, for National Tribal College Week.

They arrived from as far away as Utqiaqvik, Alaska, for the annual tribal college and universities legislative summit hosted by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, an organization that represents and supports all accredited tribal colleges and universities across the country. Of the 37 institutions in the country, 35 were represented at this year’s annual summit.

They already were bracing for what they would face in the coming year.

In just the first three weeks of his new administration, President Donald Trump had already signed an executive order on his first day in office that rescinded the White House Initiative for Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities. The initiative had promoted the success and growth of Indigenous education in public schools, at home, or schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, Department of the Interior, or postsecondary educational institutions, including tribal colleges and universities.

A week later came news of an abrupt decision to freeze federal grants and loans, which could affect more than $1 billion of federal funding for tribal nations in education, healthcare, climate initiatives, law enforcement, agriculture, and more.

Several lawsuits were filed immediately, and judges have placed a temporary block on the federal funding freeze, but administration officials indicated that “some kind of funding freeze is still planned as part of his blitz of executive orders,” The Associated Press reported.

A screenshot of the White House initiative floated around Native peoples’ and allies’ social media feeds of the action with comments expressing how upset they were with Trump’s order.

The consortium’s president and chief executive, Ahniwake Rose, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and of Muscogee (Creek) descent, stood on the stage encouraging college presidents and students to share their stories with their representatives and explain how the decisions will impact their education, institutions, families, communities, and tribal nations.

She said even a “pause” in funding would affect them.

“That’s the important part —the pause in funding,” she told ICT. “Because while the freeze has been lifted, the pause might not be and while we’re settling and figuring out what the executive orders mean across the agencies, the real-life impact for our TCUs is going to be felt immediately.”

Facing a potential funding freeze

Rose, who previously served as the consortium’s vice president of congressional and federal relations, told ICT that when the organization found out about the funding freeze, officials immediately sent a survey to all the tribal colleges and universities asking how the move would affect the day-to-day operations and impact the institutions and their students.

Tribal colleges and universities receive 74 percent of their total revenue from federal funding. If the freeze continues, tribal colleges and universities could shut down, according to the impact sheets from the surveys that congressional leaders will receive this week.

More than 30,000 jobs are created across the local and regional economies. Most of these jobs are tied to federal funds and would affect faculty and staff positions, on and off campus.

Rose said many of the larger state institutions have alumni and endowments to draw from, but that doesn’t apply to all 37 tribal colleges and universities. Some of the TCUs don’t have six months of reserves, either.

“So a pause in funding that lasts six months means that we’re losing faculty,” she said. “A pause in funding for six months means that we’re closing courses. And if we close a course, if we lose (a) classroom, we’re losing students, then we’re losing revenue from our student enrollment.”

She continued, “So the ripple effect will be long-lasting. If this is not just a freeze, if this is just a pause, if it goes on much longer, then it will have a devastating impact on our TCUs. Some of our TCUs have noticed that, or have noted that, if it goes past six months, they might have to consider closing.”

Leander R. McDonald, president of United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota, estimates that his college has six months of reserves. He is Ihanktowan, Sahnish, Hidatsa, and Hunkpapa, and serves on the consortium’s board as vice chair.

“After that we would have to discontinue operations,” he said. “So when we started hearing about these funding freezes, we started looking at our budgets a little bit more closely and saying … ‘Well, what do we need in order to get us to the end of the school year?’”

McDonald said about two-thirds of the college’s funding relies on federal funds, with one-third coming from endowment monies and foundations.

Each institution also has to worry about accreditation, officials said, since tribal colleges and universities are obligated to meet the standard for each area of study, he said. They have one of two choices: fulfill the educational commitment themselves or refer students to other educational institutions.

“We’re certainly in quite a predicament should that funding freeze happen, because we wouldn’t be able to complete the mission that we’re set out for,” he said. “We would need time in order to stop operations, and we’d be liable for that, and with the treaty and trust responsibility, just begs the question is that, do we file suit as a result of that, for the liability that we’re incurring as a result of a pullback of federal funds? And I think that’s where the majority of us as tribal colleges would fall in my mind.”

Twyla Baker said Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College’s soft-funded projects are approximately 60 percent made up of federal funds. Soft-funded projects are grants, sponsored-programs, private donations, anything external to the tuition money they receive. Baker is the president of the North Dakota college and a citizen of the Three Affiliated Tribes.

The school has done a lot to build up its reserves and endowment but it’s nowhere near where they need it to be. It’s still in the “infancy” stages, she said.

“It’s not something that we would be able to tap into long term, and we haven’t even really tapped into it right now to start pulling the interest off of or anything like that, because we still wanted to build it up,” she said.

“We’ll probably be able to stay for the academic year if there are no pauses in federal funding. But beyond that, it starts to be a big question mark,” Baker said.

Closing the educational doors would have a “colossal impact” on her students, she said.

“We live in a very rural and remote area in Northwest North Dakota, and these students can easily drive up to an hour one way to come to school with us,” said Baker, who sits on the consortium board as the research chair.

“They receive all types of supports that we can possibly find for them, and a lot of them are tied to federal dollars, so it’s crucial that we are able to keep our relationship considered under treaty and trust, and that those dollars can continue to come to the tribal colleges, and that we be kept in that consideration,” she said.

The United Tribes Technical College and Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College are two of five tribal colleges and universities in the state.

The consortium’s impact sheet from North Dakota, for example, offers a closer look at the impact a disruption in funding could cause. The impact sheet, summarized by the consortium, indicates the harm could be felt in five areas:

• Immediate impact: Reduced services, staff layoffs, tuition spikes, and campus program closures
• Financial consequences: Dependence on federal grants means institutional operations would be at serious risk. Tuition would increase drastically to offset loss of federal funding.
• Impact on students: Loss of educational opportunities for TCU students, increased dropout rates, financial insecurity, and loss of access to crucial financial aid.
• Impact on faculty/staff: Staff and faculty would face severe job losses, impacting institutional stability.
• Impact on research: Research activities would be disrupted, particularly those funded by federal agencies such as NASA and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Extensions of sovereignty

Rose, McDonald, and Baker emphasized that tribal colleges and universities are chartered by federally recognized tribes, and are therefore extensions of tribal nations and sovereignty.

“We’ve ceded billions of acres of land to this country to and in exchange for that we have certain protections, and we have a relationship with the federal government that ensures that we have services in place,” Baker said. “We have education, health care … infrastructure, things in place to ensure the health and the well being of our peoples in perpetuity, because they bet they benefit from the land that was ceded.”

There’s also federal legislation in 1994 that designated more than a dozen tribal colleges and universities land-grant institutions. They are part of a land-grant university system that dates back to 1862. Most TCUs are now considered land-grant institutions.

The first tribal college was Diné College, known as Navajo Community College before 1997. Former Navajo Nation Chairman Raymond Nakai established the college as a step toward self-determination in 1968, which was 100 years after the Navajo Treaty of 1868.

While self-determination was part of the formula, McDonald said the tribal colleges were also created to address non-completion of tribal students at mainstream institutions. He’s seen its success. “We’re able to provide a higher education experience where they’re at home and they’re able to experience higher education and courses and programs of study that they receive and complete them (courses and programs) as a result of coming to school with us and at higher rates than they do with mainstream institutions,” he said. 

From associate degrees to doctorates

The number of tribal colleges and universities has grown since the start-ups decades ago.

According to the consortium numbers:

• Thirty-seven tribal colleges and universities operate at 90 sites in 16 states — Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Michigan Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, California, and New Mexico
• TCUs serve 80 percent of Indian Country
• Approximately 160,000 Native students and community residents are served by TCUs
• 245-plus federally recognized tribes have students at these institutions.

Many of these schools offer degrees ranging from associate to doctoral degrees.

Perhaps the biggest misconception of tribal colleges and universities, however, is that they are for Native students only. Non-Native students, or non-enrolled, can also attend most TCUs. About 13 percent of the students enrolled at tribal colleges and universities are non-Native, according to the consortium.

For Baker’s college, that number hovers around 10 to 15 percent for their non-beneficionary, or non-Native, students.

“We are public institutions of higher education, so they can come to school with us and are held to the same standards as the rest of the other colleges, mainstream colleges in the state and in the country,” she said. “We are accredited by the same accrediting bodies, and they can get their education with us or get their start with us at a really good deal, because we are very cognizant of the students that we’ve worked with and their socioeconomic backgrounds. So we try to support them, and we understand how tough it can be for some of these students to access higher education if it weren’t for a TCU, and that includes non-enrolled students.”

McDonald and Baker both said that their alumni go on to work in their communities as entrepreneurs, scientists, artists, and more. They become part of the workforce and contribute to their families, communities, nations, and American society.

“I think it’s a great investment that needs to be continued by the U.S. government and recognizing our contributions here, not only for the cessation of land, but also our contributions too, for building this country,” McDonald said. 

Swept into DEI

Despite the broad impact tribal colleges and universities have had on their communities, Trump’s decision rescinding the White House initiative implemented under President Joe Biden startled much of Indian Country.

Tribal nations are not part of the anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) rhetoric because of political and legal obligations.

The executive order rescinded had “unwavering” support from both sides of the aisle, according to Rose. She hopes that the administration understands that tribal colleges and universities are nation builders that are connected to sovereignty.

The American Indian Higher Education Consortium, along with two dozen tribal organizations that represent tribal nations and communities, issued a letter to Trump on Feb. 2.

The coalition summarized in a statement, “Tribal Nations are not special interest groups—they are sovereign governments with a unique legal and political relationship with the United States and with their own Tribal communities. The trust and treaty obligations of the federal government are political and debt-based in nature. Tribal Nations’ sovereignty and the federal government’s delivery on its trust and treaty obligations must not become collateral damage in broader policy shifts.”

Trump’s executive order dissolved the initiative, which was housed in the Department of Education, and eliminated the executive director position.

“This was our political office, and so by losing the political appointee, we lose some direct access to the (education) secretary,” Rose said. “We lose the opportunity to directly impact policy, to have somebody that understands what it means to work at a tribal college and university, and to ensure that as policies and as regulations and as legislation is being implemented and put into place, that our students and our faculty and our communities are being specifically addressed and thought about.”

It was a surprise for the former executive director of the initiative, Naomi Miguel. She joined the initiative in February 2023.

“My shock was more or less on the fact that this was a day-one first executive order action,” said Miguel, T’ohono Odham citizen. “That was one of my first shocks. My second shock was the amount of work that we did in that initiative and knowing that work is not going to continue in this administration.”

She said the initiative also provided information to different agencies and outside stakeholders such as non-Native institutions that are specifically interested in recruiting Native students for their programs.

She added that during her work she made efforts to inform those in the federal workplace and non-Native organizations that the Native American and Alaska Native connection to education is political. Boarding schools were used as a tool to assimilate Indigenous children and federal funding is outlined in treaties.

“A lot of the work that I was doing was internally having those discussions. It was a lot of education about us and a lot of education on our status in this country that was fully backed by the Supreme Court for centuries. I think that type of work unfortunately isn’t going to continue,” Miguel said.

Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders will also be affected. Trump also rescinded the Executive Order 14031, Advancing Equity, Justice, and Opportunity for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.

Miguel said that she worked with the Department of Health and Human Services, which housed the initiative, repeatedly. They worked together with connecting Native Hawaiian education and helping develop the work they did, on the inter-agency level, with the Department of Interior for Native languages.

“Native Hawaiians and University of Hawai’i are kind of the road map for us in revitalizing and retaining our languages for Native languages,” Miguel said. “A lot of the work they were doing was starting to be connecting all of us together, really looking at a lot of our policy papers making sure we’re being inclusive of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.”

Miguel said that rescinding the initiatives will make it harder and slower for information to be easily shared about training and technical assistance, federal aid assistance, announcements from the Department of Education or general announcements about education.

“Our students will see the impact of that unfortunately,” Miguel said. “There were times when we had FAFSA grants available for schools to utilize to help their students fill out their FAFSAs or learn how to fill out their FAFSAs. That didn’t just apply to TCUs, it applied to other high schools that may have had high populations of Native students there. There are things like that that came up that is not explicitly named in that executive order.”

Miguel also encouraged the career staff who are still working in the Department of Education and other departments to take care of themselves from possible pushback from the Trump administration.

“We did a lot of work, and it is sad and it does break my heart a little to know that it’s gone, but we need each other,” she said.

Stirring students to action

Executive orders are not in the U.S. Constitution but are accepted as part of a president’s executive powers to either amend, repeal or replace any previous executive order. Although Congress can’t easily overturn executive orders, federal courts can review, challenge or block the orders if they violate or contradict the Constitution, federal laws or fundamental rights.

That’s exactly what Dakota Waupoose is learning at the legislative summit. Waupoose is a student at the College of Menominee Nation. He will be advocating for TCUs on Capitol Hill all week.

“It’s just helping bring this information back from this legislative summit to our communities, so that they don’t have to worry as much, and understanding that when we come here, we’re representing them here on the Hill,” said the Prairie Band Potawatomi citizen who is part of the consortium’s Student Congress. 

View the original article to see embedded media.

Our stories are worth telling. Our stories are worth sharing. Our stories are worth your support. Contribute $5 or $10 today to help ICT carry out its critical mission. Sign up for ICT’s free newsletter.

Hundreds of Vermonters joined a protest against the Trump administration on the steps of the Statehouse on Wednesday — part of a national movement to resist President Donald Trump’s policies since he came into office two weeks ago.

The protest movement, titled 50501, is a decentralized initiative to bring protests to every state capitol in the nation. Vermonters arrived at the Statehouse in Montpelier with signs, flags and chants, despite the blustery 13-degree weather.

The themes of attendees’ signs ranged from objections to Elon Musk’s involvement in the administration to supporting LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights and the Palestinian cause. If any thread unified the protesters, it was the desire to push back against what they said was Trump’s anti-democratic approach to his presidential power and harm to marginalized people.

Several state legislators attended the protest, joining in on chants and speaking to folks in the crowd. Among them were Rep. Mari Cordes, D-Lincoln; Rep. Saudia LaMont, D-Morristown; and Rep. Jubilee McGill, D-Bridport, who told VTDigger the Trump administration had been front-of-mind for them, not only as individuals but also as representatives of a small state likely to be heavily affected by Trump policies such as his proposed tariffs.

This story will be updated.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermonters join national movement to protest Trump administration policies.

President Donald Trump has vowed to close the U.S. Department of Education without clear guidelines for what will happen next. Policy experts say that it could create chaos for state education agencies, including in Mississippi, which relies more heavily on federal education dollars than most.

The post What Trump’s Plan to Abolish the Department of Education Would Mean for Mississippi appeared first on Mississippi Free Press.

Three days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the federal organization known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began uploading “single day statistics” to the organization’s official social media accounts as a means of documenting numbers of arrests. On January 23, those stats included 538 arrests. By January 27, the number had more than doubled to 1,179. As recently as this week, some arrested immigrants have reportedly been sent to Guantanamo Bay ahead of their deportations.

To deliver on Trump’s promise of deporting all of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living on American soil, ICE has assembled an outfit of collaborating federal agencies that includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Marshals, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

While immigration enforcement is currently conducting larger sweeps than were ever undertaken during Trump’s first term, it will still take approximately 30 years to arrest (let alone deport) the 11 million people Trump promises to expel from the Unites States, at current rates. Trump’s rate of immigration-related arrests so far broadly matches the daily deportations numbers produced by the Obama administration, from 2009–2015.  

Regardless of the feasibility of the White House’s stated goal, ICE’s recent actions have left many communities of undocumented immigrants paralyzed with fear. In California, which has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” ICE successfully conducted a raid in Kern County recently, and false reports of ICE presence in San Francisco and Southern California have spread like wildfire.

To add fuel to the flames of a national panic, there is some indication that federal immigration agents are willing to disregard legal procedures to meet their goals. Ras Baraka, the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, accused federal agents of unlawfully conducting a raid at a seafood depot without a warrant. The manager of the raided facility said that he never asked agents to present a valid court order before allowing them entry. 

Like any form of arrest and prosecution, the deportation process must meet certain legal requirements. To the frustration of President Trump’s “border czar”, Tom Homan, ICE operations – which often rely on a lack of understanding of what immigration enforcement can and cannot legally do – are sometimes thwarted by community members with a strong knowledge of their own rights.

“They’ve very educated,” Homan told a CNN reporter in reference to those who exercise their rights to remain silent and refuse access to law enforcement that show up to raids without proper warrants. 

“They call it ‘know your rights,’” Homan continued. “I call it ‘how to escape arrest.’”

Here in Shasta County, and across California, there are several legal mechanisms in place that may complicate ICE’s process of locating, arresting, and deporting undocumented people. Here’s what you need to know.

California’s Legal Obligation to Protect Undocumented Residents 

As demonstrated by Trump’s first two weeks in office, the legal framework that underlies immigration enforcement is immensely complicated, especially in places like California where state law was enacted to defend undocumented residents against the authority of federal agencies. Within California’s 58 counties, debates on whether to cooperate with ICE have divided state from federal jurisdictions, and local politicians from each other even within the same counties.    

The California Values Act (SB 54), which was passed in 2017, prohibits local law enforcement–and other state entities such as schools, courts, hospitals–from sharing information with ICE that could lead to the arrest and deportation of an individual or family. 

Furthermore, California police officers are not allowed to inquire about immigration status, make an arrest on the basis of a deportation order, or extend an undocumented person’s time in jail for immigration agents to apprehend them, unless they’ve committed a crime that meets a certain threshold. 

That threshold includes those who have been convicted of a “serious or violent” crime such as assault, rape, felony drunk driving, or certain kinds of theft. Since Proposition 36 has recategorized some theft and drug possession charges as “aggravated felonies” under the State’s legal system, immigration attorneys believe there could be an increased correlation in deportations.   

In Shasta County, representatives of Anderson Police Department (APD) and Redding Police Department (RPD) have both told Shasta Scout they intend to comply with state law by only coordinating with ICE or other federal immigration agents when permitted to do so under the parameters of the California Values Act. The written policies at both RPD and APD are also consistent with the demands of SB 54. 

According to Redding Police Chief Brian Barner, the extent of the department’s coordination with ICE during raids in past years has been the receipt of email notifications from the federal law enforcement agency informing local police that an ICE operation was planned in the Redding area. 

A Public Information Officer with the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, Timothy Mapes, did not specifically confirm whether that department intends to comply with SB 54, but the department’s policy manual mirrors that of APD and RPD, and is also consistent with the California Values Act. 

Statewide reporting indicates that at least 28 of California’s 58 Sheriffs have said they plan to comply with State law. That number does not include Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson who did not respond to CalMatters request for comment.

In contrast, the Sheriff of Riverside County has indicated that he would like to circumvent SB 54, despite steps by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to advance certain protections for undocumented residents. 

Should local law enforcement choose to flout SB 54, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been unambiguous on California’s response, saying a plan is already in place to address such misconduct. 

“We’re prepared to take action against any law enforcement agency that doesn’t follow (the law),” Bonta told journalists at a University of California, Berkeley, seminar in early January. 

“There was a time and place to talk about SB 54 to make yourself heard, to seek amendments,” Bonta said. “That was years ago… So now’s the time to follow it.” 

What Rights are You Entitled to? 

Citizens and noncitizens alike are guaranteed certain rights when interfacing with law enforcement, including federal immigration agents. Whether you encounter law enforcement at work, on public transit, or on the steps of your front door, your rights in California include two primary considerations.

The first is that in most cases, law enforcement agents must have a warrant authorized by a judge in order to lawfully enter a space. The second is that you have the right to remain silent and request to speak with a lawyer, in order to avoid having your words used against you in a court of law later.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.