The Brief

In 2022, California passed a law requiring that food waste be kept out of landfills. Instead, it had to be composted, donated, or turned into fuel.

Two years later, LAist Climate Emergency Reporter Erin Stone wanted to hear how that’s going for Southern Californians. So we distributed a survey to find out.

We heard from almost 500 of you with the good, the bad, and the “What? Really?”

To be clear: this is not a scientific survey, nor is it a comprehensive picture of how all Angelenos are feeling about California’s compost law. For example, the majority of respondents were homeowners.

Regardless, the responses paint a useful picture of how separating food waste from other waste is going and some of the challenges holding back adoption. We used people’s experiences and questions to create a guide to following the "compost" law in the Southland.

Below is a snapshot of what we heard in the survey.

Among those who responded, most seem to be having a pretty easy time following the new guidelines. 

Among the people who were not loving it, there were some clear themes in your gripes.

We’ll address one of your gripes right now: yes, plastic bags. Putting the food waste in plastic bags makes it easier for the waste hauler to separate the food waste from other garbage so it goes into the proper waste stream. The bags themselves – even compostable ones – will be cut open, then sent to the landfill. You can read more about the process in our guide to composting.

Most respondents are already required to follow the law.

And if they’re not, they at least know about the law.

For context, the law puts the responsibility on each city and county to decide how to comply, so what exactly happens to your food waste depends on where you live.

For the people who responded “No,” we wanted to know if they had at least heard about it – 88% had.

We also wanted to know about how you're experiencing the law and its effects.

Well, what you don’t know can’t hurt you?

We also asked you: Have you gotten any communication from your local government about the composting law?

If you got the information, was it helpful? For most of you, it seemed to be. 

Finally, we wanted to know what questions you still had about composting.

Below are the most common, grouped into two themes. The number in parentheses indicates how often some variation of that question came up.

Impact and enforcement of the law

• Is this actually happening? Is the law having a positive impact on the environment? (37)
• Who enforces the law, and will there be consequences for not complying? (34)
• How can I get my landlord or large building to comply and provide a communal compost receptacle? Are apartments required to comply? (32)
• Why is there no awareness around this? We need more educational materials. (24)

How to compost

• What is considered compost? What can I actually put in my compost bin? (45)
• How does this process work, and where does the compost actually go? (22)
• Can we use compostable or biodegradable bags? Are there certain kinds we should use? (17)
• Will there be designated containers for composting? (11)
• How can I solve the issue of insects and maggots? (6)
• What happens when someone mixes non compostable items with compostable items? Is the compost contaminated/unusable? (5)

We used these questions to shape our guide to separating food waste and composting.

Who responded to the survey?

Reminder: this is not a scientific survey, nor is it a comprehensive picture of how all Angelenos are feeling about California’s compost law. For transparency, this is who we heard from.

What questions did we ask?

Which of the following describes you? (Multiple-choice question shown to all respondents. They could check multiple answers.)

a. Homeowner
b. Renter
c. Restaurant owner or employee
d. Grocery store owner or employee
e. Other 

Have you been required to start separating your food scraps? (Multiple-choice question shown to all respondents.)

a. Yes
b. No 
c. Not sure

How has the process been for you? (Open-ended question shown to respondents who answered "Yes" to being required to separate their food scraps)

Have you heard about the new law to compost food scraps (SB 1383)? (Multiple-choice question shown to respondents who replied "No" or "Not sure" to the question about whether they are required to separate their food scraps)

a. Yes
b. No

Have you gotten any communication from your local government about the composting law? (Multiple-choice question shown to respondents that replied "Yes" to knowing about the law)

a. Yes
b. No 

Has the government communication been helpful? (Open-ended question shown to respondents who replied "Yes" to having received information from their local government)

How easy has it been to follow the law? (Open-ended question shown to respondents who replied "Yes" to being required to separate their food scraps)

Do you have any questions about the composting law? (Open-ended question shown to all respondents)

Have you seen your trash bill go up in recent years? If so, by how much? (Open-ended question shown to all respondents)

Where do you live or where is your business located? (Open-ended question shown to all respondents)

The Trump administration is suing California over a law that prevents oil and gas drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, hospitals and schools — the latest in the power struggle between the state and federal government over energy rights.

The complaint, filed Wednesday by the Department of Justice, argued that a law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 — SB 1137 — violates longstanding federal law allowing the government to lease public lands for oil, gas, coal, and other minerals.

The law, which creates one-kilometer “health-buffer zones” around “sensitive spaces,” according to the California Department of Conservation website, will shut down one-third of all federally authorized oil and gas leases in the state.

The guidelines were developed based on recommendations from a 15-person expert panel to effectively protect residents from harmful emissions.

About 8% of California’s population lives within this distance to an oil or gas well. Low-income people are disproportionately affected by resulting health risks.

“The Trump administration just sued California for keeping oil wells away from elementary schools, homes, day cares, hospitals, and parks. Think about that,” said Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Newsom.

The Valero Benicia Refinery in Benicia, on May 8, 2025, which processes up to 170,000 barrels of oil a day, making gasoline, diesel, and other fuels for California. Valero plans to shut down the Benicia refinery by April 2026, citing high costs and strict environmental rules. (Beth LaBerge/KQED)“SB 1137 creates a science-based buffer zone so kids can go to school, families can live in their homes, and communities can exist without breathing toxic fumes that cause asthma, birth defects, and cancer.”

This comes days after the Trump administration sued two Bay Area cities over energy-efficiency measures, blocking natural-gas infrastructure in new construction.

And in November, President Donald Trump proposed to ramp up oil drilling off the California coast, outraging many state officials.

In April, Trump directed the Justice Department to target state laws that banned or limited the production of energy, “particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources”.

Trump has claimed that increasing the use of these resources domestically will make energy more affordable, and has said his administration is committed to “unleashing American energy.”

“This is yet another unconstitutional and radical policy from Gavin Newsom that threatens our country’s energy independence and makes energy more expensive for the American people,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said.

“In accordance with President Trump’s executive orders, this Department of Justice will continue to fight burdensome regulations that violate federal law and hamper domestic energy production — especially in California, where Newsom is clearly intent on subverting federal law at every opportunity.”

The complaint directly references the Mineral Leasing Act, passed in 1920. The law’s text states: “Prior to issuance of any coal lease, the Secretary shall consider effects which mining of the proposed lease might have on an impacted community or area, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, on agricultural and other economic activities, and on public services.”

President Donald Trump arrives to deliver remarks about American energy production during a visit to the Double Eagle Energy Oil Rig on July 29, 2020, in Midland, Texas. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, suggested the Trump administration was working on behalf of the oil lobby, which failed to overturn SB 1137 in 2024.

“Big Oil backed down from their deceitful referendum campaign because Californians wouldn’t stand for it,” Siegel said. “This is a last-ditch attempt to overturn the law’s critical health protections. I’m confident this historic law will stand.”

Siegel added that if the Trump administration’s attempt to strike down California’s law is successful, it would set a “terrible precedent” for environmental protections nationwide.

California prosecutors are expressing alarm at the Trump administration’s response to the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an immigration agent, pointing to statements that the agent has absolute immunity from prosecution and to the decision to exclude Minnesota investigators from the inquiry into the incident.

In interviews with KQED, state and local prosecutors vowed to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute federal agents who act illegally in California. But they acknowledged that those probes would be difficult to undertake without federal cooperation.

“Despite what Vice President [JD] Vance has irresponsibly and erroneously said ... there’s no such thing as absolute immunity,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said. “Of course, there can be criminal liability for an ICE agent who commits a crime. ICE agents do not have carte blanche and license to kill and commit crimes and assaults and batter and rape and murder Americans. That’s what JD Vance is saying.”

Amid aggressive immigration raids in Minneapolis, Renee Macklin Good was shot three times by an ICE agent as she appeared to turn her car away from the officer on Jan. 7.

Following the shooting, federal authorities — including President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — blamed Good for the shooting, excluded state and local law enforcement from the investigation and moved to focus the probe on Good’s possible activism, not the ICE agent’s actions.

“The precedent here is very simple — you have a federal law enforcement official, engaging in a federal law enforcement action,” Vance said from the White House podium two days after the shooting. “That’s a federal issue; that guy is protected by absolute immunity, he is doing his job.”

That claim prompted outrage from Democrats around the nation, in part because Macklin Good’s shooting, while she drove her car, is not unique.

Immigration agents have been involved in at least two nonfatal shootings of drivers in Los Angeles in recent months, and a Wall Street Journal investigation identified 13 times since July when ICE agents fired into civilians’ vehicles, twice fatally.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem immediately defended the actions of the officer who killed a woman in Minnesota.

(

Michael Gonzalez

/

Getty Images

)

Outrage in California and beyond

Vance’s comments in particular outraged law enforcement in California and beyond; the administration’s response led six federal prosecutors in Minnesota to resign this week.

“I’ve never in my career seen a government official, an elected official, or the head of a law enforcement agency come out and within minutes justify the conduct of the officer or agent [involved in a shooting],” San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said on KQED’s Political Breakdown on Tuesday.

“It tells me that there’s already been a conclusion drawn, that we will not have a full and fair and independent investigation because they’ve already told us that they’ve determined that this shooting was justified. And so there will not be an opportunity for justice should that need to happen.”

Jenkins, a Democrat, made headlines in October amid threats of Bay Area immigration raids when she said she would not hesitate to prosecute federal agents who break the law in San Francisco. Her comments prompted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to write a letter that offered a preview of the government’s response to the Minnesota case: He declared any arrest of federal agents “illegal and futile.”

But Jenkins’ comments were correct, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.

San Mateo County's Stephen Wagstaffe said recent events have him worried about the public's trust in law enforcement

(

KQED

)

“That’s exactly what I feel. I don’t care who they are; I don’t care who or what their role is. If they come into our county, violate the law, they get held accountable just like anybody does,” he said. “Stature or occupation is not relevant as to whether you get prosecuted if you violate the law.”

In one of the Los Angeles cases, TikTok streamer Carlitos Ricardo Parias was accused by federal agents of using his car as a deadly weapon; agents claimed they fired at him in self-defense. But a federal judge dismissed the assault charges filed by federal prosecutors, and video of the incident has raised questions about the agents’ account.

It’s not clear if there are state or local investigations into that incident: Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman declined an interview request for this story, and Bonta declined to confirm or deny a state investigation, saying he cannot comment on pending cases.

But prosecutors said that federal authorities’ actions are eroding trust in law enforcement — and making their jobs harder.

“Rule of law doesn’t truly exist in our country at the highest level right now,” Jenkins said. “We already know that based on the history in this country, there’s so much distrust when it comes to the prosecution of law enforcement for unlawful shootings or even fair investigations into those shootings.”

Wagstaffe said he was dismayed to see the rush to judgment by both the Trump administration and local elected officials, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Within hours of the Good shooting, Frey declared the federal government’s self-defense claims “bulls—.”

Still, Wagstaffe said none of that should affect the investigation.

“What we’re trying to do here is inspire public trust,” he said. “But I’m not going to be influenced in even the slightest by what any other person says.”

Questions about state officials' power

Bonta, Wagstaffe and Jenkins all said that after Good’s killing and the subsequent decision by the FBI to shut out Minnesota investigators, they have real concerns about their ability to probe potential use-of-force incidents involving federal authorities.

Wagstaffe noted that federal prosecutors generally are not empowered to investigate homicides — local district attorneys are. Jenkins said if federal authorities take control of a scene and refuse to share evidence, “it would nearly negate our ability to prosecute.”

Bonta said that what should happen after a federal agent uses deadly force is a joint investigation.

“We should have access to the scene. We should have access to the evidence. We should get cooperation from the federal government,” he said.

California's response to ICE

California has made moves to push back on what Democrats here see as ICE’s overreach: Last year, the governor signed a law barring local and federal law enforcement from wearing a mask while on duty, a law that’s now tied up in court. The author of that bill, state Sen. Scott Wiener, is currently pushing legislation to make it easier for Californians to sue over violations of constitutional rights, like illegal searches and seizures or retaliating against someone for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bonta urged Californians to report federal misconduct to a new website his office created, including video of encounters with ICE, which the public is allowed to record. But he also encouraged protesters and others not to take the bait if federal agents appear to be provoking a violent response.

“You cannot, and you should not, assault or strike or commit a crime against an officer. You just can’t, no matter what they did in terms of approaching you. If they use force and you think it was unreasonable, you’re not going to figure it out at that moment,” he said. “I’ll have to get it figured out later in a court of law.”

“Follow orders, be peaceful, but you can observe, you can record, and that can be used later as evidence in a case that you might bring.”

Since September, 16 major drug companies have inked deals with the Trump administration to lower prices. But in January — the time of year when pharmaceutical companies typically roll out price hikes — all 16 companies released higher list prices for some of their drugs.

The agreements, nicknamed "most favored nation" deals, were aimed at getting lower prices for American consumers and pushing other wealthy countries to pay higher prices for new drugs.

But drug companies, including the 16 that made deals, raised the prices of 872 brand-name drugs in the first two weeks of 2026, according to a new analysis by 46brooklyn, a drug price research firm.

The drugs with price hikes included medicines to treat cancer, heart failure and Type 2 diabetes. The price of some COVID shots also went up.

"The real truth serum is what's happening in the marketplace after those deals occur," says Antonio Ciaccia, chief executive of 46brooklyn, a nonprofit that tracks the list prices of prescription medications. "January is prime time for list price changes on brand-name drugs. So in examining where we are today, we're pretty much in line with the last few years."

The price increases came in at a median of 4% — the same as last year — despite the deals announced with fanfare by the Trump administration.

Pharmaceutical list prices are the starting point for negotiations with insurers and the middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. List prices play a role in which drugs insurers choose to cover and what the patient ultimately pays out-of-pocket at the pharmacy counter.

Asked about the price hikes and whether they break the terms of the deals, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the list prices aren't important, and that the specific discounts addressed in the deals are coming to state Medicaid programs and patients who want to pay cash for some prescriptions.

The White House announced Thursday that it was asking Congress to pass legislation to support his Great Healthcare Plan. During a press call, Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, claimed the plan would "codify" what was in the individually negotiated drug company deals.

What we know about the deals

Details are hard to come by since the administration's deal documents haven't been made public.

During the news conferences, health and White House officials mentioned the companies had made commitments for Medicaid discounts — but that's something the program already gets, says Dr. Ben Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

The deals also included pledges for future drugs to be launched at the same price in other wealthy countries as in the U.S. And some drugs will be made available at a discount to cash-paying customers — that is, those who are uninsured or not using their health insurance — through a new website called TrumpRx.gov.

But those efforts don't affect prices for a lot of the companies' products and most healthcare consumers and insurance plans.

"Those deals probably are not very important in terms of manufacturer drug pricing and the prices paid by most Americans for prescription drugs," Rome said.

Pfizer, which reached the first deal with the Trump administration in September, raised the prices of 72 products in January, according to 46brooklyn. They include a 15% increase on the price of its COVID shot.

New York-based Pfizer says its new price increases were modest and necessary to invest in new medicines and address added expenses. In an email to NPR, the company also pointed out that while list prices have gone up, the prices that insurance companies actually wind up paying Pfizer, after various discounts and rebates paid to middlemen and other programs, have gone down.

Merck also raised prices on 18 products, including Isentress for HIV and Belsomra for insomnia, according to 46brooklyn's data.

The New Jersey-based company said in an email that it made these decisions "responsibly to reflect a product's clinical value to patients and the healthcare system." Asked about how the price increases fit into its agreement with the administration, Merck spokesperson Julie Cunningham said the "exact terms" are "confidential" but the company is working on "fairer global pricing."

Some drug prices went down

There were 18 big price cuts in the first few days of the year, according to 46brooklyn. That includes four drugs that were part of the first round of Medicare drug price negotiation — an initiative launched by the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The negotiations lowered some drug prices paid by Medicare, but many wondered whether that might also lead to lower prices for privately insured patients.

The new data holds some clues. Fiasp, an insulin product, got a 75% price cut in the commercial market, according to the 46brooklyn data. The drug's maker, Novo Nordisk, said it also cut the prices of other drugs, and its goal was to make them more affordable.

AstraZeneca's Farxiga and Boehringer Ingelheim's Jardiance, both used for diabetes and heart failure, and the blood thinner Eliquis, made by Bristol Myers Squibb, also got price drops between 37% and 44%.

When a company decides to lower prices, it's due to a variety of factors and policies, but 46brooklyn's Ciaccia says, "Medicare drug price negotiations, I would argue, are the straw that broke the camel's back."

Dr. Ben Rome isn't sure he agrees with that analysis: "It's hard to sort of pin any one drug or any one situation on any one policy," he says. "But it's probably a confluence of factors that have led to some of these drug [companies] making that decision."

After the first round of negotiations in 2024, Medicare prices for 10 chosen drugs were reduced by 38% to 79%, with those discounts going into effect in January of 2026.

The new report presents a mixed picture of what happened to those drugs outside of Medicare: Four posted big drops in list price this month, four didn't have price changes and two had price increases.

Copyright 2026 NPR