Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Administration wants to end rule protecting forest
    A large fire burns through bushes and vegetation along a roadside, kicking a tremendous amount of smoke into the air.
    The Gifford Fire, the largest fire to burn in California so far this year, started near a road. Research shows wildfires are more likely to start within 50 feet of a road than they are farther out.

    Topline:

    The Trump administration wants to build more roads in the country's national forests by rescinding a decades-old rule that protects nearly 60 million acres of forested lands.

    What supporters say: "For nearly 25 years, the Roadless Rule has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to action — prohibiting road construction, which has limited wildfire suppression and active forest management," U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said in a press statement.

    What opponents say: "The law of unintended consequences is a very real law," said Alexandra Syphard, senior research scientist with the Conservation Biology Institute. "One of the most fundamental concepts in fire, especially in terms of fire geography, is that roads are the dominant place where you see ignitions."

    The Trump administration wants to build more roads in the country's national forests by rescinding a decades-old rule that protects nearly 60 million acres of forested lands.

    On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to formally start the process of undoing the 2001 Roadless Rule — a move that it argues will help the country's firefighters.

    "For nearly 25 years, the Roadless Rule has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to action — prohibiting road construction, which has limited wildfire suppression and active forest management," U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said in a press statement Wednesday.

    Forest ecologists and fire scientists say it's not that simple, and they warn that more roads could lead to more wildfires.

    "The law of unintended consequences is a very real law," said Alexandra Syphard, senior research scientist with the Conservation Biology Institute and the director of science for the Global Wildfire Collective, which aims to connect fire scientists with wildfire managers.

    Syphard, a research ecologist who has been studying wildfire for almost 30 years, said that historically, when it comes to roads and wildfires, a clear pattern has held.

    "One of the most fundamental concepts in fire, especially in terms of fire geography, is that roads are the dominant place where you see ignitions," Syphard said.

    The reason is twofold. Where there are roads, there are people. And where there are people, there tend to be wildfires. Additionally, plowing roads into roadless forests and cutting through forest canopies can change the types of vegetation that grow on the forest floor.

    A study by the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station, published in 2020, found that non-native plants are twice as common within 500 feet of a road as they are farther away. The study, which aimed to address the broader assertion that roads are needed to prevent fires, concluded: "Speculation that eliminating road prohibitions would improve forest health is not supported by nearly twenty years of monitoring."

    The USDA, which includes the Forest Service, did not respond to a request for comment.

    Managing forests to reduce wildfire 

    The Roadless Rule has been a source of conflict and litigation between states, industry, and environmental groups since its creation in 2001.

    During his first term, President Donald Trump stripped roadless protections for Alaska's Tongass National Forest — the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world — only for them to be restored by the Biden administration in 2023.

    Environmental organizations argue that the Trump administration's most recent efforts to rescind roadless protections are driven more by a desire to increase timber production in national forests than by a need to reduce wildfire risk. President Trump signed an executive order in March calling for a 25% increase in the nation's timber production.

    Outside of Alaska, rescinding roadless protections won't open up a bunch of stands of harvestable timber, said former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who served under President George W. Bush right after the Roadless Rule was first implemented.

    "The areas that were left roadless, were left roadless for a reason," he said. "Because they didn't have the timber in there and because it was expensive to do road construction."

    Bosworth said if the Trump administration wants to reduce wildfire risk in roadless areas, there's an opportunity to do it under the existing rule. While the Roadless Rule prohibits large-scale logging, it does have an exception for smaller-diameter timber to be cut and sold if it improves habitat for threatened or endangered species, or it reduces the risk of "uncharacteristic wildfire" — that is, more severe wildfires than the area would normally have.

    "In my view, our timber program should be focused on [improving forest health] anyway, whether you're going into a roadless area or whether you're doing that in other areas," he said. "If we really focused on that, we'd be probably providing more timber on accident than we do on purpose."

    A notice of intent to roll back the Roadless Rule, published Thursday by the Trump administration, noted that while exceptions to the rule are sometimes made, "the use of exceptions has been limited, and the majority have been for forest stewardship purposes."

    'Surgical' use of roads may be helpful

    There are situations where roads are beneficial to wildfire suppression efforts.

    A 2021 study by researchers in Oregon found that while roadless areas in Western forests had fewer ignitions than places with roads, the fires that did start tended to burn more land.

    "Fires that start near roads tend to be controlled more quickly and smaller for obvious reasons of rapid detection and access [for firefighters]," said Matt Thompson, a former research forester at the Forest Service and the vice president of wildfire risk analytics at Vibrant Planet, who was not involved in the 2021 study.

    Being able to quickly detect and suppress fires near homes or other valuable resources is a good thing, he said, but when fires are burning in roadless areas they're often far away from both.

    Roads can also be a fuel-break for firefighters — a vegetation-less barrier that they can use to try to stop or slow a fire's growth.

    In its initial announcement that it would be rescinding the Roadless Rule, the Trump administration said it had identified 28 million acres of roadless areas that are at high or very high risk of wildfire. Thompson said he's curious where those acres are — and the USDA didn't respond to NPR's questions about that finding.

    But he said if the administration took "a surgical approach" to building roads in areas where they could be used as fire breaks to protect communities or homes, and provide for firefighter safety, it could be beneficial.

    "The question is, will we have the resources and can we get that done in time so it's not just a new risk sitting out there?" Thompson said.

    The public comment period on the proposed rescission ends Sept. 19.

  • 'Save Moon Camp' reaches $10 million goal
    A wide view of two adult bald eagles snuggled up next to each on a tree branch in a mountain range.
    Big Bear's famous bald eagle couple, Jackie and Shadow, snuggled up side by side on their "Lookout Snag" on Saturday.

    Topline:

    Nearly 63 acres of land near Big Bear’s famous bald eagle nest will be permanently preserved after environmental organizations successfully raised $10 million to prevent a planned housing project.

    Why now: Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that runs the popular YouTube livestream of Jackie and Shadow’s nest, announced Friday that they’ve reached their goal. The “Save Moon Camp” fundraising page shows that it’s raised more than $10.5 million by the time of publication.

    The details: The fundraiser was able to get across the finish line with a more than $5.5 million donation from Anna and Greg Brockman, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley. Greg Brockman is the co-founder and president of OpenAI. He didn’t immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment. Jenny Voisard, a spokesperson for the nonprofit, said smaller donations made up the rest.

    Why it matters: Voisard said they are “beyond grateful” for the tireless support of so many people over the past six months. She told LAist that they “just hope Jackie comes home soon.”

    “Greg and I are grateful to all those who championed saving the home of these majestic eagles, Jackie and Shadow,” Anna Brockman said in a statement. “They inspire perseverance and a sense of connectedness to something greater, to nature. We are proud to be supportive.”

    The backstory: In February, Friends of Big Bear Valley and the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust launched the fundraiser to prevent construction that they argued would harm rare plants and wildlife in the area. It was the most ambitious fundraising effort in the nonprofit’s history.

    What's next: The trust plans to have the land purchased by next Friday. The organization will preserve the acres in perpetuity, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley. Any donations over the goal will be put toward long-term care of the land.

    Go deeper: Environmental groups launch $10M fundraiser to buy land near Big Bear’s famous bald eagle nest

  • Sponsored message
  • CA sues Trump over emergency preparedness grants
    A room filled with people inspecting ballots while sitting at tables.
    Election workers process vote-by-mail ballots at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana on June 2, 2026.

    Topline:

    The Trump administration wants to link emergency preparedness grants for states to its preferences on immigration enforcement and the administration of elections.

    More details: California is taking the Trump administration to court a third time over its attempts to tie crucial emergency preparedness funding to the president’s preferences on immigration enforcement and election administration. In a coalition with 24 Democratic-led states, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit over new conditions on U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants.

    Why now: In the lead up to the November midterms, the Trump administration has pushed for stricter election rules, such as voter ID, to fight claims of widespread voter fraud. But Democratic lawmakers and officials have characterized these moves as Trump and the Republican party’s efforts to suppress voter turnout.

    Read on... for more on the lawsuit.

    California is taking the Trump administration to court a third time over its attempts to tie crucial emergency preparedness funding to the president’s preferences on immigration enforcement and election administration.

    In a coalition with 24 Democratic-led states, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit over new conditions on U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants.

    Most of these new rules relate to elections, including mandating states to employ a federal system to verify the citizenship of all their voters; using hand-marked paper voting ballots; and carrying out post-election audits, according to the lawsuit in Rhode Island’s federal court.

    The conditions also require states to assist with federal immigration enforcement and enable federal agencies to terminate states’ funds at their discretion.

    For decades the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have provided billions of dollars to states to prepare and respond to major disasters, including wildfires and earthquakes. One of these grants is the Homeland Security Grant Program, which Congress created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. California alone receives $150 million each year from this program to fight terrorism, such as preventing cyberattacks.

    But under the Trump administration, Bonta said the agencies are using public safety as “a bargaining chip,” and unlawfully withholding funds that Congress already appropriated.

    The lawsuit alleges that if states do not comply with the new election rules, for example, they will lose at least 20%, if not all, of their Homeland Security Grant Program funds.

    In the lead up to the November midterms, the Trump administration has pushed for stricter election rules, such as voter ID, to fight claims of widespread voter fraud. But Democratic lawmakers and officials have characterized these moves as Trump and the Republican party’s efforts to suppress voter turnout.

    “Instead of ensuring these critical resources reach the communities that need them, Trump is attempting to use this funding as leverage to force states to adopt his preferred political agenda,” Bonta said at a press conference Thursday.

    In an emailed statement FEMA said the lawsuit is “partisan pushback” from Democratic politicians who “oppose common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.”

    “Election security is national security, and protecting our critical infrastructure remains a top priority for the Trump Administration. Concerns over voting processes, data security, and registration practices have made it clear that action is required. … These new requirements will preserve election integrity.”

    The Trump administration tried to deny states these same grants twice last year as it pressured states to participate in federal immigration enforcement. Both times California and other states sued and a federal court sided with them.

    In her ruling rejecting the administration’s second attempt, U.S. District Court for Rhode Island Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee, said holding funds hostage “based solely on what appear to be Defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful.”

    This lawsuit is California’s 79th against the second Trump administration.

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

  • James is moving to the Philadelphia 76ers
    A basketball player wears the purple and gold uniform of the Los Angeles Lakers. He is pictured running on an indoor court.
    Topline:
    LeBron James is heading to the Philadelphia 76ers. The NBA’s all-time leading scorer made the announcement on social media Friday, saying it will be his “last decision” and that it comes after he strongly considered retirement.


    Historic Lakers run: After playing eight seasons and winning one NBA title with the L.A. Lakers, James announced he was leaving the team earlier this month. During this time he surpassed Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the league's all-time leading scorer. He also became the first NBA player to play on a team with his son, Bronny.

    The contract: The 41-year-old James is set to sign a modest $8-million, two-year contract with the Sixers, according to ESPN. He made nearly $53 million last season.

    ILADELPHIA (AP) — LeBron James is heading to the Philadelphia 76ers.

    The NBA’s all-time leading scorer made the announcement on social media Friday, saying it will be his “last decision” and that it comes after he strongly considered retirement.

    “I believe I can help make the Philadelphia 76ers a championship team and I am so excited to energize a new fan base and start this incredible journey one last time,” James said.

    A four-time NBA champion, James wrote he was “done” when his 23rd NBA season ended and that it was his last with the Los Angeles Lakers.

    “I was pretty sure I played my last game. I was honest at that last press conference when I said I needed to look at myself and deicide if I still love this game,” James wrote. “I still truly love this game, and I have more to give.”

    The 41-year-old James is set to sign a modest $8-million, two-year contract with the Sixers, according to ESPN. He made nearly $53 million last season.

    “I’m not going for money. I’m not going for family,” James wrote. “What am I really playing for at this point? I still want to sacrifice. I still want to work. I still want to grind. I still want to compete, to win and to have a chance at the feeling of winning.”

    Much as James did for Cleveland when he ended a 56-year championship drought for the city by leading the Cavaliers to the title in 2016, he can snap a lengthy title drought for the Sixers.

  • Billboard ads, stadium taxes head to ballot
    A large digital billboard of a man wearing a blue and gold suit with a jet in the background and smaller text that reads "Axe my tax."
    A campaign ad targeting Inglewood's stadium owners lights up a video billboard in downtown Inglewood. The ad was paid for by a campaign committee funded by billboard company WOW Media.

    Topline:

    The Inglewood City Council cleared two initiatives to go before voters this fall, but one still faces a court battle.

    Why now: The Inglewood City Council voted 4-0 on Tuesday to send each of the initiatives to the ballot after city staff found each had gathered the required amount of signatures — or more than 10% of the city’s 64,416 voters. Councilmember Dionne Faulk was absent from the afternoon meeting.

    Why it matters: The implications of these initiatives on daily life in Inglewood are real. Each could change how the city engages with stadium visitors and have a multi-million dollar impact on the city’s revenue streams.

    Read on... for more on the initiatives.

    This story first appeared on The LA Local.

    Inglewood voters will weigh in on a pair of ballot initiatives this November that could curtail video billboard advertising and raise taxes on tickets to the city’s stadiums. 

    The Inglewood City Council voted 4-0 on Tuesday to send each of the initiatives to the ballot after city staff found each had gathered the required amount of signatures — or more than 10% of the city’s 64,416 voters. Councilmember Dionne Faulk was absent from the afternoon meeting. 

    The implications of these initiatives on daily life in Inglewood are real. Each could change how the city engages with stadium visitors and have a multi-million dollar impact on the city’s revenue streams.

    Both of the initiatives are offshoots of the ongoing fight over Inglewood’s fleet of video billboards and each has heavy financial backing from a corporate sponsor.

    Mayor James Butts told The LA Local that a third initiative, proposing a cap on fees for commercial parking lots, did not gather enough signatures to make it to the ballot.

    Here’s what the ticket tax initiative would change

    The city pulls in millions of dollars every year through taxes on tickets to SoFi Stadium concerts and games. But the city’s current tax rules put a cap on that revenue.

    The proposed admissions tax measure would remove the annual cap. Inglewood currently slaps a 10% tax on tickets to venues with more than 22,000 seats. The city’s only venue that large is SoFi Stadium, which fits more than 70,000. 

    The annual cap on admissions tax revenue started at $15 million in 2015 and increases with inflation each year. Inglewood is set to pull in an estimated $21.7 million from the admissions tax this fiscal year, according to budget documents, accounting for almost 9% of the city’s total general fund revenue. 

    On top of removing the cap, the initiative would add a new 2.5% ticket tax for venues that have between 10,000 and 22,000 seats.

    Both the Intuit Dome and Kia Forum fit that description, but city staff wrote in a report that the new 2.5% charge would not immediately apply to the Kia Forum, which has a development agreement with the city running until 2041. 

    Read the full initiative here.

    Just under 7,200 verified Inglewood voters signed petitions to support the initiative, according to city records. 

    Bishop Johnny Young of Miracle Temple Church of God Pentecostal, one of the Inglewood locals who supports the initiative, said during the Tuesday meeting that the stadiums need to pay their fair share for the costs Inglewood incurs from stadium visitors. 

    “The stadium is built and the crowds have come,” Young said. “But when the lights dim, I am left with a quiet question: Who is actually carrying the costs for this glory?”

    WOW Media, the company that runs most of Inglewood’s video billboards, has thrown at least $400,000 into campaigns for the admissions tax initiative and the failed parking initiative, according to finance records that run through March 31. 

    The LA Local has reached out to WOW Media, who did not return a request for comment.

    John Shallman, a consultant for the competing, stadium-funded campaign committee Neighbors for Beautiful Inglewood, argued that increased admissions taxes could negatively hit Inglewood’s economy.

    “When a government increases costs, (venues) have to absorb, pass to consumers or reduce expenses,” Shallman said.

    Here’s what the billboard initiative would change

    Inglewood has seen dozens of video billboards and kiosks sprout up along its main roads over the last decade, drawing the ire of some locals who have likened the rows of screens to a mini-Vegas.

    A screenshot of a bar chart showing years from 2014 to 2024, where the peak was in 2022-23 at $7.5M.

    The proposed billboard initiative would ban commercial advertising across a large chunk of those billboards, many of which are built on city land. 

    Proponents argue the initiative would rid Inglewood of “billboard blight,” but the city says it would take a chunk out of the city’s revenue. Since 2018, the billboards have pulled in between $1.6 million and $7.5 million a year in revenue for the city. 

    And, WOW is scheduled to roll out more of its new twisting sidewalk screens in the coming months. 

    Diane Sambrano, an Inglewood local, said she doesn’t think the billboards are worth the money they bring the city.

    “I’d kinda like them all rubbed out,” Sambrano said. “We misuse the money anyway.”

    More than a dozen people gave public comments at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, laying out largely similar arguments against the initiative and asking council members to send it before voters instead of outright approving it.

    “I cannot stand by and watch this council strip millions of dollars from our community just to appease billionaires, stadium developers,” Bishop Young said. “Our partnership with WOW Media generates concrete revenue.”

    Read the full initiative here.

    Neighbors for Beautiful Inglewood, the main campaign behind the initiative, was started with $1 million in contributions from the city’s stadiums and arenas, according to campaign finance records running through March 31.

    Shallman, the campaign’s adviser, said that the billboard initiative is a case of corporate interests aligning with those of Inglewood locals.

    “From a pure citizen perspective, they don’t want these billboards,” he said. “Ultimately, the voters decide how their public space is used.”

    Shallman contended that the stadiums have done significantly more for Inglewood residents than WOW by providing local jobs and a larger chunk of tax dollars.

    “We’ll put that record against the billboard company,” he said. “That’s really the choice here. It’s billboard companies or the sports and entertainment venues.” 

    Even if the initiative is approved by voters, Butts told The LA Local that city officials plan to fight it in court. The city filed a lawsuit in March to block the initiative from the ballot, arguing that it was a product of “avaricious puppeteering” by SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke.

    That lawsuit is ongoing. Butts said any order to stop the initiative is most likely to come after the Nov. 3 election.