The Brief

A 2017 Los Angeles Times article tells the tragic story of Lai Hang, a terminally ill woman who killed her 18-year-old son George, who’d been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

It’s a carefully reported story by journalist Frank Shyong about a family, about the shame and stigma that can surround mental illness in Asian American communities, and how media portrayals of people with mental disorders can perpetuate harmful misconceptions.

So when Shyong was first approached about the idea of adapting the story he wrote into a narrative film, he had some “very intense” concerns about whether a film would get the story right.

But after conversations with the filmmakers, and thinking through the potential value of telling fictionalized stories based on real-life events, Shyong says, “ I think I realized that my story was in a lot of ways incomplete.”

Nine years later, the film, titled Rosemead, is finished. Directed by Eric Lin and written by Marilyn Fu, the film stars Lucy Liu as Irene, a character based on Hang, and Lawrence Shou as Joe, who’s based on George.

And Shyong, who is credited as an executive producer and served as a consultant on the film, says “it’s sort of completing the circle a little bit” — fleshing out Hang and George as “full 360 degree human beings” and giving glimpses of how their story might have ended differently.

Reporting on trauma in Asian American communities

Back in 2015, when the events depicted in Rosemead happened, the breaking news coverage revealed the basics of what was known at the time — that a woman had fatally shot her son in a Rosemead motel and turned herself in.

“ I think a lot of people probably realized there was more story there,” Shyong says. But the only person who knew the details, Hang’s longtime friend Ping Chong, had declined to talk to the media.

Still, Shyong kept following up because the court records hinted at a story that he thought should be told.

The court records revealed that Hang had been dying of cancer, and that Chong continued to visit her after she turned herself in, performing Buddhist rituals for her.

“Just knowing those two facts,” Shyong says, “and knowing Asian American families, and how complete and terrifying the sense of responsibility that a parent can feel toward a child, I just thought there's gotta be something there.”

He would visit Chong’s shop, a traditional Chinese pharmacy, leaving notes for her and talking to her about why he wanted to know more. And he gained her trust.

 ”You just have to say, ‘This is [the] story I think is here. And do you think that story is true? And if so, can you help me tell it?’ And that's all I did,” Shyong says. “I think that's all any journalist ever does.”

It’s a story that Shyong says he would come to learn is more common than many may expect.   “When you are a caregiver in these communities,” Shyong says, “you can find and name a tragic story like this in probably every zip code.”

How filmmaking and journalism can complement each other

Shyong’s article ends with this poignant quote from Chong, about her friend: “People will only know her as the mother who killed her son [...] But she was more.”

The piece itself goes a long way toward dispelling Chong’s concern, including details about Hang’s life — that she was a talented graphic designer, that she was “beautiful, smart and ambitious,” that she’d lost her husband to cancer, and that she deeply cared about her son.

But “in this case fiction,” Shyong says, “could give closure to characters in a way that I couldn't in reality. It could tell the fullness of this family story.”

The film shows Liu’s character Irene having fun with her son at the beach, and joining his therapy sessions at the urging of a psychiatrist, despite being visibly uncomfortable doing so.

It shows George (Joe in the film) with his friends, who come to visit him after he has an intense schizophrenic episode at school.

The sound design gives a sense of what it’s like to experience schizophrenia, and a part of the film where Joe runs away shows how quickly a boy with a mother and friends who care about him can become an unhoused person who someone might fear on the street.

Ultimately, the film ends on a note of hope, which grew out of something that Shyong learned from Chong after the article was published. In a way that he couldn’t do in print, “It added parts to the story that I wanted to see depicted.”

Democrats are now poised to take control of Congress by wide margins — and a critical driver of their success has been voter fury about how the war in Iran has driven up the cost of fuel.

Before the war, about one fifth of the world's oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz. As the war throttled that waterway, the price of oil rose: A barrel of Brent crude cost about $70 in late February, spent months hovering around the $110 mark, and is now close to $95.

That's driven up the price of everything that's refined from crude. A gallon of gas costs $4.12 on average — about $1 higher than a year ago. The price of diesel hit a record high in September at $6.52, and while it's fallen a bit since then, a gallon remains about $2.50 higher than this time last year, according to AAA.

These soaring prices helped major oil companies rake in huge profits over the past two quarters, while making the cost of fuel at the pump uncomfortably high for drivers, and boosting the price of nearly everything in a nation that is heavily reliant on trucking.

So now that the midterm results are in, could drivers see lower gasoline and diesel prices anytime soon?

Not so fast, experts say. Here's why.

What could Democrats do?

Nothing yet — members of the new Congress won't be sworn in until January.

And once they are seated, U.S. legislators have limited powers to directly affect the price of oil, which is dictated by a complex global market.

In the run-up to the election, most of the actions taken by the federal government to lower fuel prices came through the White House, not Congress. Hoping to stave off losses for his party, President Trump tried to ease the cost of diesel by loosening federal rules on dyed diesel, which is normally used for farming. He also announced a deal that would bring more Russian diesel to global markets, including the U.S., by temporarily lifting sanctions. Neither of these did much to move the needle.

But the new Congressional Democrats will have the power to push the president to end the war in Iran, in part by making it harder to authorize new war spending. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-NY) told reporters on Wednesday that Democrats are intent on ending the war and bringing down the cost of living, saying that "relief is on the way."

"What a unified Democratic Congress can do is make escalation considerably more costly: both chambers can pass resolutions, attach conditions to war spending and hold back confirmations of key officials," Claudio Galimberti, chief economist of Rystad Energy, wrote in a market note to the media.

Still, the president has veto power over legislation, as well as executive powers. " President Trump still retains full discretionary authority over military strikes, over blockades and sanctions, licenses, and so on," said Jorge León,  head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad Energy, in an interview with NPR.

Trump has sent mixed messages about whether he wants to end or escalate the war. In the past few weeks, he warned Gulf Arab countries to prepare for a new military campaign after the midterms. The U.S. struck Qeshm, an island in the Strait of Hormuz that Iran uses to launch its own strikes, on Nov. 2.

But on election night, Trump told The New York Times that he knew voters were unhappy about gas prices. And the next day, as the extent of the election rout became clear, Vice President JD Vance posted on social media: "The reason we lost is the war."

If the war ends, when would prices fall?

Jaime Brito, executive director of refining and oil markets for Dow Jones Energy, says if there's a deal to end the war, traders could be very excited. Brito said they might look for formal announcements from both Iran and the U.S. that the strait is reopening, and that both sides are pulling back their military presence in the area.

If market traders are convinced the peace will last? "If that scenario happens, then I personally see crude prices dropping, you know, $15, $20 [a barrel] immediately, in the next two, three days from the announcement," he said.

But for gasoline and diesel prices to fall, too, oil would have to start moving again. Ships that have been running long, alternative routes to avoid passing through the Strait of Hormuz would have to return to their points of origin, and then resume their former routes through the strait. León pointed out, that could lead to traffic jams.

From there, that crude will still need to be refined and make its way onto the market.

In the most optimistic scenario, Brito said, it could take three months after a ceasefire or deal is announced for gasoline and diesel prices to hit their prewar levels.

León thinks it would take more like six months for the price of crude to hit its prewar level, and then another month or two for gasoline and diesel to follow. But that's assuming all goes well. And, both of them said, there could be hiccups along the way that stretch the recovery timeline out for up to a year after a deal is announced.

" I don't want to say this, but, you know, expensive gasoline prices could be a new normal," Brito said.

The X factors

The first big X factor: the war in Ukraine.

If Ukraine continues attacking Russian refineries, the price of diesel may not drop as precipitously as gasoline might. That's because Russia's refineries normally bring much of the world's diesel to global markets. Resuming traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will help lower the price of diesel — but it may take longer to reach its prewar level, León said.

Other scenarios could make for a less rosy picture, León said. U.S. refineries have been running above 90% capacity — what if they need emergency maintenance just at the moment when there's more oil ready to bring to market? Or, what if hostilities restart again, despite a deal?

Brito agreed. Before the end of the year, there could theoretically be new attacks in the strait, he wrote, "if the current administration sees it as a 'window' to complete unfinished tasks before the new Congressional layout takes their seat in January."

And there's also one more factor at play: The war has raised the price of moving oil itself around the world.

Since the Strait of Hormuz has been blocked off for so long, freight costs have gone up; ships carrying oil have had to skirt around the strait, take longer routes and use more fuel in the process. Plus, the price of insuring those ships has gone up, since transit around the strait has gotten so much riskier.

That means that even the oil industry is paying more to be in the oil business. And if hostilities persist and those freight costs remain high, that could keep the price of Brent crude elevated for longer.

"Bottom line," Brito wrote, for any hope of a return to normal prices, "you need to see a definitive end of the conflict."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Billionaire Leon Black on Wednesday filed a federal defamation lawsuit against California Rep. Robert Garcia for public comments the Democratic congressman made tying him to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The court filing comes less than two months after the House approved a resolution holding Black in contempt of Congress for defying the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas in its investigation into Epstein.

In June, Black appeared for a voluntary interview at the committee during which he denied any knowledge of Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Weeks later, Garcia said during a TV interview that “Leon Black is at the center of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes” and that Black “was one of the last people to actually interact” with Epstein before he committed suicide in prison.

In addition, Garcia said that he had “talked to survivors that have credibly named Leon Black as someone that was involved in direct abuse of women and was directly involved” with Epstein.

Those statements were false and were made maliciously, Black asserts through his lawyers. The defamation lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks a jury trial and $7.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

“Congressman Garcia’s knowing lies have caused real and significant ongoing harm to Mr. Black. His physical safety has been threatened, he has received a barrage of hateful calls, emails, and social media posts, and his business and philanthropic endeavors have suffered,” the filing states.

Garcia’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.

In September, Garcia called the contempt resolution against Black “an important step toward justice and accountability.”

Black had refused to respond to subpoenas asking him to appear and to turn over any potential nondisclosure agreements involving the investigation into Epstein.

Black’s lawyers have repeatedly denounced the Oversight Committee’s pursuit of the former head of a private equity firm as an abuse of congressional power. They have maintained he had no knowledge of any of Epstein’s criminal conduct.

Black was among several prominent figures, including Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, who had been asked to appear as part of the Oversight Committee’s long-running probe of Epstein. Survivors of Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse have told personal stories of being young women in a trafficking enterprise organized by Epstein and his colleague Ghislaine Maxwell.

Black co-founded the private equity firm Apollo Global Management and stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein.

Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their yearslong relationship.

A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning and other related services.”

Chemical manufacturer 3M will pay up to $7.35 billion to settle lawsuits by people who say they were sickened by groundwater contamination from compounds used in firefighting foam and other consumer products.

The St. Paul, Minnesota-based company announced the settlement Tuesday. It will pay the money over nine years to as many as 120,000 people who say they were harmed by exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known collectively as PFAS. The chemicals contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports and other locations where the foam was used to extinguish fires.

3M did not admit liability for the contamination under the agreement.

Called “forever chemicals” because they don’t degrade naturally in the environment, PFAS have been linked to health problems including liver and immune system damage and some cancers. The chemicals are also used in nonstick, water- and grease-resistant products, including clothing and cookware.

3M chairman William Brown called the settlement a “significant milestone” that substantially reduces uncertainty from the litigation. The company previously reached settlements in other PFAS-related lawsuits, including a $450 million agreement with the state of New Jersey to settle claims of natural resource contamination and a deal to pay more than $10 billion to many U.S. public drinking water systems.

Other manufacturers, including DuPont de Nemours Inc. and spinoffs Chemours Co. and Corteva Inc., have agreed to settlements totaling more than $1 billion to resolve PFAS claims.

Fred Thompson, an attorney with the Motley Rice law firm that helped negotiate the 3M settlement for the plaintiffs, called it welcome news for “the thousands of victims who have sought answers and accountability for nearly a decade.”

He said in a news release that the plaintiffs urgently need help covering mounting medical bills and other costs.

Under the terms of the settlement, the payouts will begin with $50 million this year, followed by yearly payments of more than $1 billion each year from 2028 to 2033.

3M could make additional payments if enough plaintiffs participate. If too few sign on, 3M has the option to cancel the settlement and continue fighting the lawsuit.

Environmental activists say PFAS manufacturers knew about the chemicals’ health risks long before they became public. They noted that the same attributes that make the chemicals so valuable in many uses — resistance to breakdown — also make them hazardous to people.

The Environmental Protection Agency has set strict limits on PFAS in drinking water from public utilities and requires testing, but those rules do not apply to private wells.

A study that would help federal regulators understand which industries dump the forever chemicals with their wastewater has been stalled for two years, awaiting review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Democrats' big wins in these midterm elections couldn't have happened without some massive voter shifts.

Young voters, Latinos and Asian Americans, urban and suburban voters, men and independents all moved heavily to the left.

One of the sharpest turns in this election was by Latinos. And Democrats had their best performance with white voters in years

In 2024, President Trump won a record share of Latino votes for a Republican presidential candidate. But they took a sharp left turn in this election after Trump's promises of lower prices never came to fruition and his administration's harsh deportation tactics backfired.

Latinos swung 21 points toward Democratic House candidates, compared to two years ago.

Asian Americans also sharply diverged from 2024, also going 21 points more in Democrats' favor, from a 22-point advantage to a whopping 43.

Democrats even tied with white voters. To put that in perspective, Democrats haven't won white voters in a presidential election since 1964. Since then, they came closest in 1992 and 1996 when former President Bill Clinton lost them by 2 points both times and then in the 2006 midterms when Republicans won them by just 4.

By age, it was a sharp boomerang, particularly with voters 18 to 29

Democrats won this group of young voters by 48 points, a 34-point swing from two years ago.

To put in context just how dramatic of a margin that is — it's wider than for former President Barack Obama in 2008 when he won the youngest voters by 34 points. The difference in 2008 is they were 18% of the electorate, compared to 11% in this midterm.

Young voters traditionally have the biggest turnout drop from presidential to midterm elections of any group, so there are likely many Republican-leaning 18- to 29-year-olds who simply stayed home.

Democrats also won by huge margins with urban and suburban voters

Urban voters swung by 25 points in their favor, while voters in the suburbs, who had voted narrowly for Trump in 2024, went for Democrats by 19 points.

But Democrats can't win in red states without minimizing losses in small towns and rural areas. Democrats lost them by 16 points this year, a 16-point shift in their favor, compared with 2024, when they lost them by 32.

Democrats won men for the first time since 2008

Women were the fuel for Democrats' wins in these elections. They broke by 19 points for Democrats, 13 points wider than in 2024 and the best mark for the party since Trump's first midterm.

But the shift with men was notable. Democrats won men by 2 points, a 16-point shift from 2024 and the first time the party has won men since 2008. It's only the third time in 34 years that Democrats have won men.

The other time was in 1992 when Bill Clinton won them by 3 points, and that was with a third-party candidate in the race, Ross Perot, who won 19% of the national popular vote.

Republicans saw their worst performance with independents since at least 1998

The number to watch heading into Tuesday night for Republicans was 46%. That was the mark they needed with independents in order to do well. When they have hit that threshold in the Trump era, they have done well, winning the presidency in 2016 and 2024 and making gains in the House in 2022.

But when they were below it, they didn't do well, losing more than 40 seats in the House in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.

In these midterms, they didn't even get close. They only won 38% of independents, their worst mark since at least 1998 when independents viewed the impeachment investigation against Clinton as politically motivated and an overreach.

The only other time that comes close was in 2006 when they only won 39% of independents, and Democrats, like this year, won both the House and Senate.

More graphics from the voter poll

Methodology

2026 data comes from a poll of tens of thousands of voters, conducted by the firm SSRS for a number of news outlets, including the Associated Press. The full sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. Data may shift as votes and exit poll analysis are finalized.

2018-2024 data comes from exit polls conducted by Edison Research (now Edison Research at SSRS) for a number of news outlets. NPR accessed all data via results posted by CNN and ABC News.

2026 data combines results from in-person exit poll responses and a pre-election survey of voters, while 2018-2024 data combines results from in-person exit poll responses and responses from early and absentee voters.
Copyright 2026 NPR