The Brief

Former Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do was sentenced Monday to five years in federal prison, after an LAist investigation and federal probe led him to resign and plead guilty to a conspiracy to steal millions of taxpayer dollars meant to feed needy seniors.

The penalty was issued by James V. Selna, a U.S. District Court judge, in front of a packed Santa Ana courtroom as Do sat and watched with his attorneys. It was the maximum penalty possible under the federal bribery charge Do pleaded guilty to.

Do is ordered to report to Lompoc, a low-security federal prison in Santa Barbara County, by Aug. 15.

Selna said Do's breach of his duty is a "real crime" as he handed down the sentence.

“Public corruption wreaks damage far beyond the loss to the county. It undermines the public’s trust of the government. It undermines the government’s ability to function," he said.

At Monday’s hearing, Do’s attorneys asked for a four-year sentence, pointing to the recommendation of federal probation officials. But Selna said anything less than the five-year maximum would fail to reflect the gravity of Do’s crime.

“I just do not believe that any sentence less than the maximum reflects the seriousness of the crime,” Selna said.

Selna ordered a hearing on Aug. 11 to determine the amount of restitution owed to taxpayers. He said Do and his daughter Rhiannon Do, who was involved in the scheme, would be "jointly liable" for paying the money back.

Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do at an Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting on Nov. 28, 2023.

(

Nick Gerda / LAist

)

Andrew Do declined to speak when the judge asked if he had anything to add about the sentencing and did not respond to questions from an LAist reporter as he exited the courtroom. Paul Meyer, his attorney, said via text message that given the upcoming hearing, no response is appropriate at this time.

Andrew Do's plea agreement says that he gave up his right to appeal the sentence.

It’s the first time in decades that an O.C. supervisor has been convicted of corruption, according to prosecutors.

After an LAist investigation exposed millions in unaccounted-for coronavirus relief funds Andrew Do quietly routed to a newly-created nonprofit connected to his youngest daughter, federal law enforcement launched a probe.

Facing the prospect of being prosecuted on multiple felonies, Andrew Do ultimately admitted that of $9.3 million in COVID relief money he directed to the Huntington Beach nonprofit, only 15% actually went to feed seniors and people with disabilities as earmarked. The other roughly $8 million was diverted, Do admitted.

Andrew Do also admitted to accepting over $550,000 in bribes for directing and voting in favor of more than $10 million in COVID funds to the nonprofit, Viet America Society. Many of the bribes were routed through roughly $400,000 in down payment money that Rhiannon Do, the younger of his two daughters, used to buy a house in Tustin, according to facts he ultimately admitted to as part of his plea deal.

Law enforcement searched the Tustin home of Rhiannon Do, on Aug. 22, 2024.

(

Jason Armond

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

When then-U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada announced the plea deal last October, he said, “Mr. Do and his co-conspirators stole money from the poor.” Estrada called the conspiracy “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Andrew Do pleaded guilty last fall to a single federal charge of bribery, in a deal that spared his younger daughter from prosecution. As part of the deal, Rhiannon Do admitted to committing one federal and three state crimes in connection with the home purchase, including perjury and mortgage fraud. She was a law student at UC Irvine at the time. The plea deal required her to keep attending law school — she graduated last month — and to study for the bar exam to become an attorney or find a job.

Andrew Do’s wife and the mother of his two daughters is Cheri Pham, an Orange County Superior Court judge. She was the supervising judge overseeing the criminal courts when her husband started directing meal money to the nonprofit. Later, she was promoted to the second-highest-ranking judgeship at the court, a position she held from the beginning of 2023 until the end of last year when she was reassigned to family court. She has not been publicly accused of wrongdoing.

O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do (center left) in December 2023 with his daughter Rhiannon Do (right) and wife Cheri Pham (between them).

(

Screenshot of a public video posted by Do’s official YouTube channel

)

Response to the sentencing

In a statement, O.C. Supervisor Katrina Foley commended the U.S. Department of Justice for holding Do "fully accountable."

“No one is above the law. This maximum sentencing of Andrew Do sends a strong message that we do not tolerate public corruption in Orange County,” Foley said. “Andrew Do enriched himself off the suffering of others, betraying our residents and violating his oath of office.”

O.C. Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento told LAist he would have preferred a longer sentence.

Sarmiento added that the county is working to conduct a third-party audit of all contracts that came from Andrew Do’s office and any county deals made during the pandemic when oversight was lax. He added that the county has work to do to restore the public's confidence in government.

“I do think that it's going to take a very long time to re-establish the public's trust in the county,” Sarmiento said. “It takes a long time to build, but it's very easily eroded and damaged.”

O.C. Supervisor Doug Chaffee told LAist he also wished Do's sentence had been longer. Chaffee and Sarmiento applauded the recent federal indictments of Do’s conspirators, Peter Pham, of Viet America Society, and Thanh Huong Nguyen, of Hand to Hand Relief.

"Maybe we can finally come to a conclusion in a just way that will play itself out over time,” Chaffee said of the indictments.

Any stolen funds recovered by the county, Chaffee said, should go toward the residents previously represented by Andrew Do. Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who now represents the First Supervisorial District where Andrew Do used to serve, told LAist she also supports the idea of directing recovered COVID-relief funds to district residents. The district is in the northwestern region of the county and includes Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach and Westminster.

“The victims are the First District,” Nguyen said. “These individuals that I represent, the residents of the First District, are the ones who didn't get the benefits or the help from the county that they deserved.”

Accountability doesn’t end now with Andrew Do’s sentencing, Nguyen added, saying she hopes federal prosecutors will continue to "go after every individual and not let this go."

"We will hold everybody accountable,” she said.

A spokesperson for Supervisor Don Wagner said he was not available for comment.

Thai Viet Phan, a member of the Santa Ana City Council, said she thought Andrew Do’s crimes went well beyond bribery. “He literally stole money from poor people,” she said, referring to the meals for needy seniors that the contracts Andrew Do received kickbacks from were supposed to provide. “It’s just so cruel.”

Westminster resident Terry Rains showed up at the courthouse in Santa Ana to see the sentencing in person.

“I’m glad that we got the max allowed for this charge,” Rains said. "This is what journalism is all about … unrooting the corruption and then seeing the consequences of that.”

How much prison time did he and prosecutors ask for? 

Prosecutors asked Selna to impose the maximum sentence of five years, saying Andrew Do’s crimes were “an assault on the very legitimacy of government” and left vulnerable people with “empty stomachs and worsened health conditions.”

In calling for the maximum sentence, prosecutors also pointed to Andrew Do’s public attacks on LAist’s integrity — including a news release he issued in December 2023 falsely accusing an LAist reporter of forging documents and calling for the reporter to be fired.

“It was a calculated attempt to discredit those who sought to hold him accountable and to chill further investigation. Rather than confronting the truth, the defendant sought to delegitimize it,” prosecutors wrote.

“His actions sent a clear message: that the real threat, in his view, was not corruption or the misuse of public funds, but the exposure of those facts to the public.”

Ahead of Monday's hearing, Andrew Do asked the judge for a 33-month sentence — about half of what prosecutors called for. In a court filing, his attorney wrote that Andrew Do was “willfully blinded to the violations” and placed part of the blame on his fellow supervisors. He wrote that the money directed to Viet America Society was a decision made by all the members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, not him alone.

An office suite in Huntington Beach for the nonprofit Viet America Society, shown in April 2024.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

County records show otherwise. Several million of the meal dollars were directed to the nonprofit at Andrew Do’s sole discretion, without the other supervisors ever voting on choosing that organization.

In calling for the lesser sentence, Andrew Do’s lawyers also wrote Andrew Do did not directly receive payments. And they wrote he has been volunteering with a youth program teaching youngsters how to foster confidence by learning how to sail.

Andrew Do’s lawyers wrote that he’s been spending 20 hours per week volunteering with the sailing program. A captain there told LAist Andrew Do has come in a few times per month.

The Trump administration is proposing new rules that would further tighten its grip on who's allowed into the U.S., asking visitors from several dozen countries that benefit from visa-free travel to hand over their social media history and other personal information.

The new conditions were unveiled in a notice from the Department of Homeland Security earlier this week and are open for public comment and review for 60 days before going into effect.

The proposed measure applies to citizens from the 42 countries that belong to the visa waiver program and currently don't require visas for tourist or business visits to the U.S. Those foreign citizens would now have to submit five years' worth of their social media activity to be considered for entry.

They'd also have to provide emails they have used for the past 10 years, as well as phone numbers and home addresses of immediate family members. Officials would also be able to scrutinize IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the mandatory social media requirement is designed to comply with President Donald Trump's January executive order "to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes." However, they have not defined what type of online activity may constitute a threat.

Under the current visa waiver program, tourists can bypass the visa application process, which can take months to years. Instead, they pay $40 and submit an online application using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA. It's accessible to citizens of U.S. allied countries, including Australia, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. But that system may also get an overhaul if the latest changes take effect. The notice proposes eliminating online applications, moving to a mobile-only platform.

This is the latest step in the Trump administration's escalation of restrictions and surveillance of international travelers, foreign students and immigrants. In June, the State Department announced it will begin reviewing the social media accounts of foreign students. Earlier this month, the department instructed its staff to reject visa applications — primarily H-1B — from people who worked on fact-checking, content moderation or other activities, citing it as "censorship" of Americans' speech.

These latest proposed changes are not that different from those already in place for visa applicants, Marissa Montes, a professor at Loyola Law School, and director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic, told NPR.

"It's always been something that the government can ask for and has asked for in the past," Montes said. "The question is, how will [ESTA applicants] be screened by CPB? Will it be something they have to submit ahead of time or will it be an officer at a point of entry? We still don't know how the administration expects to implement this."

In the past, she said, such screenings occurred at the point of entry and that "it's always been discretionary if the officer wants to ask for it or not."

What is most troubling, Montes added, is that there are no explicit guidelines defining what qualifies as harmful to the United States.

"The problem is that when it comes to immigration policy and directives like this is that it's very broad and discretionary, meaning that the agent that is receiving this order has a lot of discretion to then interpret what can be viewed as anti-American," she said. "But we have seen that be interpreted as anything that goes against the Trump administration or is going against a value of the Trump administration."

Montes said she advises her clients to be mindful of not just their own online posts, but also posts they've liked, commented on and re-posted, which can be grounds for a denial or even a permanent ban from the U.S. For example, if someone has posts regarding casual drug use, or pictures of firearms, they can be viewed as a potential threat to the government. She said agents are also on the look out for posts that can be construed as pro-socialist or communist.

She cautions people not to eliminate their social media presence entirely, saying it's "become a red flag" for officials.

"Our immigration laws bar certain types of conduct because of immigration bias … so you really have to be careful about what you put out there," she warned. "As I always tell my clients, if I can find the information, the government certainly can."

Copyright 2025 NPR

Chop suey was once a classic Chinese American dish enjoyed on December 25 — a day when most other restaurants were closed — by Jews and other non-Christians.

These days, we tend to think of chop suey as a mishmash of stir-fried ingredients that emerged from immigrant communities in the United States. But its roots run deep, says Miranda Brown, a professor of Chinese history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She wrote a 2021 article called "The Hidden, Magnificent History of Chop Suey" for the website Atlas Obscura.

"It's a dish that is chopped offal," she says. "Lung, liver, tripe, kidneys."

Yes, originally chop suey was primarily made of organ meats. Brown is quick to note that offal is flavorful, rich in nutrients, and was enjoyed widely until a few generations ago, thanks, in part to industrial meat packaging processes.

"It can be chewy, it can be buttery, it can be kind of rubbery," Brown says of offal's distinctive textures. "For some people, that's really kind of exciting. Bouncy!"

The origins of the dish itself bounces back hundreds of years, she says, to imperial China.

"We have references to chop suey in Ming Dynasty texts," she notes. "The Journey to the West, which is a famous novel [from the 16th century], has a reference to chop suey. You will find it on fancy banquet menus. A version of the dish was even eaten at the Qing court."

When Chinese immigrants to the U.S. in the mid-1800s wanted to impress local officials, Brown says, they held banquets similar to ones back home, with 300-course meals that would get written up in local newspapers, in articles marveling over delicacies such as Peking duck, chop suey and bird's nest soup.

"All the bling foods that were popular when you had to [build] a good relationship with a person who had a lot of say about your life," Brown says.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted immigration heavily, but Chinese restaurants still spread rapidly across the United States. By the early 1900s, chop suey had become a cultural phenomenon, a beloved ambassador dish to what had been an unfamiliar cuisine to many Americans.

Louis Armstrong recorded a song in 1926 called "Cornet Chop Suey." The 1958 musical Flower Drum Song dedicated an entire number to it. And in the movie A Christmas Story, set in the 1940s and based on the writings of Jean Shepherd, a white, Midwestern, working-class family celebrates Christmas at a Chinese restaurant called the Bo Ling Chop Suey Palace.

"It was exotic," Brown says. "It involves a little bit of adventure, and it is a name that people can pronounce."

But by the late 20th century, chop suey had fallen out of fashion. Brown says she never saw it on menus in her home city of San Francisco in the 1980s, when she was growing up. By then, Americans had deepened their appreciation of Chinese food, thanks in large part to popular cookbook author, PBS host and restaurateur Cecilia Chiang.

Before she died in 2020 at the age of 100, Chiang told NPR she thought it was hilarious how so many Americans had believed that the contemporary versions of chop suey were authentic. "They think, oh, chop suey is the only thing we have in China," she said in a 2017 NPR interview. "What a shame!"

"I think for her, it had just evolved to the point where it was no longer recognizable," says Miranda Brown, whose own mixed heritage is half white, half Chinese. "Foods evolve. I always think, if I met my great-great-grandparents, would they recognize me? Would they see elements of their faces in mine or my daughter's? And I would guess not. Something similar happened with Chinese food in America. When a dish leaves, a hundred years later it has evolved, a lot."

And perhaps it's about time, Brown says, for chop suey's next evolution: to make a comeback.
Copyright 2025 NPR

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to discourage state governments from regulating artificial intelligence and urge Congress to pass a law preempting such regulations.

The order is likely to hit hardest in California, which since 2016 has passed more laws to regulate artificial intelligence than any other state, according to a Stanford report from earlier this year. California is also home to the world’s leading AI companies, including Anthropic, Google, Nvidia and OpenAI.

Trump’s order would require the heads of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. It also calls for the development of model AI legislation to preempt or supersede state law unless those laws address children’s safety, data center infrastructure, state government use of AI or other yet-to-be-determined areas.

For states that continue to regulate AI, the order instructs federal agencies to explore whether they can restrict grants to them, including by revoking funding known as Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment. California has a potential $1.8 billion in broadband funding at stake, much of which was committed to specific projects earlier this month and is set to deliver internet access to more than 300,000 people.

In a social media post earlier this week and remarks from the Oval Office today, Trump said the executive order was written to prevent businesses from needing to comply with laws from multiple states and that having to do so threatens America’s competitive advantage over other nations. Investors in tech startups, such as the Menlo Park venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, have urged the president to restrict state AI regulation and celebrated the president signing the order.

Laws affected by the order

Trump’s order specifically criticized a Colorado law that requires testing and disclosure of AI that makes consequential decisions about people’s lives and seeks to prevent discrimination, a standard California lawmakers may revisit next year.

Among recently-passed California laws that federal agencies may challenge are:

• A ban on AI makers blaming the technology itself for harming people when defending themselves in court.
• A prohibition on algorithms raising prices.
• A requirement that the makers of AI supply the public with tools to identify AI-generated photos, videos and audio so that they can better spot fakes. 
• A law going into effect next month that requires AI makers to disclose details about the data they use to train their models.

Members of Congress routinely call California an example of AI regulation run amok, but lawmakers from both major parties have supported regulating AI, with more than 70 laws passed by 27 states this year, according to a report by the Transparency Coalition. California again led the nation with the passage of roughly a dozen laws as Texas, Montana, Utah and Arkansas followed with the most AI bills signed into law this year.

The executive order comes on the heels of a second attempt in Congress to preempt state AI laws, which fell short last week. Republican members of Congress first attempted to ban AI regulation by state governments for 10 years this spring, an initiative derailed in part by concerns about the fate of a law that protects country music musicians in Tennesse and others that seek to block child sexual abuse material.

A look at public opinion

Polls show Californians and Americans support AI regulation. A Carnegie Endowment California poll released in October found that nearly 80% of Californians strongly or somewhat agree that, when it comes to AI, safety should be prioritized over innovation. A September Gallup poll also found that four out of five Americans want lawmakers to prioritize safety over innovation, even if that means the technology is developed more slowly.

In addition to endangering the lives of children, artificial intelligence can lead to false arrests, discriminate against job applicants and employees and deny people government benefits or health care that they’re entitled to. The technology is also power hungry, potentially driving up electricity rates and endangering clean energy goals. It also needs large amounts of fresh water for the cooling systems in data centers. Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that sued to stop a California data center project one year ago, called the executive order an early Christmas gift to big tech.

What opponents say

Opponents of the executive order say it leaves Californians vulnerable to harm.

“Make no mistake: this order doesn’t create new protections, it removes them. That’s not governing. That’s a dereliction of duty wrapped in yet another distraction from a fracturing MAGA movement and a president who doesn’t understand the real dangers of rapidly advancing tech,” state Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat representing Santa Ana, said in a statement last month, when a draft of the executive order leaked to the press.

In the California Legislature enthusiasm for regulating AI shows little sign of abating. More than 100 film industry workers from groups like the Animation Guild and SAG-AFTRA showed up at a committee hearing earlier this week about protecting the work of creatives. Many spoke in support of a bill requiring AI companies to disclose what copyrighted material they use to train their models.

Animation Guild president Danny Lin said at the hearing that AI threatens nearly 40,000 jobs in California’s film, television and animation industries.

“L.A. is bleeding out before my very eyes,” Lin told state lawmakers.

In response to the executive order Lin told CalMatters calling out a Colorado law that seeks to prevent discrimination and protect working class people doesn’t give her confidence that the legislation the president is calling for will address the concerns of creatives whose work is used to train generative AI models.

“It’s pretty apparent that if we had a federal government that was actually focused on regulating this technology then the states would not feel the need to step in and create state specific legislation,” she said.

More on AI

The State Department has reversed a Biden-era font change that aimed to make its paperwork more accessible to readers with disabilities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed diplomats around the world to switch from Calibri to Times New Roman 14-point font in all official documents, starting on Wednesday, the State Department said in a statement to NPR. The difference between the two fonts comes down to a few finishing strokes.

"Whether for internal memoranda, papers prepared for principals, or documents shared externally, consistent formatting strengthens credibility and supports a unified Department identity," the statement said.

Times New Roman had been the State Department's official font for nearly two decades, from 2004 until 2023.

According to the Associated Press, Rubio said in a cable sent to U.S. embassies and consulates that the 2023 change, implemented by then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was part of misguided diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Calibri is a sans serif font, meaning it doesn't have the decorative tops and tails at the ends of letters that serif fonts like Times New Roman do.

Times New Roman is a serif font, with decorative flourishes, while the sans-serif Calibri can be easier to read.

(

NPR

)

Those little flourishes can make the lettering harder to read, says Kristen Shinohara, who leads the Center for Accessibility and Inclusion Research at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

"This impact can be more severe for people with learning or reading disabilities like dyslexia or for people with low vision," she told NPR's Morning Edition.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires sans-serif fonts on physical signage and display screens because of their relative legibility. At the same time, serif fonts like Times New Roman remain the norm in print newspapers, books, legal documents and more.

"Times New Roman specifically, and serif fonts generally, are more formal and professional," the State Department statement said. It did not respond to NPR's questions about reduced accessibility.

Times New Roman was designed specifically for the British newspaper The Times in the 1920s and quickly became the favored typeface for many other publications. It was also the default font of Microsoft programs like Word beginning in the 1990s until it was replaced by Calibri — which was designed with screens in mind — in 2007.

Microsoft replaced Calibri with a sans-serif font called Aptos in 2023. The company wrote in a blog post at the time that Aptos' designer, Steve Matteson, wanted the font to have "the universal appeal of the late NPR newscaster Carl Kasell and the astute tone of The Late Show host Stephen Colbert."

Small lettering, bigger patterns

Rubio's memo describes the 2023 change to Calibri as "another wasteful DEIA program" and says it did not lead to a meaningful reduction in the department's accessibility-based document remediation cases, according to copies obtained by Reuters and The Associated Press.

The Trump administration has made no secret of its disdain for its predecessor's focus on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Trump has issued numerous executive orders dismantling DEI initiatives in federal agencies, the foreign service, federal contracts and more. His administration put pressure on universities and public schools, threatening to withhold federal funding from those that have DEI programs, though a judge struck down some of those efforts in August. And growing anti-DEI backlash has also resulted in scores of private companies scaling back their own such initiatives.

During his tenure at the State Department, Rubio has already abolished offices and initiatives meant to foster inclusion and diversity, both in D.C. and abroad.

The State Department statement says the return to Times New Roman better aligns with Trump's "One Voice for America's Foreign Relations" directive from February, by underscoring its "responsibility to present a unified, professional voice in all communications."

It also fits into the Trump administration's broader fixation on aesthetics, from his gilded Oval Office redesign to his proposal of a classically-styled D.C. arch to mark the nation's 250th birthday to his August executive order mandating that new federal buildings prioritize classical and traditional architectural styles.

And well before the Trump administration started specifying federal agencies' fonts, it was restricting the words they could use.

The Health and Human Services Department removed entire webpages devoted to topics like LGBTQ health and HIV, while the Department of Energy instructed employees to avoid using terms including "climate change" and "sustainable." Just this week, court filings emerged showing the administration's six-page list of words the federal Head Start programs cannot use, including "disability," "race" and "women."
Copyright 2025 NPR