The Brief

It’s been nearly three years since L.A. County received a plan to close the aging downtown Men’s Central Jail. The 145-page proposal called the facility "unsafe, crowded and crumbling."

Now, the county is looking at a possible five-year timeline that community activists say isn’t fast enough.

The five-year timeline presented at this week's board of supervisors meeting calls for 1,200 new mental health and supportive housing beds per year and for the courts to find a way to safely release an additional 7,000 people a year, among other provisions.

Songhai Armstead, executive director of L.A. County’s Justice, Care and Opportunities Department and a retired Superior Court judge, presented the timeline to supervisors.

“I believe personally that the conditions of the Men’s Central Jail are uninhabitable, they are not OK,” Armstead said.

In the past, the county has said it could not safely close the jail without first ensuring that community-based care is in place. For years, groups including Justice LA and Dignity and Power Now have been pushing elected leaders to do just that.

“There is a real roadmap for the county, they just have refused to actually implement it. And they spent years asking for more and more reports and roadmaps,” Janet Asante, of Dignity and Power Now, told LAist.

While Asante is not satisfied with the five-year timeline, she said supervisors’ apparent frustration at the progress on jail closure does give her hope.

Board chair Lindsey Horvath said at the supervisors’ meeting that she wants to see the county move toward a clearer plan on how to close the more than 60-year-old facility.

“In many cases it’s not safe for inmates to be housed there nor our staff to work there as has been stated many times,” Horvath said. “Closing Men’s Central Jail is complex and we have to do it thoughtfully, but we have to do it.”

While population needs are continually in flux, 40% of people incarcerated in the L.A. County jail system have mental health needs based on the latest count in February 2023, according to the sheriff’s department. That’s down from a high of 41% in 2022 and up from 27% in 2017.

The U.S. military said on Friday that all six crew members were killed when a KC-135 refueling aircraft went down in Iraq, raising the death toll after two weeks of war with Iran.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees the Middle East, reported an unspecified incident involving two aircraft Thursday. It said the U.S. KC-135 refueling aircraft was lost in western Iraq, while the other landed safely. It is investigating the circumstances but confirmed the "loss of the aircraft was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire."

The news came as President Trump and his defense secretary touted success in the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran but complained about negative media coverage of Operation Epic Fury.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday that joint U.S.-Israeli military strikes have hit more than 15,000 targets and injured the new Iranian supreme leader.

President Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the U.S. is "totally destroying" Iran's regime, militarily and economically.

Late Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had weakened Iran's rulers, but it may not be enough to topple them — the Iranian people would have to do that.

Iranian and Lebanese health officials and Israeli authorities reported more than 1,300 people killed in Iran, 773 people in Lebanon and 12 civilians in Israel, as well as two Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon. Wednesday's aircraft crash over Iraq brings the U.S. military death toll to 13, seven of whom were killed in combat. Eight U.S. service members are severely injured, according to the Pentagon.

The humanitarian toll also deepened as the total number of people displaced by the fighting in Iran and Lebanon reached into the millions.

Here are further updates about the conflict.

Officials brace for an end without a deal — and the risk of a "war routine"

A senior official in the region, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations, told NPR they expected the war to last at least another week, and that Israeli leaders increasingly believe the U.S. and Israel will end the war unilaterally, without a negotiated agreement. In such a scenario, the official said, Iran and allied groups, including the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Houthi rebels in Yemen, could establish a new normal of intermittent fire at Israel, prompting repeated Israeli retaliation.

The official said that kind of tit-for-tat exchange would leave Israelis living with an intolerable "war routine" even if the intensity of the conflict fades.

The official also said Israel is not ruling out an expanded ground operation in southern Lebanon, but described Israel as holding back so far from striking broad civilian infrastructure, largely because the U.S. sees Lebanon as a partner.

— Daniel Estrin, Carrie Kahn

Israel expands strikes in Iran and hits Hezbollah targets in Lebanon

Israel's air force said Friday it struck more than 200 targets over the past day in western and central Iran, including ballistic missile launchers, air defense systems and weapons manufacturing sites.

The military said the strikes included simultaneous strikes in Tehran, Shiraz and Ahvaz. They targeted regime infrastructure, including an underground site used to produce and store ballistic missiles, as well as a central air-defense base.

In Lebanon, Israel said it hit Hezbollah command centers in the country's south and in central Beirut.

A senior official in the region, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the strike on Beirut's bustling Bachura neighborhood, located near the prime minister's office, was symbolic, and meant to send a message that Israel will not tolerate Hezbollah's fire much longer.

Lebanon's president, Joseph Aoun, has called for direct talks with Israel to end the bombing. Israel has not responded publicly on the matter.

The Israeli military also said it struck the Al-Zrariya Bridge over the Litani River, describing it as a key crossing used by Hezbollah fighters and an area from which launchers had been positioned.

— Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Rebecca Rosman

Iran and Hezbollah attacks hit Israel overnight; dozens treated for minor injuries

An Iranian ballistic missile in the northern Israeli town of Zarzir left dozens lightly wounded, according to Israel's emergency services organization, Magen David Adom.

One person was reported to be in moderate condition and was being treated after being hit with shrapnel. Another 57 people were being treated for minor injuries, mostly from glass shards.

Hezbollah also continued firing into northern Israel overnight, and Israel's military said its air defense and strike operations were responding across both fronts.

— Rebecca Rosman

U.S. temporarily eases Russian oil sanctions for cargoes already at sea

The Trump administration issued a temporary authorization allowing countries to purchase Russian oil already stranded at sea. It argued the move is a narrowly tailored step to stabilize energy markets.

In a post on X, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the measure applies only to oil "already in transit" and will not provide significant financial benefit to Russia.

In a statement published last week, a number of top Senate Democrats warned such a move would weaken sanctions and benefit Russia as energy prices rise.

— Rebecca Rosman

French soldier killed in attack in Iraq

French President Emmanuel Macron said Friday a French soldier was killed in an attack in the Irbil region of Iraq that left several other French soldiers wounded.

Macron called the attack "unacceptable" and said the war in Iran cannot justify strikes on forces deployed in Iraq as part of the fight against ISIS.

Since the start of the war with Iran, the French president has underlined his concerns about international law not being respected, but also deployed several naval vessels to the Eastern Mediterranean, near Cyprus, to protect French military bases and citizens in the region. French officials have insisted it is a defensive, rather than an offensive mission.

— Eleanor Beardsley

Daniel Estrin and Carrie Kahn contributed to this report from Tel Aviv, Hadeel Al-Shalchi contributed from Beirut, Jane Arraf from Irbil, Rebecca Rosman and Eleanor Beardsley from Paris.
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

A man detained last June in the parking lot of a church in Downey.

A taco vendor taken in January during a weekly food distribution outside a church in the San Fernando Valley. 

Recent immigration enforcement actions near places of worship have raised concerns among faith leaders across Los Angeles about what protections churches actually have. While in the past, “sensitive locations” like schools, hospitals and parishes were spared from raids, President Donald Trump ended that policy. That means U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can enter and investigate any place that is considered public — including churches.

Legal experts note that immigration enforcement at or near churches is still relatively rare, but faith leaders and advocates are urging pastors to develop response plans and educate congregants about their rights

Pastor Carlos Rincon of Centro de Vida Victoriosa in East Los Angeles recently hosted a “Know Your Rights: Church and Immigrant Protection” training for pastors and church leaders.

The workshop was led by the UC Irvine Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic.

Rincon said the training aimed to counter misinformation circulating within Latino churches. He said other pastors requested the training, and he hoped it would also help leaders of small Bible study groups within his own church.

Here’s what legal experts and advocates say churches should know.

What areas of a church are considered public?

In general, any area that is open and accessible to the public is also open to immigration agents. Within church grounds, areas that are freely open to visitors can be considered public. 

This can include:

• Parking lots — even if they are on private property — if access is not restricted by personnel.
• Church lobbies, especially when doors are open and there’s heavy foot traffic before and after services.
• The nave, or any central area where congregants gather for worship 

But legal experts say there’s no single factor that determines whether a place is considered public or private. 

“There’s no rigid line of, ‘This is for sure going to be public. This is for sure going to be private.’ It’s depending on the court’s analysis,” said Melissa Inda, a law student at the Irvine School of Law. 

What areas of a church are considered private?

Areas generally considered private are:

• Confession boxes, where privacy is expected. However, that can change if left open.
• Offices, especially if doors are closed and clearly marked as private
• The sacristy, or the area typically near an altar where clergy prepare for services and sacred items are stored
• Locked storage closets exclusively used by staff or selected people
• Bathrooms reserved for employees or clergy members

The Centro de Vida Victoriosa Church in East LA on March 10, 2026.

(

Andrew Lopez

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

What does this mean for your place of worship?

Immigration agents may enter and investigate public spaces of church property that are open to congregants or visitors. 

However, agents generally cannot enter private spaces unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. In places of worship, for example, ICE would need a judicial warrant to enter a religious leader’s private office, if it was treated as a private area.

Additionally, agents can also enter private spaces if given “consent from somebody who appears to have the authority to give it, such as staff members,” Inda said.

What can churches do to prepare?

• Identify non-public spaces: Places of worship should clearly mark what areas are private and which are open to the public at certain times.
• Create a response plan: Churches should designate a primary person or persons who will interact with ICE.
  
  • Point persons can include staff or volunteers, not just pastors.
  • Church members should identify risk factors and discuss their comfort levels in interacting with federal agents.
• Educate staff and volunteers: Church leaders should make everyone aware of the plan.

Three years ago, California built a first-in-the-nation system aimed at protecting drivers when oil markets turn calamitous. The legislature passed it. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it. He proclaimed "California took on Big Oil and won."

Its author, then-Sen. Nancy Skinner called it a "landmark law" that "will allow us to hold oil companies accountable if they pad their profits at the expense of hard-working families."

But the law — which gave regulators the power to cap refinery profits and penalize oil companies for price gouging — has never been used. Instead, last year, the California Energy Commission voted to delay the rules for five years. Skinner – who wrote the law as a Senator – was absent when her own commission voted to delay it.

Now, with gas topping $5.30 a gallon statewide, that decision is under a new spotlight. The Iran war has sent global oil prices soaring — but the war is only part of the story. California has a structural problem: fewer refineries, a captive market and no easy outside supply options. When prices rise nationally, they can rise even more here.

Proponents say this is precisely the moment the 2023 law was designed for. The commissioners last year left the door open to rescind the delay — and move forward with the rule before the five years — if they change their minds.

"These are the moments we need them, because when the price of a commodity goes through the roof — be it crude oil or refined gasoline — that's when companies make outrageous profits," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog.

But those who backed the delay argue it was a necessary concession — that penalizing refiners risked driving them out of the state entirely. It's a tension that cuts to the heart of California's energy predicament: how to protect consumers today from an industry the state can't yet afford to lose, while still making good on its promise to leave that industry behind.

California’s unused gas-price tools

When the California Energy Commission met last August Newsom was already retreating from his confrontation with the oil industry. The question before commissioners was whether to move ahead with aggressive rules targeting refinery profits — or step back, as the governor was doing.

It was a sharp reversal. Newsom had declared special legislative sessions in 2022 and 2024, pushing through sweeping new powers to curb gasoline price spikes — including requirements that refiners store more fuel and replace lost supply during maintenance, and the profit-cap rules now sitting dormant. A new energy commission oversight division created by the law found an unexplained gasoline premium of about 41 cents per gallon between 2015 and 2024, costing drivers an estimated $59 billion.

Gas prices are displayed on a sign at a filling station in Fresno on March 6, 2026.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters

)

“Those are critically important laws,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. “What that information shows is that Californians are at the mercy of a very few refiners with immense power.”

California’s oil industry strongly opposed the measures, and some economists remain skeptical of them. UC Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein warned that capping refinery profits during shortages could backfire.

“The last thing we need is to start trying to regulate refinery margins,” he said. “As much as people don't like high gasoline prices, they really, really hate gas lines.”

By last August, refinery closures were looming and warnings of $8-a-gallon gasoline circulated in Sacramento. Newsom and Democratic leaders were negotiating with the oil industry to boost production in Kern County — talks that produced a law that has since driven an uptick in drilling permits.

After Valero said it would close its Benicia refinery, Newsom directed Siva Gunda, vice chair of the California Energy Commission, to “redouble the state’s efforts to work closely with refiners on short- and long-term planning” and ensure a “reliable supply of transportation fuels.” Gunda responded with a series of recommendations that aligned largely with industry’s desires — among them a pause in the state’s profit-cap rule.

Against that backdrop, energy commissioners voted on Aug. 29 to delay the rules for five years. Ahead of the vote, Gunda said the delay would help boost “investor confidence” in the state’s oil refiners, “thereby ensuring a reliable in-state refining capacity.”

Oil industry representatives say the decision made sense – the profit-cap measures, they argued, miss the real problem.

“The real problem is California is an energy island — we’re losing 17% of our refining capacity,” said Zachary Leary, a lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association.

But Court, of Consumer Watchdog, said the governor “panicked,” leaving the state without the “hammer” it now needs.

“When you have this type of level of gas run up, you're going to need those tools,” Court said.

The difficult middle of the energy transition

California has committed to phasing out fossil fuels by 2045 — but it still depends heavily on gasoline, and it is losing the refineries that produce it.

Phillips 66 last year shut its Los Angeles refinery, citing concerns about the sustainability of the California market. Valero is closing its Benicia refinery next month, pointing to a challenging regulatory environment.

“If you start losing refineries — as we are going to — and you don't have an alternative source of supply, we're going to start getting price spikes when there's any sort of disruption at one of our refineries,” Borenstein said. “Or just during high demand periods.”

The challenge of reducing fossil fuel use while maintaining adequate supply has created what Gunda — Newsom’s point person in negotiations with the oil industry — calls the “mid-transition.

“This is not going to be a smooth transition,” Gunda said last month in testimony to a state Senate committee. “Every time you lose a refinery, it’s going to be a double-digit percent of refined fuel lost in California. So that abrupt transition will mean an abrupt increase in imports.”

A global oil shock hits California

The recent jump in gasoline prices reflects a global oil shock tied to the war with Iran — not a policy change unique to California, experts said. But the surge highlights how exposed the state remains to global energy markets as it loses refining capacity and imports more crude and gasoline.

Since the conflict began, the international benchmark for crude oil has climbed more than $25 a barrel — a shift that typically translates to about 60 cents per gallon at the pump, in line with the increase in California retail prices, argues Borenstein, of UC Berkeley.

“All of the change we've seen in the last couple of weeks is in line with the change in crude oil prices, and therefore is not California specific,” he said.

Newsom has made a similar argument, blaming the spike on global oil markets and the war with Iran rather than California policies. But analysts note that the state's shrinking refinery base means global shocks land harder here than elsewhere.

A key concern is the Strait of Hormuz. Before the conflict, the narrow waterway carried more than 20 million barrels of oil a day — roughly one-fifth of global supply. Traffic is now at a standstill, and crude prices topped $100 a barrel again — even after more than 30 countries announced releases from emergency reserves.

Ryan Cummings, chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policymaking, said a prolonged closure could push crude prices above $130 or $140 per barrel — driving California prices closer to $7, with a worst-case scenario approaching $10 at some stations.

Most analysts consider that outcome unlikely but no longer unthinkable.

“Right now, this doesn't appear likely, but it is a worst-case scenario that is growing by the day,” Cummings said.

Competing ideas for what comes next

Siegel, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said California should move forward immediately to implement the profit-cap rules and require companies to hold larger fuel inventories.

“Our leaders shouldn't rest until the rules are in place to prevent price gouging on top of volatility, and should not rest until people get their money back,” she said.

Economists say California’s biggest challenge may be infrastructure. Valero plans to close its Benicia refinery, which produces about 10% of the state’s gasoline, next month. In an analysis posted last year, Stanford economist Neale Mahoney and Cummings said California could offset lost refinery production with gasoline imports – if permitting allows refineries like Benicia to convert to fuel import terminals. Newsom said in January his administration is working with the company to continue importing gasoline into Northern California after its refinery operations close.

“If I was in the Legislature right now, all of my energies and effort would be built on, one, making sure that Benicia gets turned into an import terminal — and two, making sure whoever owns or operates that is not an incumbent,” Cummings said.

Court, of Consumer Watchdog, pointed to a proposed Phillips 66 pipeline that could bring refined gasoline from Midwest refineries into the state – something California has never had, relying instead on in-state refining and marine imports. Dubbed the Western Gateway Pipeline, the project would build a new pipeline and reverse an existing one to move gasoline and diesel from central U.S. refineries to Arizona and California.

One state lawmaker has proposed expanding access to E85, a cheaper ethanol blend. Both ideas remain proposals without clear timelines.

Meanwhile, some oil companies and even some Democrats are warning California’s climate policies could raise production costs enough that refineries reconsider operating in California — adding another pressure point to an already strained supply picture.

The profit-cap rules that could penalize oil companies remain on hold until 2029. By then, California may have lost more refineries — and may still be grappling with the problem Newsom once promised to solve: gasoline price shocks in the country’s most unaffordable market.

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