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
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Defamation lawsuit seeks damages of $787 million
    Gov. Gavin Newsom, is wearing a black suit and blue tie, speaking at a podium surrounded by microphones from various TV stations. Behind him, the California flag showing a brown bear, red star, and a sign that reads “CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC.”
    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on Thursday, June 12, 2025, at the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco. Gov. Newsom filed a defamation lawsuit on Friday that claims Fox News lied about when he spoke with President Trump about the immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a defamation lawsuit on Friday against Fox News and one of its hosts, claiming the network lied about the timing of a phone call with President Donald Trump to protect the president and damage the governor politically.

    The backstory: The dispute stems from a phone call in early June as immigration raids and protests swept Los Angeles and the president deployed armed troops to the city over the governor’s objections. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, accuses Fox News and host Jesse Watters of lying about when the phone call between Newsom and Trump took place. The network then accused Newsom of lying about the call on air.

    Why it matters: The suit marks an increasingly aggressive posture by the Democratic governor against Trump and his allies. Newsom, in the past, has relished high-profile dust-ups with the president and Fox News but has been careful not to overtly antagonize Trump in his second term.

    Read on... for more details about the lawsuit.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a defamation lawsuit on Friday against Fox News and one of its hosts, claiming the network lied about the timing of a phone call with President Donald Trump to protect the president and damage the governor politically.

    The dispute stems from a phone call in early June as immigration raids and protests swept Los Angeles and the president deployed armed troops to the city over the governor’s objections.

    The lawsuit seeks damages of $787 million — the same amount Fox News paid to settle a lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over false election conspiracies. In a letter to the network, Newsom’s lawyers offer to dismiss the suit if Fox retracts the claim and both the network and host Jesse Watters issue on-air apologies.

    The suit marks an increasingly aggressive posture by the Democratic governor against Trump and his allies. Newsom, in the past, has relished high-profile dust-ups with the president and Fox News but has been careful not to overtly antagonize Trump in his second term. The L.A. troop confrontation seems to have changed that.

    “If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump’s behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case,” Newsom said in a written statement. “I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.”

    In a statement, a Fox News spokesperson lashed out at Newsom and promised to fight the suit.

    “Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,” the statement read.

    The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, accuses Fox News and Watters of lying about when the phone call between Newsom and Trump took place. The network then accused Newsom of lying about the call on air.

    “It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates. But Fox’s decision to cover up for President Trump’s error cannot be so easily dismissed,” the suit states.

    Newsom said he gave Fox News call logs showing that the call took place the night of June 6, while Trump claimed they talked “a day ago” on June 10. The lawsuit states that a different Fox News host, John Roberts, first “intentionally altered” how he presented Trump’s comment about the call’s timing to “obscure President Trump’s false statement of fact.”

    Watters later played an edited clip of Trump’s statement and asked, “Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”

    The suit states that the matter is “not trivial,” and “is about more than just misremembering a day or two regarding routine phone calls,” claiming that the four-day period in question “represented an unprecedented moment.”

    “The President of the United States illegally commandeered the California National Guard and deployed uniformed troops onto the streets of Los Angeles over the Governor’s objections. Every hour, every Truth Social post, and every presidential utterance mattered,” the suit states. “History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: When did he last speak with Governor Newsom?”

  • LA explores tax cut for Palisades rebuilds
    Fencing lines a sidewalk next to a home under construction. Signs on the fence bear the Horusicky name.
    Fencing lines a sidewalk next to a home under construction.

    Topline:

    As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Council member is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

    Who’s behind it: Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

    The details: The plan calls for returning the 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

    Read on … to learn whether economists think the proposed tax relief could make a difference.

    As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

    Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

    The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

    The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

    Would it make much of a difference? 

    Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

    “It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

    Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

    Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

    “Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

    What’s next for the proposal? 

    The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

    The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

    The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

  • Sponsored message
  • Republicans in Congress say they have a deal

    Topline:

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September. Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.


    About the deal: The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate. Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

    What's next: Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects. Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS. If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

    Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

    Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

    "In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

    The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

    Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

    "I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

    Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

    "For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

    Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

    "We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

    Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

    Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

    Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

    "Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

    If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

    Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Youth baseball program expanding
    A child with black hair and light skin poses for a photo with a mascot wearing a Dodgers uniform.
    Logan Cattaneo, 6, poses for a photo with the Dodgers mascot during Dodgers Dreamteam PlayerFest at Dodgers Stadium in 2024.

    Topline:

    The Dodgers Foundation says it's expanding Dodgers Dreamteam, its program for underserved youth. The foundation says the program will be able to serve 17,000 kids this year, 2,000 more than last year.

    Why it matters: Now in its 13th season, the program connects underserved youth with opportunities to play baseball and softball and provides participants with free uniforms and access to baseball equipment. It also offers training for coaches in positive youth development practices, as well as wraparound services for participant families like college workshops, career panels, literacy resources and scholarship opportunities.

    How to sign up: For more information and to sign up, click here.

  • Low snowpack could signal early fire season
    Aerial view of a forest of trees covered in snow
    An aerial view of snow-capped trees after a winter snowstorm near Soda Springs on Feb. 20, 2026.

    Topline:

    California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season. It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

    What happened? Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

    Why it matters: Experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains. State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs. “I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

    California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

    It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

    Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

    But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

    On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

    “I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

    State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

    Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

    “I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

    “Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

    ‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

    In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

    “It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

    Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

    “That means we can get more work done,” he said.

    It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

    Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

    “In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

    ‘A haystack fire’

    Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

    Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

    “Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

    Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

    But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

    How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

    “This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.