Topline:
Two small earthquakes struck near Malibu within a 7 hour period, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The backstory: There's little to no risk of earthquake-induced landslides according to seismologist Lucy Jones. However, back-to-back earthquakes can be a sign of more earthquakes.
Read on ... to prepare for The Big One.
Two small earthquakes struck near Malibu within a 7 hour period, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The first quake, a preliminary 3.5 magnitude, hit Friday night at 11:44 p.m. Hours later, that quake was followed by a preliminary 3.7 magnitude at 6:30 a.m.
A Sheriff's spokesperson at the Malibu / Lost Hills Sheriff's station told LAist this morning that no damage or injuries from the quakes have been reported, and extra earthquake precautions are unnecessary at this time.
The quakes were felt in parts of L.A. and Ventura counties, and as far as Long Beach, and come after days of flood warnings along the coast.
These kind of earthquakes aren't unusual in Malibu, says Lucy Jones, a seismologist and founder of the Lucy Jones Center for Science & Society. "Malibu has been experiencing magnitude 3s and even a few 4s for years."
But earthquakes tend to come in clusters, Jones says. This "doublet" of quakes occurred about 10 miles below the earth's surface, "likely along the Santa Monica Bay fault." There's little to no risk of earthquake-induced landslides, she says.
" Big earthquakes can cause landslides, but it needs to be at least about the magnitude of the Northridge earthquake," she says. "About 50,000 times bigger than these."
These earthquakes probably aren't going to trigger The Big One... but it’s coming, eventually. When it happens it'll be at least 44 times stronger than Northridge and 11 times stronger than the Ridgecrest quakes in 2019. Stay earthquake smart with our handy guides:
Topline:
Santa Ana became the latest city in Orange County to approve the use of drones as first responders after a heated debate.
What the police department says: Santa Ana Police Chief Robert Rodriguez told the council the drones will help the department improve response times. “It will reduce the air support costs associated with the Orange County Sheriff's Department helicopter contract. That contract currently right now sits about approximately half a million dollars a year,” he said. “It will provide responding officers with valuable information before they arrive on scene, which enhances community and officer safety.”
Community concerns: But some on the City Council and in the audience expressed concerns with the vendor, Axon Enterprise Inc., which contracts with the Department of Homeland Security.
Why it matters: As Orange County’s only sanctuary city, Santa Ana has grappled with a deep mistrust in the police department as the federal government ramped up immigration raids and ICE detentions last summer. As immigrant families already contend with a fear of coming outside, the increased surveillance, they said, would make them even more afraid.
Santa Ana became the latest city in Orange County to approve the use of drones as first responders after a heated debate.
Santa Ana Police Chief Robert Rodriguez told the council the drones will help the department improve response times.
“It will reduce the air support costs associated with the Orange County Sheriff's Department helicopter contract. That contract currently right now sits about approximately half a million dollars a year,” he said. “It will provide responding officers with valuable information before they arrive on scene, which enhances community and officer safety.”
But some on the City Council and in the audience expressed concerns with the vendor, Axon Enterprise Inc., which contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. As Orange County’s only sanctuary city, Santa Ana has grappled with a deep mistrust in the police department as the federal government ramped up immigration raids and ICE detentions last summer. As immigrant families already contend with a fear of coming outside, the increased surveillance, they said, would make them even more afraid.
Ultimately, the council voted 4-3 to allow the city manager to enter into an agreement with Axon Enterprise for a three-year period, joining cities like Newport Beach, Irvine and Huntington Beach who all have drone programs.
The drones will cost the city around $700,000, which will come from a state grant.
All data collected from the drones will be the property of the city and will only be released in accordance with state and city laws. The drones will also be the latest in surveillance technology purchased by the Police Department after they approved the purchase of 57 license plate readers last year.
The three first responder drones will be docked across the city at fire stations. When the Police Department receives an emergency call, the drones will be deployed within minutes, arriving before first responders. The live video stream, the Police Department says, will allow officers “to coordinate their actions more effectively and gather information in direct support of the Department’s de-escalation strategy.”
In addition to the first responder drones, the city will also purchase two patrol drones to use indoors and in tight spaces “to identify potential dangers.”
Last year, Santa Ana Police Commander Mat Sorenson said the department was looking to add drones to their repertoire as a “reactionary tool,” not for surveillance.
“ I'm not gonna make any promises here right now, but we are more than likely not going down the facial recognition route," he said. "For all intents and purposes, our drones will be a flying body, you know, use it deployed on actual calls for service where somebody's called the police. We're not randomly gonna be using it to surveil people or just fly around looking for crime.”
Carlos Perea, who sits on the Police Oversight Commission, and Tanya Navarro, organizing director with Chispa OC, both expressed concerns with the drone program.
“The vendor selected for this agreement, Axon Enterprise, profits from surveillance and policing infrastructure that is deeply entangled with systems of immigration enforcement and detention. Axon and its subsidiaries maintain contracts with ICE and other federal enforcement agencies at a time when immigrant communities across the country are experiencing unprecedented levels of surveillance, raids, and violence,” Perea wrote in an email to the City Council.
Navarro called the drone program “reckless” for public safety and fiscally.
The language in the policy, she said, “gives police broad latitude to decide when and where drones fly, including over protest, public gathering, and community events. This is exactly how tools get justified for emergencies and then become normalized in everyday surveillance.”
Topline:
A growing number of Los Angeles-area politicians are calling on Olympics chief Casey Wasserman to step down after recently released files included a series of flirty emails between him and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell from 2003.
What do the emails say? The emails were released in the Justice Department's latest drop of the files related to the criminal investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. They include an exchange in which Wasserman writes to Maxwell, "I think of you all the time…So what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?"
Who wants Wasserman out? Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Imelda Padilla, Nithya Raman and Monica Rodriguez, as well as L.A. County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Lindsey Horvath, and City Controller Kenneth Mejia.
What has Wasserman said? LA28 did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But in a statement to other media outlets over the weekend, Wasserman said he was "terribly sorry" for his association with Epstein and Maxwell.
Read on… for comments from local politicians and more on the emails between Wasserman and Maxwell.
A growing number of Los Angeles-area politicians are calling on Olympics chief Casey Wasserman to step down after recently released files included a series of flirty emails between him and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell from 2003.
The emails were released in the Justice Department's latest drop of the files related to the criminal investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"Casey Wasserman should step aside immediately," L.A. City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez said in a statement. "Anything less is a distraction and undermines efforts to make sure the Games truly reflect the values of a city that is for everyone."
Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Imelda Padilla, Nithya Raman and Monica Rodriguez, along with L.A. County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Lindsey Horvath, and City Controller Kenneth Mejia also called on Wasserman to step aside.
"Los Angeles cannot trust our financial future to someone connected with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell," Mejia said on social media, citing the city of L.A.'s role as financial backer of the Olympic Games.
The emails include an exchange in which Wasserman writes to Maxwell, "I think of you all the time…So what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?"
In another, Wasserman explains the concept of "June gloom" to Maxwell, who responds, "What foggy enough so that you can float naked down the beach and no one can see you unless they are close up?"
In 2022, Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for facilitating a sex trafficking ring of minor girls with Epstein.
LA28 did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But in a statement provided to other media outlets over the weekend, Wasserman said he was "terribly sorry" for his association with Epstein and Maxwell.
"I deeply regret my correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell which took place over two decades ago, long before her horrific crimes came to light,” Wasserman said in the statement, which was shared by The Athletic and other news outlets. “I never had a personal or business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As is well documented, I went on a humanitarian trip as part of a delegation with the Clinton Foundation in 2002 on the Epstein plane. I am terribly sorry for having any association with either of them.”
Councilmember Monica Rodriguez also referenced LA28's "Human Rights Strategy," which was due at the end of last year but hasn't yet been made public.
"The failure to complete a robust Human Rights plan, coupled with the revelations from the newly released Epstein files, makes clear that no one associated with Epstein and his associates can provide credible leadership in the planning of these games, which now includes Casey Wasserman," Rodriguez said in a statement.
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has not called on Wasserman to resign. In a statement to LAist, Bass said that it was critical to be "100% focused on making our city shine."
"Ultimately, any decision on the LA28 leadership must be made by the LA28 Board. As you know, they are a separate and independent nonprofit organization," the mayor said.
Topline:
The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year's midterm election, clearing the way for the state's gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
About the maps: The state's voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas' new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.
More details from the Supreme Court: In a brief, unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court denied an emergency request by the California's Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state's GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.
Read on... for what this means for the midterm election.
The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year's midterm election, clearing the way for the state's gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The state's voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas' new GOP-friendly map, which President Donald Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.
And in a brief, unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court denied an emergency request by the California's Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state's GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.
The ruling on California's redistricting plan comes two months after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Texas map that kicked off a nationwide gerrymandering fight by boosting the GOP's chances of winning five additional House seats.
"With an eye on the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, several States have in recent months redrawn their congressional districts in ways that are predicted to favor the State's dominant political party," said the court's December order in the Texas case. "Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done."
The "impetus" for adopting both states' maps was "partisan advantage pure and simple," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion, which fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts.
While the Trump administration supported the Texas redistricting by Republicans, it opposed California's, describing it as "tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander." The administration asserted the case was different from Texas' due to the timing of the states' candidate filing periods and the fact that the California Republican Party and the federal government provided alternative maps that met California's "stated partisan goals."
Democrats are counting on California's map to help their party push back against Republican gerrymandering in Texas and other states. With rulings upholding both the Texas and California maps, the end result is that the two states may essentially cancel out each other's partisan gains.
Legal fights are still playing out over other new congressional maps, as Republican-led Florida and Democratic-led Maryland take steps to join the list of states that have redistricted before the midterms.
In New York, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and GOP members of the state's elections board are appealing a state judge's order for a new redistricting plan that would redraw Malliotakis' district, which the judge found illegally dilutes Black and Latino voters' collective power. A redraw of the New York City-based district could tip it into the Democrats' column.
In Utah, two House Republicans have filed a federal lawsuit that claims a new state court-selected congressional map, which could help Democrats win an additional House seat, violates the U.S. Constitution.
And in Virginia, a judge has ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting violates state law because the process Democratic state lawmakers used to advance it was improper. Virginia Democrats are appealing the decision.
Redistricting also remains an issue for the Supreme Court this term.
It has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana's voting map, but the October oral arguments suggested that the court's conservative majority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Such a ruling could lead to new rounds of congressional gerrymandering — and the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress.
Edited by Benjamin Swasey
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis have renewed a long-running debate among Democrats over how best to address immigration enforcement, and whether advocating for "abolishing ICE" fits into a winning political playbook.
Why now: It is a debate that has taken on new urgency among Democrats against a backdrop of bipartisan backlash to the Trump administration's deportation efforts, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Critics on both the left and the right say the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers last month show the administration has gone too far.
Midterm election: For Democrats, the events in Minneapolis have created an opening ahead of this year's midterm election to shift the conversation on immigration — a notable change after struggling to message on the issue in the 2024 election.
Read on... for how Democrats are split on the strategy.
The killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Macklin Good in Minneapolis have renewed a long-running debate among Democrats over how best to address immigration enforcement, and whether advocating for "abolishing ICE" fits into a winning political playbook.
It is a debate that has taken on new urgency among Democrats against a backdrop of bipartisan backlash to the Trump administration's deportation efforts, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Critics on both the left and the right say the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers last month show the administration has gone too far.
For Democrats, the events in Minneapolis have created an opening ahead of this year's midterm election to shift the conversation on immigration — a notable change after struggling to message on the issue in the 2024 election.
But internal divides over what to do about ICE could complicate the effort. Calls to "abolish ICE" have been particularly amplified by progressive candidates, especially among younger Democrats running for Congress and those challenging Democratic incumbents. On Capitol Hill, far fewer Democrats have re-upped support for abolishing the agency, despite many rallying around the issue during President Donald Trump's first term.
Instead, many elected Democrats have called for reforms at ICE, wary of appearing out of step with voters who want strong enforcement of immigration laws but who disagree with the administration's tactics.
"There is no question that the dynamic from '24 has flipped, [during] which immigration was a sure strength for Trump and a profound weakness for Democrats," said Jonathan Cowan, president and co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way. But, he cautioned, if the party wants to be successful in November, they should keep the focus on the administration's missteps.
"The divide in the Democratic Party is not over rage, disgust and anger," Cowan said. "The divide is what are you going to do about it? How do you channel that rage in a way that actually changes policy? Both short and long run."
He warns the "abolish ICE" slogan may not be universally embraced among voters across the country. Democrats hoping to flip districts or win over swing voters, Cowan said, should lean into different language, such as calling for a "reform" or "overhaul" of ICE.
He likens the debate to when many Democrats coalesced around the "defund the police" movement in 2020, a decision that Cowan argues created an opening for Trump to paint Democrats as soft on crime.
"People embraced an emotionally satisfying slogan that in the long run proved to be politically toxic and a barrier to getting serious police reform in the country," Cowan said. "We are in grave danger of the same problem happening for those who are embracing abolish ICE."
That may already be happening. In response to calls to abolish the agency, many Republicans have attempted to link the movement with "defund the police." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that in a post on X last week, asking, "Why do Democrats keep attacking the law enforcement agencies that hunt down criminals and protect innocent American citizens?"
The debate is poised to be especially salient in Democratic primaries and in states that have faced increased enforcement, such as Minnesota, Illinois, California and New York. Democratic candidates have already faced off on the debate stage in Illinois with competing pitches to abolish and reform ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. In Minnesota, immigration enforcement has become a key issue in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.
Some of the loudest calls to abolish ICE have come from Gen Z and millennial candidates, many of whom have sought to frame their bids around a larger rejection of Democratic Party norms.
Darializa Avila Chevalier has embraced that message. The 32-year-old progressive organizer and Ph.D. student is running a primary challenge against Rep. Adriano Espaillat, 71, in New York's 13th congressional district, which includes upper Manhattan and part of the Bronx.
"From the very beginning, I've been adamant that I wanted the abolition of ICE to be central to what we're talking about," said Avila Chevalier.
"It's an institution that should have never existed to begin with," she added. "It's an institution that is younger than I am. And so I've lived in a world where ICE didn't exist, and we can all go back to a world where ICE doesn't exist and never exists again."
Avila Chevalier says Democratic candidates need "to be bold" in their solutions to issues affecting voters right now, and that includes on immigration.
"If I could trust that the leadership we have was reflecting our values, was actually meeting this moment," she said, "I wouldn't be running."
Avila Chevalier is one of 10 candidates currently backed by Justice Democrats. The political group has supported a handful of progressives who have gone on to win seats in Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who delivered an upset primary win in 2018 and ran on a platform that included abolishing ICE, a stance she's reaffirmed in recent weeks.
For nearly a decade, Justice Democrats has rallied around anti-establishment candidates of all ages who often draw contrast to the Democrats they're challenging by rejecting donations from corporate PACs or pro-Israel lobbying groups. But in the wake of the fatal shootings in Minnesota, candidates the group supports are also drawing a line in the sand on immigration — pledging to abolish ICE.
"Every single one of these communities has an ICE story of their own. And it's up to us to listen to those communities … and show people what an opposition party, if in power, would actually do," said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi. "That's what our slate of candidates exists to be."
Andrabi disagrees with the idea that "abolish ICE" creates more party divides than flips voters.
"The slogan is not the problem. ICE is the problem," he said.
Recent polling indicates there is some support for the issue among voters, though not overwhelming. A plurality of Americans, 46%, strongly support or somewhat support abolishing ICE, according to a YouGov poll conducted after the shootings in Minneapolis. Americans under 30 were most likely to oppose Trump's immigration agenda, according to the poll, and nearly 7 in 10 voice some level of support for getting rid of the agency.
It's a generational sentiment that may add important context when looking at the influx of younger candidates voicing support for the issue.
"I think that they are furious. They see it all over their news feeds. They see it in their communities. They also, I think, are less beholden to this idea of tradition or the way things have been done," said Amanda Litman, the founder of Run for Something, an organization that recruits and supports young people running for local office.
"I think that sense of the crisis and of the urgency of this moment … is something that young leaders really bring with them into their positions of power," she added. "And it is both their super strength and often their weakness because they're a little more radical in some ways."
Immigration enforcement has become a central issue in funding negotiations on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are lobbying for changes to the tactics used by immigration officers. Democrats want to narrow the type of warrants immigration officers can use to enter homes, require them to wear body cameras and prohibit the use of face masks.
While Democrats in Congress are united in what they see as the bare minimum needed to reform immigration enforcement, there is less consensus on how far to take the rhetoric. Though Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is pushing to "defund and abolish ICE," as are some House lawmakers, other Democrats have taken a different approach.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D–Mass., would not directly answer whether she supports calls to abolish ICE, telling NPR it needs to be "totally reorganized" and "torn down to the studs and rebuilt." She declined to say whether campaigning on abolishing ICE would benefit Democrats.
It's a debate that's also playing out in competitive midterm matchups, including in the Senate Democratic primary in Maine, where the state's governor, Janet Mills, and first-time progressive candidate Graham Platner are running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Mills has advocated for ICE reforms, calling for "measures" that would "prohibit ICE's lawless, dangerous conduct and their abuses of power." Platner has called for the agency to be "dismantled," characterizing it as "the moderate position" in a post on X.
The degree to which candidates choose to embrace — or reject — calls to abolish ICE could prove particularly decisive in swing districts.
Though many voters want the current situation to change, calls to abolish ICE may mean different things to different people, argues Cowan of Third Way.
"You can take the literal word, slogan, abolish ICE, and it will get a certain level of support," he said. "But the moment you start asking people specifically what they actually support, the concept of abolishing interior immigration enforcement is not popular."
Though nearly half of Americans say they have some support for abolishing ICE, according to the latest YouGov poll, far fewer, less than a third, support abolishing the U.S. Border Patrol. When respondents were asked if they support Trump moving forward with a smaller enforcement effort, "aimed at criminals, not at hotel maids and gardeners," 55% strongly or somewhat approved.
The lack of Democratic consensus on the issue isn't stopping some progressive congressional hopefuls from standing by the policy they believe is right.
Mai Vang was in high school in 2003 when ICE was created. Now, more than two decades later, the 40-year-old Sacramento City councilmember is campaigning on abolishing the agency as she challenges 81-year-old Democrat Doris Matsui in California's 7th Congressional District.
"What we've seen is this agency has inflicted harm on our communities, and you can't reform it. There is not enough training or even body cameras that would justify what they are doing," she said in an interview.
When asked if she considered shying away from using the slogan, Vang pushed back.
"Not really because people are being killed and murdered by ICE," she said. "It's not a radical position to say we don't want an entity harming our families and loved ones. I don't think it's radical to want to dismantle an agency that is killing citizens."
Copyright 2026 NPR
