The Brief

A California project that provides legal advocacy for unaccompanied child immigrants will end in September unless backers can convince lawmakers to renew funding by next month.

The Children’s Holistic Immigration Representation Project was funded through a one-time allocation in 2022 and not renewed when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California’s $298 billion budget last month.

There were 64,173 unaccompanied children released in California between January 2015 and May 2023, according to a CalMatters analysis of federal data obtained by the New York Times.

The project’s clients include A.L., who lives with his aunt in Northern California. When A.L. was in the first or second grade, a motorcycle chase ended in the courtyard of his elementary school. He said that he and other young children from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, watched in horror as a group of men surrounded another man, kicked him, beat him, and dragged him all around the school. He never knew why.

“I froze,” said A.L., a 17-year-old who came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor when he was 14. “That’s an example of the violence we live with in my country.”

Honduras has a homicide rate five times higher than the United States, according to the Migration and Asylum Lab, which provides expertise about conditions in Latin American countries for use in asylum applications. San Pedro Sula, the capital where A.L. lived, is called “the world’s murder capital.”

CalMatters is only identifying A.L. by his initials because he fears for his safety and his family’s well-being back in Honduras. We interviewed him with the permission of his sponsor, his aunt, and other advocates.

Without CHIRP, the free legal representation and the social services program A.L. says saved his life, “I’d probably be back in my country,” he told CalMatters.

Rather than providing kids just with legal services, social workers under the project also help children find mental health services, enroll in school, get vaccines, and get work authorization, an approach known as “trauma-informed intervention.”

Unaccompanied children are a particularly vulnerable group. They can be exploited in full-time, dangerous jobs that violate labor laws, advocates and government officials say.

CHIRP was funded as a pilot program with $15.3 million in fiscal year 2022—enough to carry it through this coming September.

Newsom has not met with anyone to discuss the termination of the project, advocates say. His budget sought to close a huge deficit with $16 billion in cuts and delays.

Newsom’s office declined an interview request about overall cuts to immigration services, but a spokesperson said the governor’s budget maintains nearly $60 million for immigration-related legal services provided to Californians, including students, workers, and unaccompanied minors.

“We don’t find any joy in this – but we’ve got to do it, we have to be responsible. We have to be accountable. We have to balance the budget,” Newsom said previously about general budget reductions amid the funding shortfall.

Time is running out, but not all hope is lost.

“The legislature remains active on CHIRP and [is] exploring possible solutions to ensure its survival,” said Hamid Yazdan Panah, advocacy director of Immigrant Defense Advocates. “We are cautiously optimistic that there will be a path to continue the program, especially given there is no clear alternative for the vulnerable population that it serves.”

The legal advocacy project is in jeopardy just as new federal shifts in immigration policy might prompt an increase in the number of unaccompanied minors being released into California.

In June, President Joe Biden issued an executive order that limits asylum processing after encounters with migrants between ports of entry reach 2,500 per day. The new policy exempts unaccompanied minors, in the same way that such children were eventually exempted from a 2020 order that turned away migrants in the name of stopping the spread of COVID-19. Advocates worry the exemption may prompt parents from dangerous countries to make the hard decision to send their children across the border alone.

“We don’t think that will happen,” said Tom Perez, a senior advisor to the president and director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, during a press call in June.

But several years ago, that is the decision A.L.’s parents had to make.

By the time A.L. was 14, gangs in Honduras waited outside his school nearly every single day, threatening him, harassing him, and trying to recruit him, he said. He and his family decided he should flee for the United States.

During the 23-day journey by himself on foot and bus to the U.S.-Mexico border, A.L. said he was robbed by Mexican police. He crossed near the Rio Grande, and U.S. border authorities sent him to live in a center for unaccompanied children in San Antonio, Texas. There, he said, he often didn’t have enough food to eat, and he was not allowed to make phone calls to his family or to find an attorney.

When he was finally released to his family in California at age 15, he was given a long list of attorneys’ names that he was expected to call on his own to secure legal representation for his pending immigration case.

“A.L.,” (far left) an unaccompanied minor from Honduras visits the state Capitol in March of 2024 to advocate for funding for the CHIRP program, which helps protect migrant children alone in the U.S. from deportation.

(

Community Justice Alliance

)

“I tried to call and call and call many lawyers. Some of them never answered me, and others said they were already too busy. In the end, no one was able to help me. From that long list of attorneys, none of them could help me,” A.L. told CalMatters. Soon, he received a deportation order.

Kristina McKibben, the executive director of Community Justice Alliance, the nonprofit that administers the legal advocacy project, said unaccompanied minors are often expected to navigate the complicated immigration court system without any representation.

“And so, they’re expected to just figure it out,” said McKibben, who said clients as young as third graders can be left to navigate the court system on their own. “I think we all know that it’s ridiculous.”

In 2023, only 56% of unaccompanied migrant children defending their cases in U.S immigration court had attorneys representing them, according to data from the Justice Department. The immigration court system does not guarantee a right to counsel, even for parentless children.

The stakes are high. Between October 2017 and March 31, 2021, 90% of minors without legal representation were ordered removed from the country by federal authorities, according to data provided in a 2021 Congressional Research Service report.

A.L.’s pending deportation order weighed so heavily on him that he couldn’t concentrate or make friends at school.

“I was so lonely because all my classmates were talking about what their daily life was like, or you know, ‘I remember when this happened to me,’ and they were sharing their experiences. And I was always just quiet, listening, … because I was afraid to share my story,” said A.L.

Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, a Democrat from Baldwin Park, said most unaccompanied children who arrive in California are forced to flee their home countries because of violence and abandonment. She is advocating to keep the program because she says it goes beyond just legal representation for minors.

“The program is centered on an understanding that these children have faced trauma, both before coming to the U.S. and within the immigration system itself,” she said in a written statement. “These unaccompanied children are a symbol of resilience and a testament that a better life and future are possible. California should stand with them and invest in a shared future.”

One of A.L.’s teachers frantically started making calls and finally connected him to the advocacy project, which helped him get his deportation order lifted. He’s now living in a legal limbo called deferred action, which means the Department of Homeland Security has agreed not to deport him, but he does not have any official or permanent legal status. One of his advocates said it will be an approximate five-year wait before he can apply to become a lawful permanent resident, or to receive what is commonly referred to as a green card.

A.L. said he’s not afraid to share his story anymore. He recently traveled to the state Capitol to try to convince lawmakers to maintain funding for other children like him.

“Now I feel more confident because I know that I have support,” he said.

Data journalist Erica Yee contributed to this report. 

This story was reported through a fellowship on U.S. immigration policy in El Paso organized by Poynter with funding from the Catena Foundation.

The FBI seized about 15 drones near SoFi Stadium and L.A. Memorial Coliseum on Friday and Saturday for violating temporary flight restrictions, Amir Ehsaei, special agent in charge of counterterrorism and crisis response at the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, told LAist. Multiple operators were cited.

Stadiums hosting World Cup games and official fan festival venues are designated as "No Drone Zones" by the Federal Aviation Administration on match days.

“We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to drones violating the temporary flight restrictions," Ehsaei said.

One of the drones seized near SoFi Stadium on Friday.

(

Courtesy FBI Los Angeles

)

One of the drones seized Friday at SoFi Stadium.

(

Courtesy FBI

)

He said drone detection teams are deployed at all SoFi games. "We will be out at other places depending on the nature — the size, the scope — [and] different intelligence that we'll get based on  threat assessments."

Drones are prohibited at SoFi within a three-nautical-mile radius and up to 3,000 feet above ground level. They are also banned at the Coliseum for the official fan festival within a one-nautical-mile radius and up to 1,000 feet above ground level.

Violators could face fines of up to $100,000 and federal criminal charges.

Residents in East LA are weighing the promise of a new Metro E Line extension with concerns over construction disruptions, small-business impacts and whether more outreach is needed about the project.

The 4.7-mile extension of the Metro E Line would connect East Los Angeles to Montebello with four new stations. The project would relocate the existing Atlantic and Pomona station underground and include a mix of underground, aerial and street-level track transit.

The $7.9 billion project is expected to open for service between 2035 and 2037, according to Metro.

Construction will begin in 2029 and last approximately eight to 10 years, pending full funding approval. It’s part of a wider plan to connect the E Line to the city of Whittier, though officials say the work will be built in two phases due to funding constraints.

While officials say the project is intended to reduce traffic congestion and ease pressure on local roads, residents at a recent community meeting focused more on the immediate impact and communication.

Concerns over construction and local impact

“Thirty days for comment on a complex issue like this is ridiculous. … We need better outreach,” said East LA resident Clara Solis about a 30-day public comment period ending June 26.

Solis and others also raised concerns about how construction could affect traffic and disrupt local commerce, pointing to past transit projects.

“How is this going to impact the businesses? When the Gold Line went through, a lot of our businesses really suffered economically. We want to see a presentation on that. You should have a presentation just on how it’s going to impact the businesses,” Solis added.

A map shows the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project will extend the E Line nearly nine miles east from East Los Angeles to the City of Whittier. ()

(

Courtesy Metro

)

Calls for broader outreach

East LA resident Kristie Hernandez said community outreach for the project should also extend to people who do not necessarily live within the immediate 200-foot project radius.

“We need to understand that folks who don’t necessarily live within that close proximity also frequent that area when they drive,” said Hernandez.

Hernandez advocated for a 90-day public comment window and also called for presentations on underground infrastructure, especially in the wake of the East LA pipeline that was punctured during construction work in late May.

“We do not want that to happen again,” she said.

A promise for greater mobility

Lucia Martinez spoke favorably about the extension plans, considering that she relies on buses to get around East LA to do her shopping. She said she looks forward to using the Metro to travel to the Citadel as well as to the hospital in Pasadena.

“As an older woman who became aware of this project, I think it is amazing because I am someone who does not drive,” she said.

LA Documenter Rafael Cazzorla contributed reporting for this story. LA Documenters trains and pays LA residents to take notes at local government meetings around Los Angeles. You can find meeting notes and audio at losangeles.documenters.org

For the first time in nearly three decades, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new chemical UV filter for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S. And that has many dermatologists cheering.

"This is a very big deal," says Dr. Heather Rogers, a dermatologist in Seattle and a fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The new ingredient is called bemotrizinol, and it has several advantages over the chemical sunscreen ingredients previously available in the U.S., Rogers says.

"It hits like really every box for us that we have been waiting for as dermatologists and consumers," Rogers says.

Here's what you need to know about this new ingredient and how it could lead to better sunscreens sold stateside.

1. It blocks both UVA and UVB rays

Rogers says in general, you want to use sunscreens that are broad spectrum, meaning they protect against both UVA rays — the longer wavelengths that cause premature aging and wrinkles — and UVB rays, which lead to sunburns. Both types of UV rays can cause skin cancer.

She says the sunscreens currently sold in the U.S. do an excellent job of protecting against UVB rays, but the chemical UV filters available in sunscreens in the U.S. until now aren't as good at blocking out UVA rays.

In general, chemical sunscreens sold in the U.S. rely on an ingredient called avobenzone to block out UVA rays, says Kelly Dobos, a cosmetic chemist who teaches at the University of Cincinnati.

But avobenzone by itself isn't photo stable, meaning its protection can start to break down rapidly when exposed to sunlight. And as avobenzone breaks down, it can release molecules that lead to skin irritation, says Alexa Friedman, a senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, or EWG.

By contrast, bemotrizinol offers protection against both UVA and UVB rays all on its own, and it is photo stable, so it breaks down more slowly, offering better protection, Rogers says.

"So if you go a little longer than two hours to reapply your sunscreen, there will be more protection left," Rogers says. However, she says you should still reapply sunscreen every two hours.

2. It's long been used in other countries 

Bemotrizinol has been widely used in European and Asian sunscreens for decades. But it has taken 20 years for the FDA to approve its use in this country.

That's because in the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics, as they're classified in Europe. That means ingredients need to undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before they can be approved for use in the U.S.

"It's really expensive and time consuming," Dobos says. The European company DSM-Firmenich spent at least $18 million over more than two decades in its push to gain FDA approval for bemotrizinol.

3. It has a well-documented safety profile

However, all that testing means bemotrizinol has more safety data to back it up than any other chemical sunscreen ingredient currently approved in the U.S., says Friedman of EWG.

"This ingredient is exciting because we have that data to support its safety," Friedman says.

Friedman says animal testing showed bemotrizinol doesn't lead to concerns like reproductive harm, while clinical testing on humans found that it does not irritate the skin, even after repeated application over time, "which is hopefully how people are using sunscreens."

And because bemotrizinol's molecules are larger, it's not readily absorbed by the skin and into the bloodstream, she says.

That's important, because studies have shown that some of the other chemical sunscreen UV filters sold in the U.S. can be absorbed in the bloodstream, prompting calls for more safety data and leading to a backlash against sunscreen on social media fueled by misinformation. Rogers says that trend is concerning because skin cancer is the most common form of cancer.

"We just need to have sunscreen that people will use, that they'll trust," Rogers says. "And this ingredient is going to allow that to happen. And that is very exciting."

And bemotrizinol is also considered to be non-irritating, Friedman says. That should be welcome news to people who've been put off by chemical sunscreens in the past.

4. It could lead to sunscreens that look better on you

Until now, Rogers says, the only sunscreen ingredient available in the U.S. that offered the aforementioned advantages of bemotrizinol — photo stable, non-irritating, minimally absorbed into the skin and with good broad spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB rays — was zinc oxide.

Both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are mineral UV filters. Both chemical sunscreens and mineral sunscreens work by absorbing UV rays from the sun. Mineral sunscreens also reflect some UV rays. The bigger difference is that mineral sunscreens sit on the surface of the skin, while chemical sunscreens get absorbed into the skin, Rogers says.

The downside of mineral sunscreens is that they can leave an unattractive white cast on the skin — think of lifeguards with white paste on their noses. "Particularly if you're a person of color, zinc is going to make you look pale, white or ashy, which really makes it hard to use on a regular basis," Rogers says.

Bemotrizinol, on the other hand, is transparent on the skin, and because it protects against both UVA and UVB rays on its own, it doesn't have to be mixed with as many other chemical filters and stabilizers to achieve broad spectrum protection, Dobos adds. She says that should lead to more aesthetically pleasing, less greasy sunscreen formulations in the near future.

"I think it's a real win for public health," Dobos says. "If we can make a sunscreen that consumers like to use and want to use and apply in the proper amounts, I think that's something that's really going to be a win for consumers."

DSM-Firmenich has exclusive rights to market bemotrizinol in the U.S. for 18 months. It will be sold under the brand name Parsol Shield. The company says the first sunscreen products containing the ingredient should start hitting American store shelves around September.

The Justice Department on Friday approved Paramount's proposed $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

After concluding its antitrust investigation into the pending merger, the department said in a statement that it found that the deal posed no threat to competition or consumers of film, broadcast television or streaming.

The decision clears the way for a merger of two rival Hollywood studio titans: Paramount, the owner of CBS, including CBS News, will swallow the much larger Warner, which includes HBO and CNN.

The DOJ''s Antitrust Division concluded that a union of two studio giants isn't anti-competitive because the streaming market has expanded the competition for conventional Hollywood studios, which includes Netflix, Apple and Amazon, as well as smaller streamers. The Justice Department's view is that, for the same reason, consumers won't lose out because there are plenty of other places to get entertainment.

Several states, including California, have raised antitrust concerns. The European Union is investigating as well.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has been investigating the deal for antitrust violations, said in a post on social media following the Justice Department's approval: "The merger of Warner Bros and Paramount is not a done deal and remains under investigation by my office."

In a statement following the decision, Paramount described the deal as "pro-competitive," and would result in "a stronger company better positioned to compete against dominant technology platforms in an industry increasingly defined by intense competition for audiences, talent, technology, and investment."

The company said it planned to complete the merger as soon as possible, "delivering its benefits to consumers, creators, and the entertainment industry as a whole."

The consolidation will put media mogul David Ellison — son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison — at the helm of Warner Bros. studio as well as its cable and streaming properties, including CNN and HBO. The Ellison family took over Paramount and CBS last summer.

In the months leading up to the regulatory approval, critics in Hollywood feared the deal would consolidate an already concentrated media landscape and lead to fewer jobs and less creative content.

In April, thousands of directors, actors, writers and other industry talent — including Kristen Stewart, Pedro Pascal and Javier Bardem — signed an open letter opposing the merger.

The elder Ellison is also a financial backer and adviser to President Trump on artificial intelligence. Critics of recent changes at CBS under the Ellisons' control are concerned that, as they say has happened with CBS News, the acquisition would make CNN more friendly to Trump.

NPR's Carrie Johnson and Mandalit del Barco contributed to this story.
Copyright 2026 NPR