Sponsored message
Logged in as
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
  • LA will miss you — for the most part
    A crowd watches a World Cup match on a large outdoor screen. Many of them wear green jerseys. A young man and woman hold hands, sitting on a bench.
    Hundreds gathered at a city watch party in Highland Park to watch Mexico defeat Ecuador.

    Topline:

    After 39 days of soccer, eight matches at SoFi Stadium and many more events big and small across the region, the World Cup is over. Reviews of the tournament in L.A. have broadly been positive, but FIFA's ticket prices, corporate sponsors and official fan zones were criticized.

    The highlights: People flocked to bars and public viewing parties. More than 35,000 attended the free city "Kick it in the Park" events. Angelenos wore green with pride to root for Mexico. New fans were, at least temporarily, won over by the beautiful game.

    The lowlights: FIFA faced protests over sponsorships from Aramco and Home Depot. Some fan zones also were let-downs. The Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights broke out in flames during the World Cup, spewing thick smoke across swaths of the city.

    Looking ahead: The World Cup has been treated like a warm-up lap for Los Angeles ahead of the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics. As officials and locals review what went well and what needs improvement, it'll be with 2028 in mind.

    Read on... for more on how the World Cup was received in L.A.

    To understand how the World Cup went in Los Angeles this summer, look no further than the watch parties.

    The city of L.A.'s events — branded "Kick it in the Park" — were neighborhood picnics. People could turn up, put up a camping chair, and watch the game in a local park.

    In total, the city reports that at least 35,000 people attended them over the past month. Crowds packed Sycamore Grove Park to see Mexico take down Ecuador on a massive screen. At Echo Park Lake, people watched Lionel Messi score a hat trick in Argentina's opening match.

    FIFA's official "fan zones" told another story. They were ticketed, fenced off and sometimes expensive. The one on Venice Beach had some locals in an uproar after organizers promised a free block party and under-delivered.

    At another fan zone at the Original Farmer's Market, tickets were cheap but once inside, attendees were left to watch the matches from a hot parking lot. If you wanted a beer, the designated drinking area didn't have a clear view of the screens.

    After 39 days of soccer, eight matches at SoFi Stadium and many more events big and small across the region, reviews of the tournament have broadly been positive.

    People flocked to bars and public viewing parties. Angelenos wore green with pride to root for Mexico. New fans were, at least temporarily, won over by the beautiful game.

    But FIFA, with its high ticket prices to get inside the stadium and branded events, had more mixed reviews, and faced protests, too. Some wondered what their community was getting out of all the hubbub.

    A person with a light skin tone wearing a black t-shirt holds a red poster that reads "FIFA." The image is solely of the person's torso, but behind them you see other demonstrators.
    A group gathered in Downtown Los Angeles last week to protest FIFA and 2026 World Cup corporate sponsors.
    (
    Libby Rainey
    /
    LAist
    )

    This balance — enjoying the soccer, but being weary of what comes with it — was a throughline throughout the tournament. So was the sentiment that the World Cup was merely a warm-up lap for the coming 2028 summer Olympics.

    " [It's] a tremendous opportunity for us to learn and practice for the '28 Games," said Paul Krekorian, the former L.A. City Council president who leads the city's major events office.

    One example of this was public transit. Metro launched a special bus system specifically to take people to and from SoFi Stadium, and it delivered tens of thousands of people there each match. An even larger bus fleet will be needed for the Olympics, which event organizers compare to hosting seven Super Bowls a day for a month.

    "The reason we were excited to take on an event like the World Cup before the Super Bowl and the 2028 Games in the first place is because this is where you get the true teaching moments," Metro CEO Stephanie Wiggins wrote in a blog post about the World Cup success.

    A bus is covered in a multi-colored wrap with signage that reads "26 Los Angeles World Cup" and "We are Los Angeles".
    Metro unveiled its enhanced services during the 2026 World Cup on March 4.
    (
    Courtesy of FIFA World Cup 26 Los Angeles
    )

    Other moments during the tournament hinted at the ways mega-events can go south.

    A free city watch party for the Korea-Mexico match at Seoul Park was overcrowded and chaotic when thousands more people showed up than organizers expected.

    The Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights broke out in flames during the World Cup, spewing thick smoke across swaths of the city and surrounding areas. The bad air didn't force FIFA to change plans at SoFi Stadium, but had things gone differently, it could have.

    Multi-colored flags are strewn across the roof of an empty outdoor patio area. Cars are seen passing in the distance.
    Crowds packed a block party near Mariachi Plaza to watch Mexico defeat South Korea one day after the fire sparked.
    (
    Libby Rainey
    /
    LAist
    )

    And a community event in South L.A. was disrupted when someone flew a drone to take photos and the FBI, Homeland Security and LAPD descended to enforce a strict World Cup anti-drone policy. The nonprofit involved called it an unintended consequence of having high-security sporting events in Los Angeles.

    All those issues — crowds, fires and security — will undoubtedly come up again in the lead-up to 2028. They also mean some people will be happy to bid the 2026 World Cup farewell.

    Still, many will miss the tournament in Los Angeles, which brought thousands of us out to public spaces to be together. Many of L.A.'s communities got to celebrate their heritage. And everyone could participate. You could strike up conversation simply by wearing your team's jersey while out and about.

    That collective, temporary madness is over now. But it was fun while it lasted.

  • Councilmember says removal is politically charged
    Woman in red blazer at podium
    L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman at a mayoral campaign event in May 2026.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman will lose her spot as chair of the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, she confirmed in a campaign video Monday. Raman, who is running for mayor, claims her removal is politically motivated.

    Why it matters: Raman is running against incumbent L.A. Mayor Karen Bass in the November election. The councilmember has been chair of the Housing and Homeless Committee since 2023, where she’s had considerable power and responsibility.

    Why now: The California Post reported that L.A. City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson is planning to announce this week that the city will split the committee into two parts — one on housing, the other on homelessness — neither of which will be led by Raman. Harris-Dawson, a longtime political ally of Bass, represents a large portion of South Los Angeles. He did not immediately respond to LAist’s inquiry late Monday.

    Raman's reaction: Raman said in the campaign ad the move was a political attack. “I called for an audit of our homelessness programs in Los Angeles, and now I’ve been removed as Chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee,” Raman said. “I might be getting punished for running against Mayor Bass, but Angelenos are the ones paying the price for these political games.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Trump administration threatens state management
    A pier is in the foreground. Behind is an offshore oil and gas platform. The sun is setting.
    President Joe Biden will reportedly permanently ban future offshore oil and gas drilling in over 625 million acres of federal waters in an effort to cement his environmental legacy before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated January 20th. Platform Esther is located approximately 1.5 miles away from Seal Beach and operates within California state waters.

    Topline:

    Hearings being held this week could decide whether California continues to have a say over what happens in federal waters off its coast. It’s part of the Trump administration’s efforts to supercharge industrial activities, including offshore drilling, rocket launches and desalination plants along California’s coast.

    Why now: The hearings aim to gather public comments as part of a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices. Dozens of people turned out Monday to decry the administration's review.

    Read on ... to learn how to give public comment.

    Hearings being held this week could decide whether California continues to have a say over what happens in federal waters off the state’s coast.

    It’s part of the Trump administration’s efforts to supercharge industrial activities, including offshore drilling, rocket launches and desalination plants along California’s coast. At a hearing Monday at a Santa Monica hotel and at a news conference beforehand, speaker after speaker decried any effort that would allow the federal government to revoke California's ability to manage its coast.

    A federal law called the Coastal Zone Management Act gives states with coastlines the right to review and object to projects that may conflict with state policies and economies. The law was signed by President Richard Nixon after a devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara and is credited with launching the modern environmental movement.

    More than 50 years later, the federal government has called for a detailed review of California's compliance with the 1972 law.

    In a May social media post, the Trump administration said California is standing in the way of economic progress and called the state’s coastal management practices “obstructionist” and “environmental extremism.”

    California officials, including state Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, dispute that, saying the state approves federal initiatives 96% of the time.

    “ Never before in the five-decade history of this federal act has this sudden baseless review taken place on any state's coastal management program, and never before in the history of this act has a coastal management program ever been revoked,” Crowfoot said at a news conference in Santa Monica on Monday.  ”This federal administration is bent on industrializing our coast.”

    The hearings, which are being administered by NOAA, could result in the federal government decertifying California’s rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. A decision to do so would almost certainly be challenged in court, experts say.

    That possibility has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to call on Californians to submit public comments on the issue.

    “Give the Trump administration an earful,” Newsom said in a statement.

    How to get involved

    NOAA will accept public comment until midnight Aug. 22. You can attend a virtual hearing or submit a comment via email. 

    Virtual hearings: 

    • When: Aug. 11 and 12, 2 to 5 p.m.
    • Where: Virtual.
    • How: Each person who wants to attend either meeting must electronically register by 11:59 p.m. Aug. 10. Attendance will be limited to 1,000 people, and NOAA asks you only register for one meeting. After you register, you’ll receive a link to attend. To register for either meeting, use the following link: https://noaabroadcast.adobeconnect.com/​e23ewcr5d65q/​event/​event_​info.html. 

    Submit comment via email to czma.california-evaluation@noaa.gov. Include “Comments on Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program” in the subject line.

    The hearings this week are solely for public comment. The review “seeks any new input from relevant stakeholders regarding spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects, and undersea cables,” according to a notice in the federal register. 

    Such reviews have happened before — in 2024 a draft review by NOAA found the state’s coastal agencies had properly carried out the CZMA. The review, however, was not finalized due to the change in administration.

    The latest review comes after the Trump administration gutted NOAA staff and funding. It has also aggressively worked to expand drilling off the California coast, while at the same time using taxpayer dollars to pay offshore wind companies to abandon their energy projects — something L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath highlighted at the Monday news conference.

    “ L.A. County will soon achieve 100% renewable and reliable electricity. This is the change that we want to see,” she said. “Meanwhile, the Trump administration is recklessly starting foreign wars and skyrocketing the price at the pump.”

    Horvath is part of a coalition of local, state, tribal, environmental, legal and business leaders who are calling the review a “takeover” of state and local rights.

    Orange County resident Grant Bixby, who founded the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, pointed out at the news conference that offshore drilling makes up a tiny fraction of the state’s coastal economy, which generates between $44 billion and $50 billion a year, according to NOAA.

    "Should we put 99% of the other employment at risk for the benefit of one dirty industry?” Bixby said.

    Bixby recalled how the 2021 Huntington Beach oil spill turned the beaches into a “ghost town.”

    People sit in chairs in a hotel ballroom. Two people can be seen on a stage at the front of the room.
    The NOAA hearing was held in a ballroom at the Santa Monica Hilton.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    Among the speakers at the news conference and hearing, a clear theme emerged: The coast is an integral part of being a Californian, whether you’re lucky enough to live beachside or you live inland and have a favorite spot to call your own on hot summer days.

    “The point is that we all love our beautiful saltwaters,” said Tina Calderon, Gabrielino Tongva and Chumash culture bearer, at the news conference. “These are sacred waters, and it's up to us to be the voice. It's up to us to cause no more human harm. We've done enough.”

  • The beloved bald eagle has died, rescuers say
    An adult bald eagle is being swaddled in a towel and held by two hands wearing thick yellow gloves. A woman with a blue and white face mask is holding the eagle in front of her.
    Jackie and her partner Shadow had successfully fledged six chicks together over the years at their Big Bear nest.

    Topline:

    Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.

    What we know: The famous eagle, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia.

    Read on … for more on Jackie’s life.

    Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.

    The famous raptor, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia. She ultimately succumbed to her condition after a team of veterinarians struggled for weeks to figure out what was causing it.

    Jackie remained critically ill despite receiving oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock monitoring. 

    "We know this news will be deeply felt by the many thousands of people around the world who have followed her journey, hoped alongside us, prayed for her, and supported the people caring for her,” the Ojai Raptor Center said in an Instagram post. “Our team is heartbroken. It has been an extraordinary privilege to care for her."

    Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that launched the popular nest livestream in 2015, confirmed the news on social media.

    “It is with great sadness and heavy hearts, to bring you the latest update from Ojai Raptor Center,” the nonprofit said to its roughly 1.3 million Facebook followers. “Please be kind to yourself, to others, to the FOBBV team and to those at the Ojai Raptor Center. Soar free Jackie…”

    What happened to her?

    The rescue center said on social media Sunday that she was “critically ill,” “unstable” and still in an "extremely serious” condition.

    She was getting oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock care from vets and specialists across the country. But her red blood cell levels continued to drop well below normal after rebounding a bit after she was rescued.

    Jackie was rescued in July by Big Bear’s Dana Point Park after a brief fight with two other eagles. Jackie was weak, vulnerable, underweight and unable to fly, according to the Ojai Raptor Center.

    The center said the fight is likely what left her grounded, but her condition suggests she had been sick for some time.

    How Jackie’s Big Bear saga started

    Jackie was the matriarch of the famous Big Bear bald eagle nest since around 2017. She’s believed to be the first bald eagle chick hatched in Big Bear Valley in recent history, according to the nonprofit.

    The pair believed to be her parents, Ricky and Lucy, left the area around 2016. The young Jackie then started hanging out in their old nest, where the livestream camera had been installed.

    Jackie took on her first mate, a bald eagle known as Mr. B, and laid her first clutch of eggs in the nest the following season. Shadow came into the picture in the summer of 2018, refusing to leave until Mr. B eventually flew away from the area, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.

    Jackie and Shadow were mates ever since. They successfully raised six chicks together — Sandy and Luna this season, Sunny and Gizmo last year, Spirit in 2022 and Simba in 2019.

  • New poll shows voters are open to big changes

    Topline:

    Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

    More details: A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.

    Why now: Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.

    Read on... for more on the poll.

    Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

    A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.

    Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.

    "There should be little doubt that the single-member district system is failing to deliver fair and representative outcomes," they wrote. "We urge Congress to adopt a proportional system of representation, solving the gerrymandering problem at its source."

    According to the poll conducted by the advocacy group Fix Our House and liberal think tank New America, half of 1,000 respondents said they support proportional representation, with nearly a quarter opposed. A third of those who participated said they were not sure whether they supported it or not.

    Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, said he was surprised to see how much backing there is for proportional representation, despite the idea being fairly obscure in the United States.

    "It really did shock me how supportive people were of the various principles of proportional representation across the board," he told NPR.

    While support was highest among younger, more educated, more left-leaning voters, Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too.

    American voters want more political parties

    Pollsters also walked respondents through some of the tradeoffs of proportional representation — including that it can lead to multiple parties having to find a way to work together.

    "For every one of those questions, people prefer the proportional system with multiple parties," Drutman said, "even if it leads to a coalition government that is maybe not quite as efficient."

    He said voters also weren't very concerned when asked about the possibility of proportional representation leading to some more extreme political parties.

    "One thing people said is they already think the parties are pretty extreme right now," Drutman explained. "So that's not quite the fear that some in the political class think it would be."

    Jocelyn Kiley, director of political research at the Pew Research Center, said voters writ large have been in a "prolonged period of disaffection with politics and the political system."

    She said Pew has found there is a lot of openness to reform, with nearly 70% of respondents to its polls saying they wish, at least somewhat, there were more political parties to choose from.

    Kiley said detailed knowledge of what any election reform would look like is rare among voters. And she said that when many reforms "move from theory to practice," they often hit some resistance.

    "People want to understand exactly how that reform will impact them," she said.

    Room for a national conversation

    Drutman told NPR the new poll numbers mark a starting point for what could be a national conversation about how to break out of the country's two-party system.

    "People are dissatisfied," he said. "People are frustrated. People don't have a language for how to talk about alternatives because they haven't really heard all that much about the alternatives, because we haven't had a national conversation about the alternatives yet. So, there's a lot of room to have that conversation."

    Drutman said only about a quarter of the respondents were aware that there are alternatives to a two-party system, and even fewer people could name an alternative when pressed.

    In fact, only about 2% of the participants in the poll could name proportional representation off the top of their heads, said Dustin Wahl, executive director of Fix Our House,

    "But when asked about the kind of underlying values beneath it and the component parts, there was widespread support from all across the political spectrum," Wahl said. "And that's not something we would have expected to see necessarily four years ago, for instance. But as the problems grow, the desire for solutions grows, as well."

    Proportional representation is currently the most widely used electoral system among the world's democracies. Wahl points out that the U.S., along with the likes of Canada and Australia, has a system that was abandoned long ago by other countries.

    "Arguably the only reason we don't use proportional representation is because it wasn't used anywhere in the world at the time of [America's] founding," he said. "And we just kept doing elections the same way."

    The poll also found a majority support (54%) for expanding the House, with 150 new members.

    There are bills in Congress, with all Democratic co-sponsors, that would study or move the U.S. to a system of proportional representation, but Wahl said any bill that doesn't include expanding the House is "politically dead in the water" because without expansion, lawmakers have to choose to potentially vote themselves out of office.

    "That [150-seat expansion] gives you enough of a cushion so that members, incumbents know that they're very likely to hold on to their seats," he said. "It wouldn't run into the problem, at all, of candidates or of sitting members of Congress thinking that they're going to lose their seats because their elections would be totally untouched."
    Copyright 2026 NPR