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
  • Paramount tries to beat Netflix with $108B offer

    Topline:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties. It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios.

    The backstory: The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block. In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Reaction: Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    The context: Combining with Warner would let the Ellisons create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    Get out your popcorn because there's more drama in the fight over the media powerhouse Warner Brothers Discovery:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties.

    It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios. If that deal were to go through, CNN and other cable channels would be spun off.

    Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world's richest people, and his son David, the movie producer and founder of Skydance Media, took over Paramount this summer. It's the parent company of CBS, Paramount Studios, the Paramount+ streaming service and more.

    Combining with Warner would let them create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block.

    In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    Despite Zaslav's reluctance to sell to the Ellisons, they thought they had a dominant hand to play: they were offering a premium for the company's value on the open market and they were bidding for the entire enterprise.

    What's more, they had built strong ties to President Trump, whose government regulators ultimately would have to approve any such acquisition by an already established major Hollywood player.

    Larry Ellison is a donor, informal adviser and friend of the president. David Ellison has made two key hires at CBS — specifically in its news division — to ensure it will be perceived as less adversarial to Trump. A conservative former think tank chief has become its new ombudsman to review complaints. And Bari Weiss, founder of the right-of-center Free Press, has taken over the news division as editor in chief. Paramount's previous leadership had paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump against CBS News that legal observers described as flimsy.

    Presidential preferences are supposed to be held at arm's length from such reviews by antitrust regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department. But that's not how Washington operates under Trump.

    Even so, Trump's approval is never a sure thing. The Netflix announcement stirred instant opposition from a handful of U.S. senators in both parties. Trump was noncommittal in remarks Sunday.

    "Netflix is a great company and they've done a phenomenal job," Trump said. "They have a very big market share, and when they have Warner Bros., you know, that share goes up a lot, so I don't know, that's going to be for some economists to tell and also, I'll be involved in that decision too."

    However, Monday morning, Trump lashed out at CBS News for a 60 Minutes interview with Trump ally-turned-critic U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican who has announced she is stepping down. Paramount came in for particular scorn.

    "My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air," Trump wrote Monday morning in a post on Truth Social — after the Ellisons announced their hostile bid for Warner. "THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE!"

    Editor's note: Warner Bros. Discovery is among NPR's financial supporters.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • 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

  • Sponsored message
  • SCOTUS case could expand presidential powers

    Topline:

    The Supreme Court hears Monday arguments in a case that could end the independence of independent agencies, overturn a 90-year-old precedent, and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.

    The issue: President Donald Trump fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. President Biden appointed Slaughter to a second term, which was supposed to end in 2029. Instead, in March, Slaughter received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately. She was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

    A bipartisan agency: Congress created the FTC in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Slaughter had been given no such reason for her removal, and so she sued. A lower court declared that Slaughter had been unlawfully removed from the FTC and ordered her back to work. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order removing her from her seat until the merits of her case could be heard. Justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines to allow her firing to stand — for now.

    The Supreme Court hears Monday arguments in a case that could end the independence of independent agencies, overturn a 90-year-old precedent, and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.

    At issue is whether President Donald Trump can fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. President Biden appointed Slaughter to a second term, which was supposed to end in 2029.

    Instead, in March, Slaughter received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately. She was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

    Congress created the FTC in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

    Slaughter had been given no such reason for her removal, and so she sued. A lower court declared that Slaughter had been unlawfully removed from the FTC and ordered her back to work. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order removing her from her seat until the merits of her case could be heard. Justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines to allow her firing to stand -- for now.

    Reconsidering a 90-year-old precedent

    Black and white photo of a man wearing a tuxedo, sitting at a desk with a microphone on it
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt during a radio broadcast circa 1933–40.
    (
    Harris & Ewing
    /
    Library of Congress
    )

    Proving that history does repeat itself, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to fire an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements. In that case, called Humphrey's Executor, the court unanimously held that while the president has the power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC, whose duties "are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative."

    Following that 1935 decision, Congress went on to create many more multimember, independent agencies whose members likewise can only be removed for cause. Since January, Trump has also removed Democratic members from some of those agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In Slaughter's case and others, the Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor was flawed, due to a misunderstanding of the FTC's functions at the time. The administration maintains that the FTC did in fact exercise executive power then and says those powers have only grown in the decades since.

    During Trump's first term, the Supreme Court chipped away at Humphrey's Executor when it permitted Trump to fire the head of another independent agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the firing was permissible because the CFPB is run by a single director rather than a multimember board. Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as applying to multimember agencies "that do not wield substantial executive power."

    On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in line with that guidance. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court said Trump's firings of Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox were lawful, citing those agencies' "significant executive powers."

    A man with white hair wearing a blue suit and pink tie stares off into the distance. He is standing in front of a wood-paneled wall.
    President Trump attends a press event at the White House on Dec. 2.
    (
    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds
    /
    AFP via Getty Images
    )

    A clash of views on independent agencies

    Slaughter believes that it is vital for the Supreme Court to preserve the independence of bipartisan multimember agencies and allow her to be reinstated.

    "Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people," she said. "That is what Americans deserve from their government."

    James M. Burnham, an attorney who has served in both Trump administrations, offered an opposing view.

    "I don't think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government," he argued. "I don't think they've ever been independent because I think the removal protections have been unconstitutional from the beginning."

    The court will continue its deliberation on Humphrey's Executor on Jan. 21 when it considers another case involving Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Nominations are out this morning

    Topline:

    We have the full list of nominees for the 83rd Golden Globes, announced this morning.

    What's next: The Golden Globes awards ceremony will be held on Jan. 11, hosted by Nikki Glaser, at the Beverly Hilton.

    Keep reading... to watch the announcement and read the full list.

    Marlon Wayans and Skye P. Marshall presented the nominees for the 83rd Golden Globes this morning. You can watch the announcement above and read the full list below. The Golden Globes awards ceremony will be held on Jan. 11, hosted by Nikki Glaser.

    Best motion picture – drama

    Frankenstein (Netflix)
    Hamnet (Focus Features)
    It Was Just an Accident (Neon)
    The Secret Agent (Neon)
    Sentimental Value (Neon)
    Sinners (Warner Bros. Pictures)
     

    Best motion picture – musical or comedy

    Blue Moon (Sony Pictures Classics)
    Bugonia (Focus Features)
    Marty Supreme (A24)
    No Other Choice (Neon)
    Nouvelle Vague (Netflix)
    One Battle After Another (Warner Bros. Pictures)
     

    Best motion picture – animated

    Arco (Neon)
    Demon Slayer: Kimetsu No Yaiba Infinity Castle (Aniplex, Crunchyroll, Sony Pictures Entertainment)
    Elio (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
    KPop Demon Hunters (Netflix)
    Little Amélie or the Character of Rain (GKIDS)
    Zootopia 2 (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
     

    Cinematic and box office achievement

    Avatar: Fire and Ash (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
    F1 (Apple Original Films)
    KPop Demon Hunters (Netflix)
    Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (Paramount Pictures)
    Sinners (Warner Bros. Pictures)
    Weapons (Warner Bros. Pictures, New Line Cinema)
    Wicked: For Good (Universal Pictures)
    Zootopia 2 (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
     

    Best motion picture – non-English language

    It Was Just an Accident (Neon) - France
    No Other Choice (Neon) - South Korea
    The Secret Agent (Neon) - Brazil
    Sentimental Value (Neon) - Norway
    Sirāt (Neon) - Spain
    The Voice of Hind Rajab (Willa) - Tunisia
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a motion picture – drama 

    Jessie Buckley (Hamnet)
    Jennifer Lawrence (Die My Love)
    Renate Reinsve (Sentimental Value)
    Julia Roberts (After the Hunt)
    Tessa Thompson (Hedda)
    Eva Victor (Sorry, Baby)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a motion picture – drama

    Joel Edgerton (Train Dreams)
    Oscar Isaac (Frankenstein)
    Dwayne Johnson (The Smashing Machine)
    Michael B. Jordan (Sinners)
    Wagner Moura (The Secret Agent)
    Jeremy Allen White (Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere)
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a motion picture – musical or comedy 

    Rose Byrne (If I Had Legs I'd Kick You)
    Cynthia Erivo (Wicked: For Good)
    Kate Hudson (Song Sung Blue)
    Chase Infiniti (One Battle After Another)
    Amanda Seyfried (The Testament of Ann Lee)
    Emma Stone (Bugonia)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a motion picture – musical or comedy 

    Timothée Chalamet (Marty Supreme)
    George Clooney (Jay Kelly)
    Leonardo DiCaprio (One Battle After Another)
    Ethan Hawke (Blue Moon)
    Lee Byung-hun (No Other Choice)
    Jesse Plemons (Bugonia)
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a supporting role in any motion picture

    Emily Blunt (The Smashing Machine)
    Elle Fanning (Sentimental Value)
    Ariana Grande (Wicked: For Good)
    Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (Sentimental Value)
    Amy Madigan (Weapons)
    Teyana Taylor (One Battle After Another)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a supporting role in any motion picture 

    Benicio del Toro (One Battle After Another)
    Jacob Elordi (Frankenstein)
    Paul Mescal (Hamnet)
    Sean Penn (One Battle After Another)
    Adam Sandler (Jay Kelly)
    Stellan Skarsgård (Sentimental Value)
     

    Best director – motion picture

    Paul Thomas Anderson (One Battle After Another)
    Ryan Coogler (Sinners)
    Guillermo del Toro (Frankenstein)
    Jafar Panahi (It Was Just an Accident)
    Joachim Trier (Sentimental Value)
    Chloé Zhao (Hamnet)
     

    Best screenplay – motion picture

    Paul Thomas Anderson (One Battle After Another)
    Ronald Bronstein, Josh Safdie (Marty Supreme)
    Ryan Coogler (Sinners)
    Jafar Panahi (It Was Just an Accident)
    Eskil Vogt, Joachim Trier (Sentimental Value)
    Chloé Zhao, Maggie O'Farrell (Hamnet)
     

    Best original score – motion picture 

    Alexandre Desplat (Frankenstein)
    Ludwig Göransson (Sinners)
    Jonny Greenwood (One Battle After Another)
    Kangding Ray (Sirāt)
    Max Richter (Hamnet)
    Hans Zimmer (F1)
     

    Best original song – motion picture

    "Dream as One" – Avatar: Fire and Ash
    "Golden" – KPop Demon Hunters
    "I Lied to You" – Sinners
    "No Place Like Home" – Wicked: For Good
    "The Girl in the Bubble" – Wicked: For Good
    "Train Dreams" – Train Dreams
     

    Best television series – drama 

    The Diplomat (Netflix)
    The Pitt (HBO Max)
    Pluribus (Apple TV)
    Severance (Apple TV)
    Slow Horses (Apple TV)
    The White Lotus (HBO Max)
     

    Best television series – musical or comedy

    Abbott Elementary (ABC)
    The Bear (FX on Hulu)
    Hacks (HBO Max)
    Nobody Wants This (Netflix)
    Only Murders in the Building (Hulu)
    The Studio (Apple TV)
     

    Best television limited series, anthology series or motion picture made for television

    Adolescence (Netflix)
    All Her Fault (Peacock)
    The Beast in Me (Netflix)
    Black Mirror (Netflix)
    Dying for Sex (FX on Hulu)
    The Girlfriend (Prime Video)
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a television series – drama 

    Kathy Bates (Matlock)
    Britt Lower (Severance)
    Helen Mirren (Mobland)
    Bella Ramsey (The Last of Us)
    Keri Russell (The Diplomat)
    Rhea Seehorn (Pluribus)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a television series – drama 

    Sterling K. Brown (Paradise)
    Diego Luna (Andor)
    Gary Oldman (Slow Horses)
    Mark Ruffalo (Task)
    Adam Scott (Severance)
    Noah Wyle (The Pitt)
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a television series – musical or comedy 

    Kristen Bell (Nobody Wants This)
    Ayo Edebiri (The Bear)
    Selena Gomez (Only Murders in the Building)
    Natasha Lyonne (Poker Face)
    Jenna Ortega (Wednesday)
    Jean Smart (Hacks)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a television series – musical or comedy 

    Adam Brody (Nobody Wants This)
    Steve Martin (Only Murders in the Building)
    Glen Powell (Chad Powers)
    Seth Rogen (The Studio)
    Martin Short (Only Murders in the Building)
    Jeremy Allen White (The Bear)
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a limited series, anthology series, or a motion picture made for television 

    Claire Danes (The Beast in Me)
    Rashida Jones (Black Mirror)
    Amanda Seyfried (Long Bright River)
    Sarah Snook (All Her Fault)
    Michelle Williams (Dying for Sex)
    Robin Wright (The Girlfriend)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a limited series, anthology series, or a motion picture made for television 

    Jacob Elordi (The Narrow Road to the Deep North)
    Paul Giamatti (Black Mirror)
    Stephen Graham (Adolescence)
    Charlie Hunnam (Monster: The Ed Gein Story)
    Jude Law (Black Rabbit)
    Matthew Rhys (The Beast in Me)
     

    Best performance by a female actor in a supporting role on television 

    Carrie Coon (The White Lotus)
    Erin Doherty (Adolescence)
    Hannah Einbinder (Hacks)
    Catherine O'Hara (The Studio)
    Parker Posey (The White Lotus)
    Aimee Lou Wood (The White Lotus)
     

    Best performance by a male actor in a supporting role on television 

    Owen Cooper (Adolescence)
    Billy Crudup (The Morning Show)
    Walton Goggins (The White Lotus)
    Jason Isaacs (The White Lotus)
    Tramell Tillman (Severance)
    Ashley Walters (Adolescence)

     

    Best performance in stand-up comedy on television

    Bill Maher (Bill Maher: Is Anyone Else Seeing This?)
    Brett Goldstein (Brett Goldstein: The Second Best Night of Your Life)
    Kevin Hart (Kevin Hart: Acting My Age)
    Kumail Nanjiani (Kumail Nanjiani: Night Thoughts)
    Ricky Gervais (Ricky Gervais: Mortality)
    Sarah Silverman (Sarah Silverman: Postmortem)
     

    Best Podcast

    Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard (Wondery)
    Call Her Daddy (SiriusXM)
    Good Hang with Amy Poehler (Spotify)
    The Mel Robbins Podcast (SiriusXM)
    Smartless (SiriusXM)
    Up First (NPR)
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Fire survivors call for better protections
    A woman with a shaved head wearing an orange sweater and black rimmed glasses
    It took more than eight months for Tamara Carroll to be able to return to her home, which was damaged by the Eaton Fire.

    Topline:

    Fire survivors are calling for longer timelines on mortgage forbearance and better policy to stop credit hits as the expiration of mortgage protections looms nearly a year after the most destructive fires in L.A. County history.

    The background: After the Eaton and Palisades fires, hundreds of mortgage companies promised to let borrowers delay their monthly payments for 90 days. In September, those protections were extended up to a year via Assembly Bill 238. Ever since, fire survivors have said some mortgage lenders are not adhering to those rules.

    Read on ... for more on what additional protections survivors are calling for.

    Fire survivors are calling for longer timelines on mortgage forbearance and better policy to stop credit hits as the expiration of mortgage protections looms nearly a year after the most destructive fires in L.A. County history.

    After the Eaton and Palisades fires, hundreds of mortgage companies promised to let borrowers delay their monthly payments for 90 days. In September those protections were extended and enhanced when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 238 into law. That allowed survivors to request forbearance for up to 12 months, without requiring full repayment at the end of the forbearance period.

    Ever since, fire survivors have said some mortgage lenders are not adhering to those rules.

    “We have heard feedback that there is widespread activity that goes to show that a lot of banks and a lot of mortgage services are not actually complying with 238,” said Assemblymember John Harabedian, who wrote the law.

    The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation told LAist it has received more than 200 complaints from L.A. fire survivors “related to issues such as credit reporting, forbearance terms and insurance payouts.”

    Harabedian said his office has been receiving calls as well.

    “ A lot of people who rightfully deserve forbearance are not being given it, or to the extent that they're being offered forbearance, they're being tasked with things that are illegal under the law, like negative credit reporting, lump sum payments, et cetera,” Harabedian said.

    He said holding companies accountable remains a challenge, since that requires survivors to report the issues they’re experiencing.

    “It should not be incumbent on the borrower to have to educate a financial institution that's licensed and operating in the state of California that this is the law,” Harabedian said.

    Having mortgage issues? Here are some resources

    What to do if you think your lender isn't abiding by the law:

    • First, try sending a letter to your lender called a "notice of error." Here's more on how to do that. This can be a faster way to action than phone calls back and forth.
    • Submit a complaint to the state's Department of Financial Protection and Innovation online or by calling (866) 275-2677.
    • Submit a complaint to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    • You can also contact your local, state and federal representatives.

    More resources:

    • The CalAssist Mortgage Fund helps cover disaster survivors' mortgages for 3 months, up to $20,000. The funds never have to be repaid. In Los Angeles County, household incomes up to $211,050 are eligible.
    • Find a HUD-certified housing counselor to work with. It's a free service to answer questions about issues including forbearance, foreclosure and other housing issues.
      • For disaster relief assistance counseling, call HUD at (800) 569-4287 or (202) 708-1455
    • You can also seek legal help through organizations such as Bet Tzedek and Pepperdine Law School's Disaster Relief Clinic.
    • The National Consumer Law Center has these resources for disaster survivors.

    Loopholes

    Aimee Williams, a housing rights attorney for the legal aid nonprofit Bet Tzedek that is working with fire survivors, said she has seen many clients benefit from the passage of AB 238. But big loopholes remain. She said the law doesn’t mandate the protections and there is still little transparency from many mortgage lenders about how their mortgages work and what people’s rights are.

    “It's a step in the right direction, but outside of an overhaul of the law and providing something standard that all mortgage services need to follow, it's going to continue to be a bit of a mystery for people,” Williams said. “And unfortunately, we're going to continue to see people being surprised by demands for payment or threats of foreclosure.”

    That’s what happened to Tamara Carroll, whose Altadena home survived the Eaton Fire. With smoke and other damage, though, it took more than eight months for her to safely return.

    A woman with a shaved head wearing an orange sweater, black rimmed glasses, and a mask stands amid patio furniture.
    Tamara Carroll assesses damage to her patio from the Eaton Fire earlier this year.
    (
    Noé Montes
    /
    LAist
    )

    She entered forbearance for the first three months after the fire while she lived in a Burbank hotel and took some time off work to cope with the stress. She said she extended that forbearance another three months when she was still displaced and sorting out her finances. Then she got a call — she was in active foreclosure.

    “I literally screamed,” Carroll said.

    The state policy urging lenders to extend those protections up to a year had not yet gone into effect, but Carroll said she got no warning or explanation that she could go into foreclosure if she continued with her forbearance, which is required by state and federal law.

    A spokesperson for Carroll's lender, the Rocket Mortgage-affiliated Mr. Cooper,  said they didn't have any record of her asking for an extension. She says she did request one over the phone. The spokesperson said the company has fully complied with AB 283.

    Without the extension, Carroll was told she’d have to pay about $18,000 — to make up for the last six months of forbearance plus additional fees — to get back in good standing, she said. Carroll used insurance money that she was going to use to replace her roof, which was damaged in the fire, to pay off the bank.

    “I just feel like they took advantage of me,” Carroll said. “I was so emotionally battered from the fires … so I just didn’t have the energy to fight an institution that really didn’t care.”

    A call for better policy 

    As temporary housing insurance dries up, the challenges are only mounting for fire survivors. Many are paying rent on top of mortgages for homes that no longer exist or are still uninhabitable.

    One Palisades couple is leading the charge for stronger mortgage protections — Rachel Jonas and Rob Fagnani lost their home in the Marquez Knolls neighborhood, where they had planned to raise their two young children. Now they’ve relocated to Fagnani’s parents’ house in Tennessee as they work to rebuild, which they expect to take at least another year.

    “We want to be back in L.A., and we want to be in L.A. for the future,” Fagnani said.

    A younger middle aged couple with light skin tone takes a selfie. The woman on the right has long blond hair, and her husband, wears sunglasses and a green vest. Behind them is the rubble of their burned home.
    Rob Fagnani, left, and Rachel Jonas, in front of where their Palisades home stood, are calling for policy changes.
    (
    Courtesy of Rob Fagnani and Rachel Jonas
    )

    While they don’t have to pay rent, they still have a substantial mortgage and are underinsured, so they decided to enter forbearance as they figure out how to finance their rebuild. Fagnani’s finance background gave him the tools to dig deeply into mortgage and insurance policy.

    After talking with dozens of colleagues and friends in the mortgage and finance world, he and Jonas decided to organize their neighbors around mortgage policy reform for disaster survivors.

    “Most people are underinsured. Everyone's trying to free up cash. Most people already have too much debt anyway, and they don't want to add on additional debt,” Fagnani said.

    So they built a website and a platform to help neighbors easily send letters to their representatives to call for more comprehensive federal mortgage protections for disaster survivors across the country.

    Their asks include:

    • Extending the forbearance period for two to three years.
    • Add deferred payments to the end of the loan term at current interest rates, with protections to avoid damage to credit scores and foreclosure pressure. 

    “Many people are maybe a couple hundred thousand dollars short, and those couple hundred thousand dollars are the difference between them being able to square the economics,” Fagnani said. “So this is a way to do that without forcing families to take on more debt.”

    Their efforts are gaining traction — Los Angeles City Councilmember Traci Park highlighted their advocacy in her newsletter last month. Mayor Karen Bass recently called on banks to voluntarily extend their forbearance relief for an additional three years. And some lenders are voluntarily doing the same — Bank of America announced it will offer up to three years of forbearance to fire survivors, though most people will have to modify their loans, which can hurt their credit.

    Williams, the lawyer, said a standard at a federal level is “a great idea,” though she doubts the current Congress will be open to it. Mortgage-relief legislation proposed by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) earlier this year did not pass.

    “Forbearance is not supposed to be … you'll be able to pay everything in full after the period ends,” Williams said. “It really gives you breathing room to figure out what to do next to make your long-term financial plans while trying to stay on top of your short-term financial security.”