The Brief

Under scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, California’s community colleges are trying to crack down on financial aid fraud. Scammers have increasingly infiltrated the state’s 116 community colleges, posing as students in an effort to steal financial aid from the state and federal government.

At a meeting Tuesday, the board that oversees California’s community colleges voted to require all students to verify their identity, which is currently optional for most applicants. The board also considered asking the Legislature for approval to charge students a nominal application fee — which many said should be no more than $10. But after more than two hours of debate, the board rejected that proposal and instead asked staff to “explore” a fee policy.

“Some of you were asking questions, ‘Why is this happening so fast?’” said California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian. “Because on April 8, CalMatters ran an article that got national press. Guess what happened after that? Nine of our congressional leaders emailed the Secretary of Education of the United States and emailed the Attorney General asking them to start an investigation of the California Community Colleges.”

State representatives from both parties have since called for an audit of the community college system’s financial aid process. Christian said those audits are likely to happen. “We’re on a national stage right now.”

Students from across the state told board members that they were against imposing a fee, sharing stories of times when they were so poor that they didn’t have a bank account or $10 to buy lunch. Many had personal experiences with fake students.

“A bot once took my seat in a class that I needed to graduate and transfer. That fraud almost cost me my future,” said Flo Cudal, a student at Santiago Canyon College in Orange County. “I understand the need for strong protections, but they must not come at the expense of excluding a real student.”

When Love Adu, a student and board member, tried to enroll at Moorpark College, she said she was unable to verify her identity online, so she had to drive five hours to present her documents in person. Incarcerated students, undocumented students, homeless students and students under 18 all struggle with the current ID verification software, she said. “These proposals would make it harder for students to get the very education that we're trying to serve to them.”

Application fee delayed

California’s community colleges have a mission to serve every Californian and they’re funded primarily based on the number of students they enroll. When applying, students sign an affidavit affirming that their personal information is true. But besides that, only a few college districts mandate online identity verification. There is no fee to apply to community college and tuition is free for low-income students. Once enrolled, a student can obtain thousands of dollars in financial aid, money that can be used to cover the cost of books, housing, food and transportation.

That aid has become an easy target for scammers, who often submit dozens or hundreds of applications at a time, using real California addresses and Social Security numbers in order to create fraudulent college accounts. Last month, CalMatters reported that roughly one-third of community college applicants were fake. The state chancellor’s office said it removed all the fraudulent applicants it detected but many scammers evaded detection and stole taxpayer dollars. In the last 12 months alone, colleges have lost more than $10 million in federal aid to fraud and $3 million in state aid, according to state reports, which CalMatters obtained through a public records request.

Allowing fraud to continue to rise is “irresponsible,” said board member Amy Costa before voting in favor of Christian’s proposal. These “bots” are after government entitlement programs, such as Pell Grants and Cal Grants, and it’s the state's job to help steward the use of those taxpayer dollars, she said. “We need somebody to say ‘I’m a real person,’ and payment is sort of one of the ways we do that.”

In the proposal, Christian said her office would consider refunding or crediting the application fee to any student with “a demonstrated financial hardship.” Roughly 40% of California’s community community college students qualify for free tuition because they’re considered low-income, according to state data.

Even if the fee proposal had passed, Christian would still need the Legislature’s approval. It would have taken a year and involved many more discussions, including at the board level, Christian said.

But if lawmakers continue to keep the spotlight on this issue, changes could still happen, said Chris Ferguson, an executive vice chancellor with the state chancellor’s office. “If financial aid fraud were to continue to increase, I assure you, at a certain point, there will be measures, whether it’s at the state level or the federal level, that are implemented on us.”

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

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.