The Brief

Immigrants who came to the U.S. as refugees could be detained within a year of arriving here under a new policy from the Department of Homeland Security.

Refugees must either get a green card within a year, or "present themselves to the agency" to avoid detention, according to a Feb. 18 memo from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The move marks yet another attempt from the Trump administration to further limit legal pathways to resettle in the United States. The administration last year set the lowest-ever cap for refugees it would admit into the U.S.

And USCIS later announced that it would re-review the status of everyone who had been admitted into the U.S. as a refugee under the Biden administration, essentially reopening those cases and risking the loss of legal refugee status.

"This policy is a transparent effort to detain and potentially deport thousands of people who are legally present in this country, people the U.S. government itself welcomed after years of extreme vetting," said Beth Oppenheim, CEO of HIAS, one of the resettlement organizations. "They were promised safety and the chance to rebuild their lives. Instead, DHS is now threatening them with arrest and indefinite detention."

The memo was filed as a part of documents submitted in a federal court case tied to refugees who were arrested in Minnesota. In it, USCIS Director Joseph Edlow and ICE acting Director Todd Lyons direct their agencies to "detain and inspect" refugees who do not "voluntarily return to DHS custody for inspection and examination" to be a legal permanent resident at the one-year mark of being in the country.

The policy rescinds prior guidance that did not treat the failure to apply for a green card as grounds for deportation. It also states that refugees may be placed in immigration detention while their application for a green card is being considered. The agency leaders say the new policy is needed to prevent immigration fraud, identify national security threats and vet people for criminal histories.

"This detain-and-inspect requirement ensures that refugees are re-vetted after one year, aligns post-admission vetting with that applied to other applicants for admission, and promotes public safety," the memo states.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the policy.

The new policy sent shockwaves through an already weakened refugee resettlement system. In the past 12 months, the Trump administration has cut off key funding to organizations that assist refugees resettling in the U.S., including services that help with green card and citizenship applications. Refugees are required to apply for permanent residence, or a green card, after they've been in the county for at least a year.

Refugee resettlement organizations estimate this new policy could impact tens of thousands of refugees, mostly those who entered during the Biden administration. After going through extensive vetting to arrive in the U.S., they will now fear they could be affected by delays in processing at USCIS.

Shawn VanDiver, president of the organization AfghanEvac, called the memo "a reckless reversal of long-standing policy" that treats refugee admission as conditional.

"It breaks faith with people the United States lawfully admitted and promised protection," he said.

Groups that work with refugees warn there are several reasons why refugees may not have adjusted status quickly after arriving in the U.S., including a complex immigration system and backlogs at USCIS itself.

In fiscal year 2025, 38,000 refugees were resettled into the U.S. For this fiscal year, the Trump administration set a historic low ceiling for refugee admissions of 7,500, with the priority for admission going to white South Africans.

The memo was filed in Minnesota federal court as a part of an ongoing lawsuit over the revetting, arrest and detention of refugees who have not yet received a green card. Last month, a federal judge ordered the release of refugees in Minnesota and granted a temporary pause on detentions, which he said had been made "without warrants or cause," while the case played out.

The arrests came after USCIS in January launched an investigation into 5,600 refugees in Minnesota, who had not yet received their green cards, and swiftly began referring cases to ICE.

Copyright 2026 NPR

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders delivered a fiery warning to what he called the “billionaire class” at a rally Wednesday in Los Angeles in support of a tax initiative that would target California’s wealthiest residents.

“The billionaire class no longer sees itself as part of American society,” said the Vermont independent, who won the 2020 California Democratic presidential primary by 8 percentage points over former President Joe Biden. “They see themselves as something separate and apart, like the oligarchs of the 18th Century, the kings and the queens and the czars, they believe they have the divine right to rule and are no longer subject to democratic governance.”

The proposed November initiative would tax the 2025 net worth of billionaires residing in California by 5%, allowing them to pay off the tax over five years. The revenue would go into a special fund with 90% reserved for health care and 10% reserved for K-12 education.

Instead of targeting income, like most taxes, this one aims at individuals’ collected wealth.

“They’re saying there’s nothing you can do about it. Well, we’ve got some bad news for them, starting right here in California,” Sanders told the L.A. crowd.

He said California’s richest people are preparing to spend heavily to defeat the initiative, and voters should be ready for deceptive messaging.

“Their ads will not be saying, ‘We are billionaires, we want it all, please vote down this referendum,’” Sanders said to laughs from the crowd at The Wiltern theater. “What they are saying is, ‘If you stand up to us, we are gonna punish you.’”

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and St. John’s Community Health in Los Angeles, the sponsors of the proposal, are gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot in November amid opposition from some other unions.

It’s also a risky proposition for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run and needs the support of the deep pockets in Silicon Valley, to whom he has been close for years. He and the leading Democrats who are running to replace him have come out against the tax as part of a larger opposition push expected to ramp up in the coming weeks. They argue that they support making wealthy people pay more, but this specific measure would drive billionaires out of California.

That pushback will now also include Republican U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, who pledged to introduce a bill this week in Congress that would prohibit any state from levying a tax retroactively on people who no longer live in the state.

Dr. Jackline Lasola, an obstetrician, said at the rally Wednesday that the tax would help maintain staffing in hospitals that could be affected by an estimated $30 billion in annual cuts to federal Medicaid funds, beginning in 2027.

“At a time when this administration is gutting our health care, our safety nets and our public services, we’re here to protect Californians,” Lasola said. “It’s time to tax the billionaires.”

Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage Against the Machine, played the band’s best-known song, “Killing In The Name Of,” but replaced the second half of a lyric: “Some of those who burn crosses / are the same that hold office.”

There’s little question that California could use the money. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax reform and budget bill — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — is projected to cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over a decade.

California is estimated to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medicaid funds annually as a result. The state’s Medi-Cal agency estimates 3.4 million people will lose coverage as a result of federal eligibility changes. The bulk of cuts won’t take effect until 2027, but states, including California, are already taking steps to shrink their health insurance programs for low-income and disabled individuals.

Opponents of the billionaire tax argue that its impacts won’t be felt for years, but the state budget will be hit from losing the income tax that the billionaires pay, which accounts for a significant portion of California’s revenue.

The opposition has coalesced around three proposed ballot measures designed to invalidate the proposed billionaire tax. One would forbid retroactive taxes, a second would prohibit any taxes that exclude revenues from their calculation and a third would exempt non-residents and part-time residents from a net-worth tax.

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

Environmental organizations are launching a fundraiser to buy land in Big Bear Valley to prevent construction of a planned housing project some say would harm rare plants and wildlife in the area.

Friends of Big Bear Valley and the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust are trying to raise $10 million by the end of July to purchase more than 62 acres of land pegged for Moon Camp. The project would include 50 lots for custom homes and a marina with 55 boat slips.

Instead, the organizations want the land to be placed under a permanent conservatorship. Officials say “Save Moon Camp” is the most ambitious fundraising effort in the history of Friends of Big Bear Valley.

Sandy Steers, the nonprofit’s late executive director, said last fall that Moon Camp would have a “severe detrimental impact” on the community’s plant life and wildlife, including bald eagles and San Bernardino flying squirrels.

Steers died last week, and Friends of Big Bear Valley said the fundraiser is now in her honor.

San Bernardino County officials voted to move forward with Moon Camp last fall, despite some community concerns about the project’s environmental impacts on the area.

That includes the famous bald eagles, Jackie and Shadow, who nest less than a mile away. The Moon Camp site can be seen from the eagles’ nest camera on a popular YouTube livestream, which is run by Friends of Big Bear Valley and followed by thousands of fans.

According to the nonprofit, the project would affect the bald eagles’ ability to raise chicks, and there is a “real possibility” Jackie and Shadow would leave the area altogether.

Jenny Voisard, the organization’s media manager, told LAist it’s a “moon shot to buy Moon Camp,” but it’s the most important thing the group's members and supporters could do for Big Bear Valley.

“And we're doing it for Jackie and Shadow,” she said, “because it will absolutely disrupt and devastate that area.”

The proposed project site can be seen from the nest livestream.

(

Friends of Big Bear Valley

/

YouTube

)

The big picture

Friends of Big Bear Valley said Steers helped negotiate a signed agreement to buy Moon Camp from the property developer, RCK Properties Inc., with the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust. Friends of Big Bear Valley said negotiating the deal was the "most important priority Steers had."

Stephen Foulkes, vice president of RCK Properties, confirmed they signed an agreement with the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust last month but declined to comment further.

If the groups raise $10 million by July 31, the acres will be placed under a permanent conservatorship.

The eventual goal is to have the land be protected under the U.S. Forest Service. The San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust has helped purchase hundreds of acres that were later added to the San Bernardino National Forest, according to the organization.

“We need everyone to be Jackie and Shadow's hero,” Voisard said, her voice cracking with emotion.

Donations should be made directly to SaveMoonCamp.org. The San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust kicked off the fundraiser with a $50,000 gift, Voisard added.

Voisard said donations of all sizes are welcome. Large gifts can expect special recognition from Friends of Big Bear Valley, she added.

Friends of Big Bear Valley is managing the fundraiser, and if it raises enough, the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust would purchase the land for preservation.

Friends of Big Bear Valley will not receive any money in the effort, Voisard said.

The backstory

Moon Camp’s design in the unincorporated community of Fawnskin was first drafted decades ago, but the project has faced harsh criticism and legal challenges from Friends of Big Bear Valley and other environmental organizations.

Steers has argued Moon Camp would have a “severe detrimental impact” on the community’s plant life and wildlife. The project site is a foraging habitat for Big Bear’s famous feathered couple, their chicks and other bald eagles in the area, she said previously.

“ We're not trying to stop development or anything like that — we're trying to protect habitats,” Steers told LAist last September. “ We want this valley and the environment to maintain its integrity.”

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Moon Camp project in July 2020, according to a staff report, but it was challenged in court a month later.

The board voted unanimously again last September to approve parts of the project, with updates meant to address habitat and wildlife issues, according to the staff report.

Steers said before the board’s vote last fall that the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust being able to purchase the land “would be ideal”

“Then the developer gets their money, and nothing has to be destroyed, and the land can be protected,” she said last September.

Sandy Steers, the late executive director of Friends of Big Bear Valley, spoke against the Moon Camp project during the the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors meeting in September 2025.

(

County San Bernardino

/

YouTube

)

You probably already knew that Diane Warren — the creative mind behind hit songs like “If I Could Turn Back Time” (Cher) and “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing” (Aerosmith) — is one of the most successful songwriters of all time.

She’s an inductee into the Songwriting Hall of Fame, an honorary Oscar recipient and a Grammy and Emmy winner. According to the 2025 documentary, Diane Warren: Relentless — for which she’s nominated for another best original song Oscar (with “Dear Me,” her nominations now total 17) — she’s written songs for more than 450 recording artists, and her music catalog is valued at over a half-billion dollars.

The illuminating documentary about Warren’s life, love of music and approach to songwriting also explores her lesser known love: animals — from her own pets (like her late cat Mouse and parrot Buttwings) to the animals that live at her private sanctuary (fittingly named Mousebutt Rescue Ranch) in Malibu.

Warren also is vegan, or as she puts it, “pretty much 99.9% vegan,” to account for the possibility of something like an egg ending up in a pasta dish without her knowledge.

When Warren spoke with LAist host Julia Paskin about her latest Oscar nomination (as her birds Chicken and Charlie occasionally chirped from the other room), she also shared her favorite vegan restaurants in L.A.

Follow Your Heart

This Canoga Park cafe and market dates back to 1970 and Warren, who grew up in nearby Van Nuys, counts it as one of her favorite vegan restaurants.

Au Lac

Au Lac, Warren says, “which is a vegan Vietnamese restaurant in downtown L.A., [...] is kind of my favorite. It’s the best.”

For those in Orange County, the restaurant’s original outpost is located in Fountain Valley.

Pura Vita

Warren’s go-to spot for “great Italian”? Pura Vita in West Hollywood.

Vinh Loi Tofu

Vinh Loi in Reseda, which specializes in Southeast Asian cuisine, Warren says is really good for takeout. They also have a location in Cerritos.

Crossroads Kitchen

Warren also recommends Crossroads Kitchen (“I was there last night”), but she sometimes regrets her choices when she goes: “I eat way too much fried stuff.”

Julie Goes Green

“If you like pizza,” Warren says, Julie Goes Green has “the best vegan pizza in the city.”

This piece is adapted from the first issue of Building Your Block, a seven-issue newsletter course that unpacks the obstacles to housing development in L.A. and what you can do to make things better. Sign up for the whole series here.

Experts agree that L.A. County is in a housing shortage, including the state housing department, the state legislative analyst’s office, policy analysts and academics.

This shortage, they say, is the main driver of the exorbitant rents and housing prices across Southern California. But no single policy or elected official is to blame — today’s challenges are the result of decades of building too little housing to keep up with population growth. Here are some numbers to consider: over a 40-year period since the 1970s, California added only 325 new housing units for every 1,000 people added to our population. It’s a similar story for the country at large.

That’s why the state government set ambitious housing production goals for counties across California. The state housing department establishes new goals every eight years for how much new housing to produce. For the period from 2021 to 2029, California’s overall goal is 2.5 million new homes — more than double the target for the previous cycle.

Southern California needs to plan for 1.3 million new homes by 2029 to keep up with demand in our region and hit the state’s targets. All the cities within L.A. County are responsible for 812,000 in total, with 450,000 of those units coming from the city of L.A.

L.A. County is nowhere near meeting these numbers.

Together the 88 cities in L.A. County are supposed to add about 101,500 units per year to stay on track with their goals. In 2024, they built 28,453.

Why progress is so slow: We made it difficult to build 

In Southern California, we built our cities out, not up. There are a lot of historical reasons for why our region ended up spread out and decentralized. Jobs opportunities grew in different areas, instead of a single urban core, and during the housing booms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, there was room to sprawl. Suburbs and single-family homes were idealized and developed in large numbers. Discriminatory housing practices, such as racially restrictive covenants, furthered segregation. Car culture spawned freeways and parking lots. This all means that today, there’s not much empty land left to build on.

Another factor: local zoning rules. Because there isn’t a lot of empty land left, adding housing density is key — for example replacing a five-unit apartment building with a 20-unit one. But our rules restrict where we can densify housing.

Until recently in the city of L.A., for example, it wasn't even legal to build the housing required to reach state-mandated goals. When the city received its target of building 450,000 new homes, its regulations only allowed for about half of that to be built. The city had to change its rules about what housing can be built and where.

Building anything new takes a long time and is really expensive 

Even if city ordinances allowed us to build more housing, a labyrinth of red tape slows down the approval process, including getting departments to review the plans and waiting for utilities to get connected.

And when housing proposals get political, as they so often do, the process gets bogged down even more with public hearings, lawsuits, City Council discussions and so on.

There’s also the cost of building housing. Any one of myriad factors can make prices jump: supply chain disruptions, the scarcity of materials, labor shortages, inflation and more.

Plus, since most of the land in L.A. is already built on, to build something new you usually have to tear down existing structures first. That makes it — you guessed it! — more expensive.

These factors don’t just affect the rate at which we’re getting new housing, but also the kind of housing we end up getting.

We can’t get out of this crisis without building more housing 

Plenty of other factors exacerbate the crisis we’re seeing today: Corporations or foreign investors buying up housing. The proliferation of short-term rentals like Airbnb. Gaps in rent control or other tenant protections. Empty lots or buildings that aren’t utilized.

But housing experts agree: we still need to build. And even if building new housing can’t solve the crisis alone, we also can’t solve the crisis without it.

Those state housing production goals we mentioned? There are consequences if cities don’t make a meaningful effort to cooperate. They could lose access to affordable housing funds, get sued, and get fined as much as $600,000 a month. The state could also take over decisions about what buildings get approved, which means L.A. residents would have less influence on new housing in their communities.

The big questions: What kinds of housing and where? 

Surveys show that a majority of Angelenos support building new housing.

But where should it get built?

And what kind of housing should it be? Subsidized apartments for low-income residents? Permanent supportive housing for formerly unhoused people? High-rises? Duplexes? All of the above and everything in between? What should be preserved, and how do we alleviate our housing shortage without worsening gentrification?

These are the questions that underlie most local housing battles today — and the answers we choose will shape our neighborhoods for years to come.

Weighing in on L.A.’s housing future starts with figuring out what kind of housing you want to support and where you think it should go, then figuring out what stands in the way of that. For more information to help you do that, sign up for the Building Your Block newsletter course here.