The Brief

This first appeared in the Planet Money newsletter. You can sign up here.

Three decades ago, Nancy Wallace narrowly escaped death in what was then California's most destructive wildfire. Since then, the problem of wildfires has gotten much worse, so bad in fact that the state now faces a crisis in its market for home insurance. Solving the insurance crisis is something that's very much in Wallace's wheelhouse, and she's been developing some important ideas and tools to try to fix it.

Wallace is a professor of finance and real estate at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, and she's a former adviser to the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. She specializes in identifying and mitigating financial risks in housing markets, and she's conducted some eye-opening studies on the rising risk of wildfires. She's working with climate scientists to create forecast models that can help rescue failing insurance markets. And she's advocating for new insurance schemes and financial products that would help California homeowners retrofit their homes and lower the danger that they're destroyed by future fires.

But Wallace's expertise in this area is more than just academic. It's informed by her horrifying experience.

A story that begins with fire

On Oct. 20, 1991, Wallace smelled smoke wafting in the air outside of her home, high in the hills above Oakland, Calif. The day before, a fire had broken out down her street. Firefighters had put it out, but she was now on high alert. The air felt dry. The wind was picking up. And the smell of smoke scared her.

Wallace grew up in Michigan, never experiencing the danger of wildfires. She and her husband had moved to Oakland a few years earlier when she got a job at nearby UC Berkeley. They scraped together every penny they could and bought a fixer-upper in the Oakland Hills, near the ridgeline of the mountains above the city, surrounded by Monterey pine and eucalyptus trees. They had finished remodeling their home just one month before this fateful day.

After smelling smoke, Wallace and her husband grabbed family heirlooms and antiques, important documents, some paintings and clothes, and their cat. They jumped in their car. And that's when they saw a hurricane of fire engulfing the neighborhood below them.

The Oakland Hills fire burned thousands of homes and created a dust cloud that could be seen for miles. Picture taken on Oct. 20, 1991.<br>

(

<a href="https://www.gettyimages.com/search/photographer?photographer=San%20Francisco%20Chronicle%2FHearst%20Newspapers" class="Link" target="_blank" >San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers</a>

/

Getty Images

)

They turned frantic. When they hit a fork in the road, they hesitated whether to turn right or left. Both directions were being enveloped by flames. Wallace insisted they go right.

" Seconds after going right, a car came out of the flames," Wallace says. "And they said, 'If you go up this road, you will die.'"

They said that power lines had fallen on a truck. A firefighter (who turned out to be Oakland Fire Battalion Chief James M. Riley Jr.) and a passenger he was trying to rescue were both dead, and the truck and power lines were blocking the road. Wallace and her husband were forced to turn around.

"At that point our cat shed her fur — literally shed her fur," Wallace says. "Because the fire was just beating on our car. I thought for sure the car would burst into flames."

They drove the other direction, down a winding, one-lane road through the heart of the inferno. Embers were flying everywhere. Houses and trees were bursting into flames. They saw a motorcyclist on fire. They saw frantic drivers crashing into trees. They saw a heroic policeman — officer John William Grubensky, who would soon die attempting to rescue a family from a burning home — on a loudspeaker, trying to keep people calm and get them out safely.

Wallace and her husband got lucky. Their 6-year-old son was miles away, safe and sound during the whole ordeal. He had spent the night at a friend's house. They were also lucky, of course, to escape with their lives. On the very same narrow street they had escaped on, vehicles after them got stuck behind a car that crashed, blocking their exit route. "Just on that one street, I think there were five people who died, along with Officer Grubensky," Wallace says.

The Claremont Hotel in October 1991

(

MediaNews Group/Oakland Tribune

/

Getty Images

)

About two weeks later, Nancy and her family returned to see what happened to their home. It had turned to ash. "In the middle of this ash was a porcelain bowl," Nancy says. Porcelain apparently doesn't burn. "It was just sitting on top of the ash by itself. It was surreal. Everything else was gone."

The Oakland Hills fire in 1991 ended up killing 25 people, injuring 150 others, and destroying around 3,000 homes. For a long time, it was the most destructive fire in California history. That is, until the last decade, when California has seen a mind-boggling uptick in even more destructive fires, including two in L.A. in recent weeks.

Why California properties got more valuable after fires

Around five years ago, Wallace recounted her incredible story in the Oakland Hills fire to her former Ph.D. student Carles Vergara-Alert, who was back in Berkeley on a sabbatical as a visiting professor, and two other Berkeley economists, Richard Stanton and Paulo Issler. And it inspired them to study how the rising risk of wildfires was affecting housing markets.

A pretty weird thing seemed to be happening to properties destroyed by fires. Nancy noticed it in her own community. After the fire, people got insurance money and rebuilt their homes. Their homes seemed to get bigger and nicer. And, like elsewhere in the Bay Area, their home values went on a rocket ship to the moon in the decades after the fire. It was like everyone had forgotten that it was still a risky area.

Of course, this was just a casual observation about one place. Wallace, Vergara-Alert, Issler and Stanton decided they wanted to build a comprehensive dataset to see what happened, more systematically, to California housing markets after they were scorched by wildfires.

The dataset they assembled is pretty amazing. After each fire in California, the state's fire agency, Cal Fire, sends a team of technicians to investigate. They create detailed maps of the burn areas and document, house by house, damages. The economists used this rich data on burn areas between 2001 and 2015, focusing on the houses that burned and the nearby houses that did not. They combined this data with their own comprehensive data on virtually every home in California.

You might think that property prices of the houses that burned would plummet. I mean, the house is destroyed, nearby parks, trees, hiking trails, and everything else is scorched, and the home's views become burn zones, at least in the near-to-medium term, before nature and man-made structures come back. Even more, you might think that the risks of living in the area would be top of mind for years to come, suppressing demand to live there. But no. Houses continue to be valuable investments in these fire-prone communities. Not only that. The economists found that, between 2001 and 2015, the properties that burned down and got rebuilt were actually significantly more valuable within five years of the catastrophe. Fire actually boosted their property values!

One sort of obvious reason for this is these rebuilt houses were newer. And they were built to follow a more modern, state-mandated building code, making them more resistant to fire and earthquakes and generally safer. And, just as Wallace had observed in her own neighborhood, these rebuilt houses tended to be bigger.

And, in big wildfires, the houses in whole neighborhoods got built back bigger and better. Because the value of your house is influenced by the value of houses in your neighborhood, that was another boost to property values. Meanwhile, nature recovers — and, Wallace says, it recovers rather quickly in areas with Mediterranean climates — and the amazing beauty of these Californian communities returns.

Now, fires are obviously devastating in terms of lives lost, people hurt, disruptions to business and so on. And for people who don't have insurance, they cause huge financial losses. But — at least in the period the economists studied, when, for the most part, there were functioning private insurance markets that offered full coverage and generous payouts — it seems like fires were actually a financial win for the average insured homeowner who lost their home. They were also a win for developers and construction companies, which rebuilt the homes. And they were at least partially a win for municipalities because rebuilt, more valuable homes meant higher property taxes, offsetting the tremendous taxpayer costs of fighting the fire and cleaning up afterwards.

Of course, there was at least one huge financial loser in all of this: insurance companies. They had to foot the massive bill for home reconstructions.

In normal insurance markets, that's fine. People pay premiums, and those premiums are estimated based on the probability of losses. When those losses materialize, the insurance company pays. It's the whole game.

But, Wallace says, something funky began happening in California's insurance markets, and the state's insurance system ended up breaking down.

How California's insurance market failed

First, the state has had restrictive regulations on what insurance companies can charge. Wallace says that a big force behind that was Proposition 103, which was championed by Ralph Nader. In the 1980s, Nader and other consumer activists argued that insurance companies should be strictly regulated when setting their premium rates. This ballot initiative, which was narrowly approved by California voters in 1988, required insurance companies to get rate hikes approved by the California Department of Insurance, and it introduced a bunch of measures that made rate hikes much harder to impose.

In this post-Prop. 103 regulatory scheme, for example, the state prevented insurance companies from using forward-looking estimates of risk — so-called "catastrophe models" — when setting their rates. Consumer advocates saw these kinds of models, which use computers to forecast an uncertain future, as a Trojan horse for price-gouging. The state forced insurers to only use backward-looking estimates of risk. They figured it was more transparent and fair to use hard, verifiable data from the past. The state required insurers to base their premium rates on a 20-year average of historical losses. It also prevented insurers from pricing into their premiums the cost of "reinsurance," or insurance for insurers — something that insurers sometimes need after extreme weather events require massive payouts.

With these and other measures, the California Department of Insurance effectively kept home insurance premiums artificially low. And, Nancy says, that had some big side effects, like incentivizing more people to live in fire-prone areas.

"Prices are important, especially for things like where people locate, where houses are built," Wallace says. Artificially low insurance prices, for example, may have encouraged cities and developers to build neighborhoods closer to the flammable wilderness. In fact, in recent decades, fire-prone areas have seen some of the fastest population growth rates in the state.

And greater density in fire country may have contributed, Wallace says, to problems like narrow roads prone to traffic jams, making escapes from wildfires — like the one she personally made — much harder. And this increased number of people living in fire-prone areas meant that taxpayers had to invest much more in firefighting and other public services to keep people safe.

For a time, California's insurance system was maybe workable. Big, destructive fires used to be rarer, so the insurance system didn't experience as much stress. But, Wallace says, around a decade ago, there was a tipping point where big wildfires started becoming more frequent and more destructive. California has seen hotter temperatures. Droughts have increased. Wind speeds have picked up. And big, destructive fires have become more commonplace.

With climate change, it has started to become clear that the future will not look like the past, and California's regulations requiring insurers to make pricing decisions based on backward-looking models of risk have started to look pretty dumb.

In a free market for insurance, a higher risk for catastrophe would result in higher insurance premiums. But since California regulations prevented that, insurance premiums stayed artificially low. As big fires began demanding big payouts and the specter of more mass destruction loomed larger, insurance companies struggled to make the math work. And so they began fleeing the state.

"The California Department of Insurance is seriously at fault," Wallace says. "They destroyed the markets."

With no ability to get standard private insurance, many Californians, especially in high-risk areas, were forced onto the state-created insurance plan of last resort, the California FAIR Plan (which is funded by private insurance companies and their policyholders in exchange for these insurers being able to sell property insurance in the state). This plan was not meant to be a permanent solution. It's a high-risk pool. It's expensive and it caps insurance payouts, so people with valuable properties, for example, can't get the full value of their homes insured. (For more on the Fair Plan, listen to The Indicator's recent podcast episode, "Who's on the hook for California's uninsurable homes?")

Last year, seeing insurers fleeing their state — and perhaps seeing the studies by Wallace and others — California regulators came to the conclusion that the state's insurance regulations were unworkable. California's insurance commissioner, supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom, ended the ban on using forward-looking catastrophe models for setting premiums, giving the green light to the insurance industry to start actually trying to price in the rising risk and cost of wildfires. As part of this deal, insurers have agreed to underwrite more policies in fire-prone areas. Those changes took effect mere weeks ago, just before the outbreak of fires around Los Angeles.

Newsom recently touted the fact that, after these changes took effect, a private insurer agreed to insure homes in the town of Paradise, which notoriously burned entirely to the ground in 2018 (listen to this 2021 Planet Money episode about efforts to rebuild the town).

" I thought that was an absolutely crucial step," Wallace says of California's recent reforms to how it regulates insurance markets. "Now we have to get to work and figure out what the true pricing should be."

What is the right price for living in fire country?

Finding the right price for insurance premiums entails building and refining statistical models that can nail down the risks of wildfires for houses and businesses around the state. The current models, Wallace says, are not good enough. Insurance companies and the government, she says, "literally do not know" what the real risks are. There is quite a bit of uncertainty about, for example, how far fires can spread, which exact homes are the most at risk, and whether big fires in certain places are like 50- or 20- or 10-year events. Inaccurate estimates of fire risks, Wallace says, could result in premiums that are too low, as has been the case for a while in much of California, but also too high in some cases.

And that's why she and her colleagues at UC Berkeley, and, more specifically, Wallace's lab at the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, have been building bridges across disciplines, marshaling the data and intellect of climate scientists, computer scientists, engineers, economists and more to create high-tech models that can better estimate the risk of wildfires.

And that's important. As we've seen, the costs of fire destruction are enormous. And someone has to pay for it. If homeowners want to continue living in fire-prone areas, Wallace says, they need to bear more of the risk and, in effect, pay higher insurance premiums.

"This risk cannot be borne exclusively by insurance companies," Wallace says. "It's also got to be borne by homeowners." Bearing more of that risk would, she says, incentivize homeowners to take more actions to protect their properties (and fight what economists call "moral hazard," or people's tendency to not take steps to mitigate risk when they're insured).

Beyond just accurately pricing wildfire risks, Wallace says, the government and insurance companies should work to incentivize and help homeowners to retrofit older, more flammable homes. Wallace points to a study by economists Patrick Baylis and Judson Boomhower. The economists find that California houses built after the mid-1990s — and, even more, those built after 2008 — are far more likely to survive wildfires. That's because the state strengthened its building codes during those years, requiring that homes be built with, for example, more fire-retardant siding and roofs.

" In Paradise, in Sonoma, in Napa, the Woolsey Fire, the houses that survive are those with the post-2008 building code requirements," Wallace says. "The major problem in California is that our [older] housing stock is not built to withstand the embers and the radiant heat of fires."

But updating California's older housing stock is expensive. Which is why Wallace wants policymakers and businesspeople to create new home loan programs, which would make it feasible for California homeowners to invest in making their homes more resistant to fire. She believes this could even be a money-making product for financial firms. " If you're a bank, wouldn't you like to invest in home loans that make the mortgages that you're also planning to make safer?"

Wallace also hopes that, going forward, insurers could offer discounts on home insurance for taking anti-fire measures that lower risks, further incentivizing homeowners to protect their homes and reduce costs. This could be facilitated by technological innovations. For example, Wallace points to a former grad student of hers who created an app, Firebreak, which helps homeowners identify fire risks around their properties.

What happens after the L.A. fires?

As Wallace and her colleagues found in their study, for a long time, California homes that were destroyed by fires ended up getting bigger, better and more valuable. Will the same thing happen again in Los Angeles hillsides after the latest shocking fires?

Wallace suggests that it's possible this time is different. For one, "We don't have that insurance market anymore," Wallace says. "It's been broken  by not allowing firms to price the risk."

Many homes in the L.A. hills were forced off of private insurance policies that gave them full coverage, and they had to turn to the California FAIR Plan, which caps residential coverage at $3 million. There are a significant number of destroyed homes that were worth more than that. Wallace also points to less affluent neighborhoods, like Altadena, where many homeowners did not have insurance (only people with mortgages are required to have fire casualty insurance). Absent some sort of government help, many fire victims will likely be unable to afford reconstruction. In the wake of natural disasters, construction costs tend to surge because tons of people need to build all at once and there are shortages of everything.

Another big cost will be building back better. If the city and state are being sensible, Wallace says, they will make investments in better infrastructure, like a less fire-prone electricity grid and better water systems to fight fires, making it less likely for future fires to break out and spread. Even more, she says, the state should continue mandating that builders of new houses follow the building code that has proved to be more resilient to fires. " It's absolutely nonsensical to build back in the same risky way," Wallace says. (Newsom recently issued a vague executive order on this issue, directing state agencies to waive building regulations to speed up construction, but only those regulations "that can safely be suspended.")

Because of high costs and more limited insurance coverage and other factors, Wallace says, there may be fewer homes built in the L.A. neighborhoods devastated by fires. And, with higher insurance premiums reflecting the risk for buildings there, these neighborhoods will likely become even more exclusive dens for the rich.

Despite the current tragic circumstances, however, these burned-down neighborhoods still have a lot going for them. Their views of the ocean and the city are often incredible. Their charred parks and hiking trails will recover. And they're still close to a legendary metropolis, with a vibrant culture, an incredible economy and a housing shortage. Land in L.A. is still very valuable.

"L.A. is a major, metropolitan, gateway city of the world," Wallace says. "And it is not going away."

And whether it's floods or tornadoes or earthquakes or wildfires, human beings have a remarkable knack for comfortably living in areas with lots of risk.

Wallace expects that, if the state pursues the right path to make these neighborhoods more resilient to future fires and follows through with fixing the state's broken insurance system, destroyed properties in L.A. will be rebuilt, insurable in the private market and they'll eventually "return to trajectory," increasing in value like they were in the years preceding the devastation.

As for the victims who lost everything in the fires, Wallace, reflecting on her own experience losing her home, advises people to begin creating inventories of the things they lost and working with builders to get real estimates of the costs to rebuild, keeping in mind that construction costs will likely climb as everyone else seeks to rebuild. Such information can be crucial for getting adequate payouts. Insurers may provide a vital service, she suggests, but they're not really your friends.

Our most recent Planet Money episode has more on the fires in California. Hosts Sarah Gonzalez and Nick Fountain report on conditions inside the Altadena burn zone, and how one father and son are approaching the difficult choice of how, or whether, to rebuild.

Despite the loss of federal subsidies that lowered costs for millions, California’s private health insurance marketplace held nearly steady this enrollment season. In all, 1.9 million Californians renewed their plan or selected one for the first time — a 2.7% drop compared to last year.

A closer look, however, shows Californians are making concessions to afford staying insured.

More enrollees are opting for “bronze-level” plans. These plans have lower monthly premium costs but higher deductibles and copays; they cover 60% of medical expenses — leaving enrollees to pay the rest. One-in-three new enrollees chose bronze plans for 2026, compared to one-in-four last year, according to Covered California. And 130,000 Californians renewing their coverage switched from a silver or higher-metal tier plan to bronze.

“Many Californians see the value in remaining covered, but they had to make sacrifices and shift to lower-tier plans. We see it as a commitment to health and the value that Covered California provides,” Jessica Altman, Covered California’s executive director said in a statement.

While bronze-level plans may offer people some peace of mind, the high deductibles and copays tend to discourage people from seeking care, said Miranda Dietz, director of the Health Care Program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

“Those out-of-pocket costs do impact people’s decisions to get care, so that’s worrisome as well,” Dietz said.

People earning above 400% of the federal poverty level — $62,600 for an individual and $128,600 for a family of four — no longer qualify for premium assistance after Congress chose not to extend the enhanced subsidies at the end of last year, pushing many to opt for plans with cheaper premiums or drop their marketplace plans entirely.

Of the 224,000 middle-income enrollees set to renew, 22% cancelled their plans, according to Covered California. New sign ups for people in this income bracket decreased by 59% compared to last year.

Whether those who renewed coverage or newly signed up continue to pay their premiums is another question. A clearer picture of who stays enrolled will emerge around April, Covered California said.

“Once you actually face the prospect of paying that premium and the stress that puts on your budget, it’s entirely possible that some of those folks may fall off, and the [enrollment] numbers might go down,” Dietz said.

Affording care: A growing stress point 

It’s unknown whether people who cancelled their marketplace health plans are enrolling in other types of insurance. Covered California data from the last five years show that when people terminate their marketplace plan, 10% to 14% of them report becoming uninsured.

The Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium subsidies, first enacted in 2021 as part of federal COVID-19 response, helped lower the insurance costs for millions of Americans. They especially helped middle-income earners by allowing them to qualify for financial assistance for the first time, capping premiums at 8.5% of income. That help is now gone, and premiums are up an average of 10%.

Lower-income enrollees remain eligible for standard federal premium aid available since ACA marketplaces launched. They also benefit from state help. California allocated $190 million in 2026 to provide state-funded tax credits for people who earn up to 165% of the federal poverty level — $25,823 for an individual or $53,048 for a family of four — averaging about $45 a month per enrollee.The end of the enhanced federal subsidies also come at a time when poll after poll shows health care costs are a growing stress point for people. Seven in 10 Californians say health care expenses place a financial strain on their household, according to a recent survey by the California Health Care Foundation. Four in 10 have medical debt and six in 10 report skipping care. Meanwhile, eight in 10 Californians say making health care affordable is an “extremely” or “very” important priority for state officials and lawmakers in 2026.

There have been plenty of Beatles-related documentaries in the past decade or so, and yes, I've reviewed most of them. But in my defense, The Beatles are a great subject, musically and biographically — and the best filmmakers are drawn to them.

Peter Jackson gave us the Get Back documentary miniseries and the latest installment of The Beatles Anthology. Ron Howard directed Eight Days a Week, about the group's touring years. Martin Scorsese directed Living in the Material World, his two-part biography of George Harrison. All of them were terrific — and all of them were made by Oscar-winning directors.

Documentary filmmaker Morgan Neville, who won an Oscar for his film about backup singers, 20 Feet From Stardom, has joined that club. He's already directed outstanding biographies of everyone from Johnny Cash and Anthony Bourdain to Steve Martin and Fred Rogers. And now, Prime Video is premiering his latest documentary, Man on the Run, about former Beatle Paul McCartney.

The word "former" is key here: While brief, artful montages encapsulate the frenzy and impact of Beatlemania, Man on the Run is focused on the decade immediately afterward — the 1970s. Specifically, it spans the period from when McCartney left The Beatles to when his former bandmate, John Lennon, was shot and killed.

Neville conducted many lengthy new interviews with McCartney but uses only the sound. Virtually all the footage in Man on the Run is vintage, so there are no white-haired rock stars in sight. But because McCartney is an executive producer and has provided a stunning amount of previously unseen private footage, there's lots of fresh stuff to see here.

The danger of McCartney having such input, though, is of Man on the Run becoming too sanitized as a personal biography. But it's not. The decade covered includes McCartney announcing the breakup of The Beatles, his very public musical feud with Lennon, the formation of McCartney's post-Beatles band Wings, even the "Paul is dead" rumor.

And in these new interviews, McCartney seems to be speaking honestly — not only about what happened, but how he felt about it all. On The Beatles breakup, for example, it was McCartney who announced it publicly — but it was Lennon who already had left the group. McCartney's reaction, at age 27, was to retreat with his family to a remote property he owned in Scotland — in a vintage interview, Linda McCartney recalls her husband's out-of-the-blue suggestion.

Man on the Run relies on other voices and perspectives to defend some of McCartney's infamous actions during this period. Lennon's son Sean, for example, excuses McCartney's stunned, understated reaction to John's death — when asked by reporters, he called it "a real drag" — as having been in shock.

And Lennon himself, in an interview filmed years after The Beatles' breakup, admits that McCartney was right in hating and suing the manager, Allen Klein, whom John had brought in to handle the group. At the time, Lennon and McCartney even attacked one another in song — and in a new interview, McCartney is very open about how much that stung.

That same refreshing honesty extends to other key moments — the formation of his group Wings and recruiting Linda as its first charter member, his jail time in Japan for bringing pot into that country, even the time Lorne Michaels, on Saturday Night Live, jokingly offered The Beatles a ridiculously small check if they would reunite on his show.

Man on the Run is more about the man than it is about his creative process. But his music runs all through the documentary, and it all adds up to an impressive, inspirational second act.

Two days after At Chandee, who goes by Ricky, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the White House's X account posted about him, calling the 52-year-old the "WORST OF WORST" and a "CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN."

Except that the photo the White House posted was of a different person. The post also incorrectly claimed Chandee had multiple felony convictions — he has one, for second-degree assault in 1993 when he was 18 years old. He shot two people in the legs and served three years in prison.

Chandee, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was ordered to be deported back to his home country, Laos. But Laos had not been accepting all of the people the U.S. wanted it to, so the federal government determined that it was likely infeasible to deport him, his lawyer Linus Chan told NPR. Chandee therefore was granted permission to stay in the U.S. and work so long as he checked in with immigration authorities periodically. He has not missed a check-in in over 30 years and has not had another criminal incident.

People who know Chandee do not see him as "worst of the worst."

After Chandee completed his prison sentence, he finished school and became an engineering technician. He worked for the city of Minneapolis for 26 years, became a father, and his son grew up to join the military.

In his free time, Chandee enjoys hiking and foraging for mushrooms, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

"We are proud to work alongside At 'Ricky' Chandee," said Tim Sexton, Director of Public Works for the City of Minneapolis in a statement. "I don't understand why he would be a target for removal now, why he was brutally detained and swiftly flown to Texas, or how his removal benefits our city or country."

Chandee is petitioning for his release in federal court.

Chandee's case is not unique 

Social media accounts from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and other immigration agencies have spent much of the past year posting about people detained in the administration's immigration crackdown, typically portraying them as hardened, violent criminals. That's even as over 70% of the people detained don't have criminal records according to ICE data.

NPR's research of cases in Minnesota shows that while many of the people who have been highlighted on social media do have recent, serious criminal records, about a quarter are like Chandee, with decades-old convictions, minor offenses or only pending criminal proceedings. Scholars of immigration, media and criminal law say such a media campaign is unprecedented and paints a distorted picture of immigrants and crime.

A year into President Trump's second term, the X accounts of DHS and ICE have posted about more than 2,000 people who were targets of mass deportation efforts. Starting late last March, DHS and ICE began posting on X on a near daily basis, often highlighting apprehensions of multiple people a day, an NPR review of government social media posts show.

Among the 2,000 people highlighted by the agencies, NPR identified 130 who were arrested by federal agents in Minnesota and tried to verify the government's statements about their criminal histories.

In most of the social media posts, the government did not provide the state where the conviction occurred or the person's age. Public court records do not tend to include photos so definitive identification can be a challenge.

NPR derived its findings from cases where it was able to locate a name and matching criminal history in the Minnesota court and detention system, in nationwide criminal history databases, sex offender databases, and in some cases, federal courts and other state courts.

In 19 of the 130 cases, roughly 1-in-7, public records show the most recent convictions were at least 20 years ago.

Seventeen of the 19 cases with old convictions did include violent crimes like homicide and first-degree sexual assault. ICE provided some of those names to Fox News as key examples of the agency's accomplishments. "It's the most disturbing list I've ever seen," said Fox News reporter Bill Melugin on X, highlighting the criminal convictions of each person on the list.

For seven people, their only criminal history involved driving under the influence or disorderly conduct.

Six of the 130 Minnesota cases highlighted by the administration involved people with no criminal convictions. The government's social media posts for those six instead rely upon the charges and arrests as evidence of their criminality, even though arrests don't always lead to charges and charges can be dismissed.

In yet another case, the government highlighted a criminal charge even while noting it had been dismissed. (The person did have other existing convictions.)

For 37 of the 130 people, NPR was unable to confirm matching criminal history after consulting the databases and news coverage. Some of the names turned up no criminal history at all. The government said these people committed crimes ranging from homicide and assault to drug trafficking, and cited one by name to Fox News. NPR tried to reach out to all 37 people and their families for comment but did not receive a response from any.

In a statement to NPR, DHS's chief spokesperson Lauren Bis did not dispute NPR's findings or provide documentation where NPR wasn't able to confirm matching criminal history.

"The fact that NPR is defending murderers and pedophiles is gross," Bis wrote. "We hear far too much about criminals and not enough about their victims." before listing four of the people with old convictions of homicide and sexual assault, underlining the date of deportation order for three of them.

Images designed to trigger emotion

The stream of social media posts with photos of mostly nonwhite people are meant to draw an emotional response, says Leo Chavez, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. They "have been used repeatedly over and over to get people to buy into, really drastic, drastic and draconian actions and policies," he said.

Chavez, whose most recent book is The Latino Threat: How Alarmist Rhetoric Misrepresents Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, recalls how political campaigns in past decades presented images of Latinos — often men — without context. "Just by showing their image, showing brown people, particularly brown men, it's supposed to be scary."

The fact that the government's social media posts come with statements about criminal history as well as photos reinforces that emotional response, Chavez said. DHS has previously acknowledged inaccuracies on their website. But even if the department issues corrections, Chavez said, "the goal was actually achieved, which was to reinforce the criminality and the visualization."

CNN's analysis of DHS's "Arrested: Worst of the Worst" website showed that for hundreds out of about 25,000 people posted on the website, the crimes listed were not violent felonies. Instead, DHS listed people with records that included traffic offenses, marijuana possession or illegal reentry. DHS said the website had a "glitch" that it will fix but also that the people in question "have [committed] additional crimes."

"I've never seen anything like this when it comes to immigration enforcement in the modern era," said Juliet Stumpf, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who studies the intersection of immigration and criminal law. She said the drumbeat of social media posts focused on specific individuals was like "FBI's most wanted posters" or "like reality TV shows."

Stumpf drew a parallel with an incident from the 1950s when the U.S. government deported two permanent residents suspected of being communists. "The government was kind of proclaiming and celebrating their deportation because getting rid of these communists was making the country safer," said Stumpf, "Maybe that's comparable to something like [this]."

An analysis by the Deportation Data Project shows a dramatic increase in arrests of noncitizens without criminal records during President Trump's current term compared to President Biden's term.

"If you look at research, immigrants actually tend to commit fewer crimes than even U.S. citizens do. And that's true of immigrants who have lawful status here and immigrants who don't," said Stumpf. "If we have a number of social media posts that are painting immigrants as the worst of the worst…it's actually really putting out a distorted version of reality about who immigrants actually are."

Some claims are disputed by other authorities

In some posts, DHS and ICE have also used photos of people and statements about their criminal histories to burnish the federal government's accomplishments, defend their agents and criticize states like Minnesota. State and local authorities have in turn pushed back, and some of the federal government's claims about the people it has detained have been met with setbacks in the courts.

DHS accused Minnesota's Cottonwood County of not honoring detainers, written requests by ICE to hold prisoners in custody for a period of time so ICE can pick them up. In one post, the agency identified a person who was charged with child sexual abuse, writing "This is who sanctuary city politicians and anti-ICE agitators are defending."

The Cottonwood County sheriff's office said DHS's post "misrepresented the truth" in their own post on Facebook. According to their account, the county did honor the detainer but ICE said it was unable to pick up the person before the order expired and the county had to release the suspect.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections wrote in a blog post that dozens of people DHS listed on its "Worst of the Worst" website were not arrested as DHS described, but were transferred to ICE by the state because they were already in state custody. The Corrections Department has since launched a page dedicated to "correct the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) repeated false claims."

The "Worst of the Worst" website has some overlap with the department's social media posts, but it contains a much larger number of people — over 30,000 nationally. It included a Colombian soccer star who was extradited to the U.S., tried in Texas, convicted of drug trafficking and served time in federal prison. The website incorrectly describes him as being arrested in Wisconsin. The soccer player, Jhon Viáfara Mina, recently finished his sentence early and returned to Colombia, according to Spanish newspaper El Diario Vasco.

In some instances, DHS and ICE wrote about incidents where they ran into conflict when carrying out arrests. In those posts, they named the arrestees and posted their photos. But in one case where the incident went to court, the government's account of the events shifted. After a federal agent shot Julio C. Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis in January, DHS claimed he was lodging a "violent attack on law enforcement." Assault charges against Sosa-Celis fell apart in court as new evidence surfaced, and the officers involved were put on leave.

Despite the fact that the charges were dropped, DHS's post profiling Sosa-Celis remains online.

A coalition of organizations, including the ANSWER coalition and 50501, are holding an “emergency day of action” nationwide in reaction to the airstrikes launched by the United States and Israel across Iran.

Since the actions were originally planned, NPR has reported that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed by an Israeli strike. That's according to a person briefed on the strike and unable to speak publicly.

Here is a list of local demonstrations across Southern California.

• Aliso Viejo
  Aliso Creek Road and Enterprise
  Starts at 11 a.m.
  
• Los Angeles
  City Hall, 200 N Spring St.
  Starts at 2 p.m.
  
• Ventura
  Ventura County Government Center, Victoria Avenue and Telephone Road
  Stars at 3 p.m.

Iranian Angelenos react

The military actions have drawn strong responses from L.A.'s large diaspora communities.

Mujon Baghai is with the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Iranian American Council, one of the organizers behind today's protests across the nation. The group is against U.S. intervention. Baghai has family living in the country.

" We want what's best for the people of Iran. The US and Israel do not have those interests at stake.  But we also understand that there's a desire amongst a huge part of the community to see reform in Iran, to see true democracy in Iran, And we support that," she told LAist.

Other Iranian immigrants back the military action.

"We are home to the largest Iranian American Jewish diaspora in the world. L.A. celebrates that fact . Most of the reaction that we have received from our amazing Iranian American Jewish community has been one of excitement and adulation," said Rabbi Noah Farkas, president of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles.

Law enforcement to step up patrol

The office of L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement that the city is closely monitoring for "any threats" to the city and urges Angelenos to voice their views in a "peaceful" way.

“While there are no known credible threats at this time, LAPD has stepped up patrols near places of worship, community spaces, and other areas of the city, and we will remain vigilant in protecting our city," the statement reads.

The L.A. County Sheriff's Department is also stepping up patrol in light of the military action in the Middle East. The department knows of no known credible threats to the community.

"We are in communication with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners and will continue to assess any potential impacts to Los Angeles County," the department says in a post on social media.

The Department of State advises U.S. citizens worldwide, especially those in the Middle East, to exercise increased caution. Additionally, travelers follow the guidance in the latest security alerts issued by the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.

What local lawmakers saying

A number of state and local lawmakers are weighing in on the attacks.

• Rep. Judy Chu

“President Trump has launched an unlawful war with Iran despite no imminent threat to the United States, no long-term strategy, no support from the American public, and no authorization from Congress.”

Chu is a Democrat who represents California's 28th Congressional district, which includes parts of the San Gabriel Valley.

• Rep. Young Kim

“President Trump took decisive action in response to refusal by the Iranian regime to take diplomatic off-ramps, dismantle its nuclear program, & end its reign of terror against the United States & our allies. I stand with the Iranian people who have made their desperation & courageous struggle for freedom clear. I hope for a swift & decisive operation that will pave the way for a more peaceful Middle East & a safer world. My prayers are with our brave US service members risking their lives to protect our nation. I look forward to Congress being briefed on Operation Epic Fury.”

Kim is a Republican who represents California's 40th District, which includes parts of Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

• Sen. Alex Padilla

“At a time when millions of hardworking families face higher costs of living and skyrocketing health care to pay for tax breaks for billionaires, Donald Trump is now pushing the country toward a war that risks American lives without presenting a clear justification to the American people or any plan to prevent escalation and chaos in the region.”

Padilla is a Democrat who has represented California in the U.S. Senate since 2021.

• Sen. Adam Schiff

“Trump is drawing our country into yet another foreign war that Americans don’t want and Congress has not authorized. The Iranian regime is a brutal and murderous dictatorship. But that does not give Trump the authority to unilaterally initiate a war of choice. Congress should immediately return to vote on the Kaine Paul Schiff Schumer War Powers Resolution.”

Schiff is a Democrat who has represented California in the U.S. Senate since 2024.

• Rep. Jimmy Gomez

“By launching this operation on his own, the president has put Congress and the country in the worst possible position. He started a war first, and now Congress is being asked to deal with the consequences instead of deciding whether the war should begin at all.”

Gomez is a Democrat who represents California's 34th Congressional district which includes downtown L.A. and many neighborhoods in the central part of the city.