The Brief

A recent warning about the state of city finances in Los Angeles struck a dire note.

“We will need to be vigilant in how we proceed,” cautioned Matt Szabo, the city administrative officer at a Budget and Finance Committee meeting last week. “Our reserves are getting dangerously close to the ... emergency level.”

The reasons why are detailed in a financial status report Szabo released late last month. It documents precarious city finances driven by a mix of dwindling revenues and some big unexpected expenses, including the costs of responding to the L.A. wildfires.

Another major over-expenditure: civil payouts.

The city of Los Angeles is expected to pay at least $320 million in settlements and judgments this fiscal year, which ends in June, according to the financial status report. That’s more than three and a half times the money budgeted for such risks.

Liability payouts — which settle claims and lawsuits against the city for wrongdoing, including internal staff harassment, police use of force and injuries — have been a considerable expense for many years. In the current fiscal year, the city has paid more than $37 million in just two cases — the LAPD bomb squad fireworks explosion that injured more than two dozen people and displaced residents for years, as well as a shooting in which an off-duty LAPD officer killed a mentally disabled man in another county.

LAist examined city checkbook data, made available online by the city controller’s office, to analyze all payments made for liability claims since fiscal year 2018.

Here’s what we found:

• The most recent yearly budget set aside $87 million to handle such payouts, an amount that has hardly changed in eight years.
• The city was over budget just two months into this fiscal year.
• Last fiscal year, payouts exceeded the budget within seven months.
  

Why it matters

This is the second year in a row the city’s overall budget has faced financial headwinds. Last year, for the first time since the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, overspending and low revenue led to the city’s reserve funds falling below minimum levels required by city policy. This winter, legal settlements and deferred maintenance costs drove up the city’s spending further, and those costs have continued to rise.

When the city overspends on liability payouts, money is taken from other funds, such as the general fund and reserve accounts, to cover those costs.

Making those transfers has larger implications:

• City policy is to maintain reserve funds of at least 5% of budgeted general fund receipts, and if the reserve fund goes below 2.75%, the City Council must vote and declare an “urgent economic necessity” to use the remaining funds from the Emergency Reserve Account.
• Currently, the city’s reserve fund is at 3.28%, a level Szabo described this month as “dangerously close” to emergency levels.
• If additional cost-saving measures aren’t taken, using the reserves to solve remaining overspending would reduce levels to 2.22%.

What we know about liability claims

The Los Angeles Police Department has the highest liability payouts of any city department, with $100 million in claims in fiscal year 2024, according to an LAist analysis of city checkbook data. The department with the next highest amount in payouts was public works, with $45 million in claims across the street services, sanitation and engineering bureaus.

An additional $106 million in fiscal year 2024 liability payouts reviewed by LAist were not associated with any specific department in city data.

“At the end of the day, every dollar that we spend on lawsuits is a dollar that we're not spending on making our neighborhoods safer,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, told LAist. “Whether it's LAPD or sidewalks or trip-and-falls, we really have to get ahead of the problem instead of paying for it much bigger on the back end.”

Yaroslavsky said the city needs to do more realistic and transparent budgeting while addressing the root causes of liability payouts. She said the city is “focused on solutions that reduce risk, improve public safety and protect city resources.” When it comes to the Police Department, Yaroslavsky said reforms include expanding the use of alternative response teams for mental health crises, as well as improving training and accountability practices.

City Controller Kenneth Mejia also shared concerns with LAist about addressing the root issues that lead to liability payouts, saying that if current trends continue, decreases in revenue combined with overspending could extend a citywide hiring freeze and cause service reductions. The city began its hiring freeze in January 2024, followed by cuts to over 1,700 positions last July, according to the controller’s office.

“This is the second year in a row where we budgeted high revenue amounts, and we're not reaching that amount,” Mejia said. “The city really needs to budget better, more conservatively and more realistically.”

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who proposes and signs the budget, did not respond to requests for comment.

Details of the payouts

The following accounts of the city's largest liability payments from fiscal year 2024 are based on court and federal documents. 

United States ex rel. Mei Ling v. City of L.A. — $38,659,715.21

A settlement was reached between the city and Mei Ling after what she claims was years of discrimination because of her disability, preventing her from finding affordable, accessible housing.

Tammy Murillo v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $25,097,461.25

A district court jury found the city and two police officers liable for excessive force and battery, civil rights violations and negligence in the killing of Jesse Murillo, who was a 32-year-old Navy veteran.

Ismael Soto Luna v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $10,500,000 (An additional $10,500,000 was paid in 2025.)

A settlement was reached between the city and Ismael Soto Luna after an L.A. County jury found the city liable for a streetlight in dangerous condition causing harm to Soto. The jury also found that this risk was foreseeable by the city, and the city had enough time to protect against such an incident.

Ruben Martinez et al v. City of Los Angeles et al — $8,000,000

A settlement was reached between the city and Ruben Martinez after prosecutors agreed that Martinez was wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years for five robberies.

Malcolm Thomas v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $7,885,000

A settlement was reached between the city and Malcolm Thomas after what he claims was discrimination based on disability and retaliation while he served as a police officer and instructor at the Los Angeles Police Academy.

And here are the notable payments so far in 2025.

BD Impotex, LLC v. City of Los Angeles — $20,000,000

A settlement was reached between the city and residents of South L.A. after the detonation of illegal fireworks by the LAPD bomb squad. The explosion injured 27 people, including 18 civilians, and caused severe damage to homes and vehicles, according to a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report, causing some residents to be displaced.

Paula French, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $17,700,000

A district court jury found that the city was liable for use of excessive force by an LAPD officer that caused the death of a mentally disabled man outside of a Costco in Corona and severely injured his parents.

How does approving the budget work?

Most city budget negotiations happen behind closed doors. Starting in the early fall, the L.A. mayor works with city department heads to figure out what the budget should look like. The mayor outlines her priorities, and department heads submit specific requests for consideration.

The mayor releases the official budget proposal in April. Then the City Council’s budget committee holds a series of hearings to discuss the proposal and listen to feedback from the public. The committee submits recommendations for changes.

The full City Council then has to vote on the proposed budget and the recommended changes. The approved budget takes effect on July 1, running through June 30 of the following year — this is what’s known as a “fiscal year.” Each fiscal year is referred to based on the year the budget ends. For example, the current budget year is 2025. It runs from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025.

Keep an eye on your local government

The best way to keep tabs on your local government is by attending public meetings for your city council or local boards. Here are a few tips to get you started.

• Find meeting schedules and agendas: City councils usually meet at least twice a month, although larger ones may meet weekly. Committees and boards tend to meet less often, typically once a month. You can find the schedule and meeting agenda on your local government’s website, or posted physically at your local city hall. Find more tips here.
  
• Learn the jargon: Closed session, consent calendars and more! We have definitions for commonly used terms here.
  
• How to give public comment: Every public meeting allows community members to give comment, whether or not it’s about something on the agenda. The meeting agenda will have specific instructions for giving public comment. Review more details here.
  

LAist’s Brianna Lee contributed to this report.

An annual meeting of the nation's governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

"If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year," the Democrats wrote. "Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states."

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, told fellow governors in a letter on Monday that the White House intended to limit invitations to the association's annual business meeting, scheduled for Feb. 20, to Republican governors only.

"Because NGA's mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program," Stitt wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The governors' group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has "discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House."

"It's the people's house," she said. "It's also the president's home, so he can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House."

Representatives for Sitt and the NGA didn't comment on the letter. Brandon Tatum, the NGA's CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an "important tradition" and said the organization was "disappointed in the administration's decision to make it a partisan occasion this year."

In his letter to other governors, Stitt encouraged the group to unite around common goals.

"We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us," he wrote. "The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America's governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics."

Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine's Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, "We'll see you in court."

Trump then predicted that Mills' political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

The back-and-forth had a lasting impact on last year's conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.
Copyright 2026 NPR

A booming industry that charges veterans for help in obtaining the benefits they earned through military service must shut down or dramatically change its business model in California by the end of the year under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Tuesday.

The law prohibits unaccredited private companies from billing former military service members for help with their Department of Veterans Affairs claims.

Technically, it was already illegal under federal law to charge veterans for that work, but Congress 20 years ago removed criminal penalties for violations, and scores of private companies emerged, offering to speed up and maximize benefit claims.

“We owe our veteran community a debt of gratitude — for their years of service and sacrifice," Newsom said in a written statement. "By signing this bill into law, we are ensuring veterans and service members get to keep more money in their pockets, and not line the coffers of predatory actors. We are closing this federal fraud loophole for good.”

Critics call the private companies “claim sharks” because their fees are often five times the monthly benefit increase veterans obtain after using their services. CalMatters in September, for instance, interviewed a Vietnam-era veteran who was billed $5,500 after receiving benefits that would pay him $1,100 a month.

Depending on a disability rating, a claim consulting fee under that model could easily hit $10,000 or more.

“We owe it to our veterans to stand with them and to protect them from being taken advantage of while navigating the benefits they've earned,” said Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk. Archuleta, a former Army officer, carried the legislation. “This is not about politics; it's about doing what's right. Making millions of dollars on the back of our veterans is wrong. They've earned their benefits. They deserve their benefits.”

California’s new law is part of a tug-of-war over how to regulate claims consulting companies. Congress for several years has been at a stalemate on whether to ban them outright, allow them to operate as they are or regulate them in some other way.

California is among 11 states that have moved to put the companies out of business, while another group of mostly Republican-led states has legalized them, according to reporting by the veteran news organization The War Horse.

That split in some ways reflects the different ways veterans themselves view the companies. The bill had overwhelming support from organizations that help veterans file benefits claims at no cost, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, as well as from Democratic Party leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

But the VA’s claims process can take months and sow uncertainty among applicants. Several of the claims consulting companies say they have helped tens of thousands of veterans across the country, and that they have hundreds of employees.

Those trends led some lawmakers to vote against the measure, including Democrats with military backgrounds.

“We're going to say to you, ‘Veteran, you know what, I don't know if you are too stupid or too vulnerable or your judgment is so poor you can't choose yourself,'” said Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat and former Army colonel, during a debate over the measure last month.

The new law was such a close call for lawmakers that nine of 40 senators did not vote on it when it passed that chamber last month, which counts the same as a “no” vote but avoids offending a constituency that the lawmaker wants to keep.

It was also one of the 10 most-debated measures to go before the Legislature last year, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. Lawmakers spent 4 hours and 39 minutes on the bill at public hearings in 2025 and heard testimony from 99 speakers.

Two claims consulting companies spent significant sums hiring lobbyists as they fought the bill, according to state records. They were Veterans Guardian, a North Carolina-based company that spent $150,000 on California lobbyists over the past two years; and Veterans Benefit Guide, a Nevada-based company that spent $371,821 lobbying on Archuleta’s bill and a similar measure that failed in 2024.

Those companies view laws like California’s as an existential threat. Both have founders with military backgrounds. Veterans Benefit Guide sued to block New Jersey’s law prohibiting fees for veterans claim consulting, and a federal appeals court sided with the company last year.

"This was the hardest bill I’ve had to work on since I’ve been in the Legislature," said Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Democrat who supported the law. "We know why that is, because there was so much money on the other side."

Charlotte Autolino, who organizes job fairs for former military service members as the chairperson of the Veterans Employment Committee of San Diego, criticized Newsom’s decision to sign the law. She spoke to CalMatters on behalf of Veterans Benefit Guide.

“The veterans lose,” she said. They lose the option. You’re taking an option away from them and you’re putting all of the veterans into one box, and that to me is wrong.”

But David West, a Marine veteran who is Nevada County’s veterans service officer, commended Newsom. West was one of the main advocates for the new law.

“The veterans of California are going to know that when (Newsom) says he’s taking care of everybody, he’s including us; that he values those 18- and 19-year-olds who are raising their hands, writing a blank check in the form of their lives; to then ensure that they aren’t writing checks to access their benefits,” West said.

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

Updated February 11, 2026 at 17:40 PM ET

James Van Der Beek — best known for his role as Dawson Leery in the hit late 1990s and early aughts show Dawson's Creek — has died. He was 48. Van Der Beek announced his diagnosis of Stage 3 colon cancer in November 2024.

His family wrote on Instagram on Wednesday, "Our beloved James David Van Der Beek passed peacefully this morning. He met his final days with courage, faith, and grace. There is much to share regarding his wishes, love for humanity and the sacredness of time. Those days will come. For now we ask for peaceful privacy as we grieve our loving husband, father, son, brother, and friend."

Van Der Beek started acting when he was 13 in Cheshire, Conn., after a football injury kept him off the field. He played the lead in a school production of Grease, got involved with local theater, and fell in love with performing. A few years later, he and his mother went to New York City to sign the then-16 year old actor with an agent.

But Van Der Beek didn't break out as a star until he was 21, when he landed the lead role of 15-year-old Dawson Leery, an aspiring filmmaker, in Dawson's Creek.

Van Der Beek's life changed forever with this role. The teen coming-of-age show was a huge hit, with millions of weekly viewers over 6 seasons. It helped both establish the fledgling WB network and the boom of teen-centered dramas, says Lori Bindig Yousman, a media professor at Sacred Heart University and the author of Dawson's Creek: A Critical Understanding.

"Dawson's really came on the scene and felt different, looked different," Bindig Yousman says.

It was different, she points out, from other popular teen shows at the time such as Beverly Hills, 90210. "It wasn't these rich kids. It was supposed to be normal kids, but they were a little bit more intelligent and aware of the world around them … It was attainable in some way. It was reflective."

The Dawson's drama centered around love, hardships, relationships, school and sex — sometimes pushing the boundaries when it came to teens discussing sex. Van Der Beek's character Dawson was a moody, earnest dreamer, sometimes so earnest he came across as a "sad sack," says Bindig Yousman. He had a seasons long on-again off-again on-screen relationship with his best friend Joey, played by Katie Holmes. Bindig Yousman says Van Der Beek quickly became seen as a heartthrob.

"I think he was very safe for a lot of tweens, and that's when we started to get the tween marketing," she says, referring to the attention paid to him by magazines like Teen People and Teen Celebrity. "And so because he wasn't a bad guy, he was conventionally attractive … He definitely appealed to the masses."

Dawson's Creek launched the careers of not just of James Van Der Beek, but his costars Katie Holmes, Joshua Jackson and Michelle Williams. All went on to have successful careers in the entertainment industry.

Despite his success, Van Der Beek didn't land many roles that rose to that same level of fame he enjoyed in Dawson's Creek. Perhaps because audiences associated him so much with Dawson Leery, it was difficult to separate him from that character.

Still, he starred in the 1999 coming of age film Varsity Blues, as a high school football player who wants to be more than just a jock. In 2002's Rules of Attraction, he played a toxic college drug dealer.

And he actually parodied himself in the sitcom Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23. In it, he's a self-obsessed actor unsuccessfully trying to get people to see him as someone other than the celebrity from Dawson's Creek. In an episode where he decides to teach an acting class, the students ignore the lesson and instead pester him to perform a monologue from the show.

In real life as well, the floppy blond-haired Dawson Leery is the one that stole fans' hearts, but Bindig Yousman says Van Der Beek still enjoyed a strong fanbase that followed him to other shows, even when they were only smaller cameos.

In the 2024 Instagram post about his cancer, Van Der Beek said "Each year, approximately 2 billion people around the world receive this diagnosis ... I am one of them." (There were about 18.5 million new cases of cancer around the world in 2023, a number that researchers say is projected to rise.) Van Der Beek leaves behind six children.

The cast of Dawson's Creek reunited to raise money for the nonprofit F Cancer, which focuses on prevention, detection and support for people affected by cancer. They read the pilot episode at a Broadway theater in New York City in September 2025. His former co-star Michelle Williams organized the reunion. James Van Der Beek was unable to perform, due to his illness, but contributed an emotional video that was shown onstage. In it, he thanked his crew and castmates, and the Dawson's Creek fans for being "the best fans in the world."

Copyright 2026 NPR