The Brief

The L.A. City Council voted Wednesday to study how large property buyers may be preventing Angelenos from becoming homeowners.

The vote follows a housing department study released in October that found large landlords, like property management companies and investment firms, owned a growing share of L.A. properties.

Rapid property buys by these organizations may lead to residents being displaced and limit opportunities for prospective homebuyers, the report states.

The new study approved this week will attempt to weigh how much added risk large property owners’ businesses are placing on tenants, homeowners and small landlords.

President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom have proposed regulating housing purchases by institutional investors — a group of the very largest corporate landlords.

“It’s shameful that we allow private equity firms in Manhattan to become some of the biggest landlords in many of our cities,” Newsom said at his State of the State address in January.

Trump issued an executive order in January to limit institutional investors’ ability to buy single-family homes.

L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez pushed for both housing department studies, saying she hopes the City Council will use the research to make policy that helps first-time homebuyers and mom-and-pop landlords to build generational wealth.

“Mass consolidation and monopolization” of L.A. housing stock puts the first attempt at home ownership out of reach for many young adults and families, she said at Wednesday’s meeting.

More on the October report

The Los Angeles Housing Department found that corporations and other large organizations owned a growing share of L.A.’s housing stock from 2018 to 2023.

The biggest change in ownership was the large organizations’ share of two- to four-unit buildings in the city, which increased by 29% over the six years studied. The report raised concerns that these organizations are targeting relatively small buildings that are often associated with small landlords.

When it comes to single family-homes, more than 1-in-5 properties was found to be sold to an organization and not an individual buyer over the six years studied.

The department also noted that there is some evidence behind concerns that “large corporate landlords may be associated with more evictions, more habitability violations, and overall higher levels of housing insecurity for renters.”

The report listed three companies that each agreed to pay out millions of dollars in recent years after facing allegations of unlawful practices as landlords: K3 Holdings, Wedgewood Homes and Invitation Homes.

According to the housing department report, K3 Holdings ranks as having the fastest-growing inventory of properties over the six-year period. The company agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a lawsuit in 2023 that alleged they illegally targeted long-term Latino residents for displacement from properties in Koreatown and Highland Park.

Wedgewood Homes takes the top spot in flipped L.A. properties, the study found. That company agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2021 after allegations that the company unlawfully evicted and harassed tenants in order to quickly resell homes.

The housing department found Wedgewood Homes sold nearly 400 homes in the six-year period of its study. The company resold 81% of those homes in less than a year at an average price increase of 33%, the study found.

Invitation Homes is one of the largest owners of single-family rentals in the U.S., the report said, and the company agreed to pay $3.7 million to settle a lawsuit over allegations of illegal rent increases for around 1,900 California homes.

K3 Holdings and Wedgewood Homes have previously denied any allegations of wrongdoing, and court documents show Invitation Homes Inc. did not admit or deny liability in the lawsuit against the company.

“Our mission is to create homeownership opportunities through the renovation of residential real estate,” a spokesperson for Wedgewood Homes said in an emailed statement.

“In many cases, the average homebuyer lacks the capital, time, construction expertise, and risk tolerance required to restore distressed properties,” the statement said. “Our work centers on acquiring these homes, investing in renovations and improvements, and returning them to the market as updated housing. We work with licensed, local contractors and businesses to complete these renovation projects.”

The spokesperson said Wedgewood Homes does not operate rental housing, and that the differences between acquisition and resale prices reflect investments made in the properties.

K3 Holdings and Invitation Homes Inc. did not immediately provide additional comments.

Other council members weigh in

At the Wednesday meeting, council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said he appreciated the effort going toward solving this issue.

“When I first took office [in 2015], eight out of every 10 residential units that went up for sale were bought by a corporation,” he said about the area in South L.A. where District 8, 9 and 15 meet.

Harris-Dawson said because the corporations were buying up properties, working people were squeezed out of the housing market in the once-affordable area.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez also criticized corporations and large investors.

“Homes that should be places where people put down roots, raise their kids and build generational wealth are increasingly treated like commodities in an investment portfolio,” Hernandez said.

Councilmember John Lee welcomed the study, but said he blames the consolidation on the council’s own policies that make it harder to be a property owner.

“I don’t even know if we need a study,” he said. “I think we understand why there’s more corporatization of ownership in our city. It’s the over restrictive policies of this council.”

The Los Angeles World Cup host committee has quietly posted its guidance on human rights after months of speculation over where the plan was and when it would be published.

Advocates had pushed the committee, an arm of the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission, to produce its plan. But now that it's out, they're not satisfied with what they're seeing.

The human rights guidance is required by FIFA and outlined on the host committee's website. It includes a list of online resources including where to file complaints with various local and state level agencies and a summary of local, state and federal laws protecting human and civil rights. The committee is also touting a partnership with L.A. County in which people can call 211 to report a concern during the tournament.

"Los Angeles is weeks away from hosting one of the largest sporting events in the world, and yet what has been posted is not a plan,” Stephanie Richard, director of the Sunita Jain Anti‑Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School, said in a statement. “It is a list of laws and hotline numbers."

The human rights document also skirts fears around ICE and its potential presence at the tournament and surrounding celebrations. Todd Lyons, the agency's head, said earlier this year that ICE's investigatory branch will play a key role in security for the tournament.

But ICE and immigration enforcement aren't mentioned on the host committee's web page on human rights or in its outline of its approach to human rights. "Immigration status" only gets a mention in the list of existing anti-discrimination laws.

"It certainly could have been much stronger," Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, said of the plan. She added that her organization participated in a roundtable on the plan, and she was disappointed ICE and recent immigration sweeps weren't mentioned in the resulting document.

"In order for all of this to happen, immigrant workers are part of it," she said of the World Cup. "Your hotel workers, your service workers, stadium workers, drivers." 

LAist reached out to spokespeople for the host committee for comment via email, phone and text, but did not hear back in time for publication. FIFA's press team also did not respond to an email from LAist.

According to the host committee's website, the human rights plan is the result of coordination with the city and county of Los Angeles, the city of Inglewood, and 14 roundtable discussions held in the fall of 2025.

"As a non-profit organization, the Host Committee’s role is primarily and necessarily focused on aligning and collaborating with governmental and non-governmental organizations," the document sums up the committee's approach.

The plan also promises more actions, including "Know Your Rights" training for L.A. residents and visitors and "Know Your Responsibilities" training for businesses and vendors. The committee also says it will develop a "rapid response" strategy to respond to potential problems at the tournament.

Available details on those plans were scant. And with the tournament just 30 days away, labor unions and community groups are continuing to voice concerns about potential ICE presence at SoFi Stadium and other potential consequences of the tournament coming to town.

The mayor of Arcadia has agreed to plead guilty to a charge she acted as an agent for China, federal prosecutors announced Monday. She has resigned from her position with the city.

Eileen Wang, 58, faces one count of acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The charge carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison.

What we know about the criminal case

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Wang and Yaoning “Mike” Sun of Chino Hills worked at the direction of the Chinese government and with individuals based in the U.S. to promote pro-People’s Republic of China propaganda in the United States. Those actions occurred between 2020 and 2022, prosecutors said.

According to federal prosecutors, Wang and Sun operated a website — known as U.S. News Center — billed as a news source for the local Chinese American community in Los Angeles County. They posted content on the site, described as "pre-written articles," based on directives from Chinese government officials.

Sun, 65, pleaded guilty in October 2025 in federal court to acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government. He is serving a four-year federal prison sentence.

Prosecutors also said Wang communicated with John Chen, whom they described as “a high-level member of the [Chinese government] intelligence apparatus,” in November 2021, and asked him to post an article from her website.

In a group chat, Wang referenced the article and wrote: “This is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to send,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Chen pleaded guilty in New York to acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China and conspiracy to bribe a public official. In 2024, he was sentenced to 20 months in federal prison.

What's next

Wang, who was elected to the City Council in November 2022, was expected to make her first appearance in U.S. District Court Monday afternoon.

Citing a plea agreement, prosecutors said she's expected to enter the guilty plea within the next few weeks.

Arcadia's mayor is selected from the elected council members. A post on the city's website announced that Wang had resigned her position as of Monday and that a new mayor would be picked from the remaining council members at the next meeting.

The Supreme Court on Monday gave itself more time to consider a national ban on telemedicine access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

Justice Samuel Alito extended an earlier order he issued by three more days, so rules for prescribing mifepristone online or through the mail remain in effect through Thursday at a minimum.

The case at issue

The tumult over the future of telemedicine access to mifipristone started on May 1 with a ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling re-instituted prescribing rules from before the pandemic that required patients to receive mifepristone in person in a doctor's office or clinic.

The Food and Drug Administration determined that the rule was medically unnecessary in 2021. The state of Louisiana sued last fall, arguing that telemedicine access undermines the state's abortion ban.

What is telemedicine abortion?

The telemedicine abortion process starts with a patient connecting with a healthcare provider on the phone or online. If the patient is eligible, that provider can prescribe two medications — mifepristone and another pill called misoprostol. Patients can pick up the medicine at a local pharmacy, or providers can mail the drugs to a patient's home.

That access is a big part of the reason why the number of abortions nationally has actually increased since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. Now, most abortions in the U.S. use this combination of medications, and one quarter happen via telemedicine.

After the 5th Circuit ruling, some providers said they would continue offering telemedicine access to abortion medication using a different protocol that involves higher doses of misoprostol and no mifepristone.

Researchers say that method is just as safe and effective, but tends to cause more pain for patients and more side effects, like nausea and diarrhea. Misoprostol has other medical uses, such as treating gastric ulcers and hemorrhage, and has been on the market longer than mifepristone. It is likely to remain fully accessible, even if mifepristone is restricted.

Since the FDA's prescribing rules for medications apply to the whole country, a change to the rules about how mifepristone can be accessed has national impact. That means it affects states with constitutionally-protected access to abortion, states with criminal bans, like Louisiana, and all states in between.

States' rights

Nearly two dozen Democratic-led states submitted an amicus brief in this case, writing that the appeals court decision put the policy choices of states with bans above the choices of states "that have made the different but equally sovereign determinations to promote access to abortion care."

There are also stakes related to the power of FDA and other expert agencies to set rules. While the Trump administration's FDA did not respond to the Supreme Court's request for briefs, a group of former leaders of the agency, who served under mainly Democratic and some Republican presidents, wrote about this in an amicus brief.

They defended the FDA's process in approving the medication and modifying the rules for prescribing it, and say the appeals court decision "would upend FDA's gold-standard, science-based drug approval system."

Copyright 2026 NPR