The Brief

Jury selection began Monday for the trial of the man accused of igniting a fire that led to the deadly and destructive Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

Jonathan Rinderknecht is charged with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of setting timber afire. He could face up to 45 years in federal prison.

How we got here

Prosecutors allege Rinderknecht set brush alight near a popular hiking trail in the Santa Monica Mountains on New Year’s Day, starting the Lachman Fire. Firefighters initially thought they put out the fire, but it remained smouldering underground for several days. High winds then brought the embers to the surface, sparking the Palisades Fire, which burned more than 23,000 acres.

What prosecutors say

In a court filing in April, prosecutors allege Rinderknecht displayed “extreme anger, indignation, and frustration” because he had to spend New Year's Eve alone. After driving around for Uber, Rinderknecht hiked up a popular trail and set chaparral alight in a clearing, according to prosecutors.

“He then started calling 911 multiple times, hiked down the hill, and fled the area in his car before firefighters arrived. Defendant returned to the area after he saw fire trucks arriving and then took videos of the firefighting efforts,” prosecutors wrote.

The filing also states that Rinderknecht threatened to burn down his sister’s home.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Rinderknecht started the smaller blaze knowing it could turn into a bigger inferno.

U.S. District Court Judge Anne Hwang has previously expressed the government’s position could confuse jurors.

What the defense says

Defense attorney Steve Haney previously told reporters that prosecutors were trying to blame Rinderknecht for a fire that started days before the Palisades Fire.

"Well what about what happened between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7?" he asked. "Jonathan wasn't out there with a fire hose putting that fire out at the Lachman location, the Fire Department was. So why are they blaming him for whatever the Fire Department didn't do?"

It's here, folks: The FIFA World Cup kicks off this week, and the U.S. men's national soccer team is ready for its Friday opener in Los Angeles, the players say.

A pair of international friendlies over the past two weekends has given the Americans and their fans plenty of reasons to dream big. Star forward Christian Pulisic broke his monthslong goal drought against Senegal, and defender Antonee Robinson wowed with his offensive playmaking. And above all, the U.S. showed they are unwilling to be intimidated by quality opponents with their own serious aspirations for the World Cup.

"We're really starting to hit our stride," said midfielder Tyler Adams after Saturday's game against Germany.

Gone are the anxieties about scoring chances

In the 2022 World Cup, the Americans only managed to score three goals in their four games. That was enough for a win and two draws in the group stage, but their road ended in the Round of 16 when the Netherlands easily outscored them 3-1.

Now, any anxiety over the U.S. scoring capability feels like a distant memory. The team is flush with options on the attack, and not only Pulisic, who has scored 33 goals for the U.S. in his career. Forwards Folarin Balogun, who found the net against Senegal, and Ricardo Pepi, who was instrumental in two goals against Senegal, have looked excellent these past two weeks.

In other words, the team is consistently creating chances and converting enough to compete. "It's definitely encouraging," said Pulisic Saturday. "We have a lot of talent on the team, a lot of guys that can create and be dangerous to score goals."

But defense is still a liability…

Both Germany and Senegal picked up easy goals on defensive lapses. Great World Cup teams, like the kind the U.S. hopes to face in the Round of 16 and beyond, will do that.

Compared to a relatively deep bench of forwards and midfielders, the U.S. have fewer full-package defenders. On one hand, there's Tim Ream, whose soccer IQ and positioning are excellent, but who is 38 and can no longer win a footrace. Next to him is the promising 21-year-old Alex Freeman, the son of a former NFL wide receiver whose athleticism is off the charts but feel for the game is still a work in progress. Backups Miles Robinson, Mark McKenzie and Auston Trusty have their moments but are prone to mistakes.

"There's been a lot of combinations worked on in training and, there were moments when we can be better connected as a group on the defensive side," Ream said after the game.

… so getting defender Chris Richards back from injury will be key

The U.S. badly needs the return of defender Chris Richards, who hurt his ankle in a game with his club Crystal Palace in May. He sat out both friendlies. His status for Friday's game against Paraguay is still in limbo.

"If this was the final of the World Cup, maybe he can play. But the advice of the medical [team] is not to play," coach Mauricio Pochettino said the day before the Germany game. He added that they would assess Richards' health in the days that followed.

"He's an important piece of the group [with] his energy, his leadership on and off the field. So obviously we're just all behind him and can't wait to have him back," midfielder Weston McKennie said Friday.

These guys aren't afraid of adversity

A meeker U.S. team might have folded when Germany scored in the second minute of Saturday's game. But this version of the USMNT righted the ship within minutes and began pressing Germany hard, producing chance after chance before finally connecting on Robinson's extraordinary goal before the halftime break.

After the game, Pochettino told reporters he came to see Germany's early goal as "lucky" for his squad. "[It was] an amazing challenge for us to see how we react, how is your character, how we show togetherness, how we start to play under pressure," he said.

And the toughness showed up in the physicality, too. Players didn't back down from challenges. When Germany fouled hard, an American delivered a hard foul right back. The message, Adams said, was "have each other's backs."

"We can tune up passing, final plays, finishing, all those kinds of things. But to see that mentality, I think from everyone, and it's not just the guys that started, everyone that came off the bench as well — that's what you need," he said.
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Drive down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood, and you’re likely to see WOW Media digital billboards — from slender, curved signs planted in medians to massive LED screens that stretch across streets — that some residents have called eyesores.

What’s less visible is that those billboards are at the center of a corporate power struggle that may be headed to the ballot this November.

On one side: WOW Media, which has a financial partnership with the City of Inglewood that could be worth tens of millions of dollars as an aggressive expansion of its billboard network comes online. The city has not publicly endorsed or opposed the ballot proposals backed by WOW, and Mayor James Butts declined to comment on those initiatives.

On the other: the operators of SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum — who want the billboard network gone and have their own advertising interests in the stadium district.

Both the billboard company and stadium operators have turned to the same weapon: Petitions to put initiatives on voters’ ballots.

WOW is bankrolling proposals to cap stadium parking fees and raise taxes on event tickets. The stadium operators are pushing a measure to gut the city’s billboard program and the deal with WOW. Each side frames its campaigns as protecting Inglewood residents.

But none of these measures appear to be financed by community members. The money needed to persuade voters is coming from business interests who have major stakes in the upcoming World Cup, Super Bowl and Olympics.

This fight goes back to lawsuits between the city and stadium-linked businesses, including those tied to Stan Kroenke’s SoFi Stadium as well as Steve Ballmer’s Intuit Dome and Kia Forum. Last year, those businesses sued after the Inglewood City Council approved an exclusive contract with WOW Media to build and operate more than 100 digital billboards along some of the city’s busiest streets.

Shortly after that, Mayor James Butts wrote directly to Stan Kroenke seeking to ease tensions with Hollywood Park, where SoFi Stadium is located, and questioned whether a prior development agreement was still valid.

Now, as the city gears up for these major sporting events, the dispute has expanded from a fight over advertising control into a broader debate over public space and city revenue.

WOW Media is the main funder of the Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability committee. It is backing two proposals: a cap on stadium parking rates and a tax on event tickets.

Stadium-linked businesses are backing a proposal that would roll back or eliminate the city’s billboard program and end its exclusive agreement with WOW.

Those same stadium-linked businesses backing the billboard blight initiative are also behind some of the city’s most visible and controversial digital advertising displays on stadium properties, which have changed Inglewood’s streetscape in recent years.

A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Ave. in Inglewood on Saturday, April 18, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Outside these campaigns, WOW already operates large digital billboards across the city, including its “Spectaculars” and twisting digital kiosks along major corridors.

The company promotes them as advertising space for audiences drawn to major sporting events. It has built its brand around aggressive marketing ahead of the city’s upcoming global sports calendar.

In a February Instagram post, WOW wrote: “You need Digital Spectaculars that match the energy. You need massive real estate. You need WOW,” alongside a video clip of a soccer ball bouncing through Inglewood streets.

Taken together, campaign filings, interviews and reporting by The LA Local suggest both sides are fighting not only over policy measures, but over control of high-value advertising space in Inglewood.

When asked why WOW was backing initiatives apparently unrelated to its billboard network, CEO Scott Krantz said the company is pushing for stadium operators to contribute more to the city.

“Our commitment has always been to invest in Inglewood, and that commitment goes far beyond our network,” Krantz wrote, adding that WOW wants Inglewood to remain a strong and financially stable “City of Champions.”

Inside the stadium admissions tax initiative

At the center of one of the competing measures is a proposal to change how Inglewood taxes stadium tickets.

Inglewood has long relied on ticket taxes for revenue. But when the Staples Center opened in 1999 and the Lakers and Kings left the Forum, collections fell from about $700,000 to $225,000. By 2009-10, they were down to $20,000.

That changed with the stadium boom, including SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome.

A digital billboard is seen on Manchester Avenue at Spruce Avenue in Inglewood on Saturday, April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

For The LA Local

)

By 2022–23, the city collected $23 million in admissions tax revenue, boosted by major events including the NCAA football national championship game and WrestleMania. Admissions taxes from all ticketed events accounted for nearly 9% of the city’s general fund, according to budget documents.

A cap limits how much the city can collect. Under current rules, each venue pays up to $15 million annually.

The proposed Inglewood Fair Share Admissions Tax Tier Reform and Cap Removal Initiative, funded by WOW media, would eliminate those caps and restructure how venues are taxed.

If approved, it would set a 2.5% ticket charge for mid-sized venues, while larger venues like SoFi Stadium would continue paying 10% per ticket, but without the $15 million cap.

What the parking fee initiative would mean on game days

Above Mel Garcia’s neighborhood, the Intuit Dome looms over the rooftops like an alien spacecraft. On game days, streets are crowded with vehicles.

“The parking is wild, a lot more traffic,” Garcia said. Sometimes he sees residents renting out driveway spots, other times he sees visitors trying to sneak into street parking spaces.

Another proposal, the Parking Price Transparency and Anti-Price-Gouging Initiative, would cap parking near stadiums at $20 per vehicle. It is also funded by WOW Media.

The initiative claims the cap would bring more stability to game days and push drivers toward commercial lots instead of residential streets.

Tens of thousands of vehicles can enter the city during NFL games and concerts, and the city issues an average of 41 parking tickets per major event, according to city documents.

Most city parking fines range between $50 and $70, about the same as the cheapest listed parking around the stadium for some Rams games.

Stadium parking prices can climb into the hundreds of dollars, as they have for the FIFA World Cup this summer.

The city has continued to adjust. On May 12, the City Council approved an ordinance allowing churches and some businesses with large lots to sell parking spots during events.

A signature battle to the ballot

Signature gathering — and signature removal — have also become part of the broader fight.

WOW-backed canvassers appear to have been collecting signatures for initiatives that would cap stadium parking rates and raise taxes on event tickets while also asking voters to withdraw support from the rival campaign seeking to curb WOW’s billboard network.

The LA Local obtained photos of a petition asking voters to remove their names from the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative.

The LA Local obtained photos of a petition asking voters to remove their names.

(

Courtesy of the Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative

)

The Inglewood City Clerk confirmed the petition had been filed but did not respond to questions about when it was submitted, who filed it or how many signatures it sought to remove from the rival campaign.

When asked about the effort, Krantz, the WOW CEO, did not directly confirm involvement but also did not deny it. Instead, he argued the city’s stadium businesses have created an “uneven playing field” that benefits themselves at the expense of others.

“The initiatives we support are designed to protect Inglewood from another attempt by stadium owners to take more from residents, small businesses and the city services that support critical infrastructure,” Krantz wrote.

John Shallman, a spokesperson for the billboard blight campaign who used to work with the LA Clippers, said WOW used its stadium-related petitions to target the roughly 13,000 signatures his group had collected.

“While WOW was publicly promoting separate stadium-related initiatives, it was also funding and organizing efforts designed to reduce support for ours by asking voters who had already signed to withdraw their names,” Shallman told The LA Local.

Shallman said canvassers were carrying multiple clipboards and asking some voters who had already signed the billboard initiative to remove their support. The LA Local could not independently verify those claims beyond confirming the petition had been filed with the city.

Krantz previously wrote to The LA Local that the billboard blight initiative was a “private interest power grab” by stadium owners designed to funnel advertising dollars to the billboards on stadium property.

“Their own massive signs — including future signs — are conveniently exempt from this initiative,” Krantz wrote. “The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents.”

The WOW-funded campaign directly discloses that they oppose the billboard blight ballot initiative in financial filings with the California Secretary of State. The stadium businesses did not similarly list their opposition to the parking and event tax initiatives.

The lawsuits remain unresolved, and the initiatives are being processed by the city to see if they’ve met the standards for inclusion on the fall ballot.

The Ballmer Group is a funder of The LA Local, but their support doesn’t influence our coverage. To learn more about our funders and commitment to editorial independence, click here.  

California’s life sciences industry is sounding the alarm over a proposal from Gov. Gavin Newsom that would permanently cap corporate tax credits.

The proposal is projected to contribute a few billion dollars in revenue to California annually, but opponents say the state’s life sciences industry would be seriously threatened by having their tax subsidy reduced.

Tax credits allow businesses to reduce costs by lowering their final tax bill (as opposed to a deduction, which lowers the overall taxable income). The proposed change, which would go into effect in tax year 2027, would limit the credits businesses can claim each year. The proposal was designed to ensure "that larger corporations pay a minimum level of tax,” while not having a negative effect on small businesses, according to the Finance Department.

The proposal is the latest attempt to get corporations to pay more taxes in California, where voters will likely be considering a ballot initiative to tax billionaires in November. The life sciences industry, which says its annual economic impact is nearly $400 billion, is speaking out about the proposed cap. The tech industry is concerned. Dozens of lawmakers are urging the state’s top lawmakers to reject the new limit.

“The answer to the state’s long-term budget challenges is not to weaken the sectors driving California’s economy and generating state revenues,” 50 assemblymembers wrote to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Monique Limon on May 22.

The current state corporate tax rate is 8.84%, down from 9.6% in 1980 and 9.3% in 1987. California has been either the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world over the past few years; in 1985, with a higher tax rate, it ranked seventh in the world by gross domestic product. Corporations have also been paying less in federal taxes since 2017, when President Donald Trump slashed the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

The proposed tax credit cap would largely reduce the state’s research and development credit and would affect the largest corporate taxpayers — fewer than 100 — in California, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s analysis of the proposal.

Rowan Isaaks, the LAO economist who did the analysis, testified at a recent budget subcommittee hearing. He told CalMatters that lawmakers’ questions and comments indicated skepticism about whether the tax credits were actually incentivizing new research. “These companies were gonna do this R&D anyway,” he said.

The life sciences industry is opposed 

California’s life sciences industry disagrees, saying the proposal would add to its existing challenges. Representatives say it’s the latest regulatory and policy curveball the state keeps throwing at businesses.

Though California led the nation in venture capital funding for life sciences in 2025, “our global biomedical leadership is not guaranteed,” Sam Chung, senior vice president for government relations for industry group California Life Sciences, told CalMatters. “All these bills take a chunk of flesh out of our leadership.” (He is also concerned about proposed legislation that would change California antitrust law, which he said could have big consequences for the industry.)

Drug development requires lots of time and money, Chung said. If California reduces the tax credits biotech companies have long relied on, companies may relocate to other states with more generous credits, he said. He’s also worried about competition from China, and of some U.S. venture capitalists’ interest in Chinese biotech.

Darien Shanske, a UC Davis law professor who helped draft the proposed billionaire tax and has floated a similar limit on business tax credits, said he doubts other states’ tax credits outweigh California’s — even if the credits are reduced by this proposal. He also cited the state’s other benefits, including its education system, which is supplying the researchers the industry needs.

As for California’s argument that the proposal protects smaller businesses, Chung said businesses of all sizes are important, adding that mergers and acquisitions are the “lifeblood” of drug development.

“Scientists who develop something need big companies’ backing,” Chung said. “It’s a very symbiotic relationship. Everyone needs to work together to get to the finish line.”

The life sciences industry is also facing uncertainty over federal funding under the Trump administration.

At a time when research grants from the National Institutes of Health have been cut or are at risk, “to not have that, and then not have support from the state as well, is kind of a double whammy,” said Tim Scott, president and chief executive of another industry group, Biocom. The proposal would not eliminate tax credits, just cap them.

Scott, a biotech entrepreneur, told CalMatters that reducing R&D tax credits could threaten hiring. The life sciences industry — including biotech, pharmaceuticals and medical devices and equipment — employs more than 336,000 people directly and 1 million people directly and indirectly, according to a 2026 report by California Life Sciences.

“That R&D tax credit keeps those jobs here, it keeps the facilities being built here, and without it it becomes much more problematic,” he said.

The industry report showed that the Bay Area had 107,000 direct industry jobs in 2025, while San Diego and Los Angeles had about 54,000 each and Orange County had about 47,000.

Opponents say businesses can probably afford it

Proponents of the cap point out that what has been a “very generous” R&D tax credit wouldn’t be going away. California’s standard corporate tax rate is 8.84% of a company’s net income; the tax credit cap would be $5 million or 50% of that, whichever is greater. The cap would not apply to net operating losses.

“This tax break in particular is the second largest-corporate tax break (the state provides),” said Shanske, the UC Davis law professor. He said under the current system, companies have been able to “stockpile” the credits for research done long ago to the point where they can avoid paying tax to California.

“If you imagine that there’s a program where the state actually wrote a check to the biggest, richest companies in the state, I think there’d be an outcry,” Shanske said. The LAO analysis estimates that “check” the state writes is about $3.5 billion a year, based on how R&D tax credits currently work.

The May budget revision assumes the cap would raise $850 million in 2026-27, and $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion annually between 2027-28 and 2029-30.

Isaaks, the LAO economist, said a possible alternative would be for legislators to restructure R&D credits to make them more targeted.

What will state lawmakers do?

Businesses wrote to lawmakers that sectors such as semiconductors, software, clean technology, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and artificial intelligence also rely on R&D credits — which has been limited to $5 million for tax years 2024 to 2026, also at the governor’s request because of budgetary concerns.

“The contradiction underlying this proposal is difficult to ignore,” they wrote. “The May Revision itself reflects revenues significantly higher than previously projected, driven in substantial part by California’s innovation economy and the economic activity generated by research-intensive industries.”

In their letter to Rivas and Limon, 33 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the state assembly said “limiting incentives for research and development may generate short-term budgetary gains, but risks long-term economic consequences.”

Nick Miller, a spokesperson for Rivas, said the Assembly is taking a close look at the governor’s proposals. Limon’s office referred CalMatters to state Sen. John Laird, chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.

“California's innovation economy is enormously important, but we're also facing significant fiscal challenges,” Laird said in an emailed statement. “Our job is to carefully weigh those considerations as we work toward a balanced budget.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.