The Brief

Ships plying the frigid waters near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of South America, will need to keep an eye on their radar for a floating island of ice: "The largest iceberg in the world, A-23a, is on the move into open ocean!" as the British Antarctic Survey recently announced.

"It's a trillion tons of ice. So it's hard to comprehend just how big a patch of ice this is," Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, told NPR.

Iceberg A23a measures 40 by 32 nautical miles, according to the U.S. National Ice Center. For comparison, Hawaii's island of Oahu is 44 miles long and 30 miles across. And New York City's Manhattan Island is about 13.4 miles long and spans around 2.3 miles at its widest point.

When A23a was still part of an ice shelf, it held a Soviet research station — and it whisked that base off to sea when it floated away in the 1980s (more on that below). The iceberg then became grounded on the seafloor. But in recent years, it has been on the move again, after shaking loose.

Here's a quick recap of the iceberg, its history and its potential future:

It's the world's biggest iceberg

A23a hasn't always held the title. In 2021, for instance, it was supplanted by iceberg A-76, which broke from the Ronne Ice Shelf, also in the Weddell Sea. But that giant soon fractured into smaller icebergs, putting A23a back into the top spot.

"It's truly a gargantuan piece of ice," Scambos said, noting that the iceberg is likely 1,000 to 1,200 feet thick.

Its roots stretch to the austral winter of 1986, when the Filchner Ice Shelf's leading edge broke off to calve three huge icebergs: A22, A23 and A24. In late 1991, A23a became a separate iceberg.

A23a was grounded for decades

Recent satellite images have shown the migration of the mammoth iceberg known as A23a from its origins in the Weddell Sea to its current position on the edge of the open ocean.

(

Worldview/NASA Earth Observing System/Screenshot by NPR

)

If icebergs were humans, A23a would be a millennial. And like members of that generation who have sometimes been forced to stay home by harsh economic conditions, the iceberg has spent most of its independent existence grounded, stuck to a sandbank in shallow waters.

Little by little, the iceberg kept scouring a path over the seafloor and toward deeper water, nudged by currents, the wind and other factors. A breakthrough came in 2020, when the main bulk of A23a freed itself and started to pivot clockwise on its southeast corner. Before long, it was moving in earnest.

It took ice station Druzhnaya 1 out to sea

A map shows the locations of research stations in Antarctica, focusing on the coast of the Weddell Sea.

(

U.S. Geological Survey

)

Over the decades, the Filchner Ice Shelf has hosted several countries' research and mapping stations. For about 10 years, that included a Soviet station called Druzhnaya 1.

"When the A23 iceberg calved and floated off" in 1986, "Druzhnaya 1 was still on it," according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

In February 1987, a Soviet ship, the Kapitan Kondratyev, tracked the iceberg down and deployed a landing party aboard a helicopter "to salvage the most valuable equipment from the station," as researchers noted in a recent academic paper.

Life can get weird on an iceberg

If you were to set foot on A23a, Scambos said, you likely wouldn't realize it's an iceberg, floating loose at sea. Its scale would simply fill the horizon; any movement would be imperceptible. He should know. He has camped on icebergs before.

He recalls one odd thing: the disorientation.

"The ice that the base was built on would start to rotate, and that would make the sun do funny things in the sky," Scambos said. "It wouldn't be where it's supposed to be in the morning or in the evening or at night — even though it's 24 hours of daylight."

Over the years, he has heard from people who want to visit an iceberg. And Scambos says that while some of their goals were outlandish (as in, people hoping to declare unilateral sovereignty over an ice kingdom), a gigantic iceberg like A23a is pretty stable — with a big caveat.

"It's not impossible to land on it," Scambos said. "I mean, the upper surface is going to be smooth and snowy and relatively safe, at least for now."

But as the iceberg drifts north and finds warmer conditions, melting and flooding will begin.

"Eventually it will start to crack apart fairly rapidly towards the end," he said. "You wouldn't want to be on it at the end, because the whole thing would be breaking off in pieces and falling into the ocean."

Huge icebergs have drifted far distances

Most icebergs emerging from the Weddell Sea tend to drift slightly eastward toward South Georgia, some 1,000 miles east of the tip of South America.

If that happens to A23a, it could run aground again near South Georgia. But other icebergs, like its sibling A24, have moved more directly north, toward the Falkland Islands.

"Usually they're in the process of breaking up at that point," Scambos said, "although this one is likely to survive longer than most because it came from a colder part of Antarctica" and is thick, along with having a heavy buildup of snowfall.

If A23a doesn't get hung up in shallow and warmer waters, he added, "it could wind up drifting south of Africa into the Indian Ocean. They've even drifted all the way into the Pacific and wound up coming up on Chile, almost circumnavigating the globe. Some of the largest icebergs have done that in the past."

You can learn a lot from an iceberg

Massive icebergs like A23a scrape and scour the seafloor in shallow waters.

"There's a lot of life that lives in the bottom of the ocean that is just completely crushed, wrecked, when one of these things passes over," Scambos said. "That's it for the ecosystem that lives in that part of the ocean."

But the icebergs also give scientists an idea of the changes wrought when massive plates of ice, formed in the coldest parts of the world, suddenly find themselves in warmer conditions.

"The main scientific source of interest for the iceberg is sampling ocean surface waters behind, near, and just ahead of it," Em Newton of the British Antarctic Survey said of A23a, in a message to NPR. Researchers, she added, want "to understand the effects of temperature, changes to salinity, released nutrients, etc., along its path."

This part of the Southern Ocean is normally very poor in nutrients. An iceberg like A23a, Scambos says, can help change that by shedding nutrients it accumulated from Antarctica and stirring up deep water, possibly sparking a plankton bloom in its wake.

What about climate change?

News of the iceberg's peregrination comes after record warm temperatures and low levels of sea ice have been recorded around Antarctica in recent years.

"In February 2023, sea ice around Antarctica reached the lowest extent ever observed since the start of the satellite record in 1979," the NASA Earth Observatory said.

And in September, researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported the lowest winter maximum extent of Antarctic sea ice. It was found to be nearly 400,000 square miles below the previous low, set in 1986.

"But despite several recent years of low extents, the long-term trend for sea ice in southern polar waters is essentially flat," the NASA Earth Observatory said, adding, "it is the declines in sea ice at the other pole — in the Arctic — that are pushing the global sea ice trend downward."

Scambos agrees, noting that A23a came from a part of Antarctica that is fairly stable.

"These big icebergs are spectacular, but they're just the way Antarctica works. This is how an ice sheet works. It gathers snow, and the snow thickens and flows off into the ocean, and then pieces break off. And in Antarctica, those pieces are really, really large," he said.

"But the more important thing for people to be aware of is that Antarctica in other places is losing ice very rapidly," Scambos said, describing a dynamic that contributes to rising sea levels.

"And that actually is a much more serious problem."

Hundreds of organizations are rallying at MacArthur Park on Friday in one of many events recognizing May Day, which is expected to draw thousands of people. 

The rally began at 10 a.m. with speakers, and then the event will march to City Hall around noon. Westlake is no stranger to International Workers’ Day, said Victor Narro, project director with the UCLA James Lawson Jr. Worker Justice Center, which sits across the street from MacArthur Park.

“We’re dealing with so much this year, and I think May Day is going to be a chance for us to come together,” Narro told The LA Local ahead of the rally. 

Advocacy groups from different backgrounds, like immigrants’ rights, housing, LGBTQ rights, and economic justice, will unite for the cause of workers’ rights, Narro said.

“It’s really an inclusive march,” he said. “This really is unlike any other march.”

Organizers also hope to make the event safe for undocumented immigrants and emphasize that they are taking security seriously.

“You just don’t know with this administration,” he added. 

Organizers are calling for a boycott and will rally under the banner, “Solo El Pueblo Shuts it Down – No Work, No School, No Shopping” with the march ending at Gloria Molina Grand Park at the foot of City Hall. 

This year’s May Day also marks the 20th anniversary of La Gran Marcha, when millions of people took to the streets around the country to protest proposed legislation that would have included making it a felony offense to be an undocumented immigrant.

The event is still fresh in a lot of people’s minds, including Juan Aguilar, a supermarket worker who came to the United States in 1989 and participated in the 2006 march in downtown L.A.

“I was really impressed by the number of people there. And I didn’t feel afraid. People weren’t afraid,” he said at a sign-making event for this year’s May Day rally at the Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates in Koreatown. 

He feels it’s so much different now. Back then, Aguilar said, people were only afraid near the border.

“Once you were inside the country, you could move freely. Now it’s everywhere,” he said. “People are afraid because raids can happen at any moment. At work, on the street, leaving court, anywhere.”

The fear in the community has prompted Aguilar to participate in this year’s rally.

Friday will also be Jay Lee’s first time participating in the May Day rally and march. He pointed to the role labor movements have played in shaping migration and identity within Korean communities.

“Korea’s got this huge history of labor,” Lee said. “The existence of the Korean diaspora here is inherently tied to the labor movement in Korea.”

For Lee, a Korean American, this year’s May Day is especially significant. It marks the first year South Korea has designated May 1 as a mandatory public holiday for all workers, including those in the public sector. Previously, only private-sector workers had the day off.

He said this year’s march is also about solidarity across communities.

“We’re going to be marching with Black workers, the Latino centers, the Filipino centers,” Lee said. “We’re going to be all marching together as one voice, and I think that’s really cool.”

The LA Local has reporters on the ground. Check back for updates, and see more photos and video on our Instagram.

The two chicks growing in Big Bear’s famous bald eagle nest have been named.

The offspring of famous parents Jackie and Shadow will be called Sandy and Luna, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that runs a popular YouTube livestream of the nest and is working to preserve acres of land in the area.

The organization announced the results of this year’s chick naming contest Friday after inviting the eagles’ fanbase to submit suggestions with a donation last month.

Keeping with tradition, the final votes were left up to Big Bear Valley third-grade students. A list of names was selected randomly from the nearly 64,000 public fundraiser submissions and delivered on ballots to the students, who are studying bald eagles in school, earlier this week.

Sandy was the most popular name entered into the contest with more than 3,700 submissions, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.

The name is an homage to Sandy Steers, an environmental advocate who helped launch the eagle livestream and the nonprofit’s late executive director. She died in February, a few weeks before the pair of eggs were laid.

“Please know that although Sandy would not have wanted us to outright name one of the eaglets Sandy, she would have been honored that you and the students went through the process and named one of the 2026 eaglets after her,” the organization wrote on Facebook Friday to its more than 1.2 million followers.

Chick naming traditions

Sandy and Luna have been known as Chick 1 and Chick 2, respectively, since they hatched in early April.

Once the eaglets arrived, Friends of Big Bear Valley was swarmed with hundreds of requests to name one of the chicks “Sandy.”

But it’s a right of passage for the Big Bear third graders to name the chicks, and the tradition was “one of Sandy’s greatest joys,” according to Jenny Voisard, Friends of Big Bear Valley’s media manager.

Jackie and Shadow, the adult birds whose parenting saga each nesting season has captured human attention around the world, have had previous chicks named Stormy, BBB (for Big Bear Baby), Simba, Spirit and Cookie through a similar process.

“Last year, because Jackie and Shadow did not have chicks the previous two seasons, she opened it up to the other grades that didn’t get to participate when they were in the third grade,” Voisard said in a statement. “That was Sandy. Education was extremely important to her.”

Last season’s eaglets were dubbed Sunny and Gizmo by the Big Bear elementary students, who voted on 30 finalists pulled from about 54,000 name choices crowdsourced in a week-long fundraiser.

What’s next for Sandy and Luna

The nonprofit asked people to submit gender neutral names because the sex of each eaglet is not yet known.

Sandy and Luna are nearly 4 weeks old as of Friday, but once the eaglets reach around 9 to 10 weeks old, there should be signs that can help Friends of Big Bear Valley make an educated guess.

One of Jackie and Shadow's chicks peaks out from behind its parent on April 5.

(

Friends of Big Bear Valley

/

YouTube

)

Big Bear's famous bald eaglets on April 7.

(

Friends of Big Bear Valley

/

YouTube

)

The chicks in the nest overlooking Big Bear Lake on April 12.

(

Friends of Big Bear Valley

/

YouTube

)

Sandy and Luna, formally known as Chick 1 and Chick 2, stretching in the nest on April 30.

(

Friends of Big Bear Valley

/

YouTube

)

Some of the signs the nonprofit looks out for include the chick’s size, ankle thickness and vocal pitch.

Generally speaking, female bald eagles are larger than males. Female bald eagles also tend to have larger vocal organs — the syrinx — which leads to deeper, lower-pitched vocalizations, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.

The only definitive way to know the eaglets’ sex is through a blood test, which nonprofit officials have said is unlikely. There is no human intervention in the nest during nesting season, according to Voisard.

When the eaglets are around 10 to 14 weeks old, they could fledge, or take their first flight away from the nest overlooking Big Bear Lake.

But as the nonprofit often reminds fans, nature is in charge of the timeline — a previous eaglet named Simba took 16 weeks to fledge.

Fledglings from Southern California have been spotted as far north as British Columbia, as far east as Yellowstone and as far south as Baja California, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.

Big picture progress

Friends of Big Bear Valley is continuing to lead a $10 million fundraiser to buy more than 62-acres near the nest to preserve it from a planned housing project called Moon Camp.

Instead, the organization and the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust want the land to be placed under a permanent conservatorship.

Officials say “Save Moon Camp” is the most ambitious fundraising effort in the history of Friends of Big Bear Valley. It’s raised more than $2.3 million as of Friday.

California’s billionaires are not the only ones fighting back against the state’s largest health workers union this election season. Now the clinics are too.

The California Primary Care Association, which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, and Open Door Community Health Centers filed a lawsuit Thursday to stop Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West from placing an initiative on the November ballot that would dictate how clinics spend money.

The clinic measure is less prominent than the billionaire-backed fight against a wealth tax, but recently came closer to appearing before voters.

The clinic’s lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the union’s ballot measure would interfere with federal laws and regulations that place strict spending requirements on nonprofit health clinics that serve low-income patients.

Joey Cachuela, general counsel for the clinic association said in a statement the initiative threatens patient care. “We are filing this preelection challenge and need the courts to act to prevent this drastic measure from ever going to the ballot. Patient lives are at risk,” Cachuela said.

A spokesperson for the healthcare workers union did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dr. Elizabeth Sophy, far right, who is a part of Father Joe’s Villages Street Health Team, examines Devlin Chambers at an encampment in downtown San Diego on March 22, 2024. Chambers, 60, said he has a pinched nerve in his back.

(

Kristian Carreon

/

CalMatters

)

Earlier this month, union members turned in more than 1 million signatures to qualify the “Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act” for the ballot. The union collected nearly double the number of signatures required to place the proposal before voters.

Under California’s election rules, proposals that gather enough signatures qualify for the ballot after the Secretary of State’s office verifies their validity.

The union proposal would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of revenue on services that fulfill the stated mission to “provide primary and preventive care to low-income and underserved populations.” It would also punish clinics that do not adhere to this spending formula and place the money in a state-operated account that could later be used for worker training and staffing programs.

“It is the intent of this initiative to create a reasonable minimum standard of mission-directed

spending … to ensure clinic patient service delivery and workforce stability is prioritized over management and overhead spending,” the initiative states.

Union leaders and members argue that clinics spend too much money on executive pay and administrative overhead and too little on patients. They also contend that some clinics spend only half of their revenue on direct patient care, an allegation that clinics call misleading.

“We have one message for our clinics: Put patients first. It’s time for an end to wasteful spending. It’s time to make sure clinics are putting their money in patient care and not CEO-pay,” said Brisa Barrera, a medical assistant from Santa Rosa Community Health during an April rally to celebrate delivering the signatures.

The clinic association, however, argues that the initiative would illegally force hundreds of community health centers to close by stripping nearly $2 billion from health systems.

Tory Starr, chief executive of Open Door Community Health Centers, which operates clinics in Humboldt and Del Norte counties, said the measure would be “devastating” to the organization’s rural patients and would result in layoffs, reduced services and closures.

A nearly identical version of the ballot initiative failed to pass in the state Legislature earlier this year.

The initiative is one of three measures the union has submitted to the ballot. Another aims to limit health care executive pay at $450,000, and SEIU-UHW is also backing the “billionaire’s tax” that has drawn ire from both Democrats and Republicans.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

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

Making his first appearance before Congress since the Trump administration went to war against Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced withering questioning Wednesday from skeptical Democrats over a costly conflict being waged without congressional approval.

The war has cost $25 billion so far, according to Pentagon numbers presented to the House Armed Services Committee during a contentious hearing ostensibly focused on the administration's 2027 military budget proposal. It would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion.

While Republicans focused on the details of military budgeting and voiced support for the Iran operation, Democrats grilled Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the ballooning costs of the war, the huge drawdown of critical U.S. munitions and the bombing of a school that killed children. Some lawmakers also questioned President Donald Trump's dealings with allies and his shifting justification for the conflict.

Hegseth dismissed the criticism as political and rebuked lawmakers who pushed him for answers.

"The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans," Hegseth said.

Democrats press Hegseth over reasons for war

Wednesday's hearing stretched nearly six hours as Democrats and some Republicans questioned Hegseth over the war and his ouster of several top military leaders.

In one tense exchange, Hegseth told Democratic Rep. Adam Smith that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated in 2025 strikes by the U.S., prompting Smith to question the Trump administration's reasoning for starting the Iran war less than a year later.

"We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat," said Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee. "Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated?"

Hegseth responded that Iran "had not given up their nuclear ambitions" and still had thousands of missiles.

Smith said the war "left us at exactly the same place we were before."

Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor for the world's oil, has sent fuel prices skyrocketing and posed problems for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections. The U.S. has imposed a naval blockade of Iranian shipping and three American aircraft carriers are in the Middle East for the first time in more than 20 years.

Democrats accused Hegseth of misleading Americans about the reasons for the conflict and said rising gas prices are now threatening the pocketbooks of millions of people in the U.S.

"Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from day one and so has the president," said Rep. John Garamendi of California, who called the war "a geopolitical calamity," a "strategic blunder" and a "self-inflicted wound to America."

Hegseth blasted Garamendi's remarks.

"Who are you cheering for here?" he asked the lawmaker. "Your hatred for President Trump blinds you" to the success of the war.

Hegseth defends firings of top military officers

The defense secretary faced intense questions from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Pennsylvania Democrat, about his decision to oust the Army's top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, one of several top military officers to be dismissed since Trump took office again.

Houlahan said George was deeply respected by members of the military and Congress and asked why Hegseth fired him. Hegseth's response that "new leadership" was needed failed to satisfy Houlahan.

"You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men," Houlahan began, before Hegseth interrupted her. "We needed new leadership," he repeated.

The Pentagon also announced this month that Navy Secretary John Phelan was stepping down. Hegseth previously removed Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy's top uniformed officer, Gen. Jim Slife, the Air Force's No. 2 leader and others, while Trump fired Gen. Charles "CQ" Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said that while Hegseth is empowered to make personnel changes, he shared what he called "bipartisan concern" about the firings.

"We had a huge bipartisan majority here that had confidence in the Army chief of staff and the secretary of the navy," Bacon said. "And I would just point out it may be constitutionally right ... but it doesn't make it right or wise."

Hegseth has said the changes are part of building a "warrior culture" at the Pentagon.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina defended Hegseth's personnel moves, saying he is "trying to innovate and trying to change the way we do business."

"I'm glad that you're firing people," Mace said. "There are people there that are getting in your way. They need to go."

Democrats ask about war's cost, while Republicans back Trump on Iran

Hegseth detailed plans to increase pay for service members and upgrade munitions while also announcing that, as of Tuesday, the Pentagon had released $400 million in previously appropriated military aid for Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

But the Iran war dominated the debate.

While a fragile ceasefire is in place, the U.S. and Israel launched the war Feb. 28 without congressional oversight. House and Senate Democrats have failed to pass multiple war power resolutions that would have required Trump to halt the conflict until Congress authorizes further action.

Republicans say they back Trump's wartime leadership for now, citing Iran's nuclear program, the potential for talks to resume and the high stakes of withdrawal. Still, GOP lawmakers are eager for the conflict to end, and some are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on.

Democrats questioned Hegseth over the war's economic impact and rising gasoline costs, noting Trump's promise to lower consumer costs. Hegseth responded by citing the threat posed by Iran.

"What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield?" he said.

The U.S. and Iran appear locked in a stalemate. Trump told Axios on Wednesday that he is rejecting Iran's proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the U.S. blockade.
Copyright 2026 NPR