The Brief

A decade-spanning political battle between housing developers and defenders of California’s preeminent environmental law likely came to an end this afternoon with only a smattering of “no” votes.

The forces of housing won.

With the passage of a state budget-related housing bill, the California Environmental Quality Act will be a non-issue for a decisive swath of urban residential development in California.

In practice, that means most new apartment buildings will no longer face the open threat of environmental litigation.

It also means most urban developers will no longer have to study, predict and mitigate the ways that new housing might affect local traffic, air pollution, flora and fauna, noise levels, groundwater quality and objects of historic or archeological significance.

And it means that when housing advocates argue that the state isn’t doing enough to build more homes amid crippling rents and stratospheric prices, they won’t — with a few exceptions — have CEQA to blame anymore.

“Saying ‘no’ to housing in my community will no longer be state sanctioned,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat who introduced the CEQA law as a separate bill in March. “This isn't going to solve all of our housing problems in the state, but it is going to remove the single biggest impediment to building environmentally friendly housing.”

Unlike most environmental laws, which explicitly mandate, monitor or ban certain environmental behavior, CEQA is just a public disclosure requirement. The 54-year-old statute requires state and local governments to study and publicize the likely environmental impact of any decisions they make. That includes the permitting of new housing.

But for years, the building industry and “Yes in my backyard” activists have identified the law as a key culprit behind California’s housing shortage. That’s because the law allows any individual or group to sue if they argue that a required environmental study isn’t accurate, expansive or detailed enough. Such lawsuits — and even the mere threat of them —add a degree of delay, cost and uncertainty that make it impossible for the state to build its way to affordability, CEQA’s critics argue.

With today’s vote, the Legislature will be putting that argument to the test. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who spent much of last week cajoling the Legislature to pass the bill as part of his budget package, signed it on Monday evening.

Now the question is whether this monumental political and policy shift will actually result in more homes getting built in California’s cities.

Many of the bill’s backers are optimistic.

“I think when we look back on what hopefully is California finally beginning to confront this housing crisis, this year — 2025 — and this bill will be viewed as a turning point,” said Matt Haney, a Democrat who represents San Francisco in the Assembly where he chairs the housing committee.

On paper, the new law, unlike most that deal with housing approvals and environmental regulation, is actually pretty straightforward.

Urban “infill” housing developments — housing built in and around existing development — are no longer subject to CEQA.

There are some exceptions and qualifiers, but development boosters say they are relatively minor.

The exemption is “the most significant change to the California Environmental Quality Act’s effect on housing production since CEQA was passed,” said Louis Mirante, a lobbyist for the Bay Area Council, a business coalition that regularly pushes for legislation that makes it easier to build.

The bill is limited to projects under 20 acres, but that cap is only relevant to the biggest multi-block-spanning mega developments.

A certain level of density is required, but it really only precludes using the policy for single-family home construction.

Before any project can move forward, any affiliated tribal government will have to be notified first, but the consultation is put on a short timeline.

In order to qualify for the exemption, a proposed project must also be consistent with local zoning, the regulations that determine what types of buildings can be constructed where. But thanks to another CEQA-chopping bill authored by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener that exempts many changes to zoning rules from CEQA and which is also packed into the budget, that appears less likely to be a real constraint.

To buy off the ferocious opposition of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, a construction union umbrella group, the bill also includes some higher wage requirements.

But those rules are not likely to apply to most potential residential development projects. “The lion share of housing being built” in California will no longer be governed by CEQA, said Mark Rhoades, a planning and development consultant in Berkeley.

Take a massive five-story apartment building spanning a full city block, said Bill Fulton, a longtime urban planner and professor at UC San Diego.

“You don't have to worry about labor and you don't have to worry about CEQA? That’s a big deal,” he said.

CEQA seachange

What a difference nine years make.

Consider how things went back in 2016 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown tried to ram a CEQA fix for California’s rising housing costs through the state budget process. Brown’s big idea was to “streamline” the housing approval process, allowing developers to make an end-run around the California Environmental Quality Act, so long as they set aside a certain share of units for lower-income residents.

A coalition of construction labor unions, environmental interests and local government groups torched the idea. The proposal didn’t even get a vote.

Nearly a decade later, once again a Democratic governor opted to stuff a CEQA-trimming policy package through the budget process in the name of cheaper housing.

The measure passed overwhelmingly in both the Senate and Assembly — and this time it didn’t even include an affordability requirement.

Wicks’ proposal is somewhat narrower than the 2016 version, exempting only infill. New suburban-style subdivisions carved from farmland or undeveloped sagebrush will not qualify.

That infill focus has made it easier for the Democratic-controlled Legislature to swallow such a significant scaling back of California’s signature environmental law. Promoting denser urban development generally means using less land, constructing new housing that uses less energy and setting up new residents to do a lot less driving.

“When you are building housing in an existing community, that is environmentally beneficial, it is climate friendly, that is not something that should be subjected to potentially endless CEQA challenges and lawsuits,” Wiener said on the Senate floor on Monday just prior to the vote, when the measure passed 28 to 5.

Even so, Wicks’ proposal always looked like a long shot.

Since Brown’s failed gambit, lawmakers have managed to pass a raft of bills giving housing developers an escape route around CEQA. But those laws have always contained a trade-off. Developers get to skip CEQA, but in exchange they have to pay state-set “prevailing wages” (which typically work out to union-level pay), hire union workers outright, set aside a certain share of units for lower income residents, or some combination of the three.

These conditions were born of political necessity. A CEQA lawsuit — or even the suggestion of one — makes for a powerful negotiating tool. Organized labor groups, most especially the building trades council, have not been keen to give up that leverage without getting something in return.

As housing developers proved less willing to use the new streamlining laws than those bills’ sponsors and supporters had hoped, many pro-building advocates, academics and commentators began calling for environmental streamlining with no strings attached.

Wicks answered that call earlier this year. Under her proposal, infill developers would be allowed to ignore CEQA, full stop. That marked a major break from recent legislative precedent, and one that seemed a stretch, even with so many Democratic lawmakers carting around copies of Abundance.

The deal that almost wasn’t

Just last week, Wicks’ proposal seemed on the verge of collapse.

A version of the bill introduced last week included what amounted to a minor wage hike for the lowest paid construction workers, who are virtually all non-union. While the state’s carpenters’ union supported it, the trades council emphatically did not — with one of the groups’ associated lobbyists likening it to Jim Crow. The trades objected so strenuously — arguing that it set dangerous precedent and undercut apprenticeship programs — that lawmakers removed the proposed wage change.

Instead, developers working on projects that are entirely designated to be affordable would now be required to pay prevailing wages in order to take advantage of the new law.

Developers of any projects over 85 feet tall would be required to hire a certain share of union workers. There are added restrictions for construction in San Francisco specifically.

By the standards of prior housing streamlining bills, those are relatively modest concessions. Most developments over 85 feet use concrete and steel frame construction, which require a higher skilled labor force that is often unionized anyway.

Most entirely income-restricted housing projects make use of public subsidies that require paying union-level wages.

“Affordable housing is forced to play by different rules because the state has decided that if you are receiving public funds a certain wage should be attached to it,” said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which advocates for affordable housing construction. The addition of a prevailing wage requirement for affordable housing “is a head scratcher,” he said. “But it really is reaffirming existing policy.”

That leaves every other type of housing project: Market rate and mixed-income apartment buildings under seven-or-so stories. For that type of construction, which defines the bulk of urban development in California, CEQA is soon to be entirely optional — no strings attached.

That this is the new trades-endorsed deal has been met with a perplexed kind of glee from some corners of the “yes in my backyard” movement. The new version of the bill “is now *even better,*” UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf marveled on Twitter.

Will it matter?

What will urban housing construction look like in California without CEQA?

There are no shortage of reasons not to build housing in California. Labor costs, even without regulatory requirements, are high. So are interest rates. Tariffs and aggressive immigration enforcement are more recent sources of uncertainty. Developers are always happy to complain about slow permitting, high local fees and inflexible building codes.

“It’s not the CEQA costs that are holding up housing,” said Rhoades, the Berkeley consultant.

“I don't think this is going to make more development happen,” he said of the budget bill. “It’s going to make development that is already happening a little easier.”

Critics of the half-century-old environmental law can and do point to specific projects — housing for students, housing near public transit, affordable housing built upon city-owned parking lots — that have been sued in the name of the environment as examples of “CEQA abuse.”

Under the new laws, such litigation will largely go away in California’s cities.

“The one thing we do know is that CEQA is a time suck,” said Ben Metcalf, managing director of UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation and the former head of the state’s housing agency under Brown. “If you can just get out of that six months, nine months, twelve months of delay, that takes a whole cohort of projects and gets them in the ground sooner. In a state that’s facing a housing crisis, that’s not for nothing.”

But the more important consequence of CEQA, many of its critics regularly argue, has been its chilling effect.

How many new units of housing would have been built, but for concerns that they might become ensnared in environmental litigation? How many developers, anticipating a possible legal challenge, have preemptively pared back their plans? How many financiers of housing projects pulled out or demanded higher interest rates over such concerns?

California may soon find out.

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

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.