The Brief

Give Tyra Banks credit where it's due: She's not going to pretend as if she hasn't seen the brutal social media dissection of her twisted brainchild, America's Next Top Model. The one-time reality TV juggernaut has found a new life on streaming, and in 2020 the supermodel-turned-media-mogul addressed blowback to the body shaming, black-, brown-, and yellowface, and unethical production choices with a smidgen of humility: "Looking back, those were some really off choices," she tweeted. "Appreciate your honest feedback and am sending so much love and virtual hugs. ❤️"

This is the age of the accountability documentary, wherein critiques of and grievances about people and past pop culture phenomena like Britney Spears and Abercrombie & Fitch are packaged into salacious tell-alls meant to correct the record. It was obvious Banks' empire would be placed under a director's microscope eventually. Enter Netflix's Reality Check: Inside America's Next Top Model, a surprisingly candid three-part docuseries which allows her and other key players from the Top Model world to recount their experiences — good, humiliating, traumatic and everything in between.

True to formula, the behind-the-scenes transgressions described throughout Reality Check start small but grow increasingly more absurd and infuriating with each new voice. There's Shandi Sullivan from Cycle 2 — I guess "cycle" is the couture pronunciation of "season" — who attests to being traumatized by how producers handled an incident where she says she blacked out after a night of drinking and ended up in bed with a male model she barely knew. (She doesn't explicitly describe what happened to her as a sexual assault, but she does take issue with the fact that producers didn't intervene and in fact, kept filming through it all. The 2004 episode was framed and packaged rather crudely as "The Girl Who Cheated.")

Other depressing stories are rattled off — Keenyah Hill (Cycle 4, 2005) describes speaking up about a male model's inappropriate behavior with her in the middle of a photoshoot, and being dismissed by all the producers, including Banks; Giselle Samson (Cycle 1, 2003) recalls overhearing the judges say she's "got a wide ass"; Cycle 6 winner Dani Evans exasperatedly details how she was pressured by Banks in 2006 to close the distinctive gap in her teeth to stay in the running, only for Banks to encourage a white contestant to widen their own several cycles later. And that's just the models, the ones who had the least power and the greatest hunger for success. Panelist judges J. Alexander, Jay Manuel and Nigel Barker, Top Model's breakout stars in their own right — and who made their share of insensitive and sometimes ethically dubious contributions to the show — offer blunt, damning insights about the manipulated and highly-controlled behind-the-scenes machinations.

Smack dab in the middle of it all is Banks herself, reinforcing the perception that, as ever, she embodies a staggering wealth of inherent contradictions. Anyone who's spent time watching Top Model or the equally wacky daytime talk show The Tyra Banks Show recognizes her bald attempts at molding herself in the image of her multimedia predecessor Oprah Winfrey — part shrewd businesswoman, part charismatic personality, part fairy godmother who can make dreams come true. Having faced racism and body discrimination in her early career in high fashion, "I wanted to show beauty is not one thing, and I wanted to fight against the fashion industry," she says of her motivation for creating Top Model and intentionally casting women who were something other than tall, stick-skinny and white.

But Banks also knew above all else what would make for "good TV." And revisiting the show only reiterates how often her proclaimed ethos was at odds with her practice; she presented herself as a rebel with industry sway when it was convenient to her mythmaking, only to hide behind the cover of "industry standards" when it wasn't. This was usually framed under the guise of tough love: "I would love to change the rules, but until that happens, I think it's all about choices, Keenyah," Banks tells Hill in archival show footage. "You can eat a burger, and take the bread off."

Even now, Banks' self-perception as a benevolent disruptor persists, and she resolutely clings to it like a life preserver pummeled by wave after wave of evidence presented to the contrary. "I just wanted to change this woman's life," she insists, reflecting on the notorious and frequently memed 2005 moment in which she lashed out at contestant Tiffany Richardson. "We were rooting for you. We were all rooting for you!" Banks yelled at Richardson when she was seemingly unfazed by her elimination.

It's crucial to note Banks isn't credited as a producer on Reality Check, which lends the series more bite and balance than might otherwise be expected in this forum. As such, she cedes most of her storytelling power to directors Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan, who pointedly contrast her apologies and occasional abdications of responsibility with the adamant, hardened perspectives of the women and former coworkers who once looked up to her. (J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, and Nigel Barker, who each had a bitter falling out with Banks after being fired late in the show's run, are all credited as consultants, and come off as much more sympathetic. Make of that what you will.) Clearly, Banks views Reality Check as an opportunity to take some accountability for the damage the show left in its wake, and the extent to which the series manages to accomplish this, by giving considerable room for her critics, is remarkable. (On the other hand, near the end of the final episode of Reality Check, Banks reveals, unsurprisingly, that this "accountability" hinges on yet more self-promotion: "You have no idea what we have planned for Cycle 25" of Top Model, she says.)

Nigel Barker in "Reality Check: Inside America's Next Top Model."

(

Netflix

)

It's tempting to view Top Model as a product of its time for better and worse, when the reality TV ecosystem was still very much the Wild West. I was an impressionable teen watching at home when Banks first threw a bunch of aspiring models into a bare-bones New York City apartment to compete for a professional contract, and I remember how lofty and notable the show's "inclusive" mantra seemed, because expectations lived in the gutter against a backdrop of normalized eating disorders and limited shades of makeup foundation.

The docuseries ultimately leaves us with a truth borne out time and again: Progress isn't linear. Of course it's foolish to think one woman alone has the power to undo decades of deeply ingrained gatekeeping through a hit TV show. Nor is progress easily achieved through individualized symbols. Whitney Lee Thompson Forrester, a plus-sized winner of Cycle 10 in 2008, credits the show with giving her an opportunity she probably never would have gotten otherwise; meanwhile, countless other contestants were shamed for weighing too much at, maybe, 124 pounds soaking wet.

Yet as much as attitudes have shifted and as much grief as Banks has gotten, the tale of Top Model might have foreshadowed the contradictions — and blowback — to body image inclusivity. The show revealed that representing different body types and looks came with limitations and a whole lot of caveats; in 2026 we observe the so-called body positive movement has receded with the proliferation of GLP-1 drugs. The message in both cases is clear: Whether implicit or explicit, thin and white has never not been in. Surely Banks could and should have done more to fight for Dani Evans' right to keep the gap in her teeth, and for all the others in her cohort. But the pendulum of progress always finds a way of swinging itself back before inching forward again.

Copyright 2026 NPR

The Trump administration is making it easier to deport immigrants protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.

A new precedent decision published Friday by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) says being a DACA recipient is not enough reason to provide relief from deportation.

A three-judge panel of appellate immigration judges sided with Department of Homeland Security lawyers who appealed a decision from immigration judge Michael Pleters terminating removal proceedings for Catalina "Xóchitl" Santiago, citing Santiago's active DACA status. They sent the case back to a different immigration judge for review.

Although the decision does not mean Santiago will be immediately deported, it potentially weakens DACA protections for hundreds of thousands of others.

Santiago's case gained national attention after she was detained by Customs and Border Protection officers while boarding a domestic flight at the El Paso airport in August. She was placed in immigration detention until a federal judge granted her release last October. She has been fighting the threat of deportation in the immigration court system since.

The BIA is an administrative court within the Justice Department. After a case is heard by an immigration judge, both the immigrant and DHS have the right to appeal that decision to the BIA. BIA's public decisions set the precedent and tone for how immigration judges nationwide should make decisions and how the general public should interpret immigration law and policy. Friday's order is the latest step by the Trump administration to strip away protections from DACA recipients.

"For over a decade, DACA has endured relentless, politically motivated attacks," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of Advocacy and Campaigns at United We Dream, an organization fighting for the rights of immigrants.

"This decision is yet another step in dismantling the program without the government taking responsibility for ending it outright. ... This is a quiet rollback of protections, and our communities are paying the price in real time."

The BIA order, which is technically known as an interim decision, notes that DHS argued Pleters, the immigration judge, should be recused from the case because he is married to Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, who has been outspoken about DACA issues on Capitol Hill, this case specifically and whose district includes El Paso. Neither the judge nor Escobar is identified by name in the interim order.

The BIA did not sustain DHS' appeal based on that argument, however, instead saying that "the Immigration Judge erred" by basing his decision to terminate removal proceedings solely on Santiago's DACA status.

DACA, created in 2012 to protect children who arrived in the country illegally prior to 2007 from deportation, now covers around a half-million people. Starting last year, DHS officials began urging DACA recipients to self-deport, arguing that the program itself does not equate to automatically providing legal status.

The DACA program is meant to offer temporary protection from deportation but is not an immediate path to citizenship or a green card. Participants have to renew their protection every two years.

This second Trump administration has tried to strip 505,000 DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, of benefits, though no regulatory changes have been made to end the program. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would make DACA recipients ineligible for the federal health care marketplace and the Education Department said it was looking into five universities that offer financial help for DACA recipients.

In a letter to senators earlier this year, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that between January and November of last year, 261 DACA recipients were arrested and 86 were removed from the country.

In the letter, Noem reiterated that DACA is temporary.

"It comes with no right or entitlement to remain in the United States indefinitely," she wrote.

DHS did not respond to an immediate request for comment on whether active DACA recipients are at risk of removal.

Board of Immigration Appeals underscores Trump's policies

Over the last year, attorneys with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who represent DHS in immigration court, have increasingly appealed more decisions to the BIA.

According to a recent NPR analysis, BIA decisions backed government lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases last year; that's at least 30 percentage points higher than the average over the past 16 years.

The board's decisions have made it harder for immigration courts to offer immigrants bond in lieu of detention. It's eased the way to deport migrants to countries other than their own. And a new proposed regulation would make it harder for people to appeal their immigration decisions at all.

All these actions over the last year came as the board pumped out 70 published decisions, a record number of precedent-setting cases.

Immigration courts are housed within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, at the Justice Department. They are not a part of the judiciary.

Two L.A. Unified school unions voted to approve their new contracts Friday night.

Members of United Teachers Los Angeles, which represents 37,00 teachers and other personnel, will get a nearly 14% raise, plus paid parental leave for the first time ever.

According to the union, 92% of eligible members voted yes.

The final 2-year deal includes:

• Updated salary scales
• Average salary increase of 13.86%, with a minimum increase of 8% 
• More than 450 new PSAs, PSWs, school psychologists and counselor positions 
• Special education agreement with first-ever 20:1 ratio for RST and planning time at schools, with 80% of students in general ed setting for 80% of the day  
• Protections and right to bargain over subcontracting and AI 
• Healthcare for substitutes after 93 days of work 

Separately, members of AALA/TEAMSTER also ratified their new two-year contract Friday night, which includes a 12% wage increase. The union represents 3,000 L.A. Unified principals and administrators.

The final deal includes:

• A 12.15% wage increase
• A defined eight-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek
• Flex time with notice and no pre-approval

What's next

Next step is a vote by the LAUSD board.

One more to go

Meanwhile, members of SEIU Local 99 will start voting today through early May. That union represents bus drivers, cafeteria workers, classroom aides and other school support staff.

The tentative deal promises to bring their 30,000 members a 24% pay increase and expanded healthcare access. 

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Inglewood police officers could soon be outfitted with body-worn cameras.

The Inglewood City Council will vote Tuesday on a $6.3 million purchase from police tech company Axon to kit out the city’s police department with body cameras as well as drones, Tasers and 98 stationary Automated License Plate Recognition devices, known commonly as ALPRs. 

Activists have been calling for Inglewood police to wear body cameras since Bryan Bostic’s unexplained death in police custody March 10. Video of the incident captured by a bystander shows police pinning Bostic to the ground. Investigations by the offices of the L.A. County District Attorney into the police use of force and L.A. County Medical Examiner into Bostic’s cause of death are ongoing. 

The city says it has been researching the tech additions, including the body cameras, since last August, and the police department began chasing grants for body-worn cameras and drones in January. 

The L.A. Police Department began widely using body cameras in 2015, followed by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department in 2020. 

Activist Najee Ali, who has helped coordinate recent demonstrations calling for Inglewood officers to wear body cameras, said the devices would be a game-changer.

“We are optimistic this is going to happen,” Ali said. “Certainly this is long overdue.” 

Ali said activists had been planning to put forward a city ballot initiative to mandate police body cameras. He remains concerned about how the city will set police body camera policy. 

City staff wrote in meeting documents that the new tech would enhance the department’s capacity ahead of a string of mega-events — including this summer’s FIFA World Cup, the 2027 Super Bowl and the 2028 Olympics. 

The city has not yet finalized contract terms with Axon. Councilmembers could vote Tuesday to authorize city staff to wrap up negotiations and execute a final agreement. 

The city estimated Inglewood could pay an average of $1.3 million annually over the life of a five-year agreement with Axon, which would provide software platforms along with the new equipment. 

Here’s the tech that comes in the package

The package would include body cameras as well as new Tasers, meeting documents indicate. The Inglewood Police Department has 186 sworn officers, according to the city website. 

Twenty-five vehicles would be outfitted with Fleet 3 video cameras that can automatically read and look up vehicle license plates. The ALPR tech will also be rolled out via 98 stationary cameras affixed to light posts and mounted in other locations.

Stationary ALPRs scan license plates and log a vehicle’s location at a given time. Police tout their ability to rapidly locate stolen vehicles or fleeing suspects. Critics say they lack oversight and that their data can be too broadly shared, including with federal immigration agents.

The devices Inglewood is purchasing also have livestream video capability, according to Axon’s website. 

The city will also get a total of seven camera drones, including the Skydio 10 and its indoor-focused cousin, the Skydio R10. 

How to make your voice heard

The Inglewood City Council meets at 2 p.m. Tuesday in Inglewood City Hall, 1 W. Manchester Blvd. Members of the public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed purchase ahead of the city council’s vote.  

Limited seating is available in council chambers. Members of the public have been directed to watch proceedings and deliver public comment from an overflow room during some recent meetings.

If people can’t make the meeting, they may submit written comments to the city clerk at athompson@cityofinglewood.org, or to the deputy city clerk at dwesley@cityofinglewood.org.

Comments must be submitted by 8 a.m. Tuesday in order to be distributed to councilmembers ahead of the meeting. 

Full meeting documents are available at cityofinglewood.org.

Staff with The Plant Chica were busy the day before the event receiving, labeling and preparing indoor plants at the open-air shop in Leimert Park. The company’s co-founder, Sandra Mejia, said everyone should have a plant in their home.

“Plants aren't necessarily something that people are going out of their way to buy,” she said.

And many people who’ve come to her adopt-a-plant events have never had plants in their homes and, therefore, have not experienced what it’s like to take care of a plant and see it grow.

“If we're giving them out for free, then people come and they take them, and then now they're plant people,” which means, she said, that some become advocates for more plants indoors and outdoors as well as public green space.

The giveaways have grown

Mejia’s first plant giveaway started in her home, she said, in 2018. It was an effort to clear out the less popular plants. It didn’t go so well, but after she moved it to her shop, which has been in several locations around South L.A., near where she was raised by Salvadoran parents, the plant giveaway has grown.

Her family first instilled a love of plants, and she keeps them involved.

“My dad is at home right now, printing the information sheet for the plant so people know how to take care of the plants, and he's cutting them for me,” Mejia said.

Some of the plants are donated by local greenhouses and the rest are paid for, about $2,500 she said, out of her business’ marketing budget.

Staff at The Plant Chica, Philip Bucknor and Odessey Osteen-Diluca

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

What kind of plants are we talking about

The giveaway includes philodendrons, like pink princess, which are good starter plants because they’re low maintenance, tradescantia plants, which have green and purple leaves, as well as prayer plants, whose scientific name is maranta leuconeura. These get their nickname from the opening of their leaves during the day and closing at night, like hands in prayer.

“Everybody deserves a plant that's cleaning the oxygen around them. Everybody should have some sort of thumb in the green somewhere,” said Philip Bucknor, who started out as DJ at events for The Plant Chica and began working for the shop last year with the unofficial title of “vibe curator.”

That includes helping people through a feeling he hears a lot — “I don’t want to kill the plant.”

“My thing is helping people understand the right plant for them and not overthinking these tasks of taking care of a plant,” he said.

That means, he said, don’t overdo watering, be chill and feel your plant’s vibe.

He’s set to do that with people who come to the plant giveaway Saturday.