The Brief

After a judge approved a plan earlier this month to begin clearing out the troubled Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, the Los Angeles County Probation Department says it has begun the process of transferring incarcerated young people between camps to prepare for the transition.

Probation’s depopulation plan, approved by L.A. County Superior Court Judge Miguel Espinoza on May 16, calls for moving youths to camps and other facilities spread across the county, including back into Camp Joseph Paige in La Verne and Camp Vernon Kilpatrick in Malibu.

The plan would move about 100 youths out of Los Padrinos in Downey, which currently has a population of about 270.

Last week, the Probation Department announced it was relocating youths and staff from Camp Paige to allow for “critical infrastructure improvements” there.

How we got here 

The move by the Probation Department comes more than a month after the Board of State and Community Corrections affirmed its finding that the facility was “unsuitable” to house youth, and Espinoza subsequently ordered a plan to depopulate the facility.

The board found that L.A. County had failed to meet minimum staffing requirements at Los Padrinos, and that young people held there were being confined in their rooms for too long and missing medical appointments, among other concerns.

This latest shuffling of incarcerated youths comes less than two years after L.A. County was forced to move hundreds of incarcerated youths into Los Padrinos from two other facilities — Central Juvenile Hall and Barry J. Nidorf Hall — that the state board deemed unsuitable.

Oversight Commission recommendations

Earlier this month, the L.A. County Probation Oversight Commission sent the judge a list of additional recommendations for depopulating Los Padrinos, which included returning about 60 youths to court to reassess their cases.

The Oversight Commission’s idea was that dozens of youths could be returned to their homes without detention, with appropriate supervision and possible GPS monitoring.

Several criminal justice reform groups, including the Young Women’s Freedom Center and the Youth Justice Coalition, urged the court to reject Probation’s plan and instead implement the Oversight Commission’s alternative recommendations.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Espinoza declined to adopt those recommendations.

What’s next? 

The Probation Department said it plans to carry out its plan to move the youths out of Los Padrinos by the end of June. The Board of State and Community Corrections is expected to inspect the proposed facilities.

The federal government has announced the results of the latest round of Medicare drug price negotiations: 15 lower drug prices for Medicare to go into effect in 2027.

Medicare will get a 71% discount on Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus, blockbuster drugs for obesity and Type 2 diabetes that have current list prices of around a thousand dollars a month.

The negotiations also included drugs for asthma, breast cancer and leukemia. The discounts ranged from 38% for Austedo, which treats Huntington's disease, to 85% for Janumet for Type 2 diabetes.

"President Trump directed us to stop at nothing to lower health care costs for the American people," said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in a press release. "As we work to Make America Healthy Again, we will use every tool at our disposal to deliver affordable health care to seniors."

The program that covers drugs for more than 50 million seniors negotiated its first batch of drug prices last year, after the passage of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

A provision of that law, passed without Republican support, ended Medicare's 20-year ban on negotiating drug prices.

Negotiations for this second batch of 15 drugs wrapped up at the end of October.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) say the new, lower Medicare prices would have saved the program $12 billion dollars if the lower negotiated prices had been in effect in 2024.

The latest negotiated prices are great news for taxpayers and patients, says Dr. Benjamin Rome, health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Federal taxpayers fund much of Medicare, but beneficiaries also must pay copays and coinsurance.

"This is more savings than the first round, but a lot of that has to do with the nature of the drugs being negotiated this year and probably some learning from experience," he says.

Drugs were selected earlier this year based on criteria written into the law. They had to have no generic or biosimilar competition, account for a high amount of Medicare spending and be on the market for a number of years.

The lower Ozempic and Wegovy prices follow a separate deal the Trump administration announced on Nov. 6 with Novo Nordisk, which makes both drugs.

That deal was part of the president's push to get drug companies to voluntarily lower their U.S. prices to match those in other developed countries.

But, confusingly, the discounts from the Medicare negotiations were less significant than what Novo Nordisk agreed to give Medicare as part of the Nov. 6 deal.

That previous deal set a price of $245 dollars a month for Ozempic and Wegovy. But according to the negotiated prices announced this week, the prices of Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus — the company's Type 2 diabetes pill — will be $274 a month.

"It's not clear why Novo [Nordisk] would promise a different price in two different venues," Rome says.

In a company statement, Novo Nordisk explained that it "look[s] forward to additional clarity from CMS on how pricing and coverage will work."

The separate Trump Administration deal "reflects a broader effort to expand access to obesity care across Medicare and Medicaid," the statement said.

(The deal expanded access in those two programs to the drugs to people with a body mass index of over 35 and people with BMIs above 27 who have additional health conditions. But the details of exactly how this will work remain unclear.)

The Novo Nordisk statement affirmed that the company is committed to advocating for affordable access to its medications, but "we continue to have serious concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act's impact on patients and remain opposed to government price setting."

AARP, an advocacy group for the 125 million Americans who are 50 and older, was pleased with the results of the negotiations.

"Today's announcement marks yet another significant next step forward in our long-standing efforts to lower prescription drug prices," AARP's CEO Dr. Myechia Minter-Jordan said in a statement.

"Older Americans across the political spectrum consistently say lower drug prices are a top priority, and these negotiated prices will bring meaningful relief to millions of people on Medicare."

Copyright 2025 NPR

This story was originally published by Boyle Heights Beat on Nov. 26, 2025.

Adventist Health White Memorial says it is taking steps to reaffirm its commitment to patient privacy in the face of ICE raids — including posting signs clarifying how law enforcement officers and immigration agents interact with patients.

The announcement comes after reports that hospital administrators allowed federal immigration agents to interfere in medical decisions and block doctors from properly treating detainees who need emergency care.

The reporting alarmed many in the community, who are calling for hospital administrators to uphold patient privacy and ensure staff can advocate for patients without retaliation. An ICE Out of White Memorial petition has garnered hundreds of signatures, organizers said.

In a Nov. 21 news release, Adventist Health released a six-point statement outlining policies to protect patients and support staff. The measures state that staff can speak up if patient rights are violated, and that they will not face retaliation for “requesting ICE agents to step away.” Staff are encouraged to report any violations of patient rights, according to the release.

The statement also said nursing and clinical care teams “routinely ask ICE agents to leave the room during care so patients can maintain privacy and feel safe when receiving medical care.”

“We support our staff when they speak up for patients’ needs,” it said, adding that the hospital does not prohibit contact with patient families. “We have case management and escalation processes for our physicians and staff to be able to contact families and coordinate care,” according to the news release.

The statement follows reporting by LAist that found that doctors believe hospital administrators were allowing ICE to call the shots and were blocking doctors from properly treating detainees who need emergency care. The hospital, which is part of a network of private, nonprofit hospitals affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, has operated in Boyle Heights for more than 100 years.

LAist’s reporting found that White Memorial staff who stand up to immigration agents – either by asking them to identify themselves or to step out of the room during a patient examination – do so at their own peril and are unsure that the hospital has their back if a conflict arises. Doctors also said they have been barred from reaching out to family members, either to collect necessary medical information, or simply to let family members know about a loved one.

The new statement was released on Friday, but doctors told Boyle Heights Beat that ICE is still interfering with patient care — in seeming contradiction to Adventist Health’s Nov. 21 news release. Physicians say they have been told they must go through the hospital’s case management system to speak with a patient’s family members. The case management system then contacts ICE for permission, doctors said. ICE can say no, they said.

Community advocates have voiced concern about the hospital’s approach and say this recent statement, while welcomed, doesn’t go far enough.

Raquel Roman, executive director of Proyecto Pastoral, which operates the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network, said that while the organization recognizes White Memorial’s efforts, they want the hospital to “set clear rules prohibiting agents from entering patient care areas.”

“At a time when moral clarity is needed, leaving these decisions to individual care teams creates grave ambiguity.
Hospitals need to be havens of healing,” Roman said.

“When people are scared to seek life-saving care, there is no impartial position.
We cherish our collaboration with White Memorial. But we can’t stand by and watch while our neighbors have to decide between their safety and health,” she added.

Adventist Health White Memorial Hospital in Boyle Heights.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

The news release also underscores the community’s clout following outrage over the doctors’ complaints.

Since the story was published, community stakeholders who are part of the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network presented demands at a Nov. 5 meeting with hospital leaders, including Kerry Heinrich, the president and chief executive officer of Adventist Health System, and John Raffoul, president of Adventist Health White Memorial.

As part of those demands, the network — which is made up of residents and community leaders from organizations like Legacy LA, InnerCity Struggle and Centro CSO — wants immigration agents out of patient rooms during medical consultations and procedures.

In response, White Memorial, in a Nov. 12 memo, thanked community leaders for sharing their concerns and outlined five key points, which noted that every patient’s privacy is protected, that doctors and nurses make care decisions together with patients, that law enforcement officers can’t interfere with medical care, and that when there is a medical reason to contact a family, “our team can do that through the right process.”

Members of the Boyle Heights Immigrant Rights Network said the memo fell short. While a “good first attempt,” they said it contained “a lot of gray area” and was doing the “bare minimum.” As a hospital, “they already should be protecting patients’ privacy,” said Henry Perez, executive director of InnerCity Struggle.

Adventist Health said the statement combines existing practices with recent changes made in response to community concerns. The updated signage referenced in the news release will be printed and posted by Monday evening, they said.

“We have and will continue to review our policies and practices – including those guiding detainee and patient privacy – so that every patient, family member, and staff member at White Memorial feels safe and respected in our hospital,” according to the press release.

Hours after the Trump administration sued California last week, threatening to end key benefits for students without legal status, Michelle was scrolling social media when she saw a video that made her panic.

The Trump administration is challenging California’s policy of providing in-state tuition, scholarships and subsidized loans to immigrants without legal status — including Michelle, an immigrant who is a community college student in San Mateo County. CalMatters has agreed to withhold her full name because she fears drawing attention to her legal status.

On TikTok, rumors swirled. Michelle saw a video of a young man, around her age, asking if the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, is gone. In reality, FAFSA is still around, and while the new lawsuit could affect some students' financial aid, some top legal experts say the Trump administration is unlikely to win. Regardless, the court process may take weeks or much longer to resolve the government’s claims against California.

In the lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice alleges that California’s policy of granting in-state tuition and financial aid for some students without legal status is unconstitutional. Federal lawyers also argue that California’s policies violate a 1996 federal law, which bars states from providing benefits to residents without legal status that aren’t also available to U.S. citizens who live anywhere in the U.S. The Justice Department is arguing that California either needs to drop the policy or let all U.S. citizens, including those who are out-of-state, pay the same rate.

In California, over 100,000 college students lack legal status, according to one estimate by an alliance of university leaders who advocate for immigrants. Federal assistance, such as Pell grants and federal student loans, are off-limits to anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen or does not have permanent legal status. California has its own money for college financial aid, which it distributes according to state law.

As long as individuals meet certain requirements, such as attending three years of high school in California, they’re eligible for in-state tuition, saving as much as $39,000 of dollars each year compared to their out-of-state peers. Once they meet those requirements, students without legal status can also qualify for the state’s cornerstone financial aid program, known as Cal Grant, though only a small fraction of these students actually apply for and receive it.

To Kevin Johnson, a law professor at UC Davis, Trump’s actions may be more about political wins than legal ones. “The Trump administration is engaged in a full-court press on undocumented immigrants and so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, and California and Governor Newsom in particular,” Johnson said. That the U.S. Department of Justice named the suit “United States of America v. Newsom” is another indication that this is political, he added.

Others noted that states have already invested in students without legal status and denying them an affordable path toward a college education is a waste of resources. Economists have pointed out that immigrants without status also are integral to the U.S. workforce and aren’t easily replaceable.

‘We didn’t expect them to go this low’

Even weak lawsuits or outright misinformation can make students nervous during November, when college and financial aid application season is in full swing.

On TikTok, videos of students panicking about the financial aid system surfaced last winter, after the Biden administration delayed and botched the rollout of the new FAFSA. Among its many glitches, the new form prevented students whose parents lacked a Social Security number from submitting their information.

After Trump was elected last November, fears about the total demise of federal financial aid swirled again on TikTok. Over the course of this year, as his administration targets universities and continues to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, those fears have persisted.

In California, Trump seeks to impose a $1 billion penalty on UCLA for alleged civil rights abuses, though a federal judge recently handed the White House a temporary loss on that front. His administration is also suing California colleges and universities for alleged antisemitism violations and has sought to freeze or curtail billions of dollars in federal research funding.

Much of those freezes have been blocked or reversed by federal judges, but hundreds of millions of dollars still remain cut off to campuses. Much, if not all, of those friction points between California and Trump could be resolved through settlements and negotiations, which are political in nature, said UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura in an interview.

Before Trump was elected, state leaders, including Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, pushed for California to offer additional benefits to students without legal status, such as the opportunity to work campus jobs.

Now, with access to financial aid programs at risk for these students, Alvarez said the focus is shifting. “We didn’t expect it would go this low as to go after students that the president had previously said should be welcomed here.” In 2024, Trump told a podcast host that students should “automatically” receive “a Green Card,” otherwise known as permanent residency, when they get their college diploma.

Legal scholars doubt Trump’s lawsuit will win

The lawsuit against California is the Trump administration’s sixth against states with policies allowing in-state tuition for students without legal status. The White House went after Texas first, in June. Underscoring how much of a bipartisan issue in-state tuition is, Texan lawmakers were the first in the U.S. to enshrine the policy in 2001. In all, more than 20 states passed some in-state tuition policy benefiting some residents without legal status.

Trump’s legal attacks on the policy this year prompted leaders in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas to side with the White House to terminate the benefit in those respective states. Some legal groups that want to continue in-state tuition for students lacking legal status are challenging those states’ moves.

Trump has also sued Minnesota and Illinois, states with Democrats as governors and attorneys general who are challenging Trump’s lawsuits.

The U.S. Department of Justice says that the federal law in question bars students without legal status from receiving in-state tuition and financial aid benefits based on their living in the state. This, the federal lawyers argue, violates federal law since public campuses in California require U.S. citizens from other states to pay higher tuition rates.

However, California’s law, Assembly Bill 540, doesn’t extend in-state tuition based on where students live, scholars and a previous court ruling say. Instead, students generally need to prove that they attended three years of high school or community college in California; they also need to earn in California a high school diploma or obtain enough community college credits to be eligible for transfer into a public university.

The Department of Justice says those three-year high school or community college requirements are tantamount to an in-state residency criteria and therefore violate the 1996 federal law.

But the California Supreme Court in 2010 already struck down that interpretation. The high court observed that some students living in areas bordering California are permitted to study at California high schools. High school students from out of state enrolled in private boarding schools also satisfy the requirement; they don’t count as residents of California either. And students who were residents of California during high school but moved to a different state could still enroll in California colleges or universities paying in-state tuition.

All of these scenarios require a student to complete the same AB 540 application as students who lack legal status. The only difference is that students without status must also complete an affidavit that they’ll pursue legal residency as soon as they can.

In fact, the University of California enrolled more students under AB 540 who were legal U.S. residents than those who weren’t, the state high court said then.

“If Congress had intended to prohibit states entirely from making unlawful aliens eligible for in-state tuition, it could easily have done so,” the state Supreme Court wrote in 2010. But Congress didn’t do that, the court noted.

Lawmakers in California who passed AB 540 in 2001 knew what the federal law restricted, said Motomura, and they crafted a state law that wouldn’t contravene what Congress intended. “It was drafted to avoid the residency test, and it was drafted to avoid the exclusion of U.S. citizens,” he said.

What’s likely next

California has already signaled that it will fight the lawsuit. “The Trump Administration has once again missed the mark with its latest attack on California, and we look forward to proving it in court,” wrote Nina Sheridan, a spokesperson for the California Department of Justice.

Both the UC and the community college system said their tuition and financial aid policies have always been legally compliant. The Cal State University system did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration may also seek a preliminary injunction to halt California’s in-state tuition law for nonresidents, which would again expose Californians to a seesaw of temporary court orders, sometimes contradictory in nature, while the full legal merits of the case play out slowly in court.

Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, thinks the U.S. Supreme Court will likely side with California despite its conservative orientation if the case goes that far.

A major legal question underscoring the case against California is when and how federal rules preempt or supersede state laws. The Trump White House is arguing California’s in-state policies are preempted by federal law. But the legal concept of preemption is a pillar in jurisprudence. Liberal and conservative interests benefit similarly from a consistent application of preemption as a legal concept, Saenz said. For example, businesses rely on preemption rules in situations where a state law is more progressive or consumer-friendly than a federal rule and want courts to defend them from following the more demanding state rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court is “going to be very wary of making bad law in the realm of preemption, because it could then come back to bite the right wing in protecting businesses,” Saenz said.

For Michelle and other students without legal status navigating their own financial aid applications — and the misinformation online — a series of temporary court orders could create more panic. Financial aid is top of mind, said Michelle, but she doesn’t have time to track the legal back-and-forth of her eligibility.

In addition to being a full-time student, Michelle works four days a week at a restaurant, saving up money not only to support herself but also her family. She’s the oldest of four kids and said she sends $500 to her parents each month.

College is “an opportunity for me to be someone in life, to make my parents proud,” she said. Asked about the lawsuit at the cafeteria of her college, Michelle made a choking gesture with her hand, as though the threat of losing financial aid next year could kill her. “Trump is taking that opportunity away because he doesn’t like immigrants.”

The deadline to submit financial aid applications for community college is Sept. 2, but Michelle is already working on her application, just in case.

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

The National Park Service said Tuesday it is going to start charging the millions of international tourists who visit U.S. parks each year an extra $100 to enter some of the most popular sites, while leaving them out of fee-free days that will be reserved for American residents.

The announcement declaring "America-first entry fee policies" comes as national parks deal with the strain of a major staff reduction and severe budget cuts, along with recovering from damage during the recent government shutdown and significant lost revenue due to fees not being collected during that time.

The fee change will impact 11 national parks, including the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

As part of the changes, which are set to take effect Jan. 1, foreign tourists will also see their annual parks pass price jump to $250, while U.S. residents will continue to be charged $80, according to the department's statement.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a post on the social platform X that the changes make sure U.S. taxpayers who support the park service "continue to enjoy affordable access, while international visitors contribute their fair share to maintaining and improving our parks for future generations!"

A White House post on X laying out the increased fees ended with the phrase, "AMERICANS FIRST."

The announcement follows a July executive order in which President Donald Trump directed the parks to increase entry fees for foreign tourists.

"There's a lot to unpack in this announcement, including many questions on its implementation – all which NPCA will raise with the Department of Interior," Kati Schmidt, a spokesperson for National Parks Conservation Association, said in an email.

The U.S. Travel Association estimated that in 2018, national parks and monuments saw more than 14 million international visitors. Yellowstone reported that in 2024, nearly 15% of its visitors were from outside the country, which was down from 30% in 2018.

The money made off the new fees will help support the national parks, including with upgrading facilities for visitors and maintenance, according to the statement.

The "resident-only patriotic fee-free days" next year include Veterans Day, which was one of the parks' eight free days open to everyone in 2025. The Department of the Interior had announced those days by saying they wanted to ensure that "everyone, no matter their zip code, can access and enjoy the benefits of green spaces and our public lands."
Copyright 2025 NPR