Topline:
Southern California Edison recently released its payout plan for survivors of the Eaton Fire. As fire survivors navigate their recovery and decide if the program makes sense for them, LAist put together a guide to answer some of the most common questions.
The backstory: We spoke to several lawyers and insurance experts, listened to two town hall meetings and asked Edison questions directly.
Read on ... to get into the details of the compensation program.
Southern California Edison recently released its payout plan for survivors of the Eaton Fire. As fire survivors navigate their recovery and decide if the program makes sense for them, LAist put together this guide to answer some of the most common questions.
We spoke to several lawyers and insurance experts, listened to two town hall meetings and asked Edison questions directly.
Edison said this program can help fill “the gap,” shorthand for the difference between how much survivors get from insurance or otherwise have to rebuild and how much rebuilding actually costs. The program is meant to cover what insurance doesn’t, not to make survivors whole.
Lawyers told LAist the program is likely to pay out less money than litigation, though it could make sense for uninsured or severely underinsured survivors who don’t have the funds or desire to wait through a longer legal process.
Ultimately, experts emphasized, the decision on how to move forward is deeply personal and unique to each survivor’s circumstance.
At a recent town hall, Edison Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said more than 380 claims already have been submitted, with more than 180 in progress. Most survivors who have submitted so far have not used a lawyer, he said.
Edison plans to host more town halls about its compensation program. Check the bottom of this page for the latest dates when they're available.
If you need assistance with submitting a claim, here's how to reach Edison representatives:
Find more details about the program on the company's frequently asked questions page.
Southern California Edison has never provided such a program, and this one is unique among compensation programs in California, which have been carried out by one of the other three major investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric, after the 2015 Butte, 2017 North Bay and 2018 Camp fires.
The 2017 and 2018 fires led to PG&E declaring bankruptcy, and the compensation program was administered via a trust. The program, which still is paying out survivors years later, has faced allegations of slow, low payouts and high overhead costs. That funding was limited due to the utility’s bankruptcy, so payouts were capped.
Edison says its program has no cap on payouts. Because the Edison program does not operate through a trust and the utility is not expected to declare bankruptcy, it’s hard to directly compare the programs, experts told LAist.
Edison told LAist the first $1 billion of claims will be paid via the utility’s ratepayer-funded insurance. If claims exceed that amount, the company will seek reimbursement through the state’s Wildfire Fund, which was established in 2019 after the 2017 Thomas Fire in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.
“The program is structured to minimize financial impact to the company while providing meaningful support to those affected,” said Edison spokesperson Gabriela Ornelas in an email to LAist.
State officials warned earlier this year that that $21 billion fund could be drained by costs associated with the Eaton Fire, which are estimated to be as high as $45 billion. In October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to expand the fund by $18 billion. The fund had been initially paid for by the utilities’ equity and shareholder earnings, but the new law could allow Southern California Edison to shift billions of dollars of Eaton Fire costs to its customers.
Earlier this year, the state approved a rate hike to help Edison cover the ongoing costs from past fires. And the utility is seeking further rate hikes to pay for wildfire mitigation and to cover “reasonable costs of its operations, facilities [and] infrastructure.”
Edison will accept claims from homeowners, renters and businesses affected by the Eaton Fire within an identified zone.
Property damage will have to be documented in Cal Fire’s Damage Inspection data. Properties within the fire perimeter (designated "Zone 1") and slightly beyond ("Zone 2) are eligible. You can see a detailed map of eligibility when you start a claim. (You can save your progress on the Edison website, so you don’t have to complete everything in one sitting.)
Claims will cover total or partial structure losses, commercial property loss, business interruption, homes with non-burn damage (such as smoke, soot or ash), physical injuries and deaths.
Survivors who already sold their properties are also eligible for the program (more on that below). Hedge funds and insurance companies are not eligible.
The program will accept applications until Nov. 30, 2026.
Zone 1 includes the original fire perimeter and is extended about 400 feet beyond it.
Zone 2 covers more properties, based on their proximity to the smoke plume, other destroyed structures and the fire’s origin, according to Edison.
There are a few elements of the program that will vary, depending on which zone your property is in. For example, no extra documentation is needed for properties in Zone 1 to receive the flat payment of $10,000 for landscaping damage.
The company says it is using a model developed by economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon, with methodology independently analyzed by RAND, to determine a property’s value and how much to pay out.
The RAND analysis states that about 20% of estimates are expected to be off by more than $200 per square foot, with about half of those errors being overestimates and half being underestimates.
“In general, the model tends to underestimate pre-fire value for … homes at the luxury, or high end, of the local market,” the report states. “It tends to overestimate value for homes … at the low end of the market or in below-average structural condition.”
You can find examples of calculations at the “View Sample Offers” tab on this page.
Pizarro said at a recent town hall that Edison’s team may add examples to the page as questions continue to arise. Below are direct links to some examples:
A single claim is required per household, and there are two paths for a payout: “fast pay” and “detailed review.” Every survivor is required to start with the “fast pay” option.
Edison’s “fast pay” option will provide an offer within 90 days of an applicant submitting a "substantially complete” claim. If the survivor accepts the offer, payment will be made within 30 days.
If survivors don’t feel the first offer is fair, they can choose to have a “detailed review,” which requires more steps and documentation and can take up to nine months for a payment offer. There’s no guarantee that offer will be higher. If you don’t like the "detailed review" offer, you can still accept the initial "fast pay" offer.
If survivors use an attorney to apply for Edison’s payout program, which is not required, they will receive an offer for additional compensation equal to 10% of their net damages to help cover that cost.
An insurance expert LAist spoke with recommended survivors speak with a lawyer before deciding on the claim, and ask them about establishing a “special needs trust,” which can protect survivors who rely on public assistance from losing that assistance with the payout or even insurance reimbursement.
Edison has identified three categories: economic, non-economic, and what the company is calling a “direct claim premium.”
Economic loss includes costs associated with property damage, personal property, loss of use, business disruption, business interruption, physical injury and death. Find the details for economic loss calculations on page 16 of the plan.
Non-economic loss includes fixed payments to survivors for the emotional trauma of the fire, as well as compensation for those injured in the fire or to the heirs of someone who died. Find the details for non-economic loss on page 24 of the plan.
The “direct claim premium” is a fixed amount added on top of the offer. Find the details of the direct claim premiums on page 25 of the plan.
Non-economic damages, the direct claim premium, and the 10% increase to help cover attorney fees will not be included in the insurance deduction. Non-economic damage offers also won’t change if a survivor chooses to go with the detailed review after receiving their fast pay offer.
A survivor’s entire insurance policy, regardless if they have received an insurance payment, will be subtracted from the economic losses portion of Edison’s offer, but not the non-economic, “direct claims premium,” or the attorney compensation.
Insurance companies may seek reimbursement for their costs from Edison through a process called “subrogation.” Edison has already agreed to pay one undisclosed insurance company 52 cents on the dollar for claims related to the Eaton Fire.
The offers through Edison’s program are nonnegotiable, but survivors can ask for reconsideration within 14 days of the offer, which triggers the detailed review process.
Accepting a payout will include agreeing not to sue Edison, the company said.
Instead of accepting a payout, survivors can pursue a lawsuit against Edison. Survivors can continue their litigation at the same time as applying for the payout program.
The first set of lawsuits against SoCal Edison are not set to go to trial until early 2027, though some may be settled before then.
Lawyers told LAist there are a lot of questions about the payout timeline, though they acknowledged it will almost certainly be faster than litigation.
For example, Edison determines if a claim is “substantially complete” before accepting it and launching the 90-day timeline. Furthermore, survivors have to go through that "fast pay" track, even if they have unusual circumstances and will likely require the "detailed review" track, which Edison says will take up to nine months.
Meanwhile, the first set of Eaton Fire lawsuits are not set to go to trial until early 2027, though some could be settled before then.
At a recent webinar, Edison representatives said the plan includes three and a half years of temporary housing for single family homeowners with a destroyed residence. (See pages 18 through 21 of the plan.)
For renters, the temporary housing assistance adds up to three months of pre-fire rent. (See pages 21 through 23 of the plan.)
In this instance, according to Edison representatives, the Compass Lexecon model would use your sale price plus the pre-fire value estimate. Appraisal documentation will only be considered in the detailed review process.
Pizarro said people who apply quickly could be paid out before the end of the year, avoiding a change in federal tax policy next year.
“We have a team ready to process offers as quickly as possible, in large part, being mindful of that potential tax deadline, unless the government changes that,” Pizarro said at a town hall last week.
He said he expects the first offers to be made soon.
The Internal Revenue Service does have specific tax reporting requirements for settlement payments, and there’s a deadline coming very soon.
The Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden at the end of last year to provide tax relief for victims of major disasters, expires at the end of 2025.
Non-reportable payments include:
Unless Congress passes an extension, more types of payments will become taxable in 2026.
Reportable payments, after 2026:
California, however, extended its tax protections for disaster survivors through 2030. Experts told LAist it’s still not clear if the Edison program falls under those regulations.
However, Manoj Viswanathan, a law professor at UC Law San Francisco, said it seems “very likely” that Edison’s compensation program would qualify under that California law because fire victims are giving up their rights to sue, similar to a settlement. Other law and tax experts LAist spoke to agreed the wording of California’s tax relief law likely would cover Edison’s program.
U.S Sen. Alex Padilla of California has proposed making the payments exempt from taxes.
Topline:
In a legal battle between Trump and California over transgender and abortion care, will businesses be caught in a fight between hostile Justice Departments?
Legislation: Under a bill that may soon pass the Legislature, California medical providers and affiliated businesses could face hefty state fines if they comply with a federal subpoena seeking abortion, gender-affirming or reproductive care information without first notifying the California attorney general, patients and providers.
Why now: Delaying responding to the feds could put them at risk of violating federal law, and independent constitutional scholars say the pending law might not survive a legal challenge. The bill is in response to efforts the Trump administration and conservative states have undertaken to block or criminalize abortion services and care for transgender people.
Read on... for more on the bill.
The latest clash between California and President Donald Trump over abortion and gender-affirming care could soon leave doctors caught between state and federal law.
Under a bill that may soon pass the Legislature, California medical providers and affiliated businesses could face hefty state fines if they comply with a federal subpoena seeking abortion, gender-affirming or reproductive care information without first notifying the California attorney general, patients and providers.
But delaying responding to the feds could put them at risk of violating federal law, and independent constitutional scholars say the pending law might not survive a legal challenge.
The bill is in response to efforts the Trump administration and conservative states have undertaken to block or criminalize abortion services and care for transgender people.
Under Assembly Bill 1930, any medical provider or business served with any civil, criminal or regulatory inquiry, investigation, subpoena or summons seeking “legally protected health care activity” “shall not comply” unless the provider notifies the state attorney general as well as others involved in the care.
The measure’s author, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles, said the impetus for the bill, in part, was a federal subpoena from the Trump administration to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles seeking medical records for youth transgender patients.
“No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk,” he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee at a hearing last week.
Lawmakers spent just 17 minutes discussing AB 1930 at its first legislative hearing last week, despite the legal complexities and consequences for California’s patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers, tech companies and others. It passed on a party-line vote, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. It now moves to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it’s scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday
The Los Angeles hospital was one of 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care for minors that received federal subpoenas seeking patients’ medical records. At the time, the U.S. Justice Department said the subpoenas were part of an investigation into “health care fraud” and “false statements.” Some of the families sued to fight the subpoenas. In January, the feds backed off and didn’t receive the records.
Rady Children’s Hospital, which operates facilities in San Diego, Orange and Imperial counties, told CalMatters earlier this year that the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general was investigating the hospital. The investigation preceded Rady’s decision to halt most gender-affirming services for minors, a decision that is now tied up in multiple court cases.
The measure says that in order for a business or provider to release records, the entity making the legal demand must include an affidavit declaring that the investigation is not related to punishing providers for performing abortions, transgender care or other services protected under California law or that the investigation involves a possible California crime or is an inquiry into “professional discipline.”
The recipient would be required to inform the attorney general’s office within seven days of receiving the legal demand. The attorney general would have an additional 30 days to review the matter before the recipient could comply with the order.
The measure, which is co-sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, would also mandate that the provider notify patients and providers whose records are being sought. Those who break the rules would face civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation.
California lawmakers have, in recent years, enacted more than a dozen laws designed to shield medical professionals from conservative states and the federal government on abortion and transgender health care.
Democrats passed the laws after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and other states began banning or criminalizing abortion. Thirteen states ban abortion and some, most notably Texas, penalize anyone who helps another person get an abortion.
Legislative efforts to protect clinicians and patient medical records have expanded as the Trump administration has increasingly politicized other services like gender-affirming care for minors.
California laws prohibit state law enforcement from extraditing medical professionals who may have violated another state’s laws on abortion or gender-affirming care. They also prohibit medical facilities from sharing patient information about those services with out-of-state law enforcement.
LGBTQ+ civil rights group Equality California is the latest bill’s other co-sponsor. Zbur was its executive director before being elected to the Legislature.
Equality California’s legislative director, Craig Pulsipher, told the Judiciary Committee the measure builds “on California’s existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them.”
Various groups that oppose gender-affirming care are against the measure, as is the California Chamber of Commerce.
In a letter to lawmakers, representatives for the state’s influential business lobby said CalChamber’s members appreciate lawmakers wanting to “help defend businesses facing subpoenas,” and they don’t oppose the bill out of “support for misuse of subpoena powers.”
“However, we are concerned that AB 1930 will compel businesses to violate federal law in order to comply with state law,” they wrote.
Layla Jane, a “detransitioner” who sued her health care provider over the gender-reassignment surgery she received as a teen, said the bill would protect doctors from investigations into negligent care and make it harder for patients like her to subpoena for medical records.
“This bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies,” she told the committee. “It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, ‘You are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed.’ There is no blanket for me.”
Bill Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker who oversees the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said in a statement that Zbur’s measure would be unconstitutional.
“Any effort by California to restrict the federal government’s lawful use of, or compliance with, subpoenas is unlawful and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli said.
Three independent constitutional scholars who CalMatters asked to review the bill suggested Essayli may have a point.
Under that provision of the U.S. Constitution, states cannot pass laws that run counter to the federal government’s legal authority.
“If there’s a conflict between federal law on the one hand, and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins out,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.
Chemerinsky and the other scholars said the measure is unlikely to run into the same legal problems that caused a federal judge to block California’s attempt to ban federal agents from wearing masks. The judge in the mask case ruled that the state had discriminated against the federal government since it exempted state police from the ban.
This proposed measure doesn’t single out the federal government; the bill applies to any entity issuing subpoenas.
Still, the scholars said forcing private health care providers and businesses not to respond to a subpoena on a federal deadline could be legally problematic.
“It looks like the federal government could say you’re impeding their law enforcement,” said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.
“Is this impeding federal ... objectives?” said Vikram David Amar, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law. “If so, it would be invalid under Supremacy.”
The California Attorney General’s Office responded to an interview request for Bonta with an unsigned written statement.
“Bills aren’t final when they’re introduced and can change throughout the legislative process,” it read. “Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding AB 1930 and will address concerns as appropriate and needed.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
A California lawmaker wants to bring more families into the state's formal child support system, a move that advocates say could reduce child poverty.
Why it matters: The measure, from Elk Grove Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, would compel separated families to enroll in a state program empowered to garnish wages for child support. Currently, custodial parents must “opt in” to enroll in the California Department of Child Support Services. They often do not take that step, sometimes because they have made their own arrangements.
Concerns of the bill: Critics say that entering all families into the child support services system could actually undermine the stability of separated families by disrupting the bonds that remain, as when parents have come to their own financial agreements.
Read on... for more about the bill.
Despite a seemingly unimpeachable goal — ensuring adequate child support to keep kids out of poverty — a bill making its way through the state Assembly has left legislators and advocates divided.
The measure, from Elk Grove Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, would compel separated families to enroll in a state program empowered to garnish wages for child support.
Currently, custodial parents must “opt in” to enroll in the California Department of Child Support Services. They often do not take that step, sometimes because they have made their own arrangements.
Under Nguyen’s bill, families would have to opt out of the program. She said the goal of the bill is to ensure that children get the money they need.
“It’s the child that suffers. If you’re a single-income parent…and struggling to make ends meet, then the extra piece of income comes in. I think it reduces child poverty,” said Nguyen.
The measure addresses what groups close to the child support system say is a pressing issue: When parents split up, child support arrangements can fall to the wayside. That leaves the problem to the court system and puts children at risk for poverty.
At a March hearing, the bill had support from the California Child Support Association and the Department of Child Support Services from Sacramento, Solano and San Joaquin Counties.
“Right now, just in Sacramento County, my department is sending $11 million every month home to families putting food on the table and shoes on children's feet. It's an incredible anti-poverty program,” Dallin Frederickson, the director of Sacramento County’s Department of Child Support Services, told lawmakers at a March hearing, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.
“Unfortunately, the child support program in California is underutilized,” he said.
But critics say that entering all families into the child support services system could actually undermine the stability of separated families by disrupting the bonds that remain, as when parents have come to their own financial agreements.
Even a Democratic lawmaker who voted for the bill at the hearing raised questions about how it could affect families who make their own child support arrangements.
“I've seen what happens when families get separated and crumble and fall to pieces,” Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, a Los Angeles Democrat, said at the hearing. “And I'm just concerned that any ways that we further deteriorate a strong relationship between parents, we're harming the best interests of the child.”
Among California’s 2 million children in single-parent households, 1 in 4 live in poverty. That rate is four times higher than among children living with married parents. Women head 80% of single-parent households, which are more likely to live in poverty than single-father households.
Statewide, there are slightly more than 1 million court orders for child support payments, with total payments owed reaching $2.6 billion in 2024.
If Nguyen’s Assembly Bill 1643 passes, it’s unclear how many additional families would be enrolled into the state collection program, but it could be thousands, based upon the annual number of court orders.
“There’s a bit of unknown. This could be a really fundamental change in a big state. (So), should they do a pilot study in one county?,” said Rebecca Miller, senior attorney for Western Center for Law and Poverty.
Custodial parents of any income level can choose to enroll into child support services, however, enrollment is mandatory for parents who receive public assistance under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1975.
No state currently mandates child support services enrollment for families not receiving public assistance, as stipulated in Nguyen’s bill.
“It could violate federal law because it forces people into the system,” said Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate for Western Center for Law and Poverty.
Another concern is cost to taxpayers, though Nguyen said that the bill won’t add costs.
However, because it requires that all child support payments go through the State Disbursement Unit, the measure could increase administrative costs for local agencies, triggering state-mandated reimbursement costs, according to a legislative committee analysis.
“I don’t see why they think it’s cost-free,” said Gonzalez.
Child support payments decrease poverty for children living with their primary caregiver, but the payments alone are not enough to eliminate poverty, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, making payments may worsen poverty for fathers living separately, especially if they’re already low-income.
Child support payments also have proven to offer other benefits, including more involvement of the paying parent with their children, better academic outcomes and wellbeing for the kids and improved parent-to-parent relationships.
The system Nugyen’s bill would default California families into, from the Department of Child Support Services, already collects and distributes almost two thirds of child support owed in the state, as of 2024. When needed, the department also locates parents and establishes paternity. It collects money using payroll deductions and, if necessary, by garnishing wages, intercepting tax refunds or suspending drivers’ licenses to compel compliance.
The public system for child support payments isn’t straightforward, especially if the parents’ split is acrimonious. That’s when the courts — actually two courts — can step in.
Attorney Miller said Family Court is the system most people think of for handling divorce, child custody and support payments.
Separately, the Title IV-D court is the federally required child support system designed in the 1970s primarily to manage payments for families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or welfare. Nearly half of custodial parents enrolled in child support services receive TANF. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids, better known as CalWORKS, is our state’s TANF program.
In California, when parents separate, Family Courts order child support payments based on both parents’ incomes and the amount of time each spends with the kids. Then the custodial parent can choose to complete “opt in” paperwork for the payments to go through child support services.
Many parents choose not to enroll for a multitude of reasons, for example if they have
an agreement with their former spouse, or if they believe the non-custodial parent can’t afford payments. Some parents don’t want to interact with the other parent because it’s unpleasant or dangerous. Some domestic violence survivors fear that reporting their former partners to child support services would expose them or their kids to harm.
“We think parents should be trusted to make the decision of what’s best for their family and not forced into the system…the system doesn’t work for everyone,” said Gonzales.
Nguyen said she’s working with the opponents to resolve their differences.
“This is really just about making sure the money gets to the parents who have custody of the kids and making sure they are fed, and they are properly cared for,” said Nguyen.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
Japanese compositions, anime themes and student performances at Roosevelt High's concert explore a shared cultural history through music.
More details: Guiding the 77-piece ensemble was band director Pedro Ramos, who took over the program last fall and, in collaboration with the school’s Japanese teacher and club, built the concert around themes of culture and solidarity.
Why now: The concert was an intentional tribute to a community once central to Boyle Heights, as students used music to honor a history largely erased during World War II, when more than 400 Japanese American students were forcibly removed and incarcerated in camps.
Read on... for more on the concert.
This story first appeared on The LA Local.
On a recent Wednesday evening in March, the auditorium at Roosevelt High School buzzed with old-school Japanese anime anthems.
Songs like Hironobu Kageyama’s “Cha-La Head-Cha-La,” the theme from “Dragon Ball Z,” and selections from Hayao Miyazaki’s cult classic “My Neighbor Totoro” echoed throughout the performing arts center.
The concert was an intentional tribute to a community once central to Boyle Heights, as students used music to honor a history largely erased during World War II, when more than 400 Japanese American students were forcibly removed and incarcerated in camps.
Guiding the 77-piece ensemble was band director Pedro Ramos, who took over the program last fall and, in collaboration with the school’s Japanese teacher and club, built the concert around themes of culture and solidarity.
“Roosevelt was hit hard during Japanese Internment and continues to be attacked with ongoing ICE raids,” said Ramos, 24. “The purpose of this concert is to bring solidarity and highlight the perpetuity and appreciation of each other’s culture in turbulent times.”
That vision came through in a program that blended cultures and histories. One piece, “Gelato Con Caffé” by Toshio Mashima, fused rock with samba, reflecting both Japanese and Latin influences. The concert also featured a video of students speaking on what Japanese culture means to them.
“We’re a community now, but there was a Japanese community here once before us,” said Frankie Danielle Trujillo, a senior who plays the alto saxophone. “These pieces honor them and show our appreciation of both communities.”
The performance drew students from across campus, including members of Roosevelt’s Japanese Club.
Junior Eric Samaniego, 17, joined the club as a freshman and said it gave him a sense of belonging.
“Middle school was miserable … This was a very refreshing start,” he said, standing next to his mother, who wore a pink cherry blossom T-shirt designed by students and sold to raise funds for the club’s cultural activities.
The club, supported by Japanese teacher Yoriko Hongo, offers a space for students to connect and celebrate their passion for Japanese culture.
“What’s special is that many of our members are not enrolled in Japanese classes and find a strong sense of belonging and identity through the club,” said Hongo. “It shows how culturally-inclusive spaces can impact students beyond the classroom.”
For Ramos, that community building is at the heart of his work in the classroom and on the stage.
“My job as a teacher is to simulate a consistent environment where students can learn and be the best version of themselves,” he said. “Only by recognizing patterns and tools of oppression can students see themselves as powerful forces in a world that needs drastic change. I’m happy I can provide that in an entertaining, musical way.”
The concert ended with a rendition of the chart-topping “Naruto” theme song “Go!!!” by 90s Japanese rock band Flow.
For freshman trombone player Eliah Daniel Gramajo, performing the music made that connection feel personal.
“It’s not every day you get to play a piece from one of your favorite anime that you watched as a little kid,” he said.
Topline:
In the latest move to rewrite the history of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Department of Justice has filed papers seeking to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups, who previously received commutations rather than full pardons from President Donald Trump.
Why it matters: About a dozen defendants who received lengthy sentences for their roles in planning and executing the riot were released from prison once Trump returned to office, though the felony convictions remained on their records. If approved by the federal courts, the move would wipe out those convictions and, among other things, restore the defendants' right to own guns.
The backstory: During the Biden administration, the indictments and subsequent convictions on the rarely used seditious conspiracy charge underscored how law enforcement viewed the Jan. 6 attack: as a historic threat to democracy and the defendants as key orchestrators. Judges and juries largely agreed.
Read on ... for more on the latest move from the Trump administration.
In the latest move to rewrite the history of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Department of Justice has filed papers seeking to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups, who previously received commutations rather than full pardons from President Donald Trump.
About a dozen defendants who received lengthy sentences for their roles in planning and executing the riot were released from prison once Trump returned to office, though the felony convictions remained on their records. If approved by the federal courts, the move would wipe out those convictions and, among other things, restore the defendants' right to own guns.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration described the decision in court filings as "in the interests of justice."
Members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys celebrated.
"I am beyond thrilled right now," wrote Proud Boy Zachary Rehl, who was previously sentenced to 15 years in prison, on the social media site X.
Ed Martin, who has held multiple roles in the Trump Justice Department and currently serves as the U.S pardon attorney, cast the move as a triumph and called for further action.
"Hearing from J6rs and families tonight. They feel respected even loved. Proud," Martin wrote on X. "But there is more for you to do. Keep grinding. You were directly wronged by Biden prosecutors and you deserve more."
Martin has previously called for former Jan. 6 defendants to receive financial restitution.
The decision illustrates both the dramatic extent of changes at the Department of Justice in Trump's second term, as well as the stunning reversal of fortunes for the Jan. 6 defendants convicted of some of the most serious crimes that day.
During the Biden administration, the indictments and subsequent convictions on the rarely used seditious conspiracy charge underscored how law enforcement viewed the Jan. 6 attack: as a historic threat to democracy and the defendants as key orchestrators. Judges and juries largely agreed.
At the trial of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, prosecutors had played a recording discussing additional violence after Jan. 6. "We should have brought rifles," Rhodes said. "We could have fixed it right then and there. I'd hang f***in' Pelosi from the lamppost."
When federal judge Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes to 18 years in prison, he described him as "an ongoing threat and peril to this country ... and to the very fabric of our democracy."
Now, under the Trump administration, leaders of the Justice Department say they take orders directly from the president, who has called Jan. 6 a "day of love," described the rioters as "great people" and denied — falsely — that his supporters assaulted police.
"I pardoned people that were assaulted themselves. They were assaulted by our government," Trump told reporters last year. "They didn't assault. They were assaulted."
Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, recently touted the mass pardons of Jan. 6 defendants as one of the administration's greatest achievements.
Greg Rosen, who led the "Capitol Siege" unit that prosecuted more than 1,500 Jan. 6-related cases, castigated the Trump administration for its latest move to vacate the conviction of Rhodes and several others.
"This is a sad and selfish reminder that constitutional due process — jury verdicts, judicial findings, years of hard-fought litigation and mountains of evidence — doesn't appear to matter once again," said Rosen, who is now with the law firm Rogers Joseph O'Donnell. "This isn't about fairness or justice. It's about overriding the considered will and judgments of judges and juries and rewarding individuals solely because of their political alignments with an administration."
An estimated 140 police officers were injured in the Jan. 6 attack, including many who testified to lifelong physical and mental trauma from what they endured.
Meanwhile, since receiving presidential pardons, dozens of former riot defendants have been charged with or convicted of additional crimes. On the same day the Justice Department moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy cases, it also filed documents in the ongoing case against David Daniel, who assaulted police Jan. 6 and was separately accused of child sexual abuse.
Daniel, prosecutors said, agreed to plead guilty to allegations that he sexually abused two young girls, including one who was under 12 years old at the time of the abuse.
Copyright 2026 NPR
