Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • EPA aims to repeal authority over it
    An exhaust pipe atop a truck with an overcast sky in the background.
    An exhaust pipe atop a truck in Austin, Texas. Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to repeal past findings that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health.

    Topline:

    The Trump administration's plan to undo a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare poses lots of risks for corporate America.

    Why it matters: The Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding has served as the legal basis for federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act since 2009. The finding concludes that the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere endangers people's health and the well-being of communities. Reaching that determination was a prerequisite to set limits for the pollution. Getting rid of that authority would lead to the repeal of "all greenhouse gas standards" at the federal level, according to the EPA, amounting, it says, to "one of the largest deregulatory actions in American history."

    Businesses and climate pollution: Companies have long complained that the government's efforts to rein in heat-trapping pollution are impractical. But a lot of businesses want the EPA to be in charge of setting national standards of some kind, according to proponents and legal experts, because it helps shield them from lawsuits and creates a predictable environment in which to make big, long-term investments.

    Read on... how companies use EPA regulations as a defense in lawsuits.

    The Trump administration's plan to undo a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare poses lots of risks for corporate America.

    The Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding has served as the legal basis for federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act since 2009. The finding concludes that the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere endangers people's health and the well-being of communities. Reaching that determination was a prerequisite to set limits for the pollution. Getting rid of that authority would lead to the repeal of "all greenhouse gas standards" at the federal level, according to the EPA, amounting, it says, to "one of the largest deregulatory actions in American history."

    Companies have long complained that the government's efforts to rein in heat-trapping pollution are impractical. But a lot of businesses want the EPA to be in charge of setting national standards of some kind, according to proponents and legal experts, because it helps shield them from lawsuits and creates a predictable environment in which to make big, long-term investments.

    "I look at what the administration wants to accomplish with regards to our national security and winning the AI race — we want to have expansive energy production. We have that opportunity. We can do that affordably, and we can do it while we're managing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," says Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, whose members include major electricity producers and a trade group for the natural gas industry.

    "I would like to focus more on that, than changes to these regulatory policies," Jacobson says, "which will cause disruption in planning and moving forward with projects we need today."


    Jeff Holmstead, an environmental lawyer at the firm Bracewell, says he doesn't know of any major industry groups that pushed the EPA to reverse its position on the dangers posed by climate pollution.

    "Several of them have opposed it," says Holmstead, who was an EPA official under then-President George W. Bush. "And I know that a number of companies were trying to persuade the administration not to do it."

    The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for oil and gas companies, told NPR that it "continues to support a federal role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions."

    The EPA said in a statement to NPR that Congress never authorized the agency to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin "has long been on the record that the climate is changing," the agency said. "EPA's proposal is primarily legal."

    The Trump administration said this spring that it was reconsidering the endangerment finding as part of a sweeping initiative to roll back environmental rules. At the time, Zeldin said the goal was "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion."

    Public hearings on the EPA's plan are scheduled for this week.

    Rain floods a street with one white parked car on it.
    Rain from Hurricane Ian in 2022 floods a street in Charleston, South Carolina. Neighborhoods in Charleston are flooding more often as climate change raises sea levels and drives more intense rainstorms.
    (
    Scott Olson
    /
    Getty Images
    )

    Companies use EPA regulations as a defense in lawsuits

    Environmental advocates, public health experts and former EPA employees say the Trump administration's proposal contradicts a long-standing scientific consensus that climate pollution, mainly from burning fossil fuels like oil and coal, is raising global temperatures and driving more intense storms, floods and wildfires that threaten communities.

    Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist whose work is cited in the EPA proposal and in an Energy Department report on the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, said in an online posting that the Trump administration "cherrypicks figures and parts of studies to support a preconceived narrative that minimizes the risk of climate change."

    The EPA said in a statement to NPR that it "considered a variety of sources and information in assessing whether the predictions made, and assumptions used, in the 2009 Endangerment Finding are accurate and consistent" with the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act. The Energy Department said in a statement that its climate change report "critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence — not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations."

    The impacts of rising temperatures are being felt in communities around the United States. And states and localities have filed dozens of lawsuits in recent years alleging fossil fuel companies misled the public for decades about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. The lawsuits seek money to help communities cope with risks and damages from global warming.

    Those cases have been filed in state courts. In some instances, the EPA's current regulation of climate pollution has helped protect oil and gas companies from litigation.

    A state judge in South Carolina recently dismissed a lawsuit that the city of Charleston filed against companies in the oil and gas industry, in part because, the judge said, greenhouse gas emissions are an issue for the federal government to deal with.

    "One of the main defenses that the oil companies are raising in these lawsuits pending in state courts is that there is preemption by the federal Clean Air Act," says Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School. "If the federal Clean Air Act is no longer regulating greenhouse gas emissions through EPA, then that defense could go away."

    Weakening a defense used by the fossil fuel industry could expose companies to more legal risk, Holmstead says. "There [are] plenty of people out there who want to bring lawsuits," he says, "and it seems like this would just invite a lot more litigation."

    Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, says the EPA's proposal to stop regulating climate pollution doesn't affect the oil and gas company's defense. Regardless of what the Trump administration does, the Supreme Court has already ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are covered by the federal Clean Air Act, Boutrous said in an emailed statement to NPR.

    But Trump administration supporters think the Supreme Court is poised to overturn that ruling.

    The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, said in written comments to the EPA that the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" the 2007 case in which it labeled carbon dioxide as "air pollution" under the Clean Air Act. The group notes that the five justices in the majority on that case are gone from the court. The comments were submitted on behalf of four California businesses and trade groups, including a company that uses natural gas boilers to make tomato products and a trucking association whose members are subject to EPA climate regulations.

    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin speaks into a microphone while sitting at a wooden desk. There are other people out of focus in the background listening to him in a room with large mustard yellow walls, a painting on one side and a large wooden door on the other.
    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin testifies before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Environment in May. The EPA has proposed undoing a landmark finding that climate pollution threatens public health and welfare.
    (
    Kevin Dietsch
    /
    Getty Images
    )

    Regulatory debate highlights tensions on the right

    Holmstead says it's a toss-up what the Supreme Court would do now.

    The court historically has been reluctant to reverse prior rulings, Holmstead says. But he says the court's conservative supermajority "probably would agree that Congress didn't clearly intend for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."

    Such a ruling could create havoc for businesses, according to a trade group for electric utilities. In a 2022 Supreme Court brief, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) said that having the EPA regulate climate pollution creates an orderly system for cutting emissions while minimizing economic impacts on consumers and businesses. Rolling back the agency's authority could expose companies to a flurry of environmental lawsuits, the group said, adding: "This would be chaos."

    "Industry really has accepted the endangerment finding. They have accepted that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are pollutants and that something needs to be done with that," says Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group.

    But in the conservative movement, "there's an element out there that just wants to pretend that [climate change] is not a problem," Murphy says, "and that this is something that snowflakes and soft folks on the left are screaming about."

    EEI said in a statement to NPR that it supports EPA "establishing clear, consistent regulatory policies that drive energy infrastructure investment and strengthen America's economic and energy security."

    The fact that the EPA is moving ahead with its plan to stop regulating climate pollution despite serious concerns from corporations highlights a growing divide between the business and ideological wings of the Republican Party, says Holmstead, who under George W. Bush's administration ran the EPA office that develops air pollution regulations.

    "Traditionally, Republican administrations have believed in trying to reduce the regulatory burden, but I think they've paid more attention to the concerns of the business community," Holmstead says. "And I don't want to suggest that the Trump administration is impervious to those concerns. But for ideological reasons, they are doing a number of things that U.S. business is not supportive of."
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • A year later, how are film and TV workers faring?
    Several people stand around California Governor Gavin Newsom, speaking at a podium with a sign on it that reads "Lights, Camera, Jobs" in white letters on a blue background. Above them is a ceiling of exposed wooden beams and they're standing on a plywood floor of what appears to be a soundstage.
    California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at a news conference, where he announced a major expansion of the state's film and TV tax credit program, raising the cap to $750 million in an effort to keep entertainment productions in California, at the Ranch Lot Studios in Burbank, California on July 2, 2025.

    Topline:

    In 2025, California majorly boosted its film and TV tax credit program for the first time since 2014 in an effort to keep jobs in the Golden State. One year out, we asked film and TV workers in Los Angeles how they're faring.

    The responses:

    • Chineza Ezinkwo, production coordinator/supervisor: “It feels incredibly uncertain, but I will say there's more hope these past two years than there was certainly [in] the past three or four years.”
    • Pam Elyea, prop house owner: “Are we at where we were before? No. But we certainly are so much better, and so it kind of gives you hope moving forward.”
    • Andrea Wheeler, costumer: "Everybody is on eggshells. Everybody's just like, "Oh, thank God we're working. ... You feel like you're in a dying industry right now."

    Read on ... for more on the state of the entertainment industry in Los Angeles.

    “Was it like this during the Great Depression?”

    It’s a question that prop house owner Pam Elyea says she’s asked herself in recent years, as the film and TV industry has weathered multiple hits — the pandemic, the dual industry strikes of 2023, the 2025 fires — and a loss of production jobs to other states and countries that began decades ago.

    Elyea, along with her husband Jim, opened History for Hire, a prop house in North Hollywood, in 1985. Before the pandemic, they had a staff of 20 people, but now employ only nine full-time employees.

    “As an employer and a business owner, the feeling you're always trying to overcome is that feeling of weariness,” Elyea says. “ That it was just dragging on and on, and there's really no big hope in sight.”

    ‘It got everybody excited’

    Elyea says she was heartened by the boost to California’s film and TV tax incentive program in July of 2025 — from $330 million to $750 million: “It got everybody excited."

    Elyea says she started to see positive effects sooner than she expected, about three months in, first with new TV productions that were tax credit recipients coming to History for Hire for props, and more recently feature films.

    A group of five people pose for a picture outside the U.S. Capitol building. The sky is blue and cloudless around the dome of the building.
    Members of the Set Decorators Society of America in Washington, D.C., lobbying for a federal film and TV tax incentive on September 16, 2026.
    (
    Courtesy of Pam Elyea
    )

    She’s also now lobbying for a new federal film and TV tax incentive, which President Donald Trump recently said he’d support.

    “Are we at where we were before? No,” she says. “But we certainly are so much better, and so it kind of gives you hope moving forward.”

    ‘Flickering back to life’

    Elyea’s experience is reflective of some of the data on film and TV productions in Los Angeles over the last year.

    On the LAist podcast Imperfect Paradise, entertainment journalist Dawn Chmielewski notes that Film LA, which tracks permitting for on-location shoots in and around Los Angeles, showed that when it comes to television production, there was a 51% increase in the second quarter over the first.

    “Overall, the numbers are still down year over year,” Chmielewski says. “But it's showing that the industry is sort of flickering back to life.”

    Another promising data point Chmielewski points out: ProdPro, which tracks productions around the world, “showed that both the number of films being shot and overall production spend are both up in California for the second quarter of this year.”

    But there are also statistics that point to a less rosy picture.

    Film LA research that shows the number of shoot days in Los Angeles has decreased by nearly 50 percent since 2017. And it’s estimated that since the peak of the streaming era in 2022, nearly 50 thousand production jobs have been lost in Los Angeles.

    ‘It feels incredibly uncertain’

    Costumer Andrea Wheeler describes the current climate in the industry as one where “everybody is on eggshells,” with so many people she knows who’ve had to pivot to other careers that “you feel like you’re in a dying industry right now.”

    A woman with long brown hair, wearing a blue and white winter hat and a maroon sweater and scarf, smiles while sitting at a table. Behind her is a bar that is out of focus.
    Andrea Wheeler is a costumer who has worked on TV shows like "Lopez v. Lopez" and movies like Marvel's "Eternals."
    (
    Courtesy of Andrea Wheeler
    )

    While Wheeler was recently able to find work on a show that moved from Vancouver to California because of the tax credit boost here, she says the pay and working conditions didn’t match up to the kind of work she was able to find in the past.

    From around 2016 to 2019, she says, “if you were in a job that was really atrocious, just like really bad working conditions. ... You could just leave and find another job the next day. There was a lot of security there, [but] not now.”

    A woman wearing a black t-shirt reading "Shondaland" sits in a director's chair and smiles at the camera. Next to her is an empty director's chair that reads "Netflix" and behind her is a softly lit red backdrop.
    Chineza Ezinkwo is a production coordinator based in Los Angeles. She most recently worked on "Tyrant," a Charlize Theron film that shot in LA.
    (
    Courtesy of Chineza Ezinkwo
    )

    Chineza Ezinkwo, a production coordinator who’s worked in the film and TV industry in Los Angeles since 2011, echoes Wheeler.

    “ Yes, there's more work happening, but also it's hard to find,” Ezinkwo says. “You can't really plan to build a life in the way that you felt like you used to even a few years ago.”

    Still, she says there is also a bit of a renewed sense of optimism in the industry right now.

    “It feels incredibly uncertain, but I will say there's more hope these past two years than there was certainly [in] the past three or four years.”

  • Sponsored message
  • No cohesive policy in place
    A close up of a ChatGPT icon on a smartphone, with the words ChatGPT in the background.
    Faculty and students say UC schools don't have a consistent approach to AI use.

    Topline:

    Years after generative artificial intelligence software became widely accessible, the University of California system still does not have a systemwide approach to how AI is used in classrooms. “The situation is contradictory and also extraordinarily fluid,” professor Rita Raley told the university system’s Board of Regents on Wednesday. “In one class, students are permitted to use AI, in another, they're cautioned against it, and in a third, they're told it's prohibited.”

    What comes next for the UCs: The University of California has an AI steering committee tasked with “developing a coordinated approach that allows UC to use its systemwide scale while recognizing the distinct needs of its campuses, medical centers, laboratories, faculty, researchers, staff, and students,” according to a University of California spokesperson.

    Keep reading: For more faculty and student thoughts on AI use at UC schools.

    Years after generative artificial intelligence software became widely accessible, the University of California system still does not have a consistent approach to how AI is used in classrooms, according to its faculty and students.

    “The situation is contradictory and also extraordinarily fluid,” professor Rita Raley told the university system’s Board of Regents on Wednesday. “In one class, students are permitted to use AI, in another, they're cautioned against it, and in a third, they're told it's prohibited.”

    Raley, a professor of English at UC Santa Barbara, heads the breakout group that will define what AI literacy means for UC, and will make recommendations on how to cultivate AI in classrooms across the UCs. The big question the working group is grappling with, Raley said: What every student needs to know about artificial intelligence.

    “If we are indeed moving toward automated education, then we have to ask what a UC degree will mean. It will have to mean more than skills because these too can be automated,” she said. “... [W]e must now give students the critical judgment to ask what this technology is, who needs to be accountable for it, how to use it, when to refuse it, and what it could be instead.”

    Jayha Buhs-Jackson, UCLA’s undergraduate student body president, says she does not like AI, so she does not use it.

    She agreed that the university does not have a “succinct” AI policy. Some of her professors, Buhs-Jackson said, strictly do not allow AI in the classroom; others allow it for research and coding.

    She said UCLA has its own internal AI committee, which she was just appointed to.

    “ I'm curious to see … how I could use my voice as president to discuss and uplift the undergraduate student voice related to AI at UCLA,” she said.

    UC vs CSU approach

    The UC system currently does not have a single systemwide AI product or mandatory AI protocols in place.

    Instead, “eligible employees have access to frontier AI tools from a variety of vendors including OpenAI, Microsoft and Google. Access is intended to support activities such as analysis, research, learning, and operational efficiency,” a University of California spokesperson said.

    The university system also has a Master Service Agreement in place with OpenAI, but it does not include a minimum spend commitment or prepurchased licenses. Schools under the UC umbrella can purchase OpenAI products through the agreement.

    UC’s approach stands in contrast to the one California State University took.

    In 2025, the nation’s largest public university system signed a nearly $17 million contract with OpenAI and made a suite of ChatGPT tools available to all its faculty and students.

    At the time, CSU spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith told LAist, the goal was for all students to have “the same access to the tools and learning opportunities that will prepare them for the future,” regardless of which campus they attend.

    Still, the rollout was heavily criticized as students and faculty were left on their own to figure out how to use AI. And in a 2025 survey of CSU students, over 60% said AI has negatively affected their learning experience.

    What's the best approach for schools?

    The different approaches taken by California’s public university systems demonstrate that higher education is still grappling with how to confront — or embrace — this technology.

    Universities across the nation have to find ways to work with AI, said Justin Reich, a digital media professor of digital media and the director of the Teaching Systems Lab at MIT.

    We don't want our brains to atrophy while we're trying to get better at what we're doing.
    — Stephanie Valadez, UCLA student

    But we also do not have a framework for what to do or how to implement AI in higher education, he added.

     ”The right strategy is to come up with a systematic series of experiments, where you're testing hypotheses, in particular, by looking at student learning experiences and student learning outcomes,” Reich said.

    The University of California’s AI steering committee overall is tasked with “developing a coordinated approach that allows UC to use its systemwide scale while recognizing the distinct needs of its campuses, medical centers, laboratories, faculty, researchers, staff, and students,” according to a University of California spokesperson.

    Reich said it is great that the University of California has multiple voices involved in the steering committee.

    “I  would encourage any university system to have students play a central role in directing their AI response pretty much at all levels,” he said. “Especially in a system as complex as UC, where you have so many students that have so many different kinds of expertise.”

    The UC AI steering committee has one student voice on it. Stephanie Valadez, an ethnomusicology graduate student at UCLA and president of the UC graduate and professional student council, says she would like to see more. She’s concerned about the environmental impact of AI and the negative impact on “underrepresented communities that are living near these data centers,” she said.

    In the classroom, she hasn’t had to use AI.

    “ All of my professors say, ‘Don't use AI. Just don't use ChatGPT, don't use Claude, don't use any of that stuff,’ for multiple reasons,” she said. “Being in the music department, as an artist, we also are very conscious of having our work stolen, having what we produce then go on to train AI.”

    The training a Ph.D. student is seeking, Valadez said, you would not get from AI.

    “ We don't want our brains to atrophy while we're trying to get better at what we're doing,” she said.

    What comes next for UC

    UC San Diego and UC Irvine, Valadez said, have rolled out TritonGPT and ZotGPT, but she’s heard from other board members that students aren’t using  the AI tools as much as the university would like them to, adding that there has been “a lot of pushback from students.”

    James Milliken, the University of California president, said the committee’s guiding principle is AI “for humans and for humanity” and how it “ can advance human potential, not diminish it.”

    The committee had its first meeting in June, where five working groups were created to explore how to use AI in clinical research, curriculum development and “public benefit” among other things.

    Come October 2027, the committee will come to Milliken with a proposal for a UC sovereign AI cloud. This means UC could have its own hardware and processing power to build, run and train AI models.

  • City is left as last major funder of LAHSA
    LAHSA-COMMISSION
    A presentation during a LAHSA Commission meeting on Friday, April 25, 2025.

    Topline:

    The city of L.A. is now left as the last remaining major funder of L.A.’s embattled homelessness agency — known as LAHSA — after the agency decided this week to give up management of federal dollars and L.A. County pulled its funding this summer.

    The backstory: The L.A City Council has debated withdrawing funds for years, but is still in the process of hiring a consultant to come up with a plan.

    Corruption charges: This week, federal prosecutors announced new fraud and bribery charges over homelessness funds that flowed through LAHSA. They allege a nonprofit founder siphoned $1 million in taxpayer funds into a high-end nightclub and a nearly $50,000 trip to Tahiti. It’s the latest fallout around LAHSA, which for years has seen outside audits and reviews find that it’s failed to adequately oversee taxpayer spending.

    What the mayoral candidates say: L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and her mayoral challenger, Councilmember Nithya Raman, both say they want the city to pull its funds and directly manage them. In recent weeks on the campaign trail, Raman has promised an exit within her first year as mayor if elected, while Bass this week said it would take “a couple of years.”

    This week, Los Angeles' embattled homelessness agency made a major shift when it decided to no longer conduct the region's annual homeless count and give up management of over $200 million in annual federal funds aimed at addressing homelessness starting next month.

    The day after the shift, federal prosecutors announced new fraud and bribery charges over homelessness funds that flowed through the agency. They allege a nonprofit founder siphoned $1 million in taxpayer funds into a high-end nightclub and a nearly $50,000 trip to Tahiti, among other claims. The founder's attorney has not responded to requests for comment.

    It’s the latest fallout around the L.A. Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA, which for years has seen outside audits and reviews find that it’s failed to adequately oversee taxpayer spending.

    In response to one of those audits, L.A. County decided a year and a half ago to pull its roughly $300 million per year from LAHSA — moving it into a newly created county homelessness department.

    Until this year, LAHSA was funded by three main sources: the county, the city and the federal government.

    With LAHSA’s decision this week to bow out of federal funding, the city of L.A. is now left as its last remaining major funder.

    The L.A City Council has debated withdrawing funds for years, but is still in the process of hiring a consultant to come up with a plan.

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and her mayoral challenger, Councilmember Nithya Raman, both say they want the city to pull its funds and manage them directly. In recent weeks on the campaign trail, Raman has promised an exit within her first year as mayor if elected, while Bass this week said it would take “a couple of years.”

    A woman with medium skin tone with short curly light brown hair wearing black-rimmed glasses and a black jacket with the seal of Los Angeles stands behind a podium speaking into a microphone.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass speaks at a press conference before LAHSA's annual homeless count on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, in Los Angeles.
    (
    Carlin Stiehl
    /
    LAist
    )

    In June and July, Bass’ office said she took steps toward exiting LAHSA, saying she directed city housing staff to come up with a plan for the city to leave the agency. Those staff told LAist they’re not aware of any such directive, and Bass’ office has not responded to follow-up questions.

    No decisions yet from city

    Three years ago, as the L.A. City Council’s homelessness committee was expressing frustration at years of inaccurate and incomplete performance data from LAHSA, a council member said the council had failed to examine alternatives that could take over management of the funding from the agency.

    “ We have to have something in place. And I think what we failed as council is to start talking [through] the questions about what that would mean,” Councilmember John Lee said at the time.

    “ We need to make sure that we take a look at those options. Otherwise, every year, we're going to be coming here … having the same exact conversations.”

    How to reach me

    If you have a tip, you can reach me on Signal. My username is ngerda.47.

    The next year, county auditors found that LAHSA had failed to properly track and oversee the money it managed.

    The City Council then voted in March 2025 to study letting the city contract directly with homeless service providers, bypassing LAHSA.

    It was about a year before council members discussed next steps at a meeting.

    This April, the council's Housing and Homelessness Committee — chaired at the time by Raman — recommended shifting city-funded programs away from LAHSA over the course of the current fiscal year. They recommended a July 1 deadline for a plan to be provided. That date came and went without the full council directing that a plan be created.

    A person with light-brown skin tone and dark hair pulled back speaks at a podium into a microphone, wearing a mustard-colored turtleneck and gesturing with one hand. Behind them stand three people.
    City Councilmember Nithya Raman speaks ahead of the annual homeless count on Jan. 20, 2026.
    (
    Jordan Rynning
    /
    LAist
    )

    The full council approved money for a consultant on Aug. 4, when it voted to allocate $450,000 to "rapidly hire" outside experts to study a transition plan.

    That consultant hasn’t been hired yet. A competitive bidding process is underway, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

    "We are required to solicit bids for that work and are currently in the procurement process," Szablo said via email.

    Mounting federal and legal pressure

    The city's deliberations are unfolding against escalating scrutiny of LAHSA itself.

    In June, the Trump administration suspended the agency from federal homelessness dollars, citing what it called a pattern of fraud, failure and flagrant mismanagement. Administration officials at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, pointed in part to the case of Abundant Blessings, a nonprofit whose director, Alex Soofer, was criminally charged in January with siphoning at least $10 million in homelessness funds that flowed through LAHSA.

    An LAist investigation found LAHSA had approved at least $3.5 million in contracts to Soofer's nonprofit even after its own compliance team flagged the group as high-risk for failing to do its job. Soofer recently agreed to plead guilty to diverting $2 million and previously repaid LAHSA $1.25 million.

    LAHSA sued to block the federal suspension of homelessness dollars, arguing HUD's evidence was thin and its process abrupt. In an August ruling, U.S. District Judge David Carter paused the suspension pending further hearings, writing that LAHSA "may be dysfunctional" but that federal officials had "abruptly" pulled funding from providers serving thousands of people.

    This week, LAHSA gave up trying to continue its federal responsibilities, just before prosecutors announced the new charges against LAHSA vendors.

    LAist reporter Aaron Schrank contributed reporting to this story.

  • How candidates say they would tackle homelessness
    Two women, one with light-brown skin tone and one with brown skin tone, speak into microphones side by side on a panel, both mid-gesture.
    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman appear separately at a mayoral forum held Sept. 3, 2026, in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Incumbent Karen Bass and challenger Nithya Raman laid out competing plans for fixing L.A.'s homelessness crisis at separate mayoral candidate forums this week ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

    Why it matters: More than 29,000 people sleep outside in the city, a nearly 8% jump from last year. The two candidates are both promising to solve L.A.'s homelessness crisis, but they have slightly different approaches. Voters decide between the two on Nov. 3.

    Breaking from LAHSA: Both candidates now support the city eventually leaving LAHSA, the joint city-county homelessness authority. Bass wants to move now, proposing an independent system within about two years. "The county filed for divorce. Now we file, too," Bass said.

    The Inside Safe fight: Bass's signature program, which moves people from encampments into motels, is the sharpest divide. Raman calls it too costly — and wants cheaper rental subsidies instead.

    More than 29,000 people sleep outside in L.A., according to official estimates — a nearly 8% increase over last year.

    Two candidates for mayor are promising to change that, but they have different ideas about how.

    Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman appeared separately at homelessness forums hosted this week by Hope The Mission, a large homeless shelter operator.

    The events were held amid a national spotlight on L.A.’s homelessness crisis.

    This week, a congressional subcommittee held a hearing on allegations of fraud and mismanagement of homelessness funds — a hearing in which Bass declined to appear. The next day, federal authorities announced charges against three employees at L.A. homelessness nonprofits in a widening federal investigation of homeless services fraud.

    Bass cited L.A.’s homelessness crisis as the reason she sought the city’s top job in 2022.

    “I ran because I am always compelled to go toward a crisis,” she said Thursday.

    She has made clearing homeless encampments and moving people indoors a top priority as mayor, but fell far short of her pledge to end street homelessness by 2026.

    Raman has said founding a local homelessness nonprofit inspired her 2020 L.A. City Council run. For years, Raman was chair of the council committee focused on city homelessness policy.

    Both candidates have played major roles in shaping L.A.’s homelessness response in recent years, and they told forum moderators this week that the city’s approach has been dysfunctional.

    L.A.’s next mayor will face a barrage of challenges related to homelessness.

    Here’s how the candidates said they would handle some of the big ones:

    How will they deal with the Trump administration?

    The Trump administration has been cracking down on the L.A. region’s administration of homeless services to root out potential financial mismanagement, but also to challenge the local policy approach to homelessness and impose policies it prefers.

    Federal officials argue that approaches known as “housing first” and “harm reduction” are failing. They favor treatment and enforcement instead.

    Bass, a Democrat, skipped a House subcommittee hearing on federal homelessness spending Tuesday, dismissing it as politically motivated.

    “ I'm the mayor of the second-largest city in the country, and I don't have time for foolishness,” Bass said Thursday. “And remember, I know these people. It's a dog and pony show to see who's gonna get on Fox that night. I was not going to subject myself to that, and I was not going to subject our city to that.”

    Bass said her office is cooperating fully by supplying thousands of pages of documents.

    Raman said L.A. should be using the courts much more aggressively to challenge federal overreach and protect funding.

    “ We've done that less than I would've liked here in Los Angeles, but other cities have done that and actually kept their federal dollars in place despite the best efforts of the Trump administration.”

    She said the city also has to make sure that funding is spent effectively, arguing L.A. currently has no single person tracking every dollar coming in from the federal government, state government and other sources.

    “That is wrong,” Raman said at a forum on Wednesday. “If I am mayor — when I am mayor — I will ensure that every single dollar that is being given to us is being used to get as many people indoors into safety and to keep them there as effectively as possible.”

    What to do about LAHSA?

    Both candidates have said they support the city eventually breaking away from LAHSA, the joint city-county homelessness authority.

    "The county filed for divorce. Now we file, too," Bass said on Thursday.

    Last year, L.A. County officials voted to remove more than $300 million in annual homelessness funding from LAHSA’s control and to manage those funds itself with a new county department. Bass is now proposing the city create its own, independent “continuum of care,” a process she said could take “a couple of years.”

    Bass, who appointed herself to serve on LAHSA’s governing board before stepping down this month, said she’s learned in recent years “how profoundly dysfunctional” the regional homeless services system is.

    She argued that because L.A. represents 40% of the county's population and is the epicenter of the crisis, the city must have more control over the system.

    “You might remember that expression I started with: locked arms,” Bass said. “And we locked arms as long as we could.”

    Raman, in her mayoral platform, also called for the city to prepare to move hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness contracts away from LAHSA, which she described as "plagued with scandal." But she said the city has to build the capacity to take on the job first.

    At Thursday's forum, Raman didn't mention LAHSA by name, instead describing coordination failures between agencies — citing permanent supportive housing units that sat empty for more than a year because departments weren't talking to each other.

    As chair of the council's Homelessness Committee, Raman said she created the city's Bureau of Homelessness Oversight to track spending and outcomes, but accused Bass of failing to staff it promptly.

    “The mayor did not hire people to staff up that oversight body quickly enough,” Raman said.

    LAHSA has served as the lead agency managing homelessness services for the region since 1993, including conducting a yearly homeless count, preparing regional applications for federal funds and managing key databases.

    This week, the agency announced it would soon forfeit those roles and allow other agencies or organizations to apply for them instead — including other county or city of L.A. agencies.

    What about encampments?

    The candidates are also somewhat split on their approach to homelessness encampments. Bass has criticized Raman for voting several times since 2022 against expanding the city’s anti-camping ordinance, which restricts camping in certain public spaces including schools and day cares.

    Raman has defended her votes. She argued the law, at best, “would have moved an encampment from one block to the next block.”

    “To me, that is not good enough," Raman said. "My imagination for how we address homelessness in L.A. goes beyond just thinking about which block an encampment should be on. It is about how we actually get encampments indoors."

    Asked about enforcement approaches, Bass pointed to physical barriers — like cement planters that replaced a major encampment on San Vicente Boulevard — as a more effective deterrent than ticketing or arrests.

    “ So sometimes using physical barriers work, but what we have not done is just gone in and arrested homeless people,” Bass said. “That has never happened.”

    The sharpest divide between the candidates centers on Bass’ signature program, Inside Safe, which moves people from encampments into motels and interim housing.

    Raman said she agreed with the underlying concept — going out to encampments and offering shelter — but that the program is too costly and hasn't evolved since Bass launched it in 2022.

    “Her program has not changed or learned or adapted from the lessons that they should have had in place, and to me, that is a major, major issue,” Raman said.

    Raman put the cost at roughly $100,000 per person, per year — "not a fiscally sustainable approach to a crisis that is growing in our city," she said — and favors time-limited subsidies, short-term rental vouchers that cost a third as much.

    Bass called that framing "fundamentally dishonest," arguing the county reimburses the city for some of the up-front cost.

    Bass said she wants to bring costs down by building permanent structures on public land instead of renting motel rooms.

    She said she favors moving groups of unhoused people together and bringing services to them, which she said is harder to do with the housing vouchers Raman wants to rely on.

    "I would house 30 people at a time, not one by one,” Bass said. "I see it from a people's point of view. She sees it from a numbers point of view. Both are needed."

    The general election is Nov. 3.