The Brief

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger blasted President Trump's policies and invoked a civic call for Americans to push for better leadership, in a rebuttal to the State of the Union that offered a preview of how Democrats plan to message against the GOP in this year's midterm elections.

"In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does, he lied, he scapegoated and he distracted, and he offered no real solutions to our nation's pressing challenges, so many of which he is actively making worse," Spanberger said.

Speaking from Colonial Williamsburg as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, the recently sworn in governor structured her address around three questions: "Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe, both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?"

Spanberger, who previously served in Congress for six years, became the first woman elected governor of Virginia in November, flipping control of the office from Republican to Democrat. Prior to her career on Capitol Hill, she served in the CIA.

Her gubernatorial race was under the national spotlight as one of the first major indicators of voters' political leanings during the second Trump administration. Spanberger focused her campaign on affordability, a message Democrats continue to embrace ahead of the midterm elections and one that featured heavily in her roughly 13-minute speech.

"As I campaigned for governor last year, I traveled to every corner of Virginia and I heard the same pressing concern everywhere: costs are too high — in housing, health care, energy and child care," she said, underlining that Democrats "across the country are laser focused on affordability."

She slammed what she called Trump's "reckless trade policies."

"Americans are paying the price," she said, "and even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done."

She also spoke about the violence from federal immigration enforcement officers in American streets.

"Our broken immigration system is something to be fixed, not an excuse for unaccountable agents to terrorize our communities," she said.

She also centered a portion of her speech on the theme of corruption within the Trump administration — which she called "unprecedented."

"There's the coverup of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms, putting his name and face on buildings all over our nation's capital," she said. "This is not what our founders envisioned."

The rebuttal to a president's State of the Union is considered an honor, given the high-profile nature of the speech. The selection tends to reflect what party leaders see as top policy priorities and which rising star they regard as the best spokesperson to deliver that message to the public.

"National Democrats want people to think about folks like Abigail Spanberger as core to the Democratic message," said Joel Payne, a longtime Democratic strategist. "Spanberger was one of the big Democratic success stories of 2025. She comes from a state that represents lots of parts of the Democratic coalition, a state that's purple, that's relevant in national politics — and that had a big political moment in the last year when they responded to Trump's agenda around DOGE."

Democrats are eager to replicate Spanberger's political success during this election cycle. She was part of a blue wave of Democrats in 2018 who flipped control of the House. She's considered a more moderate voice within the party.

She's recently faced criticism from conservatives who allege she is veering left after leading a more centrist campaign.

A tough gig 

The job of delivering the official response to the State of the Union can be tough.

Take then-Sen. Marco Rubio (now secretary of state), who delivered a response in both English and Spanish in 2013. His speech is mainly remembered by a singular moment when he went off camera to get a water bottle.

More recently, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., was mocked for her speech's intense tone and the choice to deliver the response against the backdrop of her kitchen.

"It's very hard to match the pomp and circumstance and to match the bully pulpit of the president on a night where most of the country is paying attention to him," Payne said. "Spanberger acquitted herself very well, not only because of the content, which really spoke to the frustration of millions of Americans but in temperament, sounding like a grown up."

Payne said the simplicity of the message and the clarity of the delivery made for an effective speech.

"She talked about very crisp, easy to grasp themes," he said. "She offered very clear questions, clear points of contrast and offered specific examples of how Trump is falling short."

The Spanish language Democratic response

California Sen. Alex Padilla, a key figure in his party's fight against the administration's immigration policies, gave Democrats' Spanish language response to Trump's speech. Last summer, Padilla was thrust into the center of the debate over enforcement after he was forcibly removed from a DHS press conference while attempting to question Secretary Kristi Noem.

Padilla relived the moment in his speech.

"They may have knocked me down for a moment, but I got right back up," the California Democrat said in Spanish. "As our parents taught us, if you fall seven times, get up eight. I am still here. Standing. Still fighting. And I know you are still standing and still fighting too."

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., speaks during the ICE Out for Good protest at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office on Jan. 13 in Washington, D.C.

(

Jemal Countess

/

Getty Images for MoveOn Civic Action

)

The son of Mexican immigrants said the administration had weaponized federal immigration officers, forced the increase of grocery and housing prices and is threatening to interfere in the November midterm elections.

Padilla, the first Latino to represent California in the Senate, was appointed to the seat in 2021 after the seat was vacated by Kamala Harris. He won his first six-year term the following year.

Some Democrats were absent from the chamber 

As has been the case during previous Trump addresses to Congress, some Democrats chose to skip the speech entirely and engage in counter-programming.

Temperatures were below freezing on the National Mall, where a stage was set up with the illuminated U.S. Capitol dome as the backdrop. The "People's State of the Union," sponsored by the progressive advocacy groups MoveOn.org and Meidas Touch, featured upwards of 30 members of Congress who skipped Trump's speech.

Among the lawmakers who addressed the crowd was Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

"I am not at the State of the Union speech tonight, because Donald Trump is making a mockery of this great institution, and he doesn't deserve an audience," said Murphy. "These are not normal times, and Democrats have to stop behaving normally."

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., speaks during the "People's State of the Union" on the National Mall on Tuesday night.

(

Ken Cedeno

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The event not only featured remarks from lawmakers but from community leaders as well. Payne, who serves as chief communications officer for Move On, said the intention was to shine a spotlight on constituents.

"We wanted to make sure that those folks were the stars of tonight — whether it's people who've been impacted by DOGE cuts, people who've been impacted by the priorities that were laid out in Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' or people who've been impacted by this immigration regime," Payne said.

One such speaker was Dr. Jenna Norton, a whistleblower who was placed on administrative leave from the National Institutes of Health last fall after voicing alarm about funding and staffing cuts at the agency.

"The Trump administration put research participants and public health at risk when they abruptly terminated NIH studies," said Norton. "By halting these studies, they also wasted taxpayer resources. When you halt a $5 million study four years in, you don't save a million dollars, you waste $4 million."

Lawmakers reiterated calls for significant changes at the Department of Homeland Security, following the killing of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota by immigration agents last month. As Trump delivered his State of the Union address, DHS remains shut down.

NPR's Claudia Grisales and Don Gonyea contributed to this report. 

Read Spanberger's Democratic response to President Trump's State of the Union address

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER: Good evening. Good evening and welcome to Historic Williamsburg. We are gathered here in the chambers of the House of Burgesses. In 1705, the people of the Virginia Colony gathered here to take on the extraordinary task of governing themselves. Before there was a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution or a Bill of Rights, there were people in this room.

The people who served here ultimately dreamed of what a new nation unlike anything the world had ever seen could be. The United States was founded on the idea that ordinary people could reject the unacceptable excesses of poor leadership, band together to demand better of their government and create a nation that would be an example for the world.

[Applause] And this year, as we celebrate 250 years since America declared our independence from tyranny, I can think of no better place to speak to you as we reflect on the current state of our union. Tonight, as we watched our nation's lawmakers gather for a joint session of Congress, we did not hear the truth from our president.

So let's speak plainly and honestly and let me ask you, the American people watching at home, three questions. Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you? As I campaigned for governor last year, I traveled to every corner of Virginia and I heard the same pressing concern everywhere, costs are too high, in housing, health care, energy and child care.

And I know these same conversations are being had all across this country. Because since this president took office last year, his reckless trade policies have forced American families to pay more than $1,700 each in tariff costs. Small businesses have suffered. Farmers have suffered, some losing entire markets.

Everyday Americans are paying the price and even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done. Meanwhile, the president is planning for new tariffs, another massive tax hike on you and your family. And Republicans in Congress, they remain unwilling to assert their constitutional authority to stop him.

They're making your life harder. They're making your life more expensive. They're even making it more difficult to see a doctor. Rural health clinics in Virginia and across the country are already closing their doors, thanks to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, championed by the president and Republicans in Congress.

And tonight, the president celebrated this law, the one threatening rural hospitals, stripping health care for millions of Americans and driving up costs in energy and housing, all while cutting food programs for hungry kids. But here in Virginia, I am working with our state legislature to lower costs and make the Commonwealth more affordable.

[Applause] And it's not just me. Democrats across the country are laser focused on affordability in our nation's capital and in state capitals and communities across America. In the most innovative and exceptional nation in the history of the world, Americans deserve to know that their leaders are focused on addressing the problems that keep them up at night, problems that dictate where you live, whether you can afford to start a business or whether you have to skip a prescription in order to buy groceries.

So I'll ask again, is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? We all know the answer is no. I grew up in a house of service. My mother was a nurse and my father was a career law enforcement officer. I began my career by following in my father's footsteps as a federal agent, working money laundering and narcotics cases.

I worked side by side with local and state police to keep our community safe and to uphold and enforce the law. Law enforcement officers across the country know that it is a unique responsibility to do the serious work of investigating crimes, comforting victims and making arrests. It's about building trust and that requires an abiding sense of duty and commitment to community.

And yet, our president has sent poorly trained federal agents into our cities where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans, and they have done it without a warrant. They have ripped nursing mothers away from their babies. They have sent children, a little boy in a blue bunny hat, children, to far off detention centers and they have killed American citizens in our streets.

And they have done it all with their faces masked from accountability. Every minute spent sowing fear is a minute not spent investigating murders, crimes against children or the criminals defrauding seniors of their life savings. Our president told us tonight that we are safer, because these agents arrest mothers and detain children?

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER: Think about that, our broken immigration system is something to be fixed, not an excuse for unaccountable agents to terrorize our communities. [Applause] After working in law enforcement, I continued my career of service as a CIA officer, working undercover to protect the United States and our allies from global threats, terrorism, nuclear weapons and the aggression of adversarial nations around the globe.

But as the president spoke of his perceived successes tonight, he continues to cede economic power and technological strength to Russia, bow down to — to China, bow down to a Russian dictator and make plans for war with Iran. Here's the truth, over the last year through DOGE, mass firings and the appointment of deeply unserious people to our nation's most serious positions, our president has endangered the long and storied history of the United States of America being a force for good.

So I'll ask again, is the president working to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad? We all know the answer is no. In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does; he lied, he scapegoated and he distracted and he offered no real solutions to our nation's pressing challenges, so many of which he is actively making worse.

He tries to divide us, he tries to enrage us, to pit us against one another, neighbor against neighbor. And sometimes he succeeds. And so you have to ask, who benefits from his rhetoric, his policies, his actions, the short list of laws he's pushed through this Republican Congress? Somebody must be benefiting.

He's enriching himself, his family, his friends. The scale of the corruption is unprecedented. There's the cover up of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms, putting his name and face on buildings all over our nation's capital. This is not what our founders envisioned, not by a long shot.

[Applause] So I'll ask again, is the president working for you? We all know the answer is no. But here's the special thing about America. On our 250th anniversary, we know better than any nation what is possible when ordinary citizens like those who once dreamed right here in this room reject the unacceptable and demand more of their government.

We see it in the determination of students organizing school walkouts all across the country, whose voices are becoming so powerful that the governor of Texas seeks to silence them. We see it in the bravery of Americans in Minnesota standing up for their communities, from peacefully protesting in subzero temperatures to carpooling children to school, so that their immigrant parents are not ripped away from them in the parking lot.

As a mother of three school-age daughters, I am inspired by their bravery, but I am sickened that it is necessary. And Americans across the country are taking action. They are going to the ballot box to reject this chaos. With their votes, they are writing a new story, a more hopeful story. In November, I won my election by 15 points.

[Applause] And we won 13 new seats in our state legislature. [Applause] Because voters decided they wanted something different. Our campaign earned votes from Democrats, Republicans, independents and everyone in between because they knew as citizens, they could demand more, that they could vote for what they believe matters, and that they didn't need to be constrained by a party or political affiliation.

This is happening across the country. New Jersey elected Mikie Sherrill as governor in a double-digit victory. [Applause] Democrats flipped state legislative seats in places like Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi and Texas. The list goes on and on. Ordinary Americans are stepping up to run in the spirit of our forefathers.

They are running to demand more and to do more for their neighbors and communities. I know the story well. I first ran for office in 2018 alongside dozens of other Democrats who did the seemingly impossible, flipping 41 seats in Congress. In my case, I was the first Democrat elected in 50 years, swinging our district 17 points.

Those who are stepping up now to run will win in November because Americans, you at home, know you can demand more and that we are working to lower costs. We are working to keep our communities and our country safe and we are working for you. [Applause] In his farewell address, George Washington warned us about the possibility of, quote, cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men rising to power.

But he also encouraged us, all Americans, to unite in a common cause to move this nation forward. That is our charge once more and that is what we are seeing across the country. It is deeply American and patriotic to do so, and it is how we ensure that the state of our union remains strong, not just this year but for the next 250 years as well, because we the people have the power to make change, the power to stand up for what is right, the power to demand more of our nation.

[Applause] May God bless the Commonwealth of Virginia and may God bless the United States of America. [Applause]

Copyright 2026 NPR

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.