The Brief

A $5 billion pot of federal money set aside to help people on the verge of homelessness pay the rent is running out of cash — and no one has a plan to keep the roughly 60,000 renters, more than 15,000 of them in California — from losing their housing after the last dollar is spent.

News of the imminent expiration of the Emergency Housing Voucher program came in a March 6 letter the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development sent to local public housing authorities, the agencies that administer federal rental housing assistance programs.

A final payment this spring may allow some agencies to keep their emergency programs running into 2026, the letter reads. But housing authorities were advised to move forward with “the expectation that no additional funding from HUD will be forthcoming.”

For the housing authority staff who received the letter, it remains unclear whether the program is winding down simply because it has run out of funds on its own accord or whether it represents a policy shift from the Trump administration, which has been on an aggressive and often uncoordinated cost cutting tear across the federal bureaucracy.

The letter came as a shock to Lisa Jones, CEO of the San Diego Housing Commission. Jones said the commission could conceivably pay its share of the rent for the nearly 400 San Diego renters currently assisted by the program through December. After that, she could think of no obvious way to make up for the missing federal dollars.

Jones spoke to CalMatters from Washington D.C., where the heads of housing authorities across the country had gathered for a conference and to lobby their representatives. As news of the end of the program has spread among her counterparts, “a quiet panic” has set in, she said.

Absent federal money, “we don’t have the funding to solve that problem,” she said.

The program was modeled after the much larger and well-known Housing Choice Voucher program. Also known as “Section 8,” that long-standing program pays at least 70% of the rent for anyone earning under a certain income and lucky enough to secure one of its scarce vouchers. The Emergency Housing Voucher program is more narrowly targeted at those in most dire need: people currently living on the street or in shelters, those just on the verge of homelessness and anyone fleeing domestic violence or human trafficking.

“It’s a group of people who, but for the voucher, would be at extreme risk of falling back into homelessness,” said Mari Castaldi, who focuses on state housing policy for the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank.

The termination of the emergency programs comes at an inauspicious time for federal rental assistance programs across the country.

For decades, the federal government has offered Housing Choice Vouchers to fewer than 1-in-4 Americans who qualify for those benefits. In California’s large metro areas, voucher waiting lists — the time between when someone applies and actually receives one — regularly tops out at more than a decade.

That means few housing authorities will have many extra housing vouchers to offer anyone booted from the emergency program. Absent another solution, that would put housing authorities in the virtually unprecedented position of having to revoke assistance from people who are currently depending upon it to pay the rent.

“There’s just no plan in place to determine what would happen” in that case, said Alex Visotzky with the National Alliance to End Homelessness. “This could very well lead to thousands of additional people becoming homeless in California.”

Why the funds ran out

The emergency program was never meant to be permanent. Creating one of many COVID-19-era additions to the nation’s social safety net, Congress funded the emergency vouchers in 2021 with a lump sum of $5 billion. Once those funds were spent, the program was meant to come to an end.

The wind-down was supposed to be gradual.

After the program’s roll out, housing authorities were told to stop reissuing the emergency vouchers as renters exited the program — because they no longer needed the help, moved to a different city or died. That way, the program was meant to phase itself out of existence. The federal housing department was given until 2030 to spend all $5 billion.

That led many local officials and housing advocates to assume the program would be funded through the end of the decade.

The wind-down of the emergency program is just the latest shudder in an unprecedented upheaval in federal housing policy enacted by President Donald Trump. The administration is considering mass layoffs at the federal housing department, raising concerns among some housing policy experts about whether they can seamlessly operate federal programs, including Section 8. After temporary freezes on all categories of federal funding in late January, the administration, led by DOGE, its “Department of Government Efficiency,” has more quietly extinguished select federal housing programs. Earlier this month the City of Los Angeles stopped accepting new applications for its general Housing Choice Voucher program, citing uncertain support from Washington.

The federal housing department did not respond to repeated emails and voice messages requesting an interview about why the funds ran out sooner than many expected, and whether the news in the March 6 letter represented a change in federal policy.

“To me it just doesn’t sound right, that we’re so far off the mark — four years off the mark,” said Emilio Salas, executive director of the Los Angeles County Development Authority, which oversees federal housing voucher programs for 66 cities and all unincorporated communities across the L.A. basin.

Sonya Acosta, a policy analyst with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said she hasn’t seen any evidence that the end of the Emergency Housing Voucher program is the handiwork of DOGE. Instead, she pointed to a familiar problem as the more likely culprit: sky-high rents.

Since Congress authorized the new vouchers in early 2021, rents across the country experienced a post-pandemic boom. That’s even true at the bottom half of the rental market, which the federal housing department uses to set its rental support levels. Between 2021 and 2025, for example, “fair market rents” in San Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood increased by 43%, nearly double the overall rate of inflation during the same period, according to the department.

Because the housing voucher programs pay the difference between a tenant’s income and rent, soaring rents and stagnant incomes mean the government pays more.

“We’ve seen those really big increases in rent that has also meant that some of the spending might have gone a little bit faster than initial HUD estimates,” said Acosta.

That basic math problem has put the screws to the overall Section 8 program too. Jones, in San Diego, said the Housing Commission’s average per-household rental assistance payment at the beginning of the pandemic was around $870 each month. Now it’s roughly $1,400. Because the emergency voucher program allows for more generous payments and because its voucher holders tend to have even lower incomes than regular voucher holders, the average emergency voucher is about $2,200, she said.

“The gap between the rental market and the lowest incomes in our community is widening,” she said.

What happens when the money runs out

Without fresh funding, there’s no way many housing authorities would be able to transfer emergency voucher holders onto the regular voucher program.

In Santa Barbara County, for example, nearly 1-in-10 of the local housing authority’s vouchers have been shelved, kept out of the hands of qualified renters because the authority can’t afford to provide the assistance.

So once the emergency funding runs out “we have no way of helping those people right now,” said housing authority director Bob Havlicek. “Even if we did have extra vouchers available, then its public policy issue of ‘why are you helping these folks if you have people on your waitlist?’ We can’t win either way.”

There isn’t much optimism from advocates that the state will step up once the emergency funds run dry.

Bond funds that the state has used to prop up much of its affordable housing spending are running low, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year includes little extra and rental subsidies, a costly and ongoing expense, have historically been a federal responsibility anyway.

That leaves the federal government, which does not appear to be in a big spending mood when it comes to social programs.

On Monday, Trump signed a budget bill to continue funding the federal government at levels set last year. That may provide a steady funding source for the overall federal housing voucher program, though the bill may give his administration flexibility to redirect some of those funds if it chooses to. It does nothing to address the fate of the Emergency Housing Voucher program.

“We should figure out a way to save this program and make sure these people continue to receive federal rental assistance,” said Tushar Gurjal, a policy analyst at the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, which lobbies Congress on behalf of affordable housing providers. “None of these folks did anything wrong. They’re just using their vouchers and following all the rules.”

SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico jury decided Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms, a verdict that signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government's willingness to crack down.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety. The jury determined Meta violated parts of the state's Unfair Practices Act on accusations the company hid what it knew about about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and impacts on child mental health.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

How much does Meta owe

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That's less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion. The company's stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news and its potential impact on the company's business.

The social media conglomerate won't be forced to change its practices right away. It will be up to a judge — not a jury — to determine whether Meta's social media platforms created a public nuisance and whether the company should pay for public programs to address the harms. That second phase of the trial will happen in May.

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

"We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content," the spokesperson said. "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

Attorneys for Meta said the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, while acknowledging that some bad material gets through its safety net.

Other lawsuits against Meta over children's mental health

New Mexico's case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

The trial that started Feb. 9. is one of the first in a torrent of lawsuits against Meta and comes as school districts and legislators want more restrictions on the use of smartphones in classrooms.

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it's contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

"Meta's house of cards is beginning to fall," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project. "For years, it's been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm."

Haworth pointed to whistleblowers like Arturo Bejar, as well as unsealed documents and other evidence, saying it painted a damning picture.

New Mexico's case relied on a state undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta's response.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also says Meta hasn't fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction. Meta hasn't agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at trial acknowledged "problematic use" and say they want people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta's platforms.

"Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it's the right thing to do but because it is good for business," Meta attorney Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments. "Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators."

Tech companies have been protected from liability for material posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.

New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful for children.

"We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids," prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. "That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids."

What the New Mexico jury reviewed

The New Mexico trial examined a raft of Meta's internal correspondence and reports related to child safety. Jurors also heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, psychiatric experts and tech-safety consultants.

The jury also heard testimony from local public school educators who struggled with disruptions linked to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.

In reaching a verdict, the jury considered whether social media users were misled by specific statements about platform safety by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis.

In deliberations, the jury used a checklist of allegations from prosecutors that Meta failed to disclose what it knew about problems with enforcing its ban on users under 13, the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide, the role of Meta algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and more.

Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta's platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.

ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who have lost children to harm caused by social media, called the verdict a "watershed moment."

"We parents who have experienced the unimaginable — the death of a child because of social media harms — applaud this rare and momentous milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for the dangers their products pose to our kids," the group said in a statement.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Members of Congress are now facing a personal consequence from the ongoing shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security: losing one special flight perk.

Delta Airlines is pausing special services that make flights more convenient and efficient for members of Congress, as first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"Due to the impact on resources from the longstanding government shutdown, Delta will temporarily suspend specialty services to members of Congress flying Delta," the airline said in a statement to NPR. "Next to safety, Delta's no. 1 priority is taking care of our people and customers, which has become increasingly difficult in the current environment."

Specialty services include airport escorts and other red coat services. Delta said lawmakers will be treated like any other passenger based on their SkyMiles status.

This comes a week after Delta CEO Ed Bastian told CNBC he's "outraged" by the ongoing shutdown, which has led to TSA officers working without pay.

"It's inexcusable that our security agents, our frontline agents, that are essential to what we do, are not being paid, and it's ridiculous to see them being used as political chips," he said.

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes TSA, has been in a partial shutdown since mid-February.

The shutdown means TSA officers are working without pay, and has led to widespread staff shortages and long wait times for travelers.

Other major airlines did not respond to NPR about imminent changes to their specialty services. A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines told NPR the airline "continues to engage with our federal partners and joins the airline industry in urging Congress to fund the TSA and CBP without further delay."

DHS ongoing shutdown

In the wake of the killing of two U.S. citizens by immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis, Congressional Democrats said they wouldn't vote to fund DHS until changes — specifically for Immigration and Customs Enforcement — were put into place.

Senate Democrats and the White House have been trading proposals back and forth for weeks, with little progress.

Democrats have pushed to fund DHS with carveouts to not fund ICE and CBP to alleviate the TSA pain points as negotiations continue

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Saturday that Democrats are having "productive conversations" on ICE reforms but that it's an ongoing process "that should not get in the way of funding our TSA workers."

"Let's keep negotiating the outstanding issues with ICE while sending paychecks to TSA workers now," Schumer said. "Let us end those long lines at the airport now. This is the logical, expedient, correct thing to do."

Republicans thus far have objected to votes on those proposals, pressing to fund the entire department.

Last week, a bill from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to prohibit preferential screening at airports for members of Congress cleared the Senate. It has not yet been taken up by the House of Representatives.

Copyright 2026 NPR

New questions are emerging as Orange County leaders seek to understand the extent of the corruption that took place under former Supervisor Andrew Do. Chief among those questions: How did the corruption go undetected for so long?

The Board of Supervisors got its first official debriefing Tuesday from outside auditors hired to review county contracts approved during Do’s time in office — before he went to prison for bribery. The debriefing was based on the first phase of the auditors’ report, released earlier this month.

Many of the audit’s findings were uncovered by LAist in recent years and involve millions in taxpayer money that was directed to nonprofits and businesses associated with Do’s family, friends and political donors.

Do is currently serving a five-year prison term after admitting that nearly $8 million in taxpayer funds that were supposed to feed those in need were diverted for personal gain, including $385,000 to purchase a home for Do’s daughter.

At their Tuesday meeting, several supervisors asked the auditors, from the firm Weaver, to dig deeper. They also questioned how and why early indications of wrongdoing went uninvestigated.

“There were people that were trying to draw attention to this, and those in positions of more executive authority … didn’t pay attention,” said Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who represents District 2.

How to encourage staff to speak up

Sarmiento and Supervisor Katrina Foley, who represents District 5, both questioned how to better encourage county employees to speak up about potential wrongdoing — and how to ensure their concerns are taken seriously.

“I think we have really ethical people that work in this county,” Sarmiento said. “And I'm sure somebody saw something because these are, you know, hundreds of contracts with hundreds of thousands of dollars involved.”

Foley noted that years ago she had heard concerns about the county’s contract for COVID-19 testing during the pandemic. She said when she asked several top county administrators about it, “I was basically told there's nothing to see here.”

The recent audit found that 360 Clinic billed the county for some claims while receiving private insurance payments for the same claims, among other concerns largely echoed in previous LAist reporting.

“ At some point we've gotta figure out why we don't see what's actually there,” Foley said.

What happens next?

Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who represents Do’s former district, District 1, asked the auditors to delve deeper into the payments to 360 Clinic as they move into phase two of the audit. She also said she wants a deeper investigation into Do’s use of an outside printing firm to send mailers to constituents about the 2020 Tet Festival. Foley said she and other supervisors would normally use the county’s in-house printer for such jobs.

“We also need to continue to unearth to see, what else did we miss?” Nguyen said.

Phase two of the audit will look at an even bigger range of contracts considered high priority — worth $1.7 billion. The first phase of the audit looked at 145 contracts worth about a half-billion taxpayer dollars.

Go deeper ...

Here's a look at some of LAist's coverage of one of the biggest corruption scandals in Orange County history:

LAist investigates: Andrew Do corruption scandal
Ex-Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do is ordered to pay $878,230.80 in restitution
'Robin Hood in reverse.' O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do resigns and will plead guilty to bribery conspiracy charge
Former OC Supervisor Andrew Do turns himself in, begins 5-year federal prison term
6 questions we still have after disgraced former OC Supervisor Andrew Do’s sentencing
A quiet retreat for the judge married to disgraced OC politician Andrew Do

How to watchdog your local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention. Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The Orange County Board of Supervisors meets on alternating Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. at 400 W. Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana. You can check out the O.C. Board of Supervisors full calendar here.
• Learn how to submit a public comment to the O.C. Board of Supervisors.