The Brief

Hours after California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against the Trump administration Sunday seeking to prevent the president from sending 300 California National guard troops to Portland, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking federalized deployment from any state to Oregon.

The order came during an extraordinary Sunday night hearing after Oregon and California attorneys revealed that in addition to trying to send California troops to Oregon, President Donald Trump’s War Secretary, Pete Hegseth, had ordered Texas National Guard members to deploy as well.

Oregon District Court Judge Karin Immergut interrupted Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton repeatedly during the hearing, saying the administration was trying to circumvent an order she issued Saturday temporarily halting the use of Oregon Guard troops in Portland.

She said that she sees the conduct of the Trump administration, and its federalization of 400 Texas National Guard troops, as a “direct contravention of the order that this court issued yesterday.” The Texas National Guard was also slated for Chicago and other locations, a legal document said.

At another point in the hearing she asked, “aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland, and nothing has changed? Another point in the hearing. “So why is this appropriate?”

Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general, argued that the White House was authorized to send in the California National Guard, despite Immergut’s Saturday order, because the California troops were called up under a different Trump memo in June. Immergut dismissed that line of reasoning. “Mr. Hamilton, you are missing the point, because here it’s the conditions on the ground in Oregon that was a basis for my finding” yesterday. And those conditions haven’t changed.

After the 30-minute hearing, which was delayed nearly an hour for technical reasons, Bonta issued a statement applauding Immergut’s ruling.

“The President’s move to deploy the National Guard of one state over the objections of a Governor to another state over the objections of a second is well outside of the norms or practices of any President in recent history.” Bonta wrote. “This fight isn’t over, but today’s rebuke of the President’s illegal actions is a step in the right direction.” This was California 42nd suit against Trump in 36 weeks.

Stephen Miller, a senior White House advisor, condemned the judge’s decision Sunday in a social media post. “A district court judge has no conceivable authority, whatsoever, to restrict the President and Commander-in-Chief from dispatching members of the US military to defend federal lives and property.” Federal appeals court judges, including those appointed by Trump, disagree and have ruled that they can review a president’s decisions, but with deference.

He also called the ruling “one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen — and is yet the latest example of unceasing efforts to nullify the 2024 election by fiat.”

Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and police, attempt to keep protesters back outside a downtown U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility Saturday in Portland, Oregon.

(

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

On Saturday, Immergut temporarily blocked the administration from activating a contingent of the Oregon National Guard to combat what President Donald Trump calls lawless behavior emanating from immigration protests in Portland.

Hegseth responded by calling in California troops. As of Sunday evening, 100 California Guard members had already arrived in Portland.

“The stakes could not be higher,” Bonta said before Sunday’s hearing. “People should understand clearly what is happening here: The president is seeking to deploy the California National Guard as federal military police indefinitely anywhere in the country. He’s not even hiding the ball.”
He and legal representatives for Portland and Oregon sought a temporary halt to the deployment of California troops.

Bonta’s messaging echoes Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said in a statement Sunday morning that: “we will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.”

By Sunday morning 100 California National Guard troops arrived in Portland by plane from Los Angeles, the amended suit says. Hegseth intends to send another 200 California National Guard troops soon, Bonta added.

Trump has characterized Portland and other Democratic-run cities as dangerous, high-crime zones and last week told a gathering of U.S. generals that the military should “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

Trump’s moves are ‘unique’

In the suit filed Sunday evening, lawyers for California and Oregon argue that the White House is again failing to meet the standards of the federal law that would permit Hegseth to federalize any National Guard troops — Title 10, Section 12406.

It also says that the initial reason for federalizing the California National Guard to Los Angeles is “wholly unrelated” to the Trump administration’s goals in Portland.
Bonta expressed dismay over the shifting reasons to deploy California’s troops. The White House does “not have the carte blanche … to deploy whatever military they want, whenever they want,” he said at the press conference.

The suit also argues that the Trump White House is violating a 19th century federal law prohibiting federal troops from acting as law enforcement.

The dynamic is highly unusual, in no small part because Trump is essentially pulling troops from one state that has opposed his use of the National Guard to another state where political leaders also reject Trump’s moves.

“I don’t think we’ve seen this scenario before, I think it is unique,” Bonta said.

Trump claims he must deploy federalized troops because Portland is under siege by protesters opposing the administration’s immigration enforcement actions.

But Immergut, the Oregon judge, ruled Saturday that the protests there are “not significantly violent or disruptive” enough to justify Trump’s use of Oregon’s National Guard. Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued her decision as part of a temporary restraining order against the federal government after Oregon and city of Portland sued the administration last week.

Protesters there set up “a makeshift guillotine to intimidate federal officials” while others flashed bright lights into the eyes of federal officials driving, Immergut summarized. “These incidents are inexcusable, but they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces,” Immergut wrote.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.”

The Trump administration on Saturday appealed that decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

What’s likely new

Immergut’s order over the weekend was narrow, said Loren Voss, a fellow at the legal affairs publication Lawfare who’s taught classes on domestic deployment of the military. In an interview with CalMatters, Voss said the order specifically blocked Hegseth’s federalization of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard — it wasn’t a restraining order on all National Guard deployments.

“But one of their (Oregon’s) big arguments, and one that judge Immergut found persuasive, was a diversion of their National Guard members from state responsibilities, right, which would not apply here,” Voss said.

She expects several overlapping legal proceedings to unfold. In addition to Newsom’s vow to sue, the Ninth Circuit may weigh in shortly on Immergut’s Saturday decision in response to the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, which could shape how future legal challenges unfold.

Voss noted that Trump federalized the California National Guard because of protests in Los Angeles, but now they’re being assigned to duties in Portland for a different purpose. “This is an interesting legal question,” she said. “I think there is a good challenge that can be made there.”

Trump sent thousands of troops into L.A.

California sued Trump in June after the president federalized 4,000 of the state’s National Guard troops and 700 Marines to protect federal property and provide support for federal immigration law enforcement officers after protests across Los Angeles County erupted over immigration sweeps.

A district judge, appointed by President Bill Clinton, sided with Newsom by issuing a temporary restraining order against Trump’s use of the National Guard in June. But a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit blocked that decision, giving Trump control of the federal troops again.

The 300 California National Guard troops Trump is deploying to Oregon are a holdover from his June activation. After most of the 4,700 troops left Los Angeles, Trump in August ordered 300 California National Guard troops to remain deployed in Southern California. Those are the troops Hegseth is sending to Oregon. Bonta had already sued to stop that extended deployment before Sunday’s suit.

The Oregon judge’s decision doesn’t conflict with the higher court’s reasons for returning the federal troops to Trump, said Kelly Simon, a legal director at the ACLU of Oregon, during a press conference.

The appeals court said judges can review such military decisions, rejecting an argument by Trump administration lawyers. And while the “courts have to give a substantial deference” to a president’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to a state against the wishes of a governor, the White House still has to make that “determination rooted in fact,” Simon said. “The president’s determination was untethered from the facts.”

The California federal lower court judge also ruled in September that federal troops were used for law enforcement purposes, a violation of a 19th-century law banning the military from such activity.

“There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence,” wrote Judge Charles Breyer. “Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”

He blocked the Trump administration from using the military to engage in “arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants, unless and until” the Trump administration presents valid constitutional or legal exceptions.

The Trump administration has also appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, putting Breyer’s September block on a temporary hold.

The immigration detention center closest to Los Angeles has placed dozens of people in solitary confinement each month since June, according to the most recent data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In May 2025, the Adelanto ICE Processing Center had 14 people in isolation. When the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort revved up in June 2025, the number of detainees in solitary confinement there more than tripled. By July, it was 73; by August, 105.

The most recent data available shows that number went down slightly in January, to 74 people.

Ranked by percentage of the detainee population in “segregation,” as it is called at immigrant detention centers, Adelanto is among the U.S.’s top 10 facilities as of January, according to an LAist analysis of the most recent ICE data.

The data shows that of 229 ICE facilities that reported holding people since October 2024, between 50 and 60 usually reported putting at least one person in segregation in a given month. Out of the facilities that did place people in solitary confinement, Adelanto tended to do so less often than others until June 2025. (The facility held just a few people from October 2024 into January 2025.) When ICE’s presence increased in L.A. in June, the number of people sent to isolation in the facility also shot up — three to five times as many people have been isolated in Adelanto compared to the average facility that used any solitary confinement.

Since June, only two facilities have sent people to solitary confinement more times than Adelanto: one southwest of San Antonio, the other in central Pennsylvania.

Both of those facilities held twice the number of detainees as Adelanto on average from October 2024 through September 2025; but the number of people held in Adelanto since then has tripled, growing larger than either of the other facilities to hold an average of 1,800 people a day since October.

More on solitary confinement  

According to ICE, detainees may be placed in segregation for “disciplinary reasons,” or because of:

• “Serious mental or medical illness.”
• Conducting a hunger strike.
• Suicide watch.

The agency also says it might place detainees “who may be susceptible to harm [if left among the] general population due in part to how others interpret or assume their sexual orientation, or sexual presentation or expression.”

Not only is ICE holding more people in solitary confinement, but the agency's data also shows that detainees across the country are being isolated for longer periods of time. Detainees ICE considers part of the "vulnerable & special population" spent an average of about two weeks in solitary confinement each time they were isolated in 2022, when ICE first made the data available. By the end of 2025, the average stay in isolation had risen to more than seven weeks straight.

The GEO Group Inc., a private company that operates the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, has not responded to requests for comment.

How isolation can affect immigrant detainees  

UN human rights experts consider solitary confinement placements that last 15 days or more to be torture, though the U.S. Supreme Court has held that isolation doesn’t violate the Constitution.

The UN also maintains that solitary confinement should be prohibited for people “with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.”

In January, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of current detainees, calling for conditions at Adelanto to be improved. In addition to an unsanitary environment and a lack of healthy food and clean drinking water, detainees say solitary confinement is frequently used to punish those who speak out about conditions at the facility.

People held in immigrant detention centers are technically in “civil detention,” meaning that they are being detained to ensure their presence at hearings and compliance with immigration orders — not to serve criminal sentences.

According to the immigrant rights groups’ complaint, one detainee was placed in solitary confinement after complaining about the showers being broken. Another detainee said that, after asking a guard to “use more respectful language toward him, he was ridiculed, written up and given the middle finger by a guard who shouted, ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’” Then, the detainee was placed in solitary confinement for 25 days.

Alvaro Huerta, the director of litigation and advocacy at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center who is representing detainees at Adelanto, told LAist that when people are placed in isolation at the facility, they’re typically in the same cell for 23 hours per day, unable to receive visits from their families.

For clients who are experiencing mental health challenges — especially those with suicidal thoughts — being placed in solitary confinement “can really exacerbate their condition,” he added.

In multiple statements to the media, ICE has said that the agency “is committed to ensuring that all those in custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments.” The agency has also said that detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” and that all detainees “receive medical, dental, and mental health intake screenings within 12 hours of arriving at each detention facility.”

Huerta called that “laughable.”

“We have countless examples of people who have said that this is not true, that they're not getting the medication that they're requesting, that they're not being seen for chronic conditions and emergency conditions,” he added. “And we know it's not true because 14 people have died in ICE custody this year alone.”

Lori Rovner of Manhattan Beach is a big sports fan, so there was no question that when tickets for the Olympic Games went on sale, she'd be signing up.

She scored a slot in the first ticket drop, which launched Thursday, and logged on right at 10 a.m., hoping to score tickets to the Opening Ceremonies and some finals too. After battling her computer to get through "access denied" screens and a lost shopping cart due to a 30-minute time limit, she bought 16 tickets.

It was only when she was about to purchase that she noticed the service fees, which were around 24% of each ticket. One $2,100 ticket had a $505 service fee, bringing the total cost to $2,604.63.

"It's insane," she said of the fee. "I don't understand what the service is."

As the locals-only sale kicks off and Southern Californians have their first chance to buy tickets to the Olympic Games, some fans are wide-eyed at the high fees on all tickets and the prices in general, which start at $28 but go up to more than $5,500 a pop. Opening Ceremony tickets start at $328.68

The service fees aren't a surprise add-on. The price fans see when browsing the site is the total cost, including the fee. Still, some who bought in the first phase of sales were surprised when they saw the fees add up.

One user on Reddit of shared their cart of 10 tickets, which added up to $11,264. That included $1,038 in fees alone. Commenters responded in shock and awe.

Service fees are standard in ticket sales, but the percentage they charge can vary widely. High fees have been a source of ire for music and sports fans for years. A 2018 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the average fees on a primary ticket market were 27%.

LA28 did not respond to LAist's requests for details on the service fee, like what it pays for or why it's a percentage rather than a flat rate.

Not everyone seemed bothered by the prices. Some people LAist spoke with opted for only $28 or similarly priced tickets, even if it meant missing some of the biggest Olympic events. One user on Reddit said they purchased 18 tickets for around $550.

"I went with all $28 tickets," they wrote in the online forum about the Olympics. "I got women’s soccer, gymnastics, beach and regular volleyball, track and field, baseball and a few others."

For some, the ticket process, the prices and the dense web of events to choose from made it too hard to pull the trigger.

Jeff Bartow of Sierra Madre made a spreadsheet with some competitions he was interested in seeing before he logged on to buy tickets Friday.

"So many times, so many schedules, so many events," Bartow said. "I think I initially thought I was going to go to a bunch, but thinking about how crazy it's going to be … I might be a little more limited."

This is just the first ticket drop. There will be more opportunities to buy tickets in the months to come — and on a resale market that launches in 2027.

Some ticket-buyers told LAist they already were contemplating which tickets they'd keep and which ones they'd re-sell, just minutes after buying them.

In the more than two months since the Department of Justice released its latest batch of files on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, prosecutors have not brought any new charges based on the documents, despite federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continuing to demand accountability.

The more than 3 million pages of documents include accusations by alleged victims of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse and thousands of emails and photos showing Epstein associated with prominent figures. The files indicate that many of these people maintained contact with the disgraced financier long after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to sex crimes that involved minors. Appearing in the files is not necessarily an indication of criminal wrongdoing.

The release of the Epstein files came after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Justice Department to make public all documents it held related to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison about a month after a 2019 arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Maxwell was convicted on sex-trafficking charges in 2021 and is serving a 20-year sentence. Since the release of the files in 2025 and 2026, there have been no related arrests in the U.S. However, the disclosures have led to some resignations and other reputational repercussions for some high-ranking Americans.

The lack of arrests in the U.S. contrasts to the fallout in the U.K., where investigators have pursued charges related to corruption, not sexual abuse, in their dealings with Epstein. Two former government officials — former Prince Andrew and ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson — were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as he is now known, has denied wrongdoing and has not been formally charged. Mandelson has also not been charged, and lawyers for Mandelson have said that the arrest was prompted by a "baseless suggestion."

In the U.S., top Justice Department officials have said that they found no evidence compelling enough to pursue further charges related to Epstein, and that the public can make their own assessments based on the disclosed documents.

In a statement to NPR, Justice Department spokesperson Katie Kenlein said that "there have not been additional prosecutions beyond Epstein and Maxwell because there has not been credible evidence that their activities extended to Epstein's network. However, if prosecutable evidence comes forward, the Department of Justice will of course act on it as we do every day in sexual trafficking and assault cases across the count[r]y."

On Thursday, President Trump announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out of the top job at the Justice Department, following bipartisan criticism over her handling of the Epstein files.

NPR asked four former prosecutors and one former law enforcement officer why there may not have been enough evidence to levy additional charges. Here's what they said.

Prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Prosecutors must prove to a jury that a person committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt," according to Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

"One of the biggest misconceptions people have is how difficult it is to charge and convict somebody for a criminal case," said McQuade, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

A prosecutor's ethical responsibility is to charge cases only if they believe there is enough evidence for a conviction, McQuade said. Documents, including emails, jokes, and even plane itineraries, can be a place to start, but, alone, they are not enough to prove guilt, McQuade said.

"What you would need [is] rock solid evidence," McQuade said. "You can't charge someone for a crime without sufficient evidence, and I have yet to see evidence of a crime involving an Epstein associate that has gone uncharged."

Based on his understanding of the case, Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law, said he agreed that prosecutors who investigated Epstein's alleged associates "may have believed that they couldn't persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." He said problems with witness credibility or certain forensic evidence can prevent a case from moving forward.

The U.K. cases are focused on corruption 

In the U.K., the two people arrested are being investigated on suspicion of "misconduct in public office." McQuade said the U.S. does not have a single equivalent federal law. Instead, the U.S. prosecutes public corruption through statutes that focus specifically on crimes such as bribery and extortion.

After the release of the latest files, British police began investigating Andrew's correspondence with Epstein when Andrew was a U.K. trade envoy. At that time, Andrew allegedly shared government itineraries, investment plans and notes from official foreign trips with Epstein. The information may have been covered by the United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act.

Similarly, Mandelson has been accused of passing confidential government information to the late sex offender when Mandelson was a U.K. Cabinet minister.

Meeting the burden of proof is especially challenging for sex crime cases

Victim statements are essential for establishing basic elements, such as the timeframe of events, required to build sexual assault cases, said Diane Goldstein, a retired police lieutenant from California and the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. But a victim may be reluctant to come forward because of a fear of retaliation, not believing the police can help, believing it is a personal matter, or not wanting to get the perpetrator in trouble.

McQuade noted that in some sex trafficking cases, especially those in which a perpetrator is in a position of power, victims may experience intimidation or threats that prevent them from speaking out.

Victims also may be hesitant to move forward with allegations because they fear having to testify at trials where defense attorneys may attempt to poke holes in their allegations, McQuade said.

Goldstein said that for sex crime cases to advance, investigators need to follow certain policies and procedures. "If you don't have a legitimate police investigation to start, you're not going to get any type of criminal filing," Goldstein said.

Other potential charges are also a difficult path

Prosecutors may have considered pursuing charges of criminal conspiracy related to sex trafficking against people associated with Epstein, said Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo School of Law. FBI documents in the files relating to its investigation into Epstein's crimes identify certain people as "co-conspirators."

But Ankush Khardori, a senior writer and columnist at Politico magazine who worked as a federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases, told NPR those identifiers are not "formal accusation[s]" and are simply part of "interim documents."

"The FBI does not determine who is a co-conspirator," Khardori said. "That is a legal judgment that prosecutors make."

But for those conspiracy cases, "criminal intent," in particular, is difficult to establish, said Roth, who worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York for seven years. Criminal conspiracy charges "would require knowledge and intent on the part of each individual who was charged," Roth said. If a person who communicated with Epstein had some suspicion that he was engaged in illegal activity, that alone would not be sufficient evidence to press charges, she said.

Investigators may have considered charges related to criminal tax violations, McQuade said. But the statute of limitations has likely ended on those cases, she said, meaning that prosecutors can no longer bring charges.

The current evidence lacks context

Legal experts say the haphazard way the documents were released and redacted makes it difficult for the public to understand why no additional charges have been filed.

Roth, the Cardozo law professor, said the information is in "isolation," without the appropriate context. "We'll see an individual photograph that looks perhaps incriminating. We'll see an email that looks incriminating, but we don't necessarily have everything that was said before and after that email and that exchange," Roth said.

One document that could explain why no charges were pursued, according to Butler, is a heavily redacted DOJ memo naming "potential co-conspirators" of Epstein. "The parts that should indicate why the department declined prosecution on any alleged co-conspirators other than Ghislaine Maxwell [are] redacted," said Butler, the Georgetown law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

Butler said those redactions are "unusual" because they do not appear to follow the permissible reasons for redactions in the Epstein documents. Those reasons include confidentiality for Epstein's alleged victims, or anything that would compromise an ongoing investigation, Butler said.

"When the Justice Department grudgingly releases information when pressed by politics or forced by Congress, it also creates the impression that they have something to hide," Butler said. "That there is some cover-up going on."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Nearly 30% more students in Los Angeles County experienced homelessness from 2022-23 to 2023-24, making it the county’s highest rate in the past five years and far outpacing the rate of homelessness across the state in the same timeframe, as the resources to identify and support this student population have decreased.

The UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools published two reports on Wednesday on the state of student homelessness in the county: “Rising Numbers, Fading Resources: Students Experiencing Homelessness in Los Angeles County” and “Hidden in Plain Sight: Fear, Underidentification, and Funding Gaps for Housing-Insecure Students in Los Angeles County.”

Researchers found that Norwalk-La Mirada Elementary Unified School District had the highest rate of student homelessness in the county — 1 in 3 students, meaning that over 4,700 students were identified as experiencing homelessness during the 2023-24 school year out of a total cumulative enrollment of about 15,600.

The city of Norwalk, where the district is located in the eastern region of the county, was sued by the state in 2024 for banning emergency shelters and other support services for people experiencing homelessness. Last year, the state reached a settlement with the city, which was forced to overturn the ban and put $250,000 toward building affordable housing.

Student homelessness is defined differently under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a federal law that requires every public school to count the number of students who are living on the street, in shelters, in motels, in cars, doubled up with other families, or moving between friends’ and relatives’ homes.

As a result of this expanded definition, McKinney-Vento includes doubled-up students in the count of homelessness. Doubled-up is a term used to describe children and youth ages 21 and under living in shared housing, such as with another family or friends, due to various crises.

There were a few other patterns seen in the L.A. County data analyzed by the UCLA researchers:

• Latino students were disproportionately more likely to experience homelessness: they represent 65% of the county’s student population, but 75.5% of student homelessness
• A third of homeless students were in high school
• Many districts with the highest rates of homelessness had higher school instability but lower dropout rates

While McKinney-Vento has an expanded definition that includes more types of homelessness than several other definitions, identifying students remains difficult.

The second report from the UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools focuses on the lack of dedicated funding for school staff to identify and support homeless students. Students and families facing homelessness do not always self-identify, whether due to fear, shame or being unaware that their housing situation is considered homelessness under McKinney-Vento.

“A lot of these young people are dealing with a lot of trauma, so they don’t want to be identified. They don’t want to be pointed out; sometimes it’s scary for them, because they think we’re going to report them to the Department of Children and Family Services,” said L.A. County Office of Education staff interviewed for this report.

School staff, known as homeless liaisons, who work with homeless students received a historic influx of federal funds during the Covid-19 pandemic — $98.76 million for California, out of $800 million nationwide, from the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth.

That funding has since ended, and there is no other dedicated, ongoing state funding set aside solely for the rising number of homeless students. This has led districts in California to “heavily depend on highly competitive and unstable federal streams,” the UCLA researchers wrote. Those federal streams have become increasingly precarious as the federal administration last year sought policy changes that would shift how they are structured.