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
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • What to know about the plan in tax bill
    An illustration of a two large hands coming out of two buildings. One hand is holding a book with money coming out of it, and the other hand is underneath it gathering the money.

    Topline:

    House Republicans' reconciliation bill, which includes a first-of-its-kind national school voucher program, is now heading to the Senate. Here's what experts say about this federal plan, including the potential risks and benefits.

    Why it matters: The proposal would use the federal tax code to offer vouchers that students could use to attend private secular or religious schools, even in states where voters have opposed such efforts.

    How it works: What is a voucher? "If it funds private school tuition, it's a voucher," says Josh Cowen, a professor at Michigan State University who, after studying vouchers for more than two decades, publicly opposes them. This federal proposal would reward people who make charitable donations to what are known as Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Their reward: a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.

    Read on... for more things to know about this federal plan.

    House Republicans' reconciliation bill, which includes a first-of-its-kind national school voucher program, is now heading to the Senate.

    The proposal would use the federal tax code to offer vouchers that students could use to attend private secular or religious schools, even in states where voters have opposed such efforts.

    NPR interviewed researchers, advocates (for and against), tax experts, a mother who relies on vouchers and a public school leader who feels threatened by them – a dozen sources in all.

    Here's what they say about this federal plan, including the potential risks and benefits.


    1. How vouchers, and this federal plan, work

    What is a voucher?

    "If it funds private school tuition, it's a voucher," says Josh Cowen, a professor at Michigan State University who, after studying vouchers for more than two decades, publicly opposes them.

    This federal proposal would reward people who make charitable donations to what are known as Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Their reward: a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.

    "It's about three times as generous as what you're gonna get from donating to a children's hospital or a veteran's group or any other cause," says Carl Davis at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "It really preferences voucher groups over every other kind of charity."

    The SGO would then distribute the donated money in the form of scholarships for students to use on a range of expenses, including private school tuition, books and homeschooling costs.

    The bill would cap the tax credit at $5 billion dollars in each of the next four years, through 2029.

    The complex plan uses the tax code and SGOs because in smaller, older programs, most voucher students attend religious schools, for which federal law prohibits direct government funding. The Supreme Court appears open, however, to this kind of indirect funding.

    Direct or indirect, these are tax dollars the government is choosing to forego.

    And the reward for donors doesn't stop at the dollar-for-dollar tax credit. Instead of cash, they could donate stock. Normally, when you sell stock, you have to pay capital gains taxes on any profit you've made. But Davis says donors who give their stock to an SGO wouldn't have to pay capital gains taxes on any increase in the stock's value. And they would still get that tax credit.

    Between the tax credit and this capital gains tax avoidance, Davis writes, "contributors would generally find that 'donating' would yield a personal profit for themselves."

    Davis estimates, as the bill is currently written, it would facilitate $2.2 billion in capital gains tax avoidance over the next decade.

    That's why Hilary Wething, an economist at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calls this voucher plan "a tax shelter to the wealthy."

    2. Why families choose vouchers

    Michelle Salazar, who lives in central Florida, says she used a Florida-based voucher to enroll her young son in a private school because he just wasn't getting the care he needed.

    While in a public charter school, she says her then-first-grader could be fidgety and distracting, and his teacher's solution was to separate him from the other children, who sat together at tables, and to put him at a desk, which was covered in black material and placed in a corner.

    "It was crazy," Salazar says. "They just didn't know how to deal with him. He struggled. He fell behind in reading."

    In second grade, when Salazar's son was diagnosed with dyslexia, in addition to ADHD, she says she made a change. She used a state-provided voucher (Florida has been a leader in the voucher movement) and enrolled him in a new, Christian school for children with special needs.

    Her son is now 12, and Salazar says, "He loves it there, and the teachers all love him."

    Salazar, a single parent, says she wouldn't be able to afford the school's annual $15,000 tuition if not for the nearly $10,000 state-funded voucher.

    Her story illustrates just one of the reasons some families support vouchers.

    "It used to be that, when you asked parents, they would say the academic quality of the private schools, teacher quality of the private school, the educational program, those kinds of things," says Patrick Wolf, a voucher researcher at the University of Arkansas.

    Today, Wolf says, other priorities, including a fear of bullying, top the list of reasons why parents might choose to use a voucher to enroll their child in a private school.

    "[Parents are] concerned that their child is bullied," says Robert Enlow, whose pro-voucher group, EdChoice, surveys families. "They're concerned that their child is in a safe environment or that they're too anxious and stressed… and that's why they're choosing private schools."

    3. Private schools can turn students away, public schools can't

    Not all students are well-served by vouchers, including many students with disabilities. Unlike public schools, private schools can generally choose who they admit.

    "A private school can absolutely say you're not a good fit for this school. Bottom line, period," says Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities.

    Private schools are not bound by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires public schools to provide students with disabilities a free, appropriate public education.

    The bill itself includes one convoluted sentence that suggests some protection for students with disabilities. But, as written, it would not require a private school to admit a student with a disability, nor is it clear what, if any, government entity would enforce the protections the bill hints at, especially since the bill also prohibits any "government entity… to mandate, direct, or control any aspect of any private or religious elementary or secondary education institution."

    This is why Rodriguez says any promise to parents guaranteeing students will enjoy the same rights and protections in private schools "is disingenuous at best and crooked at worst."

    Curtis Finch runs the Deer Valley Unified School District in Phoenix, and he says many parents of students with disabilities have been enticed by his state's generous voucher program.

    "The pattern that usually happens," Finch says, "is a family hears that there's a special school for Johnny… so they end up getting this voucher, and then they take it over to that [private] school." Finch pauses. "We usually get those kids back." 

    Often, private schools lack the resources, expertise and trained staff to serve children with complex disabilities and, when these schools realize a student might exceed either their expertise or their budget, they can reject the child or, later, shift them back to the public schools.

    And it's not just students with disabilities. Many state-based voucher programs don't require that private schools accept any or all applicants. Schools can reject a student for lots of reasons, including poor grades or a previous record of misbehavior.

    Research suggests, even when disadvantaged children are admitted to private schools using vouchers, many end up back in public schools, either because they choose to return or because private schools can send them back, a phenomenon known as "pushout."

    Finch says many of the voucher schools in his district cherry-pick students. He says they have a "segregation mentality, of, 'We don't want your kid. He's too special needs. He has too much discipline [issues], doesn't have academic prowess for our school.' You know, fill in the blank."

    Enlow at EdChoice says private schools must be able to choose the students they admit and retain, to safeguard their own unique school cultures.

    "Not every single school serves every single child, nor should it," Enlow says. "We've found that out in our traditional school system, that it's impossible to have a one-size-fits-all system. And so I don't think we want to force that kind of system on the non-public schools."

    In this kind of system, Josh Cowen of Michigan State says, it's voucher schools, not parents, who get to choose.

    4. The federal voucher would not be limited to low-income families

    Many of the earliest, smaller voucher programs were billed as engines of social mobility and thus made available only to lower-income children, often from low-quality public schools.

    "Ultimately, every child, especially from lower-income families, should have access to the school of their choice, and this legislation is the only way to make that happen," Tommy Schultz, CEO of the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, said in a statement celebrating the current federal voucher proposal.

    But this federal proposal would not be limited to lower-income students. Far from it.

    Under Republicans' plan, vouchers would be available to households earning at or below 300% of a given area's median gross income. So, in an area of the country where the median gross income is $75,000, any child in a household earning less than $225,000 could qualify.

    "It's a very generous income threshold" that would allow "most families" in the U.S. to qualify, says Wolf at the University of Arkansas. 

     By one estimate, 85-90% of students would qualify. That's fine by Robert Enlow at EdChoice.

    He says, "People tend to go crazy about the idea of, we're going to fund millionaires' kids," but Enlow argues that's already happening.

    Public schools are funded largely through state and local dollars, and wealthier school districts can and often do spend considerably more on their students.

    "We seem to be fine with giving millionaires' kids $15,000 to go to traditional public schools in income-segregated communities," Enlow concludes.

    Federal money covers only between 6 and 13% of public school budgets, though, and is largely targeted to help lower-income students and children with disabilities.

    5. Vouchers often go to students who are already enrolled in private schools

    "The vast majority of voucher users were already in private school to begin with," says Cowen of Michigan State. "And that's been true for 18 years of data."

    This is a common phenomenon in the research: When a voucher program becomes universal, or near-universal, many of the families who first use it were already paying for private schools.

    In fact, after Oklahoma enacted its recent voucher program, state data revealed fewer than 10% of applicants were public school students.

    And a 2017 NPR investigation found Indiana's voucher program was spending public dollars on thousands of students who had never attended a public school.

    In the case of the federal proposal, "these are wealthy families who already made the choice to attend a private school," says Wething of the Economic Policy Institute, "and now we're just subsidizing their choice."

    6. When states offer vouchers, private schools often raise prices

    Jennifer Jennings, a professor of sociology and public policy at Princeton University, wanted to find out what happened to private school prices in Iowa after the state began offering vouchers.

    She found that for kindergarten, where voucher eligibility was universal, private schools increased their tuition in the program's first year by 21-25%.

    In later grades, where eligibility wasn't universal, prices still rose 10-16%.

    "What we teach in microeconomics is that if you offer a universal subsidy, you should expect prices to increase," says Jennings.

    Her finding echoed a 2016 study, which found tuition hikes in large voucher programs across five states.

    More recently, similar fears have surfaced around Arizona's voucher program.

    7. Vouchers don't improve student test scores

    Now we get into a really contentious part of the vouchers debate: Do students do better academically, on average, when they leave a public school and go to a private school?

    In the early days, when voucher programs were small and targeted at lower-income students in low-rated public schools, researchers did find some modestly promising results.

    "It's true that in the '90s and in the early 2000s, when I first started working on this as a young data analyst, you did see a handful of voucher systems marginally improving academic performance," says Cowen, who opposes vouchers.

    But, Cowen says, as states rolled out larger, less-targeted programs, the benefits faded and in places like Louisiana and Indiana students lost ground when they went to a voucher school.

    "You see some of the largest academic declines we've ever seen in a policy setting," Cowen says, on the same scale as learning loss from COVID-19 or Hurricane Katrina.

    Unlike Cowen, Wolf, at the University of Arkansas, supports private-school choice efforts because, he says, the bulk of the research backs their effectiveness. He also points out that the troubled Louisiana program is being wound down and replaced.

    David Figlio, a voucher researcher at the University of Rochester in New York, sums up their effectiveness this way: "The best studies find zero to negative impacts on test scores among participants."

    Why? Cowen suggests, in states with broadly-accessible voucher programs, the private schools that tend to have open slots are either low quality or new and untested. Or both.

    Wolf has another theory:

    "Private schools just don't emphasize goosing test scores as much as public schools do. Public schools have to, because they're held accountable for test score levels," says Wolf. 

    One analysis from Wolf and his team found that students who persist in their voucher programs may ultimately make up some of the ground they initially lost and even pull ahead.

    8. Voucher students may be more likely to attend and complete college

    In spite of those test score drops, the evidence suggests voucher students may be more likely to graduate high school and even college than if they had stayed in their public school.

    The Urban Institute recently published a study of an early voucher program in Ohio that had been targeted to students in low-rated schools. With many years having passed since the voucher students were in school, the researchers were able to see that they "were substantially more likely to enroll in college than students who remained in public schools (64 versus 48 percent)" and were more likely to earn a bachelor's degree (23 versus 15%).

    Those findings come with a caveat, says David Figlio, who co-authored the study.

    "This program was a highly targeted program that bears little resemblance to the statewide, universal vouchers that are being rolled out today. Therefore you need to take these results with a grain of salt."

    9. Multiple studies of voucher programs show public schools improving too

    Or, as Robert Enlow of EdChoice puts it: "When there's a competitive environment, public schools are getting better and getting better faster."

    Wolf agrees: "The studies are consistent in finding that the public schools improve their performance when they face competition."

    How much do they improve? Wolf calls the benefits "modest."

    Figlio, who has studied smaller, targeted voucher programs in Florida and Ohio, says their positive impact on the public schools "moved the needle a little bit."

    To Cowen, "the results are tiny." So small, he argues, the benefit "is not an argument for parent choice. That's an argument for what we need to do to improve public schools."

    Sasha Pudelski of The School Superintendents Association (AASA) says focusing on these small, competitive improvements ignores the financial strain vouchers put on public schools.

    "Districts are going to lose a few kids in each school potentially and it's not going to seem like that much," says Pudelski, "but it's going to result in service disruptions, teachers and educators being laid off. It's going to lead to fewer programs that people really care about."

    When asked what his message would be to the rest of the country, based on his experience with vouchers in Arizona, public school superintendent Curtis Finch doesn't hesitate.

    "This is a Trojan horse," he says. "It looks good on the outside, and once you open your gates and let them in, the end is destruction."

    Voucher supporters don't dispute this proposal would take students and, ultimately, funding from public schools. They argue, it's time for families to have more control over children's schooling.

    "Giving parents the ability to choose the best education for their child makes the [American] Dream possible," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said in a statement. Cassidy helped lead the federal voucher effort in the Senate.

    According to an analysis of 2022 Census data, nearly 12% of K-12 students in the U.S. attend private schools, while the overwhelming majority, 84%, attend traditional public or charter schools.

    Republicans' plan to pour some $20 billion into vouchers is an attempt to shift that balance.
    Copyright 2025 NPR

  • Data shows staggering solitary confinement numbers
    A crowd of people march down a sidewalk holding signs that say "ICE OUT!" to the left is a sparse, grassy field and concrete divider in that field. In the left corner, there's a one-story white building and telephone poles in the distance.
    Demonstrators recently marched around the Adelanto ICE Processing Center to demand the release of people detained there.
    Topline:
    An LAist analysis shows that the Adelanto ICE Processing Center — the immigration detention center closest to Los Angeles — is among the top 10 facilities across the U.S. placing people in solitary confinement.

    Why it matters: About 1,800 people are held at Adelanto today. In court filings, detainees there have said that isolation is used to punish them for speaking out against inhumane and unsanitary conditions at the facility.

    Who’s responsible? The GEO Group Inc., a private company that operates the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, has not responded to requests for comment. In multiple statements to the media, ICE has said that the agency “is committed to ensuring that all those in custody reside in safe, secure, and humane environments.”

    The backstory: In May 2025, the Adelanto ICE Processing Center had 14 people in isolation. When the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort revved up last June, the number of detainees in solitary confinement there more than tripled and has climbed since.

    What's next: Earlier this year, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of detainees, calling for conditions at Adelanto to be improved. The coalition has since requested an emergency court order to prevent further harm. A hearing is scheduled for April 10.

    Go deeper: Lawsuit alleges inhumane conditions at Adelanto ICE facility

    Read on … for details about the use of solitary confinement at Adelanto.

    The immigration detention center closest to Los Angeles has placed dozens of people in solitary confinement each month since June, according to the most recent data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    In May 2025, the Adelanto ICE Processing Center had 14 people in isolation. When the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort revved up in June 2025, the number of detainees in solitary confinement there more than tripled. By July, it was 73; by August, 105.

    The most recent data available shows that number went down slightly in January, to 74 people.

    Ranked by percentage of the detainee population in “segregation,” as it is called at immigrant detention centers, Adelanto is among the U.S.’s top 10 facilities as of January, according to an LAist analysis of the most recent ICE data.

    The data shows that of 229 ICE facilities that reported holding people since October 2024, between 50 and 60 usually reported putting at least one person in segregation in a given month. Out of the facilities that did place people in solitary confinement, Adelanto tended to do so less often than others until June 2025. (The facility held just a few people from October 2024 into January 2025.) When ICE’s presence increased in L.A. in June, the number of people sent to isolation in the facility also shot up — three to five times as many people have been isolated in Adelanto compared to the average facility that used any solitary confinement.

    Since June, only two facilities have sent people to solitary confinement more times than Adelanto: one southwest of San Antonio, the other in central Pennsylvania.

    Both of those facilities held twice the number of detainees as Adelanto on average from October 2024 through September 2025; but the number of people held in Adelanto since then has tripled, growing larger than either of the other facilities to hold an average of 1,800 people a day since October.

    How we reported this

    LAist used official, publicly available data from ICE about its detentions nationwide and at specific facilities.

    To calculate percentages of people held in isolation as of January 2026, LAist also used official ICE data as recorded by both TRAC Immigration and the Internet Archive that was no longer available on ICE's public website.

    Records of “special and vulnerable populations” for the fourth quarter of the 2025 fiscal year and records of monthly segregation placements by facility from September 2025 were missing from ICE's data and are not reflected in LAist's analysis.

    More on solitary confinement  

    According to ICE, detainees may be placed in segregation for “disciplinary reasons,” or because of:

    • “Serious mental or medical illness.”
    • Conducting a hunger strike.
    • Suicide watch.

    The agency also says it might place detainees “who may be susceptible to harm [if left among the] general population due in part to how others interpret or assume their sexual orientation, or sexual presentation or expression.”

    Not only is ICE holding more people in solitary confinement, but the agency's data also shows that detainees across the country are being isolated for longer periods of time. Detainees ICE considers part of the "vulnerable & special population" spent an average of about two weeks in solitary confinement each time they were isolated in 2022, when ICE first made the data available. By the end of 2025, the average stay in isolation had risen to more than seven weeks straight.

    The GEO Group Inc., a private company that operates the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, has not responded to requests for comment.

    How isolation can affect immigrant detainees  

    UN human rights experts consider solitary confinement placements that last 15 days or more to be torture, though the U.S. Supreme Court has held that isolation doesn’t violate the Constitution.

    The UN also maintains that solitary confinement should be prohibited for people “with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.”

    In January, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of current detainees, calling for conditions at Adelanto to be improved. In addition to an unsanitary environment and a lack of healthy food and clean drinking water, detainees say solitary confinement is frequently used to punish those who speak out about conditions at the facility.

    People held in immigrant detention centers are technically in “civil detention,” meaning that they are being detained to ensure their presence at hearings and compliance with immigration orders — not to serve criminal sentences.

    According to the immigrant rights groups’ complaint, one detainee was placed in solitary confinement after complaining about the showers being broken. Another detainee said that, after asking a guard to “use more respectful language toward him, he was ridiculed, written up and given the middle finger by a guard who shouted, ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’” Then, the detainee was placed in solitary confinement for 25 days.

    Alvaro Huerta, the director of litigation and advocacy at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center who is representing detainees at Adelanto, told LAist that when people are placed in isolation at the facility, they’re typically in the same cell for 23 hours per day, unable to receive visits from their families.

    For clients who are experiencing mental health challenges — especially those with suicidal thoughts — being placed in solitary confinement “can really exacerbate their condition,” he added.

    In multiple statements to the media, ICE has said that the agency “is committed to ensuring that all those in custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments.” The agency has also said that detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” and that all detainees “receive medical, dental, and mental health intake screenings within 12 hours of arriving at each detention facility.”

    Huerta called that “laughable.”

    “We have countless examples of people who have said that this is not true, that they're not getting the medication that they're requesting, that they're not being seen for chronic conditions and emergency conditions,” he added. “And we know it's not true because 14 people have died in ICE custody this year alone.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Service fees are raising eyebrows for fans
    A view of an outdoor cement skate park near a beach, with a giant white logo that says "LA28" on it.
    Tickets to the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles went on sale Thursday.

    Topline:

    As the locals-only sale kicks off and Southern Californians have their first chance to buy tickets to the Olympic Games, some fans are wide-eyed at the high fees on all tickets and the prices in general, which start at $28 but go up to more than $5,500 a pop.

    Sticker shock: Lori Rovner of Manhattan Beach told LAist that one $2,100 ticket had a $505 service fee, bringing the total cost to $2,604.63.

    Other prices: Some people LAist spoke with opted for only $28 or similarly priced tickets, even if it meant missing some of the biggest Olympic events. One user on Reddit said they purchased 18 tickets for around $550.

    Read on … about how much fans are spending on tickets.

    Lori Rovner of Manhattan Beach is a big sports fan, so there was no question that when tickets for the Olympic Games went on sale, she'd be signing up.

    She scored a slot in the first ticket drop, which launched Thursday, and logged on right at 10 a.m., hoping to score tickets to the Opening Ceremonies and some finals too. After battling her computer to get through "access denied" screens and a lost shopping cart due to a 30-minute time limit, she bought 16 tickets.

    It was only when she was about to purchase that she noticed the service fees, which were around 24% of each ticket. One $2,100 ticket had a $505 service fee, bringing the total cost to $2,604.63.

    "It's insane," she said of the fee. "I don't understand what the service is."

    As the locals-only sale kicks off and Southern Californians have their first chance to buy tickets to the Olympic Games, some fans are wide-eyed at the high fees on all tickets and the prices in general, which start at $28 but go up to more than $5,500 a pop. Opening Ceremony tickets start at $328.68

    The service fees aren't a surprise add-on. The price fans see when browsing the site is the total cost, including the fee. Still, some who bought in the first phase of sales were surprised when they saw the fees add up.

    One user on Reddit of shared their cart of 10 tickets, which added up to $11,264. That included $1,038 in fees alone. Commenters responded in shock and awe.

    Service fees are standard in ticket sales, but the percentage they charge can vary widely. High fees have been a source of ire for music and sports fans for years. A 2018 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the average fees on a primary ticket market were 27%.

    LA28 did not respond to LAist's requests for details on the service fee, like what it pays for or why it's a percentage rather than a flat rate.

    Not everyone seemed bothered by the prices. Some people LAist spoke with opted for only $28 or similarly priced tickets, even if it meant missing some of the biggest Olympic events. One user on Reddit said they purchased 18 tickets for around $550.

    "I went with all $28 tickets," they wrote in the online forum about the Olympics. "I got women’s soccer, gymnastics, beach and regular volleyball, track and field, baseball and a few others."

    For some, the ticket process, the prices and the dense web of events to choose from made it too hard to pull the trigger.

    Jeff Bartow of Sierra Madre made a spreadsheet with some competitions he was interested in seeing before he logged on to buy tickets Friday.

    "So many times, so many schedules, so many events," Bartow said. "I think I initially thought I was going to go to a bunch, but thinking about how crazy it's going to be … I might be a little more limited."

    This is just the first ticket drop. There will be more opportunities to buy tickets in the months to come — and on a resale market that launches in 2027.

    Some ticket-buyers told LAist they already were contemplating which tickets they'd keep and which ones they'd re-sell, just minutes after buying them.

  • Why have there been so few arrests?

    Topline:

    In the more than two months since the Department of Justice released its latest batch of files on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, prosecutors have not brought any new charges based on the documents, despite federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continuing to demand accountability.


    The backstory: Since the release of the files in 2025 and 2026, there have been no related arrests in the U.S. However, the disclosures have led to some resignations and other reputational repercussions for some high-ranking Americans. The lack of arrests in the U.S. contrasts to the fallout in the U.K., where investigators have pursued charges related to corruption, not sexual abuse, in their dealings with Epstein. Two former government officials — former Prince Andrew and ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson — were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office.


    Lack of evidence: In the U.S., top Justice Department officials have said that they found no evidence compelling enough to pursue further charges related to Epstein, and that the public can make their own assessments based on the disclosed documents. In a statement to NPR, Justice Department spokesperson Katie Kenlein said that "there have not been additional prosecutions beyond Epstein and Maxwell because there has not been credible evidence that their activities extended to Epstein's network."

    In the more than two months since the Department of Justice released its latest batch of files on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, prosecutors have not brought any new charges based on the documents, despite federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continuing to demand accountability.

    The more than 3 million pages of documents include accusations by alleged victims of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse and thousands of emails and photos showing Epstein associated with prominent figures. The files indicate that many of these people maintained contact with the disgraced financier long after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to sex crimes that involved minors. Appearing in the files is not necessarily an indication of criminal wrongdoing.

    The release of the Epstein files came after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Justice Department to make public all documents it held related to Epstein.

    Epstein died in prison about a month after a 2019 arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Maxwell was convicted on sex-trafficking charges in 2021 and is serving a 20-year sentence. Since the release of the files in 2025 and 2026, there have been no related arrests in the U.S. However, the disclosures have led to some resignations and other reputational repercussions for some high-ranking Americans.

    The lack of arrests in the U.S. contrasts to the fallout in the U.K., where investigators have pursued charges related to corruption, not sexual abuse, in their dealings with Epstein. Two former government officials — former Prince Andrew and ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson — were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as he is now known, has denied wrongdoing and has not been formally charged. Mandelson has also not been charged, and lawyers for Mandelson have said that the arrest was prompted by a "baseless suggestion."

    In the U.S., top Justice Department officials have said that they found no evidence compelling enough to pursue further charges related to Epstein, and that the public can make their own assessments based on the disclosed documents.

    In a statement to NPR, Justice Department spokesperson Katie Kenlein said that "there have not been additional prosecutions beyond Epstein and Maxwell because there has not been credible evidence that their activities extended to Epstein's network. However, if prosecutable evidence comes forward, the Department of Justice will of course act on it as we do every day in sexual trafficking and assault cases across the count[r]y."


    On Thursday, President Trump announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out of the top job at the Justice Department, following bipartisan criticism over her handling of the Epstein files.

    NPR asked four former prosecutors and one former law enforcement officer why there may not have been enough evidence to levy additional charges. Here's what they said.

    Prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

    Prosecutors must prove to a jury that a person committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt," according to Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

    "One of the biggest misconceptions people have is how difficult it is to charge and convict somebody for a criminal case," said McQuade, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

    A prosecutor's ethical responsibility is to charge cases only if they believe there is enough evidence for a conviction, McQuade said. Documents, including emails, jokes, and even plane itineraries, can be a place to start, but, alone, they are not enough to prove guilt, McQuade said.

    "What you would need [is] rock solid evidence," McQuade said. "You can't charge someone for a crime without sufficient evidence, and I have yet to see evidence of a crime involving an Epstein associate that has gone uncharged."

    Based on his understanding of the case, Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law, said he agreed that prosecutors who investigated Epstein's alleged associates "may have believed that they couldn't persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." He said problems with witness credibility or certain forensic evidence can prevent a case from moving forward.

    The U.K. cases are focused on corruption 

    In the U.K., the two people arrested are being investigated on suspicion of "misconduct in public office." McQuade said the U.S. does not have a single equivalent federal law. Instead, the U.S. prosecutes public corruption through statutes that focus specifically on crimes such as bribery and extortion.

    After the release of the latest files, British police began investigating Andrew's correspondence with Epstein when Andrew was a U.K. trade envoy. At that time, Andrew allegedly shared government itineraries, investment plans and notes from official foreign trips with Epstein. The information may have been covered by the United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act.

    Similarly, Mandelson has been accused of passing confidential government information to the late sex offender when Mandelson was a U.K. Cabinet minister.

    Meeting the burden of proof is especially challenging for sex crime cases

    Victim statements are essential for establishing basic elements, such as the timeframe of events, required to build sexual assault cases, said Diane Goldstein, a retired police lieutenant from California and the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. But a victim may be reluctant to come forward because of a fear of retaliation, not believing the police can help, believing it is a personal matter, or not wanting to get the perpetrator in trouble.

    McQuade noted that in some sex trafficking cases, especially those in which a perpetrator is in a position of power, victims may experience intimidation or threats that prevent them from speaking out.

    Victims also may be hesitant to move forward with allegations because they fear having to testify at trials where defense attorneys may attempt to poke holes in their allegations, McQuade said.

    Goldstein said that for sex crime cases to advance, investigators need to follow certain policies and procedures. "If you don't have a legitimate police investigation to start, you're not going to get any type of criminal filing," Goldstein said.

    Other potential charges are also a difficult path

    Prosecutors may have considered pursuing charges of criminal conspiracy related to sex trafficking against people associated with Epstein, said Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo School of Law. FBI documents in the files relating to its investigation into Epstein's crimes identify certain people as "co-conspirators."

    But Ankush Khardori, a senior writer and columnist at Politico magazine who worked as a federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases, told NPR those identifiers are not "formal accusation[s]" and are simply part of "interim documents."

    "The FBI does not determine who is a co-conspirator," Khardori said. "That is a legal judgment that prosecutors make."

    But for those conspiracy cases, "criminal intent," in particular, is difficult to establish, said Roth, who worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York for seven years. Criminal conspiracy charges "would require knowledge and intent on the part of each individual who was charged," Roth said. If a person who communicated with Epstein had some suspicion that he was engaged in illegal activity, that alone would not be sufficient evidence to press charges, she said.

    Investigators may have considered charges related to criminal tax violations, McQuade said. But the statute of limitations has likely ended on those cases, she said, meaning that prosecutors can no longer bring charges.

    The current evidence lacks context

    Legal experts say the haphazard way the documents were released and redacted makes it difficult for the public to understand why no additional charges have been filed.

    Roth, the Cardozo law professor, said the information is in "isolation," without the appropriate context. "We'll see an individual photograph that looks perhaps incriminating. We'll see an email that looks incriminating, but we don't necessarily have everything that was said before and after that email and that exchange," Roth said.

    One document that could explain why no charges were pursued, according to Butler, is a heavily redacted DOJ memo naming "potential co-conspirators" of Epstein. "The parts that should indicate why the department declined prosecution on any alleged co-conspirators other than Ghislaine Maxwell [are] redacted," said Butler, the Georgetown law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

    Butler said those redactions are "unusual" because they do not appear to follow the permissible reasons for redactions in the Epstein documents. Those reasons include confidentiality for Epstein's alleged victims, or anything that would compromise an ongoing investigation, Butler said.

    "When the Justice Department grudgingly releases information when pressed by politics or forced by Congress, it also creates the impression that they have something to hide," Butler said. "That there is some cover-up going on."
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • New report shows sharp rise in LA County
    Empty playground swings

    Topline:

    Nearly 30% more students in Los Angeles County experienced homelessness from 2022-23 to 2023-24, making it the county’s highest rate in the past five years and far outpacing the rate of homelessness across the state in the same timeframe, as the resources to identify and support this student population have decreased.

    Norwalk-La Mirada Unified: Researchers found that Norwalk-La Mirada Elementary Unified School District had the highest rate of student homelessness in the county — 1 in 3 students, meaning that over 4,700 students were identified as experiencing homelessness during the 2023-24 school year out of a total cumulative enrollment of about 15,600.

    Underidentifed students: Researchers also found that the Transformation of Schools focuses on the lack of dedicated funding for school staff to identify and support homeless students. Students and families facing homelessness do not always self-identify, whether due to fear, shame or being unaware that their housing situation is considered homelessness

    Nearly 30% more students in Los Angeles County experienced homelessness from 2022-23 to 2023-24, making it the county’s highest rate in the past five years and far outpacing the rate of homelessness across the state in the same timeframe, as the resources to identify and support this student population have decreased.

    The UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools published two reports on Wednesday on the state of student homelessness in the county: “Rising Numbers, Fading Resources: Students Experiencing Homelessness in Los Angeles County” and “Hidden in Plain Sight: Fear, Underidentification, and Funding Gaps for Housing-Insecure Students in Los Angeles County.”

    Researchers found that Norwalk-La Mirada Elementary Unified School District had the highest rate of student homelessness in the county — 1 in 3 students, meaning that over 4,700 students were identified as experiencing homelessness during the 2023-24 school year out of a total cumulative enrollment of about 15,600.

    The city of Norwalk, where the district is located in the eastern region of the county, was sued by the state in 2024 for banning emergency shelters and other support services for people experiencing homelessness. Last year, the state reached a settlement with the city, which was forced to overturn the ban and put $250,000 toward building affordable housing.

    Student homelessness is defined differently under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a federal law that requires every public school to count the number of students who are living on the street, in shelters, in motels, in cars, doubled up with other families, or moving between friends’ and relatives’ homes.

    As a result of this expanded definition, McKinney-Vento includes doubled-up students in the count of homelessness. Doubled-up is a term used to describe children and youth ages 21 and under living in shared housing, such as with another family or friends, due to various crises.

    There were a few other patterns seen in the L.A. County data analyzed by the UCLA researchers:

    • Latino students were disproportionately more likely to experience homelessness: they represent 65% of the county’s student population, but 75.5% of student homelessness
    • A third of homeless students were in high school
    • Many districts with the highest rates of homelessness had higher school instability but lower dropout rates

    While McKinney-Vento has an expanded definition that includes more types of homelessness than several other definitions, identifying students remains difficult.

    The second report from the UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools focuses on the lack of dedicated funding for school staff to identify and support homeless students. Students and families facing homelessness do not always self-identify, whether due to fear, shame or being unaware that their housing situation is considered homelessness under McKinney-Vento.

    “A lot of these young people are dealing with a lot of trauma, so they don’t want to be identified. They don’t want to be pointed out; sometimes it’s scary for them, because they think we’re going to report them to the Department of Children and Family Services,” said L.A. County Office of Education staff interviewed for this report.

    School staff, known as homeless liaisons, who work with homeless students received a historic influx of federal funds during the Covid-19 pandemic — $98.76 million for California, out of $800 million nationwide, from the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth.

    That funding has since ended, and there is no other dedicated, ongoing state funding set aside solely for the rising number of homeless students. This has led districts in California to “heavily depend on highly competitive and unstable federal streams,” the UCLA researchers wrote. Those federal streams have become increasingly precarious as the federal administration last year sought policy changes that would shift how they are structured.