The Brief

A 39-year-old former DACA recipient died in ICE custody this week. Ismael Ayala-Uribe had been detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center near Victorville since August, when he was arrested by immigration agents.

Ayala-Uribe is the 14th person to die in immigration custody in the U.S. this year. ICE said in a statement that an investigation into the cause of death is underway, and community groups are demanding an independent report on what happened.

The death comes as Adelanto has seen a surge of hundreds more detainees since immigration agents ramped up enforcement in Southern California this summer. The privately run detention center has faced accusations of medical abuse and neglect, and some lawmakers recently were turned away when they tried to enter the facility.

But experts told LAist that they doubted much would come from ICE's investigation into the death. Sergio Perez, the executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said government oversight of deaths in its detention centers is limited and flawed.

" Accountability and transparency in this space following a death in custody has always been severely lacking. It's even more lacking now," Perez said.

What happened?

Ayala-Uribe died in the early hours of Monday morning, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The agency said he was evaluated by a medical provider at Adelanto on Sept. 18, given medication and returned to his dorm. Three days later, on Sunday, he was sent to a nearby hospital, where he was evaluated for an "abscess on his buttock" and scheduled for surgery.

The next day, he was dead.

The center has been under scrutiny for its treatment of people detained there for years and has been in the spotlight again in recent months as it received a surge of people detained in this summer's immigration sweeps.

The advocacy group Disability Rights California visited the facility in June and interviewed 18 people detained there. It then issued a report claiming that detainees faced "inadequate access to medical treatment, such as life-saving medication and wound care, and exposure to widespread respiratory illnesses."

"Due to the surging numbers of people at Adelanto, conditions appear to have quickly deteriorated,” that report reads.

What is ICE required to do after a death in custody?

When a person dies in immigration detention, ICE is required to post the news within two business days. The agency is then legally required to publish all its reports on the death within 90 days. Those reports are posted online.

According to ICE's policy posted online, the agency "conducts medical reviews, as well as oversight and compliance investigations," and its Office of Professional Responsibility examines the circumstances of the death. ICE's review is then given to Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Critics have questioned the accuracy of ICE investigations into in-custody deaths for years. In 2024, the ACLU issued a report looking at the deaths of 52 people in ICE custody between 2017 and 2021.

"ICE’s investigations, formal and informal reports and recommendations in response to deaths in custody are structured to avoid fault and disclaim agency accountability for the death of detained immigrants," that report reads, in part.

Two immigration experts told LAist that the offices at the Department of Homeland Security responsible for investigating deaths like Ayala-Uribe's have been eroded under the second Donald Trump administration.

Heidi Altman with the National Immigration Law Center cited recent job cuts in DHS offices such as the offices for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Immigration Detention Ombudsman.

Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote in a statement to LAist that those offices obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining DHS' mission.

"Rather than supporting law enforcement efforts, they often function as internal adversaries that slow down operations," according to McLaughlin.

The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman conducts oversight and will "independently examine immigration detention to promote safe, humane conditions," according to its government website.

" You start seeing things like the dismantling of the oversight bodies that provided the very, very little accountability that was there for abuses and medical negligence and custody," Altman said. "And you just know that these detention centers are becoming increasingly dangerous places for people to be."

McLaughlin wrote that all legally required functions continue to be performed and that DHS remains committed to civil rights.

What about lawmakers?

There are other paths for oversight of conditions at detention centers. Lawmakers can launch their own investigations. In July, Sen. Jon Ossoff issued a report on the experiences of pregnant women and children in immigration detention, including inadequate medical care. That investigation is ongoing.

"Obstruction of Congressional oversight by the Department of Homeland Security has been an impediment to site visits and interviews with detainees," that report claims.

In a statement provided to LAist, Rep. Raul Ruiz called for a full investigation into Ayala-Uribe's death.

"Congress has a duty to provide strong oversight to ensure that all individuals in custody are treated with dignity and receive timely, appropriate care," Ruiz said.

His district includes Eastern Coachella Valley, and parts of Imperial and San Bernardino counties.

What’s another path forward?

Perez, with the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said these limitations on government oversight meant a private lawsuit might be the most effective route for families, such as Ayala-Uribe’s, to take. But he noted that lawsuits are costly and shifts the burden to individuals rather than the state.

"Lawsuits are slow. Lawsuits are expensive. Lawsuits are emotionally trying," Perez said, adding that it means those who have lost loved ones are "continuously traumatized" and must be the ones to labor in getting justice.

LAist reached out to the lawyer for Ayala-Uribe's family but didn't receive a response before publishing.

In 2024, Kaiser Permanente announced the rollout of Abridge. Described in a press release as “ambient listening technology,” the AI-powered scribe is designed to help clinicians including mental health providers securely capture clinical notes during patient visits.

But what the description fails to indicate is that the tool records entire medical appointments, including deeply personal mental health sessions.

During these sessions, mental health professionals are required to obtain patients’ consent before using the tool. However, as shared by multiple providers, that consent process does not include explanations about how the information is handled. Nor does it say how long and where recordings are stored, or who has access to the data.

This happens in part because that information has not been shared with providers, despite their attempts to obtain it.

‘Empty assurances’

Ilana Marcucci-Morris chose not to use the platform with her patients. She is a licensed clinical social worker with Kaiser psychiatry in Oakland. She is also a member of a bargaining committee. In that role, she regularly meets with various Kaiser representatives, including Northern California’s director of mental health.

Marcucci-Morris describes how, during those meetings, she and other committee members have asked questions about patient privacy protections, HIPAA compliance, and the safeguards in place for the use of these technologies.

According to her, the response from leadership has often been empty assurances: “We are compliant. That’s it. That’s all you need to know. We vet the technology, therapist. Don’t worry. That’s not your job. We have tech experts. That’s their job,” Marcucci-Morris said in an interview with American Community Media.

“They won’t show us, right? And my feeling is, if you have nothing to hide and you’re doing it totally […] ethically, then you would show us, prove it. They can’t, and they won’t, and they declined to when we ask.”

Ligia Pacheco is a psychiatric social worker who provides remote therapy services for Kaiser patients in Southern California. She said Kaiser also refused her requests to provide further explanations.

In an interview with American Community Media, Pacheco recalled how a coworker once raised concerns to a supervisor. The response: that “it’s unprofessional for you to provide your personal beliefs on AI in our work setting.”

For Pacheco, “that leads to just low morale, no space to advocate for patients. We’re supposed to be the voice of patients who are coming in their most vulnerable state. And we can’t even be that voice for them, so we feel discouraged.”

'Patient after patient after patient'

Providers have been required to see more patients in recent years. That creates intense pressure to keep up with documentation and workloads, Marcucci-Morris highlighted.

“You’re just like seeing patient after patient after patient after patient with barely enough time to go to the bathroom, eat a snack […] get some fresh air,” she said.

According to Marcucci-Morris, refusing to manage the increased patient volume can be treated as a failure to meet job expectations. It may also lead to disciplinary action.

As a union steward, she said she often represents colleagues during workplace investigations related to delayed documentation or difficulties managing heavy caseloads. In those situations, she said management frequently recommends the use of Abridge to save time and avoid further discipline.

In her view, the providers she knows who use the technology are not doing so because they support or trust it. Rather, it is because they feel pressured to protect their jobs and comply with workplace demands.

“I consider that to be coercive because you’re putting someone in a position to either lose their job or use the software. That’s another choice that’s under duress,” she explained.

Provider, patient concerns

Brian Hoberman is chief information officer for The Permanente Medical Group. In a Kaiser press release, he said, “Abridge’s advanced technology supports our doctors’ well-being by reducing the documentation burden.”

He added, “We implemented this new technology after careful review and diligent testing and found it to be well received by patients and doctors…”

For at least one patient interviewed for this story such assurances fall short.

“I fear that this kind of information that’s being recorded now can get into the wrong hands,” said the patient, who asked not to be identified for privacy reasons. “I may not want my employers, I may not want my family members, I might not want people to know some of these very kind of intimate conversations and deep conversations I have with my doctors [and] with my mental health provider.”

Adriana Webb is a social worker at Kaiser Panorama City in Los Angeles. “I work with patients who have sensitive medical diagnoses, like […] HIV and AIDS, and a lot of times my patients don’t even want that in their chart.”

A spokesperson for Kaiser Permanente insisted in an emailed response to American Community Media that clinicians are required to gain patient consent prior to using Abridge. “No one is recorded without their knowledge and consent,” the statement read.

It added that recordings are stored for no longer than 14 days, and that data processing meets all HIPAA requirements as well as Kaiser Permanente’s own privacy and security standards.

“Abridge helps clinicians spend more time focused on patients and less time on administrative tasks,” it said.

Weaponizing mental health data

According to Nicole Alvarez, senior analyst for technology policy at the Center for American Progress, “a record of someone’s lowest moments can be used against them in ways that, you know, […] a high blood pressure reading cannot.”

She said mental health data can be especially sensitive because of the stigma surrounding mental health conditions. For patients, that stigma carries real-world consequences in areas such as employment, child custody cases, immigration matters, and security clearances. She emphasized that, like other forms of personal data, mental health information can be weaponized against individuals.

Agreements between health systems and AI vendors can vary widely, she said. This includes terms related to whether audio recordings or transcripts can be used to train AI models, whether patient data is de-identified, how long the data is retained, whether it can be shared with other clients, and what happens to the information once a contract ends.

Kaiser insists any data it collects is not used to train AI models.

Still, in Alvarez’ experience, patients often have little visibility into these arrangements. She argued that health systems have a responsibility to clearly disclose how patient information is being handled and used.

Alvarez also emphasized that, in most cases, patients have the right to refuse recordings. But, she said, the opt-out process is not always clearly presented. According to her, consent options may range from direct questions at check-in to language buried in intake paperwork, making it important for patients to carefully review forms and disclosures.

She said meaningful consent requires patients not only to know they are being recorded and that they can decline, but also to understand how their information may be stored, shared, or used afterward.

Coercive consent

Pacheco experienced this during a personal appointment at Kaiser. Her doctor did not ask for permission to use the app and instead informed her that it would be used. After a moment, she decided to refuse the platform’s use. Although the doctor stopped the recording, she felt a noticeable discomfort in the doctor’s demeanor afterward.

She later decided to change doctors.

Situations like this are a concern for Marcucci-Morris, who said the company’s approach to obtaining consent for the use of Abridge during appointments can feel manipulative and coercive. In her view, providers are trained to present the tool in a way that places the needs of patients and doctors in opposition to one another.

She explained that patients are often told the system will help doctors with documentation, reduce burnout, and allow them to spend more time with their families. As a result, patients may feel guilty declining the use of the tool because they do not want to make their provider’s job harder.

She believes this framing pressures patients into agreeing rather than allowing them to make a fully comfortable and independent decision.

According to Kaiser, Abridge is available in “40 hospitals and more than 600 medical offices in eight states and the District of Columbia,” part of a larger embrace of AI technology by the health care industry. Abridge operates in more than 14 languages.

American Community Media reached out multiple times to Abridge AI Inc. for comment but received no response. According to the company’s website, Abridge describes itself as a “Business Associate” to providers. Patients are advised to consult providers’ privacy policies for information on how their data is protected.

“Therapy is most effective in privacy and when trust is achieved through two human beings,” said Marcucci-Morris. For her, “healing occurs when human empathy is offered sincerely as part of any sort of mental health treatment relationship.”

She added, “I believe recording a therapy session changes human behavior. It changes the patient’s demeanor.”

Roxsy Lin is a California Local News Fellow with the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

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

Gary Berntsen is convinced Venezuela stole the 2020 U.S. election.

That myth has been debunked numerous times, including as part of Fox News' 2023 $787 million settlement with voting machine company Dominion, but Berntsen, a former CIA operative, has been pushing it for years.

"One of the things that we learned is there's 14 different technical ways that you can steal an election," Berntsen explained in an interview in the fall with conservative podcaster Lara Logan.

But ahead of the 2024 election, Berntsen says he couldn't get anyone to listen to him. Not the FBI. Not the media.

Finally, he went to Congress, where he says he was similarly rebuffed by almost everyone, including Republicans. Except one.

"One politician in America was not afraid," Berntsen told Logan. "It was Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma."

Allies of Berntsen say Mullin — then a U.S. senator, now the head of the Department of Homeland Security — brokered a meeting at Mar-a-Lago so Berntsen could brief President Donald Trump's team on conspiracy theories about Venezuelan interference in elections.

That is just one time of many that Mullin has gone to bat for election denial.

"[D]ue to all of the fraud and uncertainty surrounding the 2020 election there is no way I can vote to certify the Electoral College," Mullin wrote online on Jan. 2, 2021. Four days later, after a mob overran the U.S. Capitol during the certification, Mullin was one of 147 congressional Republicans who still voted not to certify the results.

Mullin's history of false election fraud claims has heightened concerns that voting officials have had for more than a year: that DHS will not be a partner helping to secure elections, but rather a threat seeking to undermine results that Trump dislikes.

Numerous local election officials, across the political spectrum, have told NPR they are avoiding sharing voter data or other security information with the federal government for fear that information could be used against them in some way.

"I'm actively discouraging it," said Matt Crane, a former Republican county clerk who now runs the professional organization for local election officials in Colorado. "I don't trust how the administration is using that data. I don't trust that they're going to keep it confidential. And so I can't in good conscience advocate that any of my counties do any work with them right now."

Trump has spoken about wanting to "take over" elections in America. And Crane noted that the current DHS point person for elections, Heather Honey, also has a long history of spreading election misinformation.

"All of this points to the fact that these are not trusted partners anymore," Crane said. "They've brought the fox into the henhouse."

From allies to adversaries

It's hard to overstate how different the federal election security landscape looks heading into this year's midterms, compared with two years ago prior to the last federal campaign.

The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to investigate local election administration, including taking states to court in an effort to get their private voter registration data and attempting (and in some cases succeeding) to access voting machines and ballots.

Administration officials, like White House border czar Tom Homan, and other Trump allies have seemed open to deploying immigration enforcement to voting locations this fall. That would be against federal law.

"They say illegal aliens don't vote. But … part of DHS' job is [to] secure elections, and I'm not going to say, you know, what our plan is going forward," Homan said on The Charlie Kirk Show this spring. "But if only U.S. citizens can vote, I don't see the issue."

At his confirmation hearing in March, Mullin said DHS agents would only be present at polling places if there was a specific threat at those locations.

And in a statement to NPR about this story, DHS said Secretary Mullin is "committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that American citizens, and only American citizens, are electing American leaders."

But he now helms a department where most people working on election security issues, at least within its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), were pushed out or resigned last year. That agency — which Trump created in his first term — has also been without a Senate-confirmed leader for the entirety of Trump's second term.

Paul Lux, a Republican election supervisor in Okaloosa County, Fla., says the federal government has told local officials it is still providing the same cybersecurity services as were offered under the Biden administration and during Trump's first term, but he has not heard of any counties in Florida that have actually received services from the agency recently.

"You know, try calling somebody at CISA and see who answers the phone," Lux said in an interview earlier this year. "Because at the end of the day, it's been radio silence from CISA when we reach out about just about anything."

In response to a request for comment from NPR, a CISA spokesperson said the agency provides "state and local election officials, upon request, no-cost voluntary services such as the sharing of threat information, technical expertise, vulnerability scanning, and resilience-building support."

But the spokesperson did not detail how many election jurisdictions it has provided services for during Trump's second term.

Until recently, Lux chaired a national cybersecurity partnership for local and state election officials called the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC). The organization spawned after Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election exposed how little threat information was being communicated across the nation's thousands of election jurisdictions.

For its first seven years, the EI-ISAC — which provides numerous cybersecurity tools like endpoint protection and malicious domain blocking, in addition to issuing best practices to its members — was funded by the federal government. But in 2025, the Trump administration zeroed out the funding as part of its DOGE cuts.

Election officials are still baffled by how that move and other cuts at DHS square with Trump's language on wanting to secure U.S. elections.

"The actions of defunding and dismantling those protections speak for themselves," said Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's Democratic secretary of state and a candidate for governor. "And it's meant that we as states have had to rebuild networks to protect our respective states from foreign interference. That's not easy. And we can never replicate what the federal government has built and had done."

A fractured landscape

The EI-ISAC scrambled last year to create a membership model funded by its county and state members, but the organization told NPR that membership is less than 20% of what it was before the federal funding cut.

"So that collective collaboration is unfortunately becoming more fractured," Lux said.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., introduced legislation this month that would restore funding for a broader threat-sharing service that covers all local governments. But there's no indication the bill will gain traction.

Marci Andino, a former South Carolina election official who now runs the EI-ISAC as executive director, said without federal backing, a big challenge is just communicating with the thousands of election jurisdictions. Some are eligible to join the group for free because their state pays for a membership plan, but it's a struggle to reach all of them to let them know that.

"We're continuing to get the message out that the EI-ISAC still exists," Andino said. "We're having to say, 'Hey, we're still here.'"

In addition to the cybersecurity services the organization provides, the EI-ISAC also plans to stand up a virtual situation room for elections, similar to one that was previously provided by the federal government through CISA.

On Election Day, election officials can log on to share physical or cyber threats they're encountering in real time and see whether other local governments are seeing the same thing.

There was no such space during the off-year elections last year, but the EI-ISAC plans to offer one this year. All members will be invited, but no one from DHS will be there.

If the federal government wants a role in election security again at some point, said Lux, the Florida voting official, they'll be invited back — skeptically.

"[They'll] probably be that uncle that we keep at arm's length at Thanksgiving rather than giving him a big bear hug," Lux said. "But, you know, we'll have to see. Certainly, the relationship has been damaged. And how long it takes to rebuild that trust will depend on how dedicated they are to trying to rebuild that trust."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Despite an expected ban on Iran’s pre-revolutionary flag at the World Cup, many fans waved and displayed it at SoFi Stadium for Iran's first match against New Zealand on Monday, which ended in a 2-2 draw.

Just a day after the U.S. and Iran announced they had come to an agreement to end a months-long war, the crowd inside the stadium was largely pulling for Iran. Fans erupted in cheers when Iranian players had the ball, and exploded when the team scored.

A person carries a pre-revolutionary Iranian flag before the World Cup group stage match between Iran and New Zealand at SoFi Stadium.

(

Allen J. Schaben

/

Getty Images

)

Still, the stands were dotted with people holding a flag similar to Iran's national flag, but bearing a lion and a sun. That flag is associated with the monarchy that ruled Iran before the 1979 revolution, and is a common sight at protests against the Iranian government. Others wore the symbol on their t-shirts and clothes.

FIFA had previously indicated that that flag would be banned in its stadiums, as part of its policy prohibiting political messages. As late as Monday morning, a judge ruled in favor of FIFA in a lawsuit filed in L.A. Superior Court over its flag policy, according to the Athletic.

But on Monday afternoon, some fans entering the stadium were getting in with their flags. The flag was so present inside and around SoFi Stadium that one merchandise seller Raul Gomez said he had put away the official Iranian flag and was advertising the lion and sun flag instead.

"They don't want the Iran flag," he said, gesturing at the national flag, which displays the emblem of the Islamic Republic of Iran. "That's why I put these away."

One security guard who said he wasn't authorized to speak to the media told LAist that security staff had been letting people in with the pre-revolutionary flag. The guard said that staff did confiscate materials with more overtly political or inflammatory messages.

An official talks with people with pre-revolutionary Iranian flag before the World Cup group stage match between Iran and New Zealand at the SoFi Stadium.

(

Robert Gauthier

/

Getty Images

)

Other publications including Yahoo News reported that some fans were turned away at the gates for carrying the flag.

LAist has reached out to FIFA for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Some showed up at the stadium to protest the flag ban. Parisa Heravi, an Iranian who lives in Los Angeles, didn't have a ticket to the match but stood outside near the line to get in, holding a large lion and sun flag and sporting a "Make Iran Great Again" red hat.

Heravi said she was there in part because of concern that the pre-revolutionary flag wouldn't be allowed inside. She said she also came to oppose the Iranian team.

" The players are all part of the government," she said. "They're all the same people, so we don't support them."

Others arrived excited to cheer on Iran's national team, including L.A. resident Art Eftekhari, who runs a YouTube Channel where he follows Iranian soccer. He's such a fan of the national team that he traveled to Tijuana to stay in the same hotel as the players ahead of the World Cup. The team's training camp was moved from Arizona to Tijuana due to the U.S. war on Iran.

" I'm a huge supporter of the national team of Iran, and it's so awesome to be able to go to a game just a short drive from home," Eftekhari said. "It's the World Cup, so it couldn't be any better."

Many fans were seen entering the stadium were getting in with their flags.

(

Libby Rainey

/

LAist

)

Despite an expected ban on Iran’s pre-revolutionary flag at the World Cup, many fans waved and displayed it at SoFi Stadium.

(

Libby Rainey

/

LAist

)

Iranians traveled from across the country for the match, too. Amir Navabi came from Georgia. He brought both flags to make sure he could get in no matter what.

"I am a fan.  I have the one with the sun, and I have the one with the government logo," Navabi said, gesturing to his gear. "I just want to go and watch the soccer."

Iran’s next match at SoFi Stadium is June 21 against Belgium.

Matt Ballinger contributed to this report.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The Trump administration’s decision to restrict a vital loan program for small businesses to U.S. citizens has left some immigrant business owners searching for alternatives. 

The Korean American Federation of Los Angeles, KAFLA, recently partnered with the Jewish Free Loan Association to connect small business owners with interest-free loans of up to $50,000 that can be used for startup costs, rent, payroll, inventory, equipment and other business expenses.

In March, the U.S. Small Business Association changed its eligibility rules, excluding lawful permanent residents and requiring businesses seeking SBA-backed loans to be fully owned by U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are more likely than native-born Americans to start a business, according to research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nearly 40% of California’s small businesses are owned by immigrants, including 11% owned by undocumented entrepreneurs, according to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Nearly 60% of California’s 4.3 million small businesses, 60% are owned by entrepreneurs who are Hispanic, Black, Asian American, Pacific Islander or Native American. 

“When times get tough, it’s resources like this that currently aren’t available to our committee that are much needed,” KAFLA president Robert Ahn said during an informational session last week. 

Applicants must have steady income and meet certain credit requirements. Those seeking more than $10,000 generally need a credit score of at least 680. The program also requires one to three guarantors, depending on the loan amount.

Business owners can borrow up to $7,500 with one guarantor, up to $36,000 with two guarantors and as much as $50,000 with three guarantors.

Applicants must provide documentation including a recent tax return and proof of business licensing. The program accepts applicants with either a social security number or an individual taxpayer identification number, or ITIN.

Rachel Grose, JFLA’s executive director, said the online application takes about 10 minutes to complete. After the initial application is submitted, applicants are scheduled for a Zoom interview with JFLA staff.

Some business owners say the program could help fill a gap in access to capital.

Yong-ho Kim, president of the Korean American Food Industry Association and owner of the Japanese restaurant Arado, said many immigrant entrepreneurs have traditionally relied on bank financing to cover expenses and invest in their businesses.

“But the rules suddenly changed so that SBA loans are only available to citizens. There are many permanent residents, too,” Kim said. “Where are they supposed to borrow money to make up for the gaps?”

Kim acknowledged that the JFLA application process is more demanding than a traditional bank loan because of its guarantor requirements. Still, he says the absence of interest and fees makes it attractive.

Many businesses in the neighborhood, and across the city, are struggling with inflation and higher operating costs, he added. 

“It’s very difficult right now,” he said. “Prices keep going up, and I’m constantly thinking about what I need to cut.”

Kim said he personally applied for the program’s maximum $50,000 loan, partly because he needs additional capital and partly because he wanted to experience the process himself before recommending it to others.

Ahn said the partnership grew out of conversations he had with David Horvitz, vice president of JFLA’s board of directors, during a trip to Israel earlier this year.

“We spent a lot of time together in Israel discussing economic issues, particularly the struggles many businesses in Koreatown are facing,” he said.

Founded in 1904, JFLA provides interest-free loans to residents of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

More information about the program and application requirements is available at jfla.org.