Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Rapper skips U.S. while on tour over ICE concerns.

    Topline:

    Megastar Puerto Rican singer and rapper Bad Bunny said he chose not to do any concert dates in the 50 states during his current world tour because he's afraid that ICE, as he said, "could be outside my concert."

    Will other artists follow suit? Performers, event presenters, booking agents and lawyers tell NPR they are dealing with a lot of uncertainty right now — and they have been very hesitant to speak on the record. They fear retaliation, including by those who hold decision-making power over visa approvals or from those who hold financial sway, because they control state, local or private funding.

    Department of Homeland Security response: In a written statement to NPR on Thursday, assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote that "Bad Bunny is either seriously misinformed about ICE operations or is using law enforcement as an excuse because he won't be able to sell tickets in the United States. ICE is not raiding concert venues. "

    In an interview with I-D magazine earlier this month, megastar Puerto Rican singer and rapper Bad Bunny said he chose not to do any concert dates in the 50 states during his current world tour because he's afraid that ICE, as he said, "could be outside my concert." Instead, he did 30 shows in Puerto Rico, which reportedly brought hundreds of millions of tourism dollars to the island.
    As a Puerto Rican, Bad Bunny is, of course, a U.S. citizen. Performers from other nations are facing additional issues — notably hurdles in securing visas.
    Performers, event presenters, booking agents and lawyers tell NPR that they are dealing with a lot of uncertainty right now — and they have been very hesitant to speak on the record. They fear retaliation, including by those who hold decision-making power over visa approvals or from those who hold financial sway, because they control state, local or private funding.

    Bad Bunny publicly expressed concerns that his Latino fans would be targeted for ICE enforcement. What does the Department of Homeland Security say?

    In a written statement to NPR Thursday, assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote:

    "Bad Bunny is either seriously misinformed about ICE operations or is using law enforcement as an excuse because he won't be able to sell tickets in the United States. ICE is not raiding concert venues. Pop stars choosing to fearmonger and demonize ICE law enforcement are contributing to the nearly 1,000% increase in assaults on ICE officers. If Sabrina Carpenter and Tate McRae are going on tour, so can he."
    The Department of Homeland Security has not provided further details or evidence about those assault claims; in July, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defined violence against ICE officers as including doxxing agents and videotaping officers.

    Are other performers expressing similar concerns?

    People in the entertainment and the arts industries say they continue to be concerned. In July, community leaders and local officials in Chicago accused federal agents of targeting attendees at the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts & Culture and shared video of ICE agents at their museum. The Department of Homeland Security denied those accusations at the time. Regardless, folks working in culture and entertainment are worried about similar situations potentially happening at their events.

    What about foreign artists who want to come to the US?

    Foreign visitors coming to the U.S. as entertainers need to have a specific kind of work visa, and some artists and presenters have had dates canceled or delayed due to visa issues. Earlier this month, the Korean boy band Be:Max was forced to cancel U.S. tour dates, saying their visas had been canceled close to their planned appearances. (NPR reached out repeatedly to Be:Max and their concert promoters but did not receive any replies.) In July, the duo TwoSet Violin postponed a number of U.S. dates when its member Brett Yang, an Australian violinist, had his initial visa application rejected.
    But there are now new financial and logistical hurdles to overcome in the process of getting a visa. Earlier this month, the State Department announced that applicants have to return to their country of nationality or full-time residency to apply for visas to visit the U.S. And that creates big, expensive complications for performers who earn their money touring the world.

    What does this mean for artists? 

    Here's a hypothetical example: Say a performer originally from India wants to apply to come do a tour in the U.S. — but they are temporarily working in Belgium. It used to be that they could go to the U.S. consulate in Belgium for their U.S. visa interview. The State Department now is saying no, they have to fly home to India to apply and be interviewed there. That costs a lot of money and time, especially for touring groups with big bands and crews. As it is, visa applications can cost upward of $8,000 per person, including legal fees.
    NPR reached out to the State Department for comment, which said that they are "upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process."

    So how long does the visa process take?

    As of right now, the government's website estimates that for the types of visas visiting performers typically use (O and P category visas), it will take seven months. Immigration lawyers tell NPR that seven months is an optimistic estimate and that they are advising their clients to expect the process to take even longer. So if an artist wants to come perform in the U.S. in September 2026, they had best get moving. And that is going to affect which touring artists may ultimately decide to make a decision like Bad Bunny and say, "Given the current circumstances, never mind. We'll just skip the United States for now."

    Jennifer Vanasco edited this story for broadcast and digital.

    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Employees concerned about privacy
    A person walks down a sidewalk past signage that reads "Cal State LA" and "Directory" with arrows directing people to the various buildings on campus.
    Cal State LA.

    Topline:

    Labor unions representing employees around the 22-campus system are waiting to see if they can win the support of a Superior Court judge — or perhaps reach an agreement with CSU itself — to allay members’ fears of harassment and surveillance by the Trump administration.

    More details: Faculty members, a graduate teaching assistant, and a supervisor in a campus facilities department are among the employees who have filed declarations in state court, saying they are worried that Cal State will put their scholarships and well-being at risk by handing over personal information like cellphone numbers and email addresses to federal agencies. Their lawsuit seeking to require CSU to notify employees if it receives federal requests for such information in the future is being heard by Judge Stephen Goorvitch. The parties plan to hold a conference with the judge as soon as next week, a spokesperson for the faculty union said.

    About the lawsuit: The California Faculty Association (CFA) sued the California State University Board of Trustees in October, later adding Teamsters and United Auto Workers units at CSU as fellow plaintiffs. The unions said in court filings that prompt notification of future federal subpoenas would give employees the opportunity to object and attempt to intervene if they don’t want their information shared with the federal government.

    Read on... what employees in the CSU system are saying about the suit.

    California State University is caught between a federal government eager to investigate alleged antisemitism and employees concerned about privacy.

    That dilemma has landed the nation’s largest four-year public university in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where labor unions representing employees around the 22-campus system are waiting to see if they can win the support of a Superior Court judge — or perhaps reach an agreement with CSU itself — to allay members’ fears of harassment and surveillance by the Trump administration.

    Faculty members, a graduate teaching assistant, and a supervisor in a campus facilities department are among the employees who have filed declarations in state court, saying they are worried that Cal State will put their scholarships and well-being at risk by handing over personal information like cellphone numbers and email addresses to federal agencies. Their lawsuit seeking to require CSU to notify employees if it receives federal requests for such information in the future is being heard by Judge Stephen Goorvitch. The parties plan to hold a conference with the judge as soon as next week, a spokesperson for the faculty union said.

    The nine sworn statements, filed by employees from San Bernardino to Humboldt County in early November, show the fallout after CSU revealed in September that it is the subject of a systemwide investigation into allegations of antisemitism and a hostile environment by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). EEOC has filed one complaint related to that investigation, but CSU anticipates others will follow.

    Separately, Cal State alerted Cal State LA employees in September that it had complied with an EEOC subpoena related to a January complaint against the campus of roughly 22,000 students. The subpoena sought the contact information of all Cal State LA faculty and staff in connection with an investigation that also hinges on allegations of antisemitism.

    The California Faculty Association (CFA) sued the California State University Board of Trustees in October, later adding Teamsters and United Auto Workers units at CSU as fellow plaintiffs. The unions said in court filings that prompt notification of future federal subpoenas would give employees the opportunity to object and attempt to intervene if they don’t want their information shared with the federal government.

    The conflict between Cal State and the employee unions comes amid a sweeping campaign by the White House to crack down on colleges and universities that it accuses of fostering political views with which it disagrees, including protesting Israel’s military offensive in Gaza and supporting the rights of transgender students. The University of California system and the University of Pennsylvania are among the colleges facing EEOC investigations alleging a hostile work environment for Jewish employees.

    Cal State says it has not received a subpoena related to the systemwide EEOC investigation and that there have not been any findings, settlement discussions or other federal actions in regard to it. The EEOC did not respond to a request seeking comment.

    Judge Goorvitch on Friday was scheduled to weigh the unions’ request for a preliminary injunction. The court ultimately did not issue a decision and will instead accept additional briefing from CSU, said university system spokesperson Jason Maymon. A status conference on the matter is set for next week, CFA spokesperson Kenyon Farrow said.

    A balancing act for Cal State

    The systemwide EEOC investigation poses a subtle balancing act for Cal State, which has said it will cooperate in good faith with federal investigators while seeking to protect its employees’ privacy. “Fulfilling our legal obligations does not mean surrendering our rights or agreeing with the allegations,” the university system advises on a frequently asked questions webpage. “CSU is required by law to cooperate with an EEOC investigation, but cooperation does not mean that CSU accepts the allegations as true or automatically provides everything that is requested.”

    At Cal State LA, the university system has said it filed a petition to modify the subpoena, narrowing its original scope to exclude home addresses and details about why employees left the university. But Cal State LA ultimately provided information, including employees’ names, genders, race and ethnicity, personal phone number, personal email and work sites.

    In November, Cal State filed a brief opposing the unions’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which the unions have since revised. Attorneys for the university system argued that federal law preempts state privacy protections and that its disclosure of information to a federal agency was permitted under state law.

    Employees cite ‘fear and intimidation’

    Sworn statements by employees at Cal State LA depict what one described as an atmosphere of “fear and intimidation” on campus since employees learned that their personal contact information had been shared with the EEOC.

    Philosophy master’s student Eric Phipps said that shortly after CSU alerted employees about the disclosures, his professor and classmates in a course related to gender “expressed fears that their participation in the course could cause them to be targeted by the federal government and that CSU would not protect them.”

    Phipps, who works as an instructional student assistant, is now second-guessing whether to pursue a career in academia. “I feel that academic freedom is no longer guaranteed, and I am now hesitant to publish my thesis because of the political views expressed therein,” he wrote.

    Faculty also worried that future federal requests would seek private emails with students and colleagues, or other information about their teaching, social media use and political activism.

    Cal State LA professor Ericka Verba said she worries that if CSU were to provide the text of her emails to the federal government, she could face retaliation for her activism related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Verba, a member of Cal State LA’s Latin American Studies Program, said her emails also “contain sensitive information about students’ immigration status” that is not relevant to an antisemitism probe.

    Concerns not limited to Cal State LA

    Similar concerns have spread to employees at other CSU campuses, who said in court declarations that they are worried that future federal requests may seek information they consider confidential and personal.

    Christopher Cox, a San Jose State University lecturer in sociology and interdisciplinary studies, wrote that his teaching specialties — including topics like colonization and international human rights — make him concerned “that I will be targeted for the courses that I teach at SJSU if my private information is subpoenaed by the EEOC or another federal agency.”

    At Cal Poly Humboldt, a philosophy lecturer said he feared his views on political issues, including LGBTQ+ rights, would put him at risk. Loren Cannon, who has worked at the Humboldt campus since 2006, said he was concerned that CSU may in the future turn over information about his scholarship and teaching “that would subject me to additional scrutiny, harassment and even the termination of my position.”

    Institutions of higher education have varied in how they respond to EEOC investigations into alleged discrimination against Jewish employees. The University of Pennsylvania sought to revoke an EEOC subpoena in its entirety, the federal agency said in a court filing. EEOC denied that effort and has asked a federal district court to force Penn to comply with a modified order. Meanwhile, Columbia University in New York City agreed to pay $21 million to settle an EEOC investigation.

    EdSource is an independent nonprofit organization that provides analysis on key education issues facing California and the nation. LAist republishes articles from EdSource with permission.

  • Sponsored message
  • Deal would drop affordable housing requirements
    Development in a planned city. The homes are painted white with gray roofing.
    Irvine's Great Park area.

    Topline:

    The Irvine City Council on Tuesday is set to vote on a land swap deal that will waive affordable housing requirements for one of the biggest developers in Orange County.

    About the land swap: If the council approves the land swap with FivePoint, the city will give 26.4 acres of land in exchange for 35 acres dubbed the Crescent site. The city will then greenlight FivePoint’s development of 1,300 market rate housing in an area where the median price for a home is around $1.5 million.

    Why it matters: The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting does not include land appraisals or a financial analysis of the land swap and the financial impact of waiving affordable housing requirements for FivePoint within the Great Park. LAist has requested those documents from the city and will update the story if we hear back. However, in a staff report, officials say Irvine can use the land in the deal to build more affordable housing than would otherwise be built in the commercial market.

    The Irvine City Council on Tuesday is set to vote on a land swap deal that will waive affordable housing requirements for one of the biggest developers in Orange County.

    If the council approves the land swap with FivePoint, the city will give 26.4 acres of land in exchange for 35 acres dubbed the Crescent site. The city will then greenlight FivePoint’s development of 1,300 market rate housing in an area where the median price for a home is around $1.5 million.

    The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting does not include land appraisals or a financial analysis of the land swap and the financial impact of waiving affordable housing requirements for FivePoint within the Great Park. LAist has requested those documents from the city and will update the story if we hear back.

    However, in a staff report, officials say Irvine can use the land in the deal to build more affordable housing than would otherwise be built in the commercial market.

    The breakdown of the land swap

    Heritage Fields El Toro, part of the FivePoint umbrella, owns the land adjacent to the Irvine Transportation Center, a transit station that falls in the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route, as well as Metrolink train and Orange County Transportation Authority bus routes. That 35-acre area is dubbed the “Crescent Site.” City officials want that land to build a “transit oriented development” connecting the Great Park and Irvine Spectrum areas.

    According to the city, “The area is particularly well suited for higher-density residential and mixed-use formats, sidewalk-activated retail and creative commercial spaces, walkable urban blocks, and a lifestyle environment attractive to young professionals and knowledge-sector employees.”

    Irvine has not included plans on how they will achieve state affordable housing requirements in the staff report.

    LAist has reached out to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for comment.

    What does California law require?

    • California’s Housing Element Law sets housing targets for local governments to meet, including for affordable units. 
    • It allows the state to intervene every eight years to let cities know how much housing they must plan for. 
    • The law also requires cities to put together a housing element showcasing how they will achieve the state’s plan. 
    • The state then approves of the element or sends it back to cities to reconfigure according to the requirements. 

    Will veterans finally get a resting place in Irvine?

    In the land swap, FivePoint will also give the city $15 million to use toward the construction of a columbarium for cremated remains, a new public library and other amenities on a 125-acre plot of land within Great Park — a project that may go to voters in 2026.

    For years, plans to build a final resting place for veterans in Irvine has stalled due to debates over politics, a property developer, site options and ballot measures. Fed-up veterans finally took their plans to Anaheim’s Gypsum Canyon, where they received the backing of the state. Irvine Mayor Larry Agran tried to revive talks of a veterans cemetery in Irvine in May, but that was quickly shut down.

    How to watchdog Great Park board meetings

    One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.

    Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

    • Read tips on how to get involved.
    • The next scheduled Great Park board meeting is 4 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 9. You can find meeting agendas and upcoming dates here
    • And submit a comment on the agenda here
  • Fennessy to lead new federal agency
    A group of firefighters and highway officials stand behind a podium at a news conference.
    Orange County Fire Chief Brian Fennessy at a news conference Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Brian Fennessy is retiring as head of the Orange County Fire Authority in January to become the first director of the newly created United States Wildland Fire Service, according to a staff memo.
    OCFA Chief Fennessy retirement letter
    OCFA Chief Brian Fennessy announces his retirement to join new U.S. Wildland Fire Service

    Why it matters: The Trump administration announced the U.S. Wildland Fire Service in September to modernize wildfire management nationwide. It will be a joint effort between the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture.

    The context: The service's areas of focus will include strengthening response efforts among local, state and federal agencies, modernizing aviation and coordinating systems and improving technology that can help agencies respond to fires and protect personnel. In his retirement letter, Fennessy said the USWFS "represents a historic opportunity to strengthen interagency coordination, modernize capabilities, and elevate the profession of wildland firefighting."

    The backstory: Fennessy was OCFA fire chief for more than seven years. According to OCFA, his career began in 1978 as a hotshot crewmember with the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

    What's next: A new chief has not been announced yet. Fennessy said he would “work closely with Executive Management and our Board of Directors to support a smooth leadership transition.”

  • Republicans push plan, HSA

    Topline:

    Although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    Why it matters: In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    Some background: Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Read on... for what happened with a family who had high-deductible health plan.

    Sarah Monroe once had a relatively comfortable middle-class life.

    She and her family lived in a neatly landscaped neighborhood near Cleveland. They had a six-figure income and health insurance through her job. Then, four years ago, when Monroe was pregnant with twin girls, something started to feel off.

    "I kept having to come into the emergency room for fainting and other symptoms," recalled Monroe, 43, who works for an insurance company.

    The babies were fine. But after months of tests and hospital trips, Monroe was diagnosed with a potentially dangerous heart condition.

    It would be costly. Within a year, as she juggled a serious illness and a pair of newborns, Monroe was buried under more than $13,000 in medical debt.


    Part of the reason: Like tens of millions of Americans, she had a high-deductible health plan. People with these plans typically pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before coverage kicks in.

    The plans, which have become common over the past two decades, are getting renewed attention thanks to President Donald Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

    Many Republicans are reluctant to extend government subsidies that help cover patients' medical bills and insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act.

    And although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    "A patient makes the decision," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at a recent hearing. "It empowers the patient to lower the cost."

    In a post on Truth Social last month, Trump said: "The only healthcare I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people."

    "Skin in the game"

    Conservative economists and GOP lawmakers have been making similar arguments since high-deductible health plans started to catch on two decades ago.

    Back then, a backlash against the limitations of HMOs, or health maintenance organizations, propelled many employers to move workers into these plans, which were supposed to empower patients and control costs. A change in tax law allowed patients in these plans to put away money in tax-free health savings accounts to cover medical bills.

    "The notion was that if a consumer has 'skin in the game,' they will be more likely to seek higher-quality, lower-cost care," said Shawn Gremminger, who leads the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, a nonprofit that works with employers that offer their workers health benefits.

    "The unfortunate reality is that largely has not been the case," Gremminger said.

    Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Plans with deductibles that exceed $1,650 can be paired with a tax-free health savings account.

    But even as deductibles became widespread over the last 20 years, medical prices in the U.S. skyrocketed. The average price of a knee replacement, for example, increased 74% from 2003 to 2016, more than double the rate of overall inflation.

    At the same time, patients have been left with thousands of dollars of medical bills they can't pay, despite having health insurance.

    About 100 million people in the U.S. have some form of health care debt, a 2022 survey showed.

    Most, like Monroe, are insured.

    Medical price shopping isn't easy

    Although Monroe had a health savings account paired with her high-deductible plan, she was never able to save more than a few thousand dollars, she said. That wasn't nearly enough to cover the big bills when her twins were born and when she got really ill.

    "It's impossible, I will tell you, impossible to pay medical bills," she said.

    There was another problem with her high-deductible plan. Although these plans are supposed to encourage patients to shop around for medical care to find the lowest prices, Monroe found this impractical when she had a complex pregnancy and heart troubles.

    Instead, Monroe chose the largest health system in her area.

    "I went with that one as far as medical risk," she said. "If anything were to happen, I could then be transferred within that system."

    Federal rules that require hospitals to post more of their prices can make comparing institutions easier than it used to be.

    But unlike a car or a computer, most medical services remain difficult to shop for, in part because they stem from an emergency or are complex and can stretch over numerous years.

    Researchers at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, for example, estimated that just 7% of total health care spending for Americans with job-based coverage was for services that realistically could be shopped for.

    Fumiko Chino, an oncologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said it makes no sense to expect patients with cancer or another chronic disease to go out and compare prices for complicated medical care such as surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy after they've been diagnosed with a potentially deadly illness.

    "You're not going be able to actually do that effectively," Chino said, "and certainly not within the time frame that you would need to when facing a cancer diagnosis and the imminent need to start treatment."

    Drowning in bills

    Chino said patients with high deductibles are often instead slammed with a flood of huge medical bills that lead to debt and a cascade of other problems.

    She and other researchers found in a study of more than 8,000 cancer patients presented last year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology that cancer patients who had high-deductible health insurance were more likely to die than similar patients without that kind of coverage.

    For her part, Monroe and her family were forced to move out of their house and into a 1,100-square-foot apartment.

    She drained her savings. Her credit score sank. And her car was repossessed.

    There have been other sacrifices, too. "When families get to have nice Christmases or get to go on spring break," Monroe said, hers often does not.

    She is thankful that her children are healthy. And she continues to have a job. But Monroe said she can't imagine why anyone would want to double down on the high-deductible model for health care.

    "We owe it to ourselves to do it a different way," she said. "We can't treat people like this."

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.
    Copyright 2025 KFF Health News