The Brief

California is fighting back after President Donald Trump’s administration instigated homeless housing cuts that local service providers said would be "devastating."

Two recently filed lawsuits accuse the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of illegally going over Congress’ head to make massive changes to the way federal homelessness funds are distributed.

“HUD’s new grant rules would effectively defund permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing programs across the nation, eliminating proven tools that help residents exit homelessness sustainably,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said in a statement. “This is another instance of the Trump administration prioritizing its political agenda above the needs of our most vulnerable community members.”

Santa Clara County and San Francisco sued the Trump administration this week, in conjunction with the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition. A separate lawsuit was filed last week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and a handful of other states. It marked the 47th time California sued the Trump administration in 44 weeks.

Now, homeless service providers are waiting anxiously to see how the litigation plays out and wondering if the impending legal battle will further delay the money they desperately need.

“It’s just the matter of how long it’s going to take that concerns me,” said Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health, which coordinates the county’s homelessness response. “Because while we’re waiting for these issues to get resolved, we have programs that are going to run out of money to support people.”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement last month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the changes are aimed at “stopping the Biden-era slush fund that fueled the homelessness crisis, shut out faith-based providers simply because of their values, and incentivized never-ending government dependency.”

At issue are changes the Trump administration made to its funding policy last month. Jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds now can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a significant decrease. Los Angeles County, for example, currently spends more than 80% on permanent housing. Instead, the federal government wants localities to prioritize emergency shelter and temporary housing programs that require participants to be sober or participate in treatment.

While shelters offer a temporary respite from the streets, permanent housing can end someone’s homelessness. For years, the federal government has prioritized funding permanent housing using the “housing first” method — a strategy that moves people into housing as quickly as possible, without requiring them to first get sober or agree to addiction treatment. Veering away from both of those principles marks a major policy shift.

Last year, California communities won more than $683 million in federal homelessness funds through what is called the Continuum of Care program. About 90% of that went to permanent housing projects, which currently house tens of thousands of Californians, according to Newsom. The new rule threatens to put those people back out onto the street, he said in a news release.

The new policy also prohibits the use of federal funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely. And it gives preference for projects in cities, counties and states that ban homeless encampments.

Both lawsuits allege that the Trump administration’s funding changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by defying the rules Congress set out for distributing the funds. Congress authorized a two-year grant cycle in 2024, meaning local jurisdictions wouldn’t have to reapply for funds in 2025. The Trump administration flouted that decision when it suddenly forced jurisdictions to reapply, the lawsuits allege.

The lawsuits also claim the administration didn’t go through proper protocol before enacting the changes to its funding strategy, which would have included giving cities and counties more time to comply with the new rules, and allowing stakeholders to comment on the changes.

In Santa Cruz County, Ratner is of two minds about the lawsuits. On one hand, he believes the abrupt way the Trump administration rolled out the funding changes was “very inappropriate.” But he worries a lengthy court battle could tie up funds his county needs to pay people’s rents.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness sued the Trump administration over similar allegations tied to a smaller, $75 million pot of homelessness funding in September. A judge sided with the Alliance, and temporarily barred the federal government from distributing those funds. But now that money is frozen, unable to help unhoused residents as the case moves forward.

Ratner worries that could happen again in this case. Santa Cruz County is set to start hitting serious financial problems as soon as February, Ratner said. That’s when a $1.2 million supportive housing grant, which currently houses about 50 people in different apartments around the county, is set to expire.

The Trump administration doesn’t expect to start awarding Continuum of Care money until May. It’s unclear how the lawsuits will affect that timeline.

In the meantime, Ratner and other homeless service providers are trying to remain optimistic.

“At this point, we don’t know how long the litigation process will take, but we’re hopeful it leads to a more workable path forward,” Sacramento Steps Forward CEO Lisa Bates said in a statement. “Of course, any delay in federal funding would have real impacts on communities across the country, including ours, to operate shelters, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and essential system coordination.”

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

Santa Monica-based doctor Salvador Plasencia was sentenced Wednesday to 30 months years in federal prison for his role in the overdose death of Friends actor Matthew Perry.

He was also ordered to pay a $5,600 fine and immediately placed in federal custody.

Perry died Oct. 28, 2023, in his Los Angeles home. The L.A. County medical examiner determined the cause was “acute effects of ketamine.” Plasencia pleaded guilty to four felony charges in July for distributing the drug.

“Rather than do what was best for Mr. Perry — someone who had struggled with addiction for most of his life — [Plasencia] sought to exploit Perry’s medical vulnerability for profit,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum. “Indeed, the day [Plasencia] met Perry he made his profit motive known, telling a co-conspirator: ‘I wonder how much this moron will pay’ and ‘let’s find out.’”

Perry's mother and stepfather, Suzanne and Keith Morrison, called Plasencia among the "most culpable" of all.

"But this doctor conspired to break his most important vows, repeatedly, sneaked through the night to meet his victim in secret," the two wrote in a joint victim impact statement. "For what, a few thousand dollars? So he could feed on the vulnerability of our son."

How was Plasencia involved?

Plasencia admitted to selling Perry four vials of liquid ketamine and an open box of ketamine lozenges. Plasencia also admitted to traveling to Perry’s residence, injecting him with the drug and leaving at least one vial with Perry’s personal assistant.

Plasencia will be required to make restitution to Perry’s estate, according to his plea agreement.

His lawyers, Karen L. Goldstein and Debra S. White, said in a statement that Plasencia is not a villain.

"He is someone who made serious mistakes in his treatment decisions involving the off-label use of ketamine — a drug commonly used for depression that does not have uniform standards," the statement said. "The mistakes he made over the 13 days during which he treated Mr. Perry will stay with him forever."

Who else is involved?

He didn’t act alone, according to prosecutors. Plasencia is among five other people charged in Perry’s death, including Dr. Mark Chavez, who pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute ketamine.

Jasveen Sangha, a North Hollywood drug dealer known as “Ketamine Queen,” pleaded guilty in September to supplying the Friends actor with the drugs. She faces a maximum sentence of 65 years in federal prison. Her sentencing is set for Feb. 25. Chavez is scheduled for sentencing later this month.

The other two people involved, including Perry’s personal assistant, are scheduled for sentencing early next year.

Michael and Susan Dell will donate $6.25 billion to fund investment accounts for 25 million U.S. children, under a plan unveiled Tuesday. The money from their charitable funds would help to seed "Trump Accounts" ushered into law in July.

The gift would put $250 into each eligible child's account, which is meant to grow over time through investments in low-cost stock funds that track market indexes.

"The idea is to give millions of children a head start on saving for the future," Michael Dell told NPR. "And we know that when children have accounts like this, even with modest sums, they have better outcomes in life."

Michael Dell is the CEO of Dell Technologies.

Here's a brief guide to the accounts, and the Dells' plan:

Who would receive the Dells' gift?

To receive the Dell gift, children need to have Social Security numbers and be age 10 or under and born before Jan. 1, 2025.

Dell told NPR they're trying to reach kids who need the money the most, which is why the gift targets recipients who live in ZIP codes where the median income is less than $150,000.

The Dells say the gift will reach nearly 80% of children in the eligible age group, across 75% of ZIP codes in the U.S.

Parents need to create "Trump Accounts" to receive the gift

As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law this past summer, every American baby born from this year through 2028 is in line to automatically receive a Trump Account funded with $1,000 from the U.S. Treasury.

All kids under 18 who have a Social Security number can have one of the accounts — but they don't get that initial $1,000.

The Dell gifts are meant to help kids who are too old to receive that Treasury payment.

"What we're doing with this gift is targeting kids that are 10 and under that aren't part of the federal program," Dell said.

Susan Dell encouraged parents to "mark their calendars for July 4, 2026, which is when they could claim the accounts for their children."

How Trump Accounts work

Money in Trump Accounts would grow over time, using contributions to invest in low-cost stock funds that track market indexes. When the children turn 18, they can either convert the money into a retirement account or use the money for education, buying a home, or starting a business.

Parents and others can contribute up to $5,000 annually until the year the child turns 18.

Personal finance experts say the Trump Accounts are sort of a hybrid of existing plans. And the potential benefits would vary widely depending on how much a family can contribute.

According to the White House, maximum contributions to a Trump Account could make it worth nearly $1.1 million by the time a beneficiary is 28 years old. If no additional contributions are made, it could be worth far less: $18,100.

Essential details about how the Trump Accounts will be administered remain unknown. A recent update from Charles Schwab stated, "At this time, it isn't clear who will open the account or where it will be held."

The investment bank recommends families consult a tax or financial adviser if they're interested in the plan.
Copyright 2025 NPR

The Los Angeles Unified School District is reporting a 4% drop in student enrollment compared with last year, a trend the district says is in part due to immigration raids that have terrorized LA communities.

For the 2025–26 school year, LAUSD enrolled 392,654 students, down from 409,108 the previous year, the district said. The numbers are nearly 2% below projections.

On top of the overall decrease, the district saw a “significant” decline in newcomer students who were born outside the United States.

“These declines reflect a climate of fear and instability created by ongoing immigration crackdowns, which disrupt family stability, housing, and mobility,” said LA schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho in a statement.

“When families are afraid to be seen, or when they cannot afford to remain in their communities, they are less likely to enroll, reenroll, or stay in public schools,” he added.

Carvalho said immigration fears are “exacerbating” other factors that were already contributing to statewide enrollment declines, including falling birth rates and rising housing costs.

LAUSD released numbers this week reflecting its annual count of actively enrolled students. The practice, known as “Norm Day,” takes place on the fifth or sixth Friday of the school year. This year, Norm Day fell on Friday, Sept. 19. The district then realigns its teacher workforce based on current student enrollment.

As far as newcomer students — those enrolled for three years or fewer in any U.S. school — the district’s 2023-24 end-of-year data show that 21,997 were enrolled in LAUSD. That number made up 5.2% of the student population.

In 2024-25, newcomer enrollment declined to 19,110 students, the district said. The downward trend continued in 2025–26, with recent data showing an additional decline of 1,768 students, bringing enrollment to 17,342 and reducing newcomers to 4.4% of the student population, according to LAUSD.

“While Newcomers have historically been a vibrant and growing part of our school communities, their enrollment has declined significantly over the past three years, with year-over-year decreases that mirror the uncertainty many families are living through,” Carvalho said.

In September, activists with the social justice group Centro CSO urged LAUSD to place a moratorium on potential staff displacements tied to declining student enrollment.

The Boyle Heights-based group said it was unfair for schools to make staffing decisions at a time when immigration raids have stoked fears across LA neighborhoods.

“ICE has had a chilling effect on our school communities and families, especially those with undocumented members [who] are understandably afraid to send their children to school, fearing detention, separation, or deportation,” the organization wrote in a letter addressed to LAUSD board members.

The district has not yet made it clear whether there will be any staffing changes in Eastside schools resulting from Norm Day.