The Brief

Last January, fires were raging across Los Angeles, smothering some 20 million people across the region in toxic smoke and ash.

L.A. residents worried that the air was toxic, the soil contaminated, and the water poisoned. Questions swirled about the health risks created by the burns — and there were few answers at hand from city, state or federal leaders.

Scientists from Los Angeles and around the country quickly scrambled into action as fires burned through the Pacific Palisades and Altadena. The priority, says UCLA physician and disaster researcher David Eisenman, was keeping people safe in the short term. But the fires also presented a moment to learn crucial missing information about the health effects of wildfires to help those affected and to better protect people's health from the inevitable next ones.

"This won't be the last wildfire that Los Angeles sees," says Eisenman. "Part of the community recovery process is to learn from what we experienced."

Researchers fanned out across the city to collect what data and samples they could. Doctors started thinking of ways to collect patient data to better understand the immediate and long-term health impact. They soon joined together to form a consortium that tied together 10 research institutions, developing a phalanx of research studies to explore some of the most pressing questions brought up by affected community members.

Some questions were simple but frustratingly hard to find answers to, like: What was in the smoke? Other questions, like those exploring the long-term health impacts, will take years to untangle. But answers are beginning to emerge.

Extra-dangerous smoke

Wildfire smoke is dangerous under any conditions. Exposure to high smoke levels is linked to respiratory problems such as asthma and COPD, cardiovascular issues and even dementia.

But from the first moment the Palisades and Eaton fires took hold last January, UCLA air pollution expert Yifang Zhu knew they were different. Because it wasn't just trees and plants burning: There was plastic from people's houses, and car batteries and asbestos tiles — a "toxic soup" of air pollutants, she says.

What was in that soup, and how dangerous it might be to human health — that wasn't clear. Official air quality monitors in downtown Los Angeles, miles away from the heart of the fires in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, recorded high levels of lead and arsenic in the air during the burns. Researchers from Caltech and the Georgia Institute of Technology later measured lead concentrations in air samples both near and far from the fires. Lead levels, they found, were elevated, even miles away, signaling that smoke and ash from the burns spread the dangerous heavy metal widely.

But many scientists suspected the smoke and ash spread other toxic particles and gases widely, too — chemicals that standard EPA and state monitors didn't test.

"We need to test more than just what the EPA calls for. And the EPA has limited resources," says Kari Nadeau, an environmental health scientist at Harvard University and one of the leads for the new research consortium. "But as academics, we can test for hundreds of things all at once, which helps the community. Because what you don't know, you don't know, but it can still hurt you."

Before the fires, Zhu and her team had been getting ready to sample the air at Aliso Canyon, where a natural gas leak in 2015 had caused major health problems for nearby residents. When the fires broke out, the team pivoted, taking their sampling equipment as close to the fires as they could.

That opportunity was special. Researchers are rarely ready to deploy at a moment's notice to capture samples during disasters such as the LA fires. The special circumstances let Zhu's team "set the stage about what's going on during this active fire burning all week," Zhu says.

Dust and ash from the Palisades and Eaton fires spread across the Los Angeles region.

(

Apu Gomes

/

Getty Images

)

Zhu's team set up air filters to capture the ash, and they captured air samples inside and outside homes in the Palisades and Eaton fire regions. In the air samples, they looked for more than 20 different volatile organic compounds — gases, many of which harm human health, and are likely to be produced by the fires. And while the fires were still burning, they measured high levels of benzene, a carcinogen, at their outdoor sites.

Lingering risks

The high benzene levels dissipated after the burning stopped, Zhu found. But other dangerous gases actually increased later on, especially indoors. A few health-harming gases, including toluene and carbon tetrachloride, became more concentrated inside people's homes a few weeks after the fire.

The message was clear. "The fire impact doesn't really disappear with the active flame," Zhu says. Homes themselves can absorb dangerous gases in the drywall, furniture and other soft materials, releasing them for days and weeks after the smoke has dissipated. People need to know that their homes might be contaminated long after the fire is out, she says.

That wasn't the only lingering risk. Another research team started to look for a contaminant called hexavalent chromium, which can cause cancer, sometimes known as the "Erin Brockovich" contaminant, made famous by the movie of the same name. It can be produced when fires burn through certain types of soil or rock, as well as during industrial processes like welding. It's not often searched for after wildfires, but the researchers found it lingering in the air around cleanup sites long after the fires were out.

"It's actually one of those things that … makes you pay attention differently," says Joe Allen, an exposure scientist at Harvard University, who has been conducting ongoing research on building safety after the fires. And the contaminant was found in tiny particles so small that they can penetrate deep into people's lungs, bodies, and even directly to their brains.

"We've seen hexavalent chromium in soils after fires. I don't think anybody expected to see it in air. I don't think anybody expected to see it exclusively in the nanoparticle size range," Allen says.

Ash also contaminated people's homes, as well as soil and water across the region. The water impacts seemed to clear quickly, though longer-term effects are still being tracked. But levels of lead and other heavy metals inside people's homes and in the soil around them often remained high, even after cleanup was supposedly done.

"That is an ongoing question," says Allen. "Do we have enough funds to remediate all these properties, or are we just putting some people back into properties that are not properly cleared?"

Zhu was impressed by how much she and others learned about the dangerous smoke and ash. But she also worries they probably only scratched the surface. "We are only detecting things that our method allows us to detect. So even though we learn a lot from that, you know, I wonder what we missed," she says.

What does this all mean for people's health?

Scientists have known that in the short term, wildfire smoke exposure leads to more respiratory issues, such as asthma and COPD; increases the risk of developing dementia; and affects people's immune responses. But the full array of impacts, and the long-term costs of exposure, are still muddy.

"We know a lot about the health effects of wildfire smoke," says Allen. But "we don't know all that much about urban wildfire smoke. We certainly don't know what happens when you expose a population of 20 million people in the greater Los Angeles area to smoke like this, enriched in these toxic metals and other pollutants. "

The research is beginning to uncover some of the health impacts.

Cheng and colleagues collected data from the emergency room at Cedars-Sinai, one of the busiest in the region, and particularly close to the Palisades fire. In the 90 days following the fires, they saw a 24% increase in respiratory issues — and a 47% jump in heart attacks.

It was "very striking," she says. "This actually surpassed heart attack rates during January of all prior years, even during the worst years of COVID."

Homes and businesses in parts of Los Angeles were reduced to rubble and ash.

(

David Swanson

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Abnormal blood tests also spiked, increasing by more than 100% over previous levels. That included unexpected blood sugar readings, signs of a disrupted immune system, and changes to people's metabolic profiles — signals, Cheng says, of bodywide stresses that could be precursors to many different health problems down the line.

"For a very large number of people who lived through these January wildfires, the wildfire exposures led to some kind of a biochemical or metabolic stress in the body that likely affected not just one, but many organ systems," she says.

The team is now tracking some of those patients, trying to understand what health issues their unusual bloodwork might have signaled coming.

The ER data is likely just skimming the surface, says Eisenman. Longer-term health problems, from heart issues to mental health stresses, are likely to linger or develop in the coming years.

Ongoing research will explore the different health outcomes for people who experienced different levels of smoke and toxin exposure. A UCLA-led study has enrolled over 4,000 people from across the city to follow their health changes long-term. Another study will focus on the specific health outcomes for those who stayed behind at their homes to fight the fires, giving them extraordinarily high smoke doses. The LA Fire Health study consortium is also tracking the long-term health impacts on firefighters and first responders.

Much of the emerging research is being supported by private philanthropy, says Eisenman. The wildfires happened just before the Trump administration began its campaign to tighten budgets for many of the science agencies that have historically funded post-disaster research, like the National Science Foundation.

"That gap was really filled in by the research community, who did ongoing and extensive and really thoughtful testing of air, of water, of soil, of debris for toxins, and really rapidly communicated those results back to the community," he says. But how to financially support the long-term future of some key studies, he says, is still uncertain, because many major federal research funding resources — like NSF and the National Institute of Health — have shifted priorities under the Trump administration.

How to protect yourself and your family

The biggest questions for the ongoing research, many of the researchers say, are about how best to protect yourself from similar fires in the future.

Allen says there are some clear lessons. Overall, the less smoke one inhales, the better. So while outside, he says it's crucial to wear an N95 mask, or even a respirator that can protect you from the fire's gases.

Indoors, keeping clean air is crucial, says Zhu. Using air filters, ideally HEPA-rated, can lower indoor pollution significantly. Carbon filters are particularly effective at removing the gases, Allen says. People can also install HEPA filters in a car's air-handling system to keep the air clean while they drive.

"You want to control what you can control," says Allen. So inside your space, clean up dust and ash thoroughly. Filter the air. And consider a low-cost air monitor to keep track of the air quality inside.

For people most impacted by the fires, Allen stresses that adequate cleanup of soil and buildings is critical. "It was a bit of the Wild West out there" after the fires, he says. A lack of standardized testing protocols and a hodgepodge of policies from different insurers "really harmed the survivor community."

That lack of guidance left many unsure whether their homes were safe to live in again, and many others were forced to go back to homes that were demonstrably still unsafe.

"We need more coordinated recommendations and rules to help people know whether their homes are safe," Allen says.

It will take years to get a full picture of the health impacts of the LA fires, many of the researchers say. But it's critical to learn from the tragedy, says Nadeau, the Harvard environmental health scientist — to "be able to say, OK, in the future, here's what to do to protect your children or protect your elderly community against stroke," or lung cancer, or the myriad other risks from the wildfires that will, inevitably, come again.

Reporting for this story was supported by the Nova Institute for Health.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Los Angeles has handily broken its record for most days of coastal flooding in a year. And that’s without including October in the tally and with a wet El Niño winter ahead — a worrying sign for coastal homes and infrastructure.

Researchers can’t yet project how many more days of flooding we’ll have in 2026 — but we’re already well ahead of what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s models had forecast up to this point.

NOAA oceanographer Karen Kavanaugh said models had predicted three to six flood days between May 2026 and April 2027. Those models took El Niño and sea level rise into account. She said that there have already been nine flood days in that window and added that the 12 flood days so far in the calendar year are “abnormally high.”

The number of days of coastal flooding observed at NOAA’s tide gauge in San Pedro is the highest recorded since observations started being taken in 1923. The previous record was set at nine in 1983, during another El Niño event.

When might we see more flooding?

Kavanaugh couldn’t say with certainty when flooding might occur, but noted that high-risk times ahead coincide with Thanksgiving and Christmas. Around then, the moon will be at its closest point to the Earth. The stronger gravitational pull from the moon causes what are commonly known as king tides, a nonscientific term for the highest predicted tides of the year.

In addition to these factors, the wide range of events affecting our tides this year, including storms, climate change, El Niño and related Kelvin waves, could very well cause other flooding events or cause the existing ones to become stronger.

Kavanaugh said a combination of factors — specifically Kelvin waves and astronomical high tides — was exactly what was responsible for the flooding seen this week.

“That could happen, perhaps, again in November and December if we have another pulse of a Kelvin wave,” Kavanaugh said.

Flooding inundated coastal communities around Southern California this week, including Orange County's Sunset Beach.

(

Robert Gauthier

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

How high will the tides be?

Unfortunately, Kavanaugh said, there’s no way to predict the severity of upcoming king tide events at this moment in time.

“But as we move closer to an event, there are good models that the National Weather Service uses to forecast flooding,” she added. “But they need it to be within seven days, sometimes shorter timelines.”

How to prepare for high tide conditions

Kavanaugh recommended keeping an eye on National Weather Service reports for the latest information and predictions. (There are separate pages for Los Angeles and Orange counties.)

Kavanaugh stressed that, given this year's unpredictability so far, people should be as prepared as possible.

“It's an unusual type of phenomenon to plan for for some communities,” she said. “We're used to planning for a big storm, maybe, and flooding from that, but not planning for, ‘Oh, it's gonna be beautiful sunny weather, and also you might have flooding on the roads.’”

Kavanaugh also recommended paying close attention to local emergency officials’ guidance and being mindful not to park cars in low-lying areas that could end up being inundated.

“If [local officials are] asking you to get sandbags or things like that, keep those sandbags because you might need them again in a few weeks,” she said.

The federal government must pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes, including one touting the president’s claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election, a judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, in ordering the government to take down the advertisements titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,” and “Cost of Socialism.” She declined to pull several other ads.

She said the three ads must be taken off official government websites, including social media sites such as YouTube, Instagram and the like. Rochon also ordered the cancellation of any plans for the airing or distribution of the ads through authorized third parties, including by President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC, MAGA Inc.

Rochon was nominated to the court by then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and once served as a law clerk for Trump’s sister, the late Maryanne Trump Barry, a longtime federal appeals court judge.

Responding to the ruling, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “This Biden-appointed activist judge issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos.”

Rochon ruled during a hearing in which she considered expanding a temporary restraining order she issued two weeks ago, when she banned a series of ads that glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms.

The plaintiffs sought the removal of at least 13 ads, but Rochon only ordered that the three be pulled, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office has observed that there are instances when the president’s office is entitled to inform the public of its policies, justify its policies and respond to attacks on its policies.

Rochon said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways that were “broad and far reaching” and she found herself concluding that the government will ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads.

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have made to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they don’t try to help the public benefit from specific government programs, according to the plaintiffs.

After Rochon issued the order, she noted that she was doing so on a Friday afternoon and that the government would have no excuse to delay taking them down immediately.

A government lawyer acknowledged that he would be able to immediately notify relevant individuals responsible for taking down the ads.

“Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater,” the judge quipped in a reference to excuses offered by government lawyers when her recent order, issued over a weekend, wasn’t immediately obeyed.

Rochon said irreparable harm could result to the plaintiffs if she didn’t ban the ads while the court case proceeds, though she noted that she could reverse herself and restore the ads or ban additional ads after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks.

“This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said after concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims regarding the ads and would suffer harm if they were not taken down.

“This temporary restraining order will stop the administration’s wanton disregard for the law while the court hears the full case,” said Bradley Girard, a lawyer with Democracy Forward. “Congress has made clear that partisan ads cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars, and we are proud to work with this coalition to earn today’s result.”

In court papers, the coalition’s lawyers wrote that Congress did not appropriate funds to the president’s office “to run a PR shop to help the President’s allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher wrote in response to the plaintiffs that there was nothing wrong with White House staff compiling advertisements to “inform the public about his policies and to rebut attacks on those policies and his Administration.”

___

Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak contributed to this report.

Thousands of military veterans with VA-backed mortgages have been hit with higher interest rates and monthly payments since last year, when the Trump administration shut down a low-interest program designed to help them.

Among veterans who had their loans modified after a financial hardship, more than 15,000 saw their monthly payments increase by at least $150, according to an NPR investigation that obtained previously unreported data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

More than 700 veterans suffered payment increases of $1,000 or more.

Lenders offer loan modifications to enable homeowners to catch up on missed payments. It involves changing the loan terms, and for the vast majority of Americans, it either lowers their payment or keeps it the same, depending on what they can afford. But that's not the case for VA loans, since the VA abruptly ended the program.

NPR found that 63% of veterans who received a loan modification were hit with a payment increase, compared with just 2% for modifications of loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which cover most of the U.S. mortgage market.

"This is the height of insanity," said California Democratic Rep. Mark Takano, the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, after NPR shared its findings.

"These are veterans that are already financially distressed — they were already in trouble," he said.

Veterans like Scott Boyd are literally paying the price.

When Boyd was a teenager, his dad died of cancer. He said he saw the military as a clear path to start helping his family.

"My mom signed paperwork when I was 16," Boyd recalled. "I'm like, 'I'm sending my checks home to take care of my mom.'"

He started out in the infantry and saw combat. Later, Boyd worked in Army intelligence in some dangerous places. When he got out in 2002, he had skills that set him up for a career in tech. In 2021, he bought a house near Columbus, Ohio, using a VA home loan. Like other buyers at the time, he got a nice low-interest rate. "I felt very blessed," he said.

But a few years later, Boyd hit a crisis: He lost his job in a mass layoff, and he said his time in combat came back to haunt him in the form of PTSD. He checked himself into the Dayton VA hospital for treatment but fell behind on his mortgage.

Boyd and thousands of other veterans were pushed into much-higher-cost modified home loans. Hundreds are paying at least $1,000 more a month.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

Most Americans can get help in a situation like this. Mortgage companies don't want to foreclose because both they and the homeowner experience losses. So they have levers they can pull to help people who've fallen behind on payments.

Boyd's lender told him that he didn't have to worry because the VA had a loan forbearance program that would allow him to pause his payments and provide him with an affordable way to catch up after.

"I later found out that wasn't true," he said.

It wasn't true because the Trump administration then shut down a key part of the VA's home loan program. It was called the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. Without it, vets like Boyd were stranded with no option but a much-higher-cost modified home loan at today's higher interest rates.

In Boyd's case, he is now stuck paying $1,181 more — every month.

"This is outrageous," said Boyd. "I remember just thinking to myself, 'This is just so broken.'"

Some in Congress agree.

"The VA home loan program should not be making things worse and more stressful for that veteran, a combat veteran, who's been through hell," said Takano, about Boyd's case in particular.

Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., speaks on Capitol Hill in 2025.

(

Rod Lamkey

/

AP

)

Illinois Republican Rep. Mike Bost, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, did not respond to NPR's repeated requests for comment. NPR also reached out to Wisconsin Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a committee member who led the call to wind down the VASP program. He also did not respond to requests for comment.

The VA said in a statement that it helps thousands of veterans "retain homeownership and/or avoid foreclosure through programs like payment forbearance, loan modifications and individualized repayment plans."

The VA was warned this would happen

Before it was shut down, the VASP program was helping tens of thousands of veterans who had fallen behind on their home loan payments by rolling those missed payments into a new mortgage with a low 2.5% interest rate. That made the program a lifeline for vets in today's higher-interest-rate environment.

And Boyd said his mortgage company had been telling him that he too could use VASP when he was able to resume paying his mortgage.

" I would constantly ask them, 'OK, this is getting further and further behind,' and they were like, 'You have this last lever to pull.'"

This was in the spring of 2025, just months into the second Trump administration. Key Republicans on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee vocally opposed VASP, which the Biden administration created after its own VA home loan disaster. Republicans warned that VASP was putting taxpayers on the hook for thousands of loans to vets who had trouble paying.

"If the Biden version of VASP was allowed to continue, I fear that the home loan will not exist in the future for my fellow veterans," said Van Orden during a House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on March 11, 2025.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., speaks in Eau Claire, Wis., on Oct. 20. He is currently in a tight race for reelection.

(

Ellen Schmidt

/

AP

)

But at the same hearing, as well as in letters to Congress and press releases, the mortgage industry and housing groups explicitly warned the Trump administration not to kill the program without first creating another viable option for vets. They said if the VA shut down the program before standing up a replacement, vets would be left with far worse options than other American homeowners. With interest rates up around 7%, they warned that the only option left would be a modified loan at the current higher rates, which would result in foreclosures for those who couldn't afford the higher payments. And that's exactly what has been happening.

" I was doing the math in my head as they were telling me, you know?" Boyd said about the loan modification he was presented with. "If I'm going from 2.75 to 6.75 … it seemed ridiculous," he said. Not only would that jump in his interest rate boost his payment by nearly $1,200 every month, but his loan term was extended to 40 years. So he went from about half of his monthly payment going toward principal to now more than 90% of his payment going to cover just the interest.

"This was a foreseeable outcome of abruptly ending a program without a replacement in place," said Matthew Douglas, of the Housing Policy Council. He represents the largest mortgage companies in the U.S. and was among those warning the VA not to kill VASP. Asked about NPR's findings, he said, "It's a mathematical certainty that borrowers are going to have those kind of shocking payment increases." 

Despite the warnings, the Trump administration ended the VASP program on May 1, 2025 — apparently in coordination with House Republicans, who announced the move before the Department of Veterans Affairs did, even though VASP was ended administratively, with no vote from Congress.

"We — along with many of our colleagues — had serious concerns about the impact VASP would have on not only the future of VA's home loan program, but the mortgage lending business as a whole. Today, the Trump administration rightfully put an end to VA's VASP program," Bost and Van Orden said in a joint press release at the time.

In his statement to NPR, VA press secretary Quinn Slaven wrote: "many leading voices in Congress supported the termination of VASP, which put the entire VA home loan program at risk."

The VA's new program slowly rolls out

Boyd lives with his partner and her four children, whom they are raising together.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

At the same time Van Orden was calling for VASP to be scuttled, he had written a bill to replace it with a new VA Partial Claim Program (PCP). Congress quickly passed that bill with broad bipartisan support in the wake of the VA scuttling VASP. It directed the VA to create an option for vets behind on payments, enabling them to move their missed payments to the back of their loan term. That way, vets could keep their original mortgage and not be forced into a higher-cost loan.

But after ending VASP, it took the VA more than 13 months to design and announce the details of the new program, which it did in June of this year. And the industry was then given another 180 days to implement it. Most mortgage companies still do not offer it.

In that gap, thousands of veterans got modified loans with higher interest rates and payments. The VA's new PCP program won't do anything to help those vets — they'll remain stuck in those modified loans.

Congress could help

Boyd holds a challenge coin from the Department of Defense that was given to him during his military service.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

NPR asked the VA about the vets who fell into the gap between the two programs. Slaven, the VA spokesman, said in his statement that the VA home loan program "is based on the premise that while Veterans may need some assistance, they must generally be able to make their mortgage payments."

Industry groups say raising a struggling homeowner's payment makes it more likely for them to redefault and face foreclosure. Foreclosures on VA loans rose to a 10-year high after VASP was killed, according to industry data. Experts warned in a congressional roundtable in September that time is running out for the government to help these vets or a wave of foreclosures is still to come.

Rep. Takano told NPR that the VA, if it chose to, could put these vets back into lower-cost mortgages or that Congress could pass a law to do it.

"We could do something for those veterans who saw a jump in their interest rates," Takano said.

Hanging on to home 

Boyd says he feels defeated after receiving worse loan options from the VA.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

Outside Columbus, Ohio, Scott Boyd is still managing to make those higher mortgage payments.

When he bought the home, he said, it felt like a guarantee of shelter and stability for him, his partner and the four kids they are raising together.

" I made a commitment, saying no matter what, I want to build a home that is big enough. …  I wanted to get them in better schools and things like that," he said.

He was even able to help when his father-in-law became ill recently; they moved him into the finished basement, where he got home hospice care.

So when he was presented with the terms of that loan modification, he had not only kids in the house but his dying father-in-law too. He'd just gotten back on his feet financially and was being told his options were the loan modification or foreclosure.

"My job was still new, and that still felt shaky. … My PTSD was shaky. … It seemed like the right thing to do was just to take the modification," he said.

Two weeks after Boyd signed the loan modification, the VA launched the new Partial Claim Program that would have allowed him to keep his original loan terms with the same monthly payment and low 2.75% interest rate. It took two more months before the first mortgage company offered vets access to the PCP, and most of the industry is still working to stand up the program before the deadline that the VA gave it of Nov. 28.

Boyd said that he doesn't often talk about his service and that he doesn't feel entitled to be treated better than any other American. But he did not expect the VA to give him worse options than those of people who never served.

" I really felt hurt more than anything. I wasn't angry. I was just like, I felt so defeated," Boyd said.

"Everything that I've done for this country and the things that I've been through, the things that I've seen, the things I've had to deal with … it's come down to, 'Yeah, I'm sorry — it's not in our systems yet. … There's nothing we can do about it.'"
Copyright 2026 NPR

Very early on Wednesday morning, Dover, N.J., Councilwoman Sandra Wittner started getting messages about immigration agents. A dozen or more were gathering outside a Walgreens, according to the messages she was getting. Throughout the day, neighbors in north New Jersey saw a spike in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.

And New Jersey is not alone. In the weeks ahead of the midterms, various cities and states across the country are reporting a notable rise in ICE activity, according to reports gathered by NPR and its member stations.

"The tactics that the administration has been deploying in communities really appear to be designed to try to intimidate voters," says Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. Despite that, early turnout is surging.

"There was definitely a lot of apprehension and fear," Wittner recalls. "We just really weren't sure if something huge was about to happen. People were not feeling very comfortable or safe."

Wittner is not sure who was detained or where, which is unsurprising: these days it's difficult to report on ICE crackdowns as they happen, because the Department of Homeland Security no longer publicly shares timely information on its operations.

NPR wrote to the agency to ask if there has been a recent surge. It responded: "ICE agents uphold our nation's immigration laws in all 50 states, seven days a week, 24 hours a day."

And yet NPR and its member stations have received tips from rural Illinois, Oregon, Detroit and California about surges in ICE enforcement throughout October.

An official within New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's office who was not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that they have noted a surge in ICE activity in the city.

"We're certainly witnessing an uptick in activity, and have been since the summer," says a member of a volunteer group of neighbors in New York. She asked that NPR not use her name, as she is worried about retaliation. Her group goes to the scene where an ICE operation is happening, documents it, reminds those being detained of their rights, and alerts neighbors.

"In the past few weeks we've seen numerous large operations, or what we call cluster raids, multiple agents going to one spot and then the next," she said.

On the other side of the country, Oregon Public Broadcasting reporter Troy Brynelson has reported on a similar trend. "What we were seeing in early October and what we've seen continue, at least anecdotally throughout this month, is that ICE activity has really picked up in Portland." Brynelson says it seems to be concentrated in commercial areas. "I'd say it's a noticeable uptick compared to what we've seen over the summer."

Juan Proaño of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a civil rights organization, says he's concerned because this is happening so close to the midterm elections. "It's not about ICE at the actual polling station, it's ICE at the perimeter of the polling station," he says.

"Mass enforcement actions could be away from the polls, but with social media and the news, it could be enough to dissuade somebody from actually going out to vote."

Weiser of the Brennan Center says there's no indication the raids are affecting turnout. On the contrary, she says there has been a surge in early voting in minority communities across the country. "The good news is: it isn't working. Americans are tuning this out and we are not seeing a significant impact on participation. And we are actually seeing huge surges in participation in communities of color, and in Latino communities, and in all the communities that have been targeted by ICE and DHS."

Even so, she says that intimidation at the polls is illegal, and should be reported.
Copyright 2026 NPR