The Brief

For months, the Trump administration has used civil rights investigations into universities as a means to freeze or cancel federal research funding, citing schools’ alleged failure to protect Jewish students from harassment.

This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice turned its attention to the University of California, a 10-campus system with nearly 300,000 students.

And, so far, much of that effort has focused on UCLA.

'One of the gravest threats' in UC history   

In late July, the DOJ declared that UCLA had violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the 1964 Civil Rights Act “by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students ... from October 7, 2023, to the present.” In a press statement, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the department would “force UCLA to pay a heavy price.”

Soon after, the administration froze hundreds of science research grants at UCLA, including funding through the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and other agencies.

In a press statement, UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk underscored that “federal research grants are not handouts.”

“Our researchers compete fiercely for these grants, proposing work that the government itself deems vital to the country’s health, safety and economic future,” he said.

Frenk also let on that the Trump administration’s actions didn’t come as a surprise: “For the past several months, our leadership team has been preparing for this situation and have developed comprehensive contingency plans,” he added. “With the support of the UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President, we are actively evaluating our best course of action.”

What followed was an offer from the federal government for UCLA to pay a $1 billion penalty and overhaul a broad range of campus policies and practices — in return, the government said it wouldn't sue the university.

As the L.A. Times first reported, the Trump administration’s settlement terms are far reaching, covering hiring, admissions, gender identity and protest rights. The government also wants to install an outside monitor to report on UCLA’s compliance, and there is no guarantee the Trump administration won’t launch future funding cuts or lawsuits.

Timeline of UCLA's response to federal actions

Here’s how school leaders and the university community have responded to the administration:

• Aug. 4: Attorneys on behalf of UC researchers submitted a court filing signaling that the NSF had defied a preliminary injunction and frozen hundreds of grants to UCLA. According to the filing, Frenk received “a long list of grants that were being indefinitely suspended.” The researchers themselves received “no explanation.”
  
• Aug. 12: A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore the suspended NSF grants.
  
• Sept. 10 and 11: UCLA hosted science fairs, inviting the public to learn about the research projects that remain frozen. The second day of the event was organized by UAW 4811, the union that represents student workers, postdocs and academic researchers across the UC system.
  
• Sept. 15: In a message to students, faculty, staff and alumni, UC President James B. Milliken called the Trump administration’s actions against UCLA “one of the gravest threats to the University of California in our 157-year history.” According to Milliken, the system receives more than $17 billion each year in federal support, including $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding; $5.7 billion for research and program support; and $1.7 billion in student financial aid. “A substantial loss of this federal funding would be devastating for our mission and for the people who depend on us most,” he added. “It will mean fewer classes and student services, reduced access to healthcare, tens of thousands of lost jobs across the state and an exodus of world-class faculty and researchers to other states or countries.”
  
• Sept.16: A coalition of UC faculty, staff and unions filed their own lawsuit against the Trump administration. In it, the plaintiffs allege the grant cuts and settlement demands are unconstitutional. The administration's “economic coercion,” they add, is part of broader efforts to “exert ideological control over the nation’s core institutions.”
  
• Sept. 16 and 17: The UC Board of Regents, an independent body that oversees the system and plays a key role in federal negotiations, held its first public meetings since the research cuts. During public comment, Jason Rabinowitz, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 2010, one of the plaintiffs in the aforementioned lawsuit against the Trump administration, was the first to speak. “There should be no agreement to pay extortion money,” he told the regents. He also cautioned against the erosion of free speech. Ahead of the meetings, over 200 Jewish faculty members from campuses across the state signed a letter to the board: “Like Jewish people across the country and around the world, we hold various views about Israel and Palestine, U.S. policy in the Middle East and student activism on campus. But we are united in denouncing the federal government’s attempt to hobble the University of California — a bastion of free inquiry, social mobility and essential research — under the cynical and pretextual guise of ‘combating antisemitism.’”
  

Disclosure: Julia Barajas is a part-time graduate student at UCLA Law.

In as little as a year, lowering your electricity bill could be as simple as buying a kit with a few solar panels and accessories, completing a quick online registration form, and plugging it into a standard outlet.

California lawmakers passed a bill on Wednesday night to formally legalize plug-in, or balcony, solar: small, portable and relatively inexpensive systems that do not require rewiring or the costly installation fees that often come with rooftop solar.

The legislation, SB 868, sailed through the state assembly and senate with bipartisan support. The bill now moves to the governor’s desk for signature.

The devices can be tented in a backyard, hung off a balcony or placed on a roof. Models range from as low as $300 to $2200, depending on size. The bill would open the solar market to people who were previously left out: renters, people with unsuitable roofs, and those lacking the capital to build out a rooftop system, which can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.

“There’s no question SB 868 is the most exciting clean energy and energy affordability bill right now up for consideration in California,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that co-sponsored the bill. “You never get to pass a big controversial bill in one year. We’re poised to do that. It is a huge win.”

A wave of state legislation over the past 18 months is making balcony solar — a nascent technology in the U.S. — within reach of everyday Americans. Utah pioneered a law passed in March 2025, and others quickly followed.

Eight states now have bills on the books that allow a relatively straightforward process for purchasing and setting up balcony solar systems, including Colorado, Virginia and Maine. Bills in New York and New Jersey are awaiting the governors’ signatures, like California.

Advocates believe California’s market has massive potential. They’re motivated by Germany, where millions of solar panels dot balconies across the country.

Some of the state’s largest investor-owned utilities, however, opposed the legislation, citing safety and a concern that the systems would shift energy costs to people without solar power.

PG&E initially said it supported the bill if it were amended, but opposed the final version. Spokesperson Paul Doherty said the utility is concerned that certain safety and certification requirements on some systems would not be enforced until 2030.

But he said that the company “supports plug-in solar and the opportunities it could create for customers, particularly renters and others who have not had easy access to traditional rooftop solar.”

San Diego Gas & Electric also opposed the legislation, citing concerns that even if balcony solar is designed to prevent feeding power back to the grid, systems may malfunction and endanger workers or customers.

Southern California Edison originally opposed the bill but later took a neutral stance after bill authors updated safety standards and how people notify their utility of their systems, spokesperson David Eisenhauer said.

Notably, labor unions representing firefighters and PG&E employees dropped their opposition and took a neutral stance on the bill after lawmakers amended it to explicitly comply with state and national electrical codes.

If signed into law by Newsom, the legislation would exempt plug-in solar devices from what critics say is a cumbersome and expensive interconnection application process, and replace registration with a free and straightforward online form.

Some Californians have already installed plug-in solar panels, but utilities ask them to complete an interconnection agreement, citing state rules. If done through PG&E, for example, representatives from the utility said that process would cost roughly $100 to $800 and take about an hour. Typically, the approval comes through in three days, PG&E staff said.

But plug-in solar advocates argued that the interconnection process defeats the plug-and-play nature of the technology, and could double or triple its cost.

Their goal is to make the panels as ubiquitous and easy to install as any off-the-shelf appliance dotting the racks of a Home Depot or Costco.

The newly passed bill outlines several device requirements. The balcony solar systems must be capped at generating 1,200 watts per home, plug into a standard outlet, offset a customer’s onsite electricity use and meet state and national electrical codes. They also must be certified by an outside safety organization like Underwriters Laboratories and have a feature that would prevent electricity from feeding back into the grid if there’s a power outage.

Current plug-in solar models do not yet meet the outlined requirements, and customers therefore must still register their systems as though they are rooftop solar. Del Chiaro said there are already a few companies developing devices that will meet the standards in the new California legislation.

The bill is meant to help reduce the cost of power for Californians and “eliminates red tape, so that people in California can actually use plug-in solar right now,” bill author and state Sen. Scott Wiener said during an Assembly hearing in June.

Del Chiaro estimated that just one 400-watt solar panel would cover about 14% of a typical renter’s apartment’s annual electricity bill and translate to energy-bill savings of roughly $250 a year. That system would provide enough juice to run a refrigerator, modem and Wi-Fi. A larger, 1,200-watt system would generate enough energy to power a window air conditioning unit, “enabling families, especially in our hotter regions, to afford to cool their home on increasingly hot days,” Del Chiaro said.

Dozens of environmental and community groups and a few cities supported the bill.

Plug-in solar advocacy group and nonprofit Bright Saver tentatively celebrated the action.

“It’s a clear statement that the biggest state in the union wants this,” said Cora Stryker, the group’s co-founder, although she said she was not happy with an amendment sunsetting the legislation in 2030 and other provisions that could slow down the market for balcony solar.

“The devil in the details makes it not a home run. It makes it a fight that continues,” she said.

Fiscal analysis of the bill estimates implementation will cost the state between $200,000 and $500,000 annually to fund program administrator positions.

If Newsom signs, staff in Wiener’s office estimated that people would be able to buy compatible plug-in solar kits in the spring of 2027.

From KQED’s Climate desk, “Flipping the Switch” documents California’s transition to clean energy and what it means for you. What works? What doesn’t? How much does it cost? Help us find these answers and more by donating today.

A judge on Wednesday suspended criminal charges against a former U.S. Marine arrested at President Donald Trump’s Los Angeles-area golf course with ammunition and a gun in his vehicle. He is undergoing a psychiatric evaluation.

Los Angeles County Judge John Lonergan Jr. sent Jeanine John Taele, 38, to a mental health court in Hollywood based on statements he made in a pretrial evaluation indicating he wasn’t mentally fit to stand trial. In the evaluation, Taele falsely insisted he had been a State Department official for 14 years.

When Taele was arrested earlier this month, he was seen wearing an earpiece and taking pictures of the golf course where Trump was scheduled to attend a Republican National Committee dinner. The event was at Trump National Golf Course Los Angeles in Rancho Palos Verdes, just south of L.A.

A search of his pickup truck in the golf course parking lot at the time turned up a loaded 9 mm pistol, binoculars and a badge that read “security protection agent,” according to the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

Lonergan expressed particular concern over the 200 pages of Taele’s writings that investigators found following his arrest. The writings included schedules for first lady Melania Trump and members of the president’s Secret Service, as well as detailed lists for surviving “off the grid.” The judge did not say whether the writings included any specific political motives or ideologies.

“This case itself is alarming in this day and age with the violence that is creeping into our everyday lives, especially with our partisanship in the political environment” ahead of the midterms, Lonergan said.

The judge also cited a previous arrest in November 2025 at an AT&T store where Taele accused an employee of spying on him with Meta Glasses, stole the glasses, and was found muttering to himself in the parking lot. He was charged with second-degree robbery following that incident.

Taele was charged with several felonies including possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun and receiving a large-capacity magazine. He was also charged with carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle, a misdemeanor.

Taele appeared in the Torrance, California, courtroom Wednesday, weeks after his Aug. 5 arrest, wearing a vest designed to prevent self-harm or suicide attempts. Nearly a dozen family members and friends tearfully watched from the courtroom.

Lonergan declined to set bail for Taele, who will remain in jail until a Sept. 9 hearing at the Hollywood Mental Health Court.

Taele’s attorney, public defender A.J. Bayne, said it was too early to tell whether Taele’s mental health would play a role in his legal defense.

“He’s a veteran, he served our country, and I don’t know enough right now, but he has a family that loves him, that has huge support for him,” Bayne said, adding that “people assume too much” about Taele’s motives on the day he was arrested at the golf course.

Taele is a decorated U.S. Marine who served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2008 and 2016, according to a Marine Corps spokesperson. He was a corporal who received countless accolades, including two Marine Corps Good Conduct Medals, a Navy Unit Commendation, a National Defense Service Medal, and a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

A politically heated bribery case in Orange County came to an end Wednesday when a judge cleared Westminster Councilmember Amy Phan West of wrongdoing.

West was charged with a misdemeanor last year for allegedly using her clout as an elected official to coax parking officers not to tow her husband’s car. In lieu of a trial, the judge ordered her to take an ethics training course and do 20 hours of community service. In exchange, the charge would be dropped and her record cleared.

But earlier this month, just before Phan West was scheduled to complete her year under court supervision, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office asked the judge to revoke the deal. Deputy District Attorney Matt Bradbury alleged that Phan West hadn’t taken the criminal charge to heart and continued to violate ethics rules, including by allegedly using public resources for personal gain.

In court Wednesday, Bradbury tried to prove that Phan West improperly used her City Council office to do a campaign media interview, and that she and her supporters had handed out campaign literature at the city’s annual Tet parade. Phan West, a Republican, ran for Congress in the June primary, but did not advance to the upcoming general election.

Bradbury also showed a video from a candidate forum in which Phan West called the proceedings against her a “jungle court” and compared her legal problems to those of the president.

“Like how they’re doing it to Donald J. Trump — it’s the same thing they’re doing to take me out,” Phan West said in the video.

Judge Sherri Honer rejected the prosecution’s argument and said the evidence did not prove Phan West had broken any laws.

“People express dissatisfaction with the court all the time,” she said of Phan West’s comments during the candidate forum. “That’s not an ethical violation.”

After the judge’s ruling, Phan West’s husband, who was in the courtroom with the couple’s three sons, wiped away tears. Phan West’s youngest son shouted, “Thank you, judge.”

Outside the courthouse, Phan West said her faith in God had gotten her through the ordeal. She also said she thinks residents plotting her demise were behind the criminal charge, aiming to drain her “financially, emotionally, and spiritually.”

“ I don't know why they don't like me, but I believe I'm fighting for everyone who wants to have a voice to speak out even though people don't agree with them,” Phan West said.

The exterior of Westminster City Hall.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Westminster City Council ‘dysfunctional’

Westminster’s five-member City Council has been roiled by infighting in recent years, and civically active residents have lined up on either side of a stark dividing line between a three-member council majority on one side, and Phan West and council ally NamQuan Nguyen on the other. That has led to shouting matches, name-calling, and long meetings.

In June 2024, the council held a discussion on whether to censure Phan West for behaviors, allegedly including improperly disclosing confidential information and lying. The meeting lasted more than 11 hours.

The council eventually censured Phan West, and later the city filed a lawsuit against her and Nguyen for repeatedly disrupting meetings and creating a rowdy atmosphere. A judge issued a default judgment against Nguyen last year, ordering him not to speak at council meetings without the mayor’s permission.

The case against Phan West is scheduled for trial in November, shortly after the election.

Ryan Bent, a trustee for the North Orange County Community College District and friend of Phan West, has attended many of the contentious meetings, even though he doesn’t live in Westminster. He said the City Council has stood out in recent years “as one the most dysfunctional” in the county. Phan West, he concedes, is part of the problem.

“In her case, she’s gone too far, too often,” he said. Still, Bent said, he has come to believe that Phan West has been unfairly targeted because of her outspokenness and staunch conservative politics.

“They’ve gone after her mercilessly,” he said.

He also called the city’s lawsuit against Phan West a waste of money at a time when the public budget is tight.

“I’ve never seen City Council members sue one of their own using city tax dollars,” he said. “It’s just not a good practice at all.”

The opposition, and the upcoming election

Terry Rains, a Westminster resident and one of Phan West’s most vocal foes, said she was disappointed with the judge’s ruling in the bribery case. “ This is the very essence of abuse of power by an elected official for personal gain,” Rains said of the towing incident.

“If I went out and said, ‘Don't tow my car away,’ and I'm just a resident, they'd just laugh,” she said.

Rains is closely following the city’s civil case against Phan West. She agreed the lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money, but blamed Phan West. She said the city had to sue her “just to get her to adhere to the rules of meetings and her behavior during council meetings.”

Phan West declined to discuss the city’s lawsuit after Wednesday’s court hearing since it is ongoing. In the past, she has accused her City Council opponents of violating her right to free speech and waging a personal vendetta against her.

The upcoming election in November may turn out to be the best gauge of how Westminster residents feel about the ongoing drama. Two council seats are up for election — Phan West’s District 1 seat and Nguyen’s District 4 seat. Both face several challengers. The mayor’s position, which all residents vote on, is also up for election. Five candidates are vying for that seat.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing for an eleventh-hour legislative proposal that would give an environmental carve-out to a Santa Monica developer who is a Newsom appointee to state commissions and longtime donor.

The draft proposal, obtained by CalMatters, would effectively exempt a mixed-use project on Santa Monica’s oceanfront, designed by the late architect Frank Gehry, from the state’s environmental regulations of coastal developments, unless the city adopts its own land use policies by Jan. 1, 2028.

The project belongs to Jeff Worthe, who, along with his wife Kristin Worthe, has donated more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaigns and inaugural fund between 2018 and 2022, according to state campaign finance records. Newsom appointed Worthe to the California Privacy Protection Agency Board in 2023, and then to the California High-Speed Rail Authority last year.

The Santa Monica City Council and the California Coastal Commission both approved the $350 million project a few years ago after Worthe agreed to pay millions of dollars toward low-cost housing and city infrastructure. But the approvals lapsed, and the project never broke ground despite Worthe’s promise to start building in early 2025.

The new last-minute proposal shocked and angered a coalition of environmental advocates, who for months have urged state leaders to reject any backdoor deal to exempt any project from the California Coastal Act, a 50-year-old law that set the environmental standard for coastal development.

In May, the coalition successfully fought off a legislative proposal that would have expedited Worthe’s project. In June, they fended off another proposal from Newsom’s office that would have exempted most housing developments along Santa Monica’s shoreline from the act. About 90,000 people live in the city, which is known for its famous pier and a long stretch of beachside restaurants and hotels.

The specific carveouts in the latest proposal would set a precedent of overriding coastal environment protections for the interest of wealthy developers, said Susan Jordan, executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network.

“Every other developer is going to want the same treatment,” Jordan said. “It sends the message: If you have deep pockets, you get a big payoff.”

Assemblymember Rick Zbur, a Democrat representing Santa Monica, said he received the proposal Monday night. He said he opposes it because it would undermine Assembly Bill 1740, which he authored this year to set a deadline for Santa Monica to develop its land use plan — known as a “local coastal program” — by Jan. 1, 2029. The bill passed 76-0 in the Assembly Tuesday and is headed to the governor’s desk.

The city is one of 14 in California without such a plan, which means developers must obtain individual permits directly from the California Coastal Commission, which often takes longer.

Both area lawmakers oppose it

Newsom’s proposal would fast-track Worthe’s project if the city fails to develop a plan by 2028 — a soft deadline the city had set for itself in a June agreement with the coastal commission.

“This isn’t about the project,” Zbur told CalMatters. “It’s about the precedent of exempting a project and about doing something that is in conflict [with] and undermines a bill that I just worked so hard to bring all the parties together on.”

Sen. Ben Allen, an El Segundo Democrat who also represents the area, similarly opposed the proposal, arguing it would incentivize developers to delay the city from creating a local coastal plan. Allen said he supports Zbur’s legislation instead.

“I … am not interested in unwinding that work,” he said in a statement Wednesday.

Newsom has been critical of the coastal commission and appointed several pro-housing commissioners in recent years to speed up coastal development.

His proposal comes as President Donald Trump has sought to weaken California’s environmental regulations and push for offshore oil drilling. The Trump administration has launched an investigation into the Coastal Commission’s authority, which environmental activists, the commission and Newsom himself see as a power grab intended to undermine the state’s environmental protections.

But environmental advocates called Newsom hypocritical for criticizing Trump while pushing a regulatory carveout for the Santa Monica project.

'He’s carving up the Coastal Act. He’s selling it to the highest bidder.'

Marce Gutiérrez-Graudiņš, founder of the climate justice advocacy group Azul, said it would be dangerous to “weaken our law instead of strengthening it” now.

Susan Jordan, executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network, said Newsom is following Trump’s playbook.

“He’s carving up the Coastal Act. He’s selling it to the highest bidder. And we don’t need a governor to be doing that, and we certainly don’t need our next president to do that,” she said.

When asked about his link to Worthe and why he’s pushing for the proposal late in the session, Newsom declined to comment. But he said he spoke with one state lawmaker who represents the area two days ago — without identifying who — and received “healthy feedback.”

“It’s a work in progress,” Newsom said at a Wednesday press conference in Vallejo. “We are in the process of negotiating and discussing it with them.”

The last-minute proposal comes after a Worthe-linked company spent $270,000 between January and June lobbying the Legislature and the governor’s office on Zbur’s legislation and other budget issues, according to state lobbying records. Lobbyist Bob Giroux reported receiving the payments from Catalina Media Development LLC, which is affiliated with Worthe’s real estate company.

Worthe did not respond to an email inquiry from CalMatters, and Giroux could not be reached immediately for comment.

What the bill would do

Under the proposal, only housing projects in Santa Monica that meet a narrow set of criteria would benefit from the coastal act exemptions.

The measure would only apply to a residential or mixed-use development, and would not apply to a hotel or residential inn. Qualifying housing projects must meet certain labor standards and sustainability requirements. The sites must be in urban areas and must not be near wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas or too close to the ocean.

But one criterion stands out: The qualifying project must include a museum honoring Gehry’s work with written authorization from Gehry’s trustees.

The only project that seems to check all the boxes is Worthe’s proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.

The previously approved plans included a 120-room hotel, 100 apartments that would include some affordable units, more than 70,000 square feet for commercial and “cultural use,” a 5,000-square-foot rooftop observation deck and nearly 300 parking spaces.

In an agreement with the city council, Worthe agreed to pay $6 million toward city transportation, parks and recreation, affordable housing, early childhood programs and economic development initiatives in exchange for building the project. In 2023, at the coastal commission staff’s suggestion, he also agreed to contribute another $6.5 million to a youth hostel next to the project site to provide lower-cost housing in the area.

Newsom’s proposal would only kick in if the city fails to certify its local coastal plan by 2028.

Under the measure, the coastal commission must publicly hear the project application within 90 days and make a decision within 30 days. The proposal assumes that the project complies with environmental regulations unless the commission proves the development would “result in a specific, adverse and unavoidable impact” to the environment.

But the state should not try to rush the design of complicated land use policies, Jordan argued.

“If that means you need to go six months over a deadline, then you should do that, and you should not be penalized by making the correct decision,” Jordan said.

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