Topline:
One estimate says the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes led to $6 billion in economic losses, with $3 billion in Southern California alone.
Who's affected: Many striking WGA and SAG-AFTRA members lost their main sources of income, but restaurants, driving services, and prop shops were among the businesses that also saw losses.
What's next: The economy may not fully recover for at least a year, according to one economist.
Read on...for our full coverage of the dual strikes.
Now that actors represented by SAG-AFTRA have been all but given permission to return to work, we’re starting to get a sense of how the Hollywood strikes have affected the economy.
The total losses to the national economy due to the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes could be as much as $6 billion nationwide, according to estimates from the economic think tank the Milken Institute. California’s economy has seen about $3 billion in losses, according to the same estimates.
The contract stalemate between the studios and the two unions halted most scripted film and TV production since May 2. It affected not just actors, writers, and below-the-line workers, but also peripheral businesses like prop shops, driving services, caterers and restaurants near studio lots.
“The distinction in particular in California is how many people leave the business,” said Kevin Klowden, chief global strategist of the Milken Institute. “How many people looking at the economics of Hollywood basically couldn't meet rent, couldn't afford to stick around? Do they move out? Do they not come back?”
Klowden said the lingering effects of this year's strikes might be more pronounced compared to the WGA strike of 2007-08. This time around, higher housing costs are leading to even greater economic pressure on striking workers.
Klowden said his estimate of $6 billion in losses is a conservative figure. Other calculations, including one by California State University, Northridge professor Todd Holmes, say the figure is even higher. According to Holmes, there could be as much as $10 billion nationwide in strike-related economic losses, with California shouldering most of that.
“In a lot of ways, [actors and writers] are trying to dig themselves out of a financial hole if they racked up debt,” Holmes said. “They're still really cutting back on their own personal spending, so that impacts the overall ripple effects across the economy.”
Holmes said the economy will be slow to recover due to the delay in releasing blockbusters and hit TV shows, like Dune: Part Two and new seasons of Euphoria, Abbott Elementary and Stranger Things.
“I really think next year will be a year of recovery,” Holmes said. “I think because the work stoppage has gone on for so long...I’d guess 2025 until things really start to get back to more normal, or to a new normal.”
Klowden agreed that it will take some time for the entertainment industry to recover.
“We're not going to be at the same level of productions we were seeing in 2021 or 2022,” Klowden said. “The fact that the strike was used to get out of a number of production deals and so on means that there needs to be a reassessment.”
The WGA strike 15 years ago also had a similar affect on the local economy. At the time, one estimate said the strike, which interrupted much of the 2007-08 TV season, cost the Los Angeles area economy about $2.5 billion. However, an updated figure from the Milken Institute put that figure at around $2 billion.
Topline:
Perse, a Brentwood restaurant, breaks from the kabob houses that defined Persian dining in L.A.’s “Tehrangeles” and instead offers dishes from across Iran’s regions.
Why it matters: Los Angeles is home to the largest Iranian community outside Iran, yet its Persian restaurants have long served the same handful of dishes. Perse aims to show diners how varied the cuisine is across regions.
Why now: Nine months after opening, Perse landed on the L.A. Times 101 list. Pirshirazi plans to expand on the idea in 2027 with monthly dinners devoted to a single region.
Take the escalator to the third floor of a sprawling plaza on San Vicente Boulevard in Brentwood and you’ll find Perse, a different kind of Persian restaurant.
Farinaz “Naz” Pirshirazi and her brother, Farbod, opened Perse in February to challenge how Angelenos think about Persian food.
Los Angeles is home to the largest Iranian community outside Iran, and for decades, nearby Westwood’s “Tehrangeles” has defined what Persian dining looks like here: kabob, a few familiar stews and rice.
When Pirshirazi arrived in Los Angeles in 2011, she was surprised by what she saw when it came to food from her home country.
“It felt like they took 18 foods of that wonderful 3,000-plus types of dishes that we have in Iran… and kind of copy-pasted,” she said.
Walking into some restaurants felt like stepping into the pre-revolution Iran she’d seen in old movies.
“For me it was time travel,” she said.
She isn’t the only one who sees it. Naz Deravian — author of the cookbook Bottom of the Pot and a New York Times Cooking contributor who has lived in L.A. since 1996 — said the city’s Iranian food scene “was getting a little stagnant” over the past two decades.
“I hate to say this because I love L.A. so much,” she said.
Deravian quickly added that the classic kabob houses still matter: “Those restaurants have their place in the food culture.”
It's hard to pin down why Persian food here hasn’t evolved the way Korean or Mexican food has. Pirshirazi thinks immigrant parents steered their kids away from the restaurant business. Deravian points to geopolitics.
“We can’t leisurely travel to Iran and experience the food there,” she said. “It’s not like just going to Italy for the summer.”
Still, there are exceptions. Azizam, which started as a pop-up, opened in Silver Lake in 2024, and Atlanta-based Rumi’s Kitchen opened in Century City in September. But restaurants that break from the kabob-house format remain few and far between.
Pirshirazi’s upbringing shaped Perse's menu. During the Iran-Iraq War, her parents left Tehran to escape the bombing and settled in Sari, in Mazandaran province along the Caspian Sea. There, neighbors taught her mother to cook northern Iranian food, rich in herbs, seafood, and duck, with pomegranate molasses and sour orange for acidity.
The family returned to Tehran in 1989, and Pirshirazi was born the next year. But northern cooking stayed on the table, and as a kid she realized her classmates had never heard of most of the food she ate every day. She also remembered childhood road trips across Iran, when her father often stopped at local grocers and asked about regional favorites.
That regional range shows up across Perse's menu. Start with the fesenjoon, a slow-simmered walnut-and-pomegranate stew from Gilan, on the Caspian Sea. The stew is silky with an earthy texture from the ground walnuts, and it balances sweet and tart almost like a tangy mole. On top sits duck confit, which adds a rich, gamey note to every bite.
From Tehran comes the Bazari koobideh, which Pirshirazi modeled on the version served at the city’s Grand Bazaar, where she says older men eat it four or five times a week.
“Whenever they have their koobideh, they crack an egg yolk on top of the rice, mixing everything together with some butter, some sumac, some lemon juice, and then it becomes like a carbonara pasta,” Pirshirazi said.
At Perse, a skewer of ground beef and lamb arrives over flatbread with saffron rice, a grilled tomato, sumac, and a ramekin of egg yolk sauce. The sauce is her answer to the raw yolk.
“You can literally close your eyes, and it feels like you are eating koobideh in the Grand Bazaar of Tehran,” she said.
Starting next year, Pirshirazi is considering a monthly four-course dinner, limited to 20 to 24 guests, built around a single city or region, such as Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, or northern or southern Iran.
“I think that would be a wonderful, wonderful idea to showcase each region,” she said.
That’s the kind of focus Deravian hopes to see more of, comparing Persian cooking to Italian food, which evolved beyond red-sauce joints into more regional cooking.
“Iranian cuisine is hyper regional, and we haven’t gotten to that place yet,” she said.
Ultimately, she wants Persian food to be an everyday choice rather than something saved for special occasions.
“It just needs to become … a popular cuisine to think of on a Wednesday night,” she said. “‘Oh, let’s go out for Persian food.’”
Topline:
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.
The backstory: 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.
What could Democrats do? 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."
Read on... for more on what the blue wave means for gas and diesel prices.
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.
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."
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 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
Topline:
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 backstory: 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.
What's next: 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.
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.”
Topline:
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.
What the settlement is about: 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.
The backstory: 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.
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.
