Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Many criticize lack of intervention amid violence
    A row of people face a lighted building. A sign on a long piece of cloth reads: No Genocide
    The scene on the UCLA campus Wednesday night as police in riot gear declared an unlawful assembly.

    Topline:

    The University of California’s campus safety plan was designed to calm protests by limiting law enforcement. Yet as tensions grew to violence against a UCLA student encampment erected in protest over the war in Gaza, many are criticizing law enforcement’s lack of intervention.

    The reason for such a mixed response from law enforcement: haphazard adherence to UC President Michael Drake’s 2021 UC Campus Safety Plan.

    Why it matters: Encampments at a growing number of universities across the state and nation are sparking battles between students’ free speech and campus policies against trespassing and obstructing operations. For the University of California system, the encampments at five campuses are a test of newly implemented campus policing reforms meant to address systemic racism post-2020.

    The backstory: The safety plan was designed to deter potential violence — and reduce a police role in campus protests. But now, people are questioning why law enforcement did not break up any of the physical assaults or otherwise intervene as violence escalated at the Los Angeles campus. According to a statement Drake released Wednesday, there were at least 15 injuries and one hospitalization.

    Read on... for more on UC's response to the protests.

    As counterprotesters tore at barricades, threw fireworks, and beat and pepper sprayed pro-Palestinian protesters at UCLA overnight Tuesday, no law enforcement officers took action to stop the violence or made any arrests. In stark contrast, by Wednesday night, UC Police declared that anyone who remains in the “unlawful” encampment would be arrested.

    The reason for such a mixed response from law enforcement: haphazard adherence to UC President Michael Drake’s 2021 UC Campus Safety Plan.

    Encampments at a growing number of universities across the state and nation are sparking battles between students’ free speech and campus policies against trespassing and obstructing operations. For the University of California system, the encampments at five campuses are a test of newly implemented campus policing reforms meant to address systemic racism post-2020.

    Drake’s safety plan states: “The University will reinforce existing guidelines that minimize police presence at protests, follow de-escalation methods in the event of violence and seek non-urgent mutual aid first from UC campuses before calling outside law enforcement agencies.”

    The plan was designed to deter potential violence — and reduce a police role in campus protests. But now, people are questioning why law enforcement did not break up any of the physical assaults or otherwise intervene as violence escalated at the Los Angeles campus. According to a statement Drake released Wednesday, there were at least 15 injuries and one hospitalization.

    The UC president has ordered a review of UCLA’s “mutual aid response” and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said he plans to “dismantle (the encampment) at the appropriate time.”

    “My office has requested a detailed accounting from the campus about what transpired in the early morning hours today,” Drake said today. “But some confusion remains. Therefore, we are also ordering an independent external review of both UCLA’s planning and actions, and the effectiveness of the mutual aid response.”

    UC lecturers were quick to call for Block’s resignation, citing the mismanagement of police and security response to the overnight violence.

    “Chancellor Block has refused to meet with protesters to discuss their interests; instead he has created an environment that has escalated tensions and failed to take meaningful action to prevent the violence that occurred last night,” the UC lecturers’ statement read.

    Counterprotesters began setting off fireworks around 10:30 p.m., and later, armed with pepper and bear spray, physically attacked those residing in the pro-Palestinian encampment. During this time, university-hired, unarmed security guards and campus public safety aides watched the scene but did not stop the attacks. By about 1:30 a.m., Los Angeles Police and the California Highway Patrol arrived, after the chancellor called them to assist security guards and UC police. The officers did not break up the violence. Instead, they advanced a line every few minutes to push the counterprotesters out of the area. Some of the counterprotesters who remained, however, continued their assaults.

    At about 4 a.m., a small group of student journalists for the Daily Bruin, including Christopher Buchanan, a student fellow for the CalMatters College Journalism Network, were confronted by a group of counterprotesters who began berating them. They targeted the staff’s news editor, calling her names, and blocked the journalists’ route to the Daily Bruin office. One shined a strobe light into Buchanan’s face while others attacked him as he fell to the ground.

    “After I was struck and debilitated, I was surrounded by four to seven counterprotesters who proceeded to punch and kick my head and torso for thirty seconds to a minute,” Buchanan said. “I didn’t sustain any internal injuries, but I was badly bruised on the body and face.”

    Buchanan said this all happened within earshot of CHP officials, who did nothing to intervene.

    Students and government officials are decrying UCLA’s response. UCLA refused to provide interviews or answer questions about their policing response.

    California Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Democrat whose district includes UCLA, issued a statement condemning the violence against pro-Palestinian protesters.

    “The horrific acts of violence against UCLA students and demonstrators that occurred on campus last night are abhorrent and have no place in Los Angeles or in our democracy,” Zbur said. “No matter how strongly one may disagree with or be offended by the anti-Israel demonstrators’ messages, tactics, or goals, violence is never acceptable and those responsible must be held accountable.”

    In the past few days, UC Irvine and UCLA have declared their campus encampment protests illegal and in violation of the state education code against non-UC use of university property. Many pro-Palestinian student advocates see this position as an attempt to disrupt their advocacy.

    In responding to the encampments, the UC, unlike some universities, has avoided an aggressive law enforcement response. Police have not arrested anyone or used tear gas. The UC Campus Safety plan, however, has not been uniformly followed at each campus.

    UC Irvine appeared to ignore the campus safety plan. When an encampment was erected on April 29, the university immediately called in the UC police department, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and the police forces of Irvine, Costa Mesa and Newport. Officers in riot gear barricaded the encampment entrance.

    UC Irvine spokesperson Tom Vasich described the decision to involve five law enforcement departments as “a standard response” for situations where the campus needs support while simultaneously describing the protest as a “very peaceful environment.” He attributed the police response to potential trespassing violations from people not affiliated with the university.

    “This isn’t a free speech issue, this is a trespassing issue,” Vasich said.

    Sara, a UC Irvine student studying psychological sciences who only gave her first name in fear of retaliation for participating in the protest, said that at around 9 a.m. on Monday, law enforcement prevented students from entering the encampment and giving protesters water.

    Despite police pushback, she said students and bystanders later created barricades around their encampment, allowing students to enter the area and receive supplies. “The students here all know the risks,” Sara said. “But regardless, they stood their ground and will continue to stand their ground until our demands are met.”

    UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman said in a Monday night statement that police would no longer engage with the protesters, and hours later police cleared out. Gillman promised to work with students to find a different location “that is appropriate and non-disruptive.”

    How the UC plan is supposed to ensure safety

    The UC Campus Safety Plan is being put to the test amid heightened tensions between pro-Palestinian groups calling for the UC to financially divest from companies with ties to Israel, and pro-Israel groups counterprotesting and calling the actions of those in the encampments anti-semitic.

    The UC Office of the President released a statement on April 26 rejecting demands for divestment.

    “The University of California has consistently opposed calls for boycotts against and divestment from Israel,” the statement said. “While the University affirms the right of our community members to express diverse viewpoints, a boycott of this sort impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses.”

    President Drake’s office refused multiple requests from CalMatters to answer questions about UC’s response to campus encampment protests.

    The UC’s policing reforms came after the system faced several high-profile instances of excessive force in response to student advocacy on campuses. In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street protests at UC Davis drew international attention when peaceful activists were pepper sprayed by the university’s police department. In the end, students won a $1 million settlement from UC Davis.

    In 2020, racial justice organizations and Black student unions at the UC’s nine undergraduate campuses led protests over the police-custody murder of George Floyd, and to cast a light on other Black Americans killed by law enforcement officers.

    Their activism elevated negative experiences that some students of color reported with campus police. Students and employees demonstrated against racial profiling and a lack of police transparency. Some pushed for reforms; others called for abolishing police on university campuses.

    The 2021 safety plan instituted data dashboards, police advisory boards, mental health responders and professional accreditation for individual police departments. According to the UC’s director of community safety Jody Stiger, all 10 campuses are expected to put the plan into action — with the final, delayed step being professional accreditation for campus law enforcement agencies — by the end of this year.

    The UC Cops Off Campus Coalition, composed of UC students and faculty, has criticized the safety plan for not acknowledging the structural biases of police forces, and only increasing the scope of policing power.

    UC Riverside Black Studies professor and faculty coalition member Dylan Rodríguez described the Campus Safety Plan as largely reactionary. He said it is the UC’s attempt to quell a push for police abolition in the wake of the UC’s own crises and Floyd’s murder.

    “It’s a response to a period of time in which there are deep questions, fundamental and abolitionist questions, about whether campuses should have fully armed, militarized and, sometimes, riot-gear equipped and SWAT team-trained police officers on their campuses,” Rodríguez said.

    The stated aim of UC’s tiered response is to use several non-sworn responders in calls for emergencies that don’t require police. Relying on alternatives to police allows campuses to respond to students in crisis who require mental health support or intervention. The plan also establishes public safety officers to patrol residence halls on foot, escort students across campus at night, provide security for events and diffuse unsafe behavior.

    In an interview with CalMatters before this week’s violence, Stiger praised the increase of unarmed security guards and guidance against a police presence at protests. Police were not called to the scene during recent labor strikes, nor for earlier protests on both sides of the Gaza war.

    “In almost a majority of those on every campus, you don’t see any police. You might see maybe one or two that are just in the area, but you don’t see a major police presence,” Stiger said.

    Late Tuesday, the university delivered a formal letter to UCLA’s Divest Coalition declaring the encampment an unlawful assembly in violation of campus policy. Chancellor Block put out a statement saying the university removed demonstrators’ barricades blocking entrances to specific buildings, and warned that students could face suspension or expulsion.

    Campus police chiefs at UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC Irvine refused several requests for comment from CalMatters.

    The UC Student Association — systemwide student representatives — published a statement on April 29 in solidarity with students protesting for “Free Palestine” and condemning the law enforcement response.

    “We demand that the UC, at a minimum, allow students to exercise their freedom of speech,” the statement read. “We denounce any use of police force to silence us.”

    Christopher Buchanan, Li Khan and Hugo Rios contributed to this story.  All authors are fellows with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

  • Astrophysicist Ray Jayawardhana to lead university
    Ray Jayawardhana, the incoming president of Caltech, speaking at a podium during an announcement ceremony at The Athenaeum in Pasadena. He is wearing a dark suit and patterned tie, standing in front of a large orange backdrop featuring the Caltech logo.
    Incoming Caltech president Ray Jayawardhana speaks during an announcement ceremony at Caltech in Pasadena on Tuesday.

    Topline:

    Caltech has selected astrophysicist and Johns Hopkins University provost Ray Jayawardhana as its next president.

    Who he is: According to his introduction video, Jayawardhana goes by "Ray Jay."

    His academic work in astronomy explores how planets and stars form, evolve and differ from each other. He's part of a team that works with the James Webb Space Telescope to observe and characterize so-called exoplanets — planets around other stars — with an eye toward the potential for life beyond Earth.

    In addition to his time as provost at Johns Hopkins, where he oversees the university's 10 schools, Jayawardhana has also taught at Cornell University, the University of Toronto and the University of Michigan and also had a research fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley. He got his undergraduate degree at Yale and earned his Ph.D. at Harvard.

    Why now: In April, current Caltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum announced he'd retire after the 2025-26 academic year. Rosenbaum has led the university for the past 12 years.

    What's next: Jayawardhana will step into his new role July 1.

  • Sponsored message
  • Trump admin plans to halt billions to CA
    President Donald Trump speaks during a White House event to announce new tariffs April 2, 2025.

    Topline:

    The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

    The backstory: The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

    The potential impact on California: The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

    Read on ... for more on the fraud allegations and Gov. Gavin Newsom's response.

    The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

    The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

    The state’s Democrat governor, Tim Walz — who ran for vice president against Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024 — announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it’s a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were “seeking to take advantage of the crisis.”

    On Monday, the New York Post reported that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited “concerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,” The Post reported.

    Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

    “California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

    He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

    LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president’s fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

    “For too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

    “Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office disputed Trump’s claim on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested “criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.”

    Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

    Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime — and one LAist has investigated, leading to one of the largest such criminal cases in recent years against a California elected official, which surrounded meal funds.

    When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program’s spending in California.

    A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

    That case, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

    It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

    Potential impact on California families

    The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

    In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

     ”It's very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,” said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives "at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

     ”It is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,” she added. “It would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.”

    About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County — about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

    “Any pause in funding for their cash benefits – which average $1000/month - would be devastating to these families,” said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

    Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations “very seriously.”

    It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials say they’ve had success with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

    A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

    “These threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,” said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

    “Funding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating — resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.”

    How to reach me

    If you have a tip, you can reach me on Signal. My username is ngerda.47.

    Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven’t gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

    “The California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children — so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,” said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

    “These funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.”

  • CA is investing in housing for fire survivors
    The charred remains of what used to be the interior of a home, with a stone fireplace sticking out from the rubble.
    A home destroyed in the Eaton Fire on Jan. 8.

    Topline:

    California is investing $107.3 million in affordable housing in L.A. County to help fire survivors and target the region’s housing crisis.

    What we know: In an announcement Tuesday, the state said the money will fund nine projects with 673 new affordable rental homes specifically for communities impacted by the January fires.

    Where will these projects go? The homes will not replace destroyed ones or be built on burn scar areas, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office. The idea is to build in cities like Claremont, Covina, Santa Monica and Pasadena to create multiple affordable housing communities across the county.

    Officials say: “We are rebuilding stronger, fairer communities in Los Angeles without displacing the people who call these neighborhoods home,” Newsom said in a statement. “More affordable homes across the county means survivors can stay near their schools, jobs and support systems, and all Angelenos are better able to afford housing in these vibrant communities.”

    Dig deeper into how Los Angeles is remembering the anniversary of the fires.

  • Thousands could be unhoused as fed funds run out
    A “now leasing” sign advertises apartment for rent in L.A.’s Sawtelle neighborhood.
    A “now leasing” sign advertises apartment for rent in L.A.’s Sawtelle neighborhood.

    Topline:

    Housing officials in the city of Los Angeles say a pandemic-era voucher program is set to run out of money later this year, putting thousands of renters at risk of homelessness.

    The program: The federal Emergency Housing Voucher program was launched in 2021 as a way to get vulnerable people off the streets and into housing during the COVID-19 crisis. The city of L.A. received more than 3,300 of these vouchers.

    The numbers: With federal funding now running out, the city is preparing to wind down the program. On Monday, the city’s housing authority said it had told 2,760 tenant households and 1,700 landlords that unless new funding is found, vouchers will expire by November or December of this year.

    Read on … to learn more about the families using these vouchers, and how tenant advocates are responding to the expiration.

    Housing officials in the city of Los Angeles say a pandemic-era voucher program is set to run out of money later this year, putting thousands of renters at risk of homelessness.

    The federal Emergency Housing Voucher program was launched in 2021 as a way to get vulnerable people off the streets and into housing during the COVID-19 crisis. The city of L.A. received more than 3,300 of the vouchers.

    With federal funding now running out, the city is preparing to wind down the program. On Monday the city’s housing authority said it had told 2,760 tenant households and 1,700 landlords that unless new funding is found, vouchers will expire by November or December of this year.

    “We are providing this notice nearly a year in advance because our families deserve the respect of time to prepare, but this is not a notice of resignation,” said L.A. Housing Authority President Lourdes Castro Ramírez said in a news release. “We are exhausting every avenue — at the local, state and federal levels — to bridge this funding gap.”

    The Housing Authority said each household using a voucher had an average of 1.58 members. That puts more than 4,000 Angelenos at risk of losing their housing later this year.

    Homelessness progress could be reversed

    Congress originally intended the program to continue through 2030, but last year, the Trump administration announced funding would end sooner. The program’s demise risks reversing L.A.’s reported progress at stemming the rise of homelessness.

    After years of steady increases, the city has registered slight reductions in the number of people experiencing homelessness for the past two years. In 2023, the region’s homeless services authority reported 46,260 people experiencing homelessness in the city of L.A. By 2025, that number had fallen to 43,695.

    The accuracy of those official counts has been questioned by local researchers, but elected officials have cheered the numbers as a sign that the tide is turning in addressing one of L.A.’s most vexing problems.

    With thousands of renters now at risk of losing a key resource helping them afford the city’s high rents, sharp increases in homelessness could be on the horizon, said Mike Feuer, a senior policy advisor with the Inner City Law Center.

    “They're going to fall into homelessness, and they're going to increase L.A.'s homeless population by almost 10%,” Feuer said. “Those are the implications of what the Trump administration is doing.”

    Voucher holders have low incomes; many have kids

    According to L.A.’s Housing Authority, about 1-in-4 voucher holders has children and 1-in-5 is elderly. And about 40% are disabled. These households have an average income of less than $14,000 per year, and they receive an average of $1,789 per month in rental subsidy while paying about $350 out of their own pockets.

    The loss of federal funding for Emergency Housing Vouchers is distinct from the issues facing renters using Housing Choice Vouchers, another federally funded program often referred to as Section 8. Existing vouchers in the Section 8 program have continued to be funded, but federal funding reductions have caused city officials to cut the amount of rent new vouchers in that program can cover by 10%.

    L.A. Housing Authority officials said they have dedicated staff reaching out to tenants to explore other housing resources that might keep them housed after the vouchers expire.

    Manuel Villagomez, an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles specializing in subsidized housing, said with city and state budgets strapped, tenant advocates are not counting on California to find alternative funding sources to continue the program.

    “It seems like it's a tragedy in the making,” Villagomez said. “We're preparing for the worst.”