Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Administration considers California military base
    A horse in the foreground is out of focus standing in a dry field. Behind it is a gated off area and multiple large airplanes parked next to a base with large dry mountains in the background.
    Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California. The congressperson who represents the area says he has “serious opposition” to using the base to lock up immigrants for deportation.

    Topline:

    The Trump administration is looking to build an immigration detention facility at Travis Air Force Base in the Bay Area and pushing to speed up a review process, according to internal government communications obtained by KQED.

    Why it matters: The proposed installation is part of an aggressive effort to expand immigration detention nationally, and specifically to use property owned by the U.S. Department of Defense in service of President Donald Trump’s stated goal of deporting 1 million people in his first year in office.

    The backstory: Homeland Security officials have been considering at least 10 military bases around the country for immigration detention, NPR has reported. A February Homeland Security memo obtained by NPR described a plan to use Fort Bliss in Texas as a model for other facilities, with up to 1,000 people initially detained there, eventually expanding to as many as 10,000.

    Read on ... for what records show and how officials responded to questions about them.

    The Trump administration is looking to build an immigration detention facility at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, and pushing to speed up a review process, according to internal government communications obtained by KQED.

    About this article

    This article was originally published by KQED.

    The proposed installation is part of an aggressive effort to expand immigration detention nationally, and specifically to use property owned by the U.S. Department of Defense in service of President Donald Trump’s stated goal of deporting 1 million people in his first year in office.

    In the early April emails, federal officials discussed efforts to evaluate several military installations, including Travis Air Force Base, for Homeland Security’s immigration detention and removal operations — and tee them up for approval by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    The emails show significant coordination among Department of Defense and Homeland Security officials to expedite the plans. The emails do not describe the scope or design of the proposed detention compound at Travis Air Force Base, nor how many people it would be expected to hold.

    A spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond directly to questions about Travis Air Force Base, but he did affirm that ICE is actively working to expand detention capacity.

    “While we cannot confirm individual pre-decisional conversations, we can confirm that ICE is exploring all options in California to meet its current and future detention requirements, which include new detention facilities and possible support from partner agencies,” a written statement from the agency said.

    Officials at Travis Air Force Base declined to comment, and the Department of Defense did not respond to KQED’s request for comment by press time.

    Homeland Security officials have been considering at least 10 military bases around the country for immigration detention, NPR has reported. A February Homeland Security memo obtained by NPR described a plan to use Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas, as a model for other facilities, with up to 1,000 people initially detained there, eventually expanding to as many as 10,000.

    Two large grey airplanes with text on their side that reads "U.S. Air Force" parked on a tarmac.
    A U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy and a C-17 Globemaster sit on the tarmac at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, on July 17, 2008.
    (
    Saul Loeb
    /
    AFP via Getty Images
    )

    The revelation that Travis is on the list of military facilities came as a shock to East Bay Rep. John Garamendi, a Democrat and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes the Fairfield base.

    “Travis Air Force Base is absolutely inappropriate for an immigration detention facility,” Garamendi told KQED. “Travis has a critical national security role of providing worldwide transportation services for personnel and material around the world. An immigration facility would significantly hamper the national security work that Travis is responsible for.”

    Earlier this year, Garamendi and other members of Congress raised strenuous opposition when military aircraft from the base — C-17 planes typically meant for troops or cargo — were used for deportation flights to remove immigrants from the country.

    “Just in terms of the cost factor, to say nothing of the readiness, every time you take a military aircraft and you use it for purposes that are not directly related to the national security work, that degrades the ability of the military to do what it’s supposed to do,” he said.

    Meanwhile, a plan to use the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to detain as many as 30,000 immigrants appears to have been scaled back drastically in the face of obstacles, including public outcry over the $40 million price tag to lock up a couple of hundred men during its first month of operation.

    ICE is currently holding nearly 48,000 immigrants in detention facilities nationwide. Last year, ICE’s detention capacity was 41,500 beds. However, last month, Congress added $430,000 to ICE’s current-year detention budget, allowing the agency to increase capacity to 54,500 beds.

    The number of detention beds is one factor limiting the Trump administration’s ability to increase deportations. ICE would also need to increase staffing and other resources, beyond last year’s $3.4 billion detention budget, which advocates say was already a historic high. The administration is looking to the Republican-controlled Congress to vastly expand the Homeland Security budget, and the New York Times has reported that ICE has already solicited proposals from contractors worth as much as $45 billion for the next two years.

    A large grey airplane is parked on a tarmac with a set of stairs on its side. Another similar plane flies above it from the bottom left to the top right.
    A KC-10 Extender is parked on the ramp as a C-5M Super Galaxy takes off at Travis Air Force Base, California, March 16, 2017.
    (
    Hum Images
    /
    Universal Images Group via Getty Images
    )

    Previous administrations have used military bases to temporarily house arriving refugees and have deployed soldiers to provide logistical support to the U.S. Border Patrol. But the plan to use Travis and other military facilities for ICE detention represents a more substantial move toward militarizing immigration enforcement.

    Trump’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, has called the Department of Defense a “force multiplier” for his deportation plans.

    However, Jehan Laner, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco, argues that using military bases for ICE detention violates the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law that limits the use of military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the U.S.

    “Our country is kind of turning toward authoritarianism when you have the military starting to do civil law enforcement,” she said. “It becomes a very scary prospect.”

  • Feds seized 15 around SoFi this weekend
    A green soccer pitch sits empty as some people begin to fill the stadium seats.
    A view of L.A. Stadium before the FIFA World Cup match between USA and Paraguay begins.

    Topline:

    The FBI seized about 15 drones flying near SoFi Stadium and L.A. Memorial Coliseum on Friday and Saturday for violating temporary flight restrictions.

    Why it matters: "No Drone Zones" have been put in place by the Federal Aviation Administration on match days at World Cup stadiums and venues hosting official fan festivals.

    The restrictions: Drones are prohibited at SoFi within a three-nautical-mile radius and up to 3,000 feet above ground level. They are also banned at the Coliseum for the official fan festival within a one-nautical-mile radius and up to 1,000 feet above ground level.

    The FBI seized about 15 drones near SoFi Stadium and L.A. Memorial Coliseum on Friday and Saturday for violating temporary flight restrictions, Amir Ehsaei, special agent in charge of counterterrorism and crisis response at the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, told LAist. Multiple operators were cited.

    Stadiums hosting World Cup games and official fan festival venues are designated as "No Drone Zones" by the Federal Aviation Administration on match days.

    “We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to drones violating the temporary flight restrictions," Ehsaei said.

    He said drone detection teams are deployed at all SoFi games. "We will be out at other places depending on the nature — the size, the scope — [and] different intelligence that we'll get based on  threat assessments."

    Drones are prohibited at SoFi within a three-nautical-mile radius and up to 3,000 feet above ground level. They are also banned at the Coliseum for the official fan festival within a one-nautical-mile radius and up to 1,000 feet above ground level.

    Violators could face fines of up to $100,000 and federal criminal charges.

  • Sponsored message
  • Residents debate local impact
    a woman in a sweatshirt and jeans walks along a platform next to a train that says "E EAST LA"
    A woman exits the train at the Metro E Line Indiana station in East L.A. on April 15, 2025.

    Topline:

    Residents in East LA are weighing the promise of a new Metro E Line extension with concerns over construction disruptions, small-business impacts and whether more outreach is needed about the project.

    What is the project: The 4.7-mile extension of the Metro E Line would connect East Los Angeles to Montebello with four new stations. The project would relocate the existing Atlantic and Pomona station underground, and include a mix of underground, aerial and street-level track transit.

    Read on ... for more about the pros and cons locals see for the extension.

    Residents in East LA are weighing the promise of a new Metro E Line extension with concerns over construction disruptions, small-business impacts and whether more outreach is needed about the project.

    The 4.7-mile extension of the Metro E Line would connect East Los Angeles to Montebello with four new stations. The project would relocate the existing Atlantic and Pomona station underground and include a mix of underground, aerial and street-level track transit.

    The $7.9 billion project is expected to open for service between 2035 and 2037, according to Metro.

    Construction will begin in 2029 and last approximately eight to 10 years, pending full funding approval. It’s part of a wider plan to connect the E Line to the city of Whittier, though officials say the work will be built in two phases due to funding constraints.

    While officials say the project is intended to reduce traffic congestion and ease pressure on local roads, residents at a recent community meeting focused more on the immediate impact and communication.

    Concerns over construction and local impact

    “Thirty days for comment on a complex issue like this is ridiculous. … We need better outreach,” said East LA resident Clara Solis about a 30-day public comment period ending June 26.

    Solis and others also raised concerns about how construction could affect traffic and disrupt local commerce, pointing to past transit projects.

    “How is this going to impact the businesses? When the Gold Line went through, a lot of our businesses really suffered economically. We want to see a presentation on that. You should have a presentation just on how it’s going to impact the businesses,” Solis added.

    a series of interconnected dots and lines with city names and station names
    A map shows the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project will extend the E Line nearly nine miles east from East Los Angeles to the City of Whittier. ()
    (
    Courtesy Metro
    )

    Calls for broader outreach

    East LA resident Kristie Hernandez said community outreach for the project should also extend to people who do not necessarily live within the immediate 200-foot project radius.

    “We need to understand that folks who don’t necessarily live within that close proximity also frequent that area when they drive,” said Hernandez.

    Hernandez advocated for a 90-day public comment window and also called for presentations on underground infrastructure, especially in the wake of the East LA pipeline that was punctured during construction work in late May.

    “We do not want that to happen again,” she said.

    A promise for greater mobility

    Lucia Martinez spoke favorably about the extension plans, considering that she relies on buses to get around East LA to do her shopping. She said she looks forward to using the Metro to travel to the Citadel as well as to the hospital in Pasadena.

    “As an older woman who became aware of this project, I think it is amazing because I am someone who does not drive,” she said.

    LA Documenter Rafael Cazzorla contributed reporting for this story. LA Documenters trains and pays LA residents to take notes at local government meetings around Los Angeles. You can find meeting notes and audio at losangeles.documenters.org

  • Scientist celebrate FDA approval
    one hand with two bracelets around the wrist reaches up to apply sunscreen to another hand against a blue sky background
    A sunscreen ingredient used in Europe and Asia that blocks UVA and UVB rays has been approved for use in the U.S.

    Topline:

    For the first time in nearly three decades, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new chemical UV filter for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S. And that has many dermatologists cheering.

    Why it matters: The new ingredient is called bemotrizinol, and it has several advantages over the chemical sunscreen ingredients previously available in the U.S., says Dr. Heather Rogers, a dermatologist in Seattle and a fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology.

    The backstory: In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics, as they're classified in Europe. That means ingredients need to undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before they can be approved for use in the U.S.

    Read on ... for four key things to know about this coming change.

    For the first time in nearly three decades, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new chemical UV filter for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S. And that has many dermatologists cheering.

    "This is a very big deal," says Dr. Heather Rogers, a dermatologist in Seattle and a fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology.

    The new ingredient is called bemotrizinol, and it has several advantages over the chemical sunscreen ingredients previously available in the U.S., Rogers says.

    "It hits like really every box for us that we have been waiting for as dermatologists and consumers," Rogers says.

    Here's what you need to know about this new ingredient and how it could lead to better sunscreens sold stateside.

    1. It blocks both UVA and UVB rays

    Rogers says in general, you want to use sunscreens that are broad spectrum, meaning they protect against both UVA rays — the longer wavelengths that cause premature aging and wrinkles — and UVB rays, which lead to sunburns. Both types of UV rays can cause skin cancer.

    She says the sunscreens currently sold in the U.S. do an excellent job of protecting against UVB rays, but the chemical UV filters available in sunscreens in the U.S. until now aren't as good at blocking out UVA rays.

    In general, chemical sunscreens sold in the U.S. rely on an ingredient called avobenzone to block out UVA rays, says Kelly Dobos, a cosmetic chemist who teaches at the University of Cincinnati.

    But avobenzone by itself isn't photo stable, meaning its protection can start to break down rapidly when exposed to sunlight. And as avobenzone breaks down, it can release molecules that lead to skin irritation, says Alexa Friedman, a senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, or EWG.

    By contrast, bemotrizinol offers protection against both UVA and UVB rays all on its own, and it is photo stable, so it breaks down more slowly, offering better protection, Rogers says.

    "So if you go a little longer than two hours to reapply your sunscreen, there will be more protection left," Rogers says. However, she says you should still reapply sunscreen every two hours.

    2. It's long been used in other countries 

    Bemotrizinol has been widely used in European and Asian sunscreens for decades. But it has taken 20 years for the FDA to approve its use in this country.

    That's because in the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics, as they're classified in Europe. That means ingredients need to undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before they can be approved for use in the U.S.

    "It's really expensive and time consuming," Dobos says. The European company DSM-Firmenich spent at least $18 million over more than two decades in its push to gain FDA approval for bemotrizinol.

    3. It has a well-documented safety profile

    However, all that testing means bemotrizinol has more safety data to back it up than any other chemical sunscreen ingredient currently approved in the U.S., says Friedman of EWG.

    "This ingredient is exciting because we have that data to support its safety," Friedman says.

    Friedman says animal testing showed bemotrizinol doesn't lead to concerns like reproductive harm, while clinical testing on humans found that it does not irritate the skin, even after repeated application over time, "which is hopefully how people are using sunscreens."

    And because bemotrizinol's molecules are larger, it's not readily absorbed by the skin and into the bloodstream, she says.

    That's important, because studies have shown that some of the other chemical sunscreen UV filters sold in the U.S. can be absorbed in the bloodstream, prompting calls for more safety data and leading to a backlash against sunscreen on social media fueled by misinformation. Rogers says that trend is concerning because skin cancer is the most common form of cancer.

    "We just need to have sunscreen that people will use, that they'll trust," Rogers says. "And this ingredient is going to allow that to happen. And that is very exciting."

    And bemotrizinol is also considered to be non-irritating, Friedman says. That should be welcome news to people who've been put off by chemical sunscreens in the past.

    4. It could lead to sunscreens that look better on you

    Until now, Rogers says, the only sunscreen ingredient available in the U.S. that offered the aforementioned advantages of bemotrizinol — photo stable, non-irritating, minimally absorbed into the skin and with good broad spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB rays — was zinc oxide.

    Both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are mineral UV filters. Both chemical sunscreens and mineral sunscreens work by absorbing UV rays from the sun. Mineral sunscreens also reflect some UV rays. The bigger difference is that mineral sunscreens sit on the surface of the skin, while chemical sunscreens get absorbed into the skin, Rogers says.

    The downside of mineral sunscreens is that they can leave an unattractive white cast on the skin — think of lifeguards with white paste on their noses. "Particularly if you're a person of color, zinc is going to make you look pale, white or ashy, which really makes it hard to use on a regular basis," Rogers says.

    Bemotrizinol, on the other hand, is transparent on the skin, and because it protects against both UVA and UVB rays on its own, it doesn't have to be mixed with as many other chemical filters and stabilizers to achieve broad spectrum protection, Dobos adds. She says that should lead to more aesthetically pleasing, less greasy sunscreen formulations in the near future.

    "I think it's a real win for public health," Dobos says. "If we can make a sunscreen that consumers like to use and want to use and apply in the proper amounts, I think that's something that's really going to be a win for consumers."

    DSM-Firmenich has exclusive rights to market bemotrizinol in the U.S. for 18 months. It will be sold under the brand name Parsol Shield. The company says the first sunscreen products containing the ingredient should start hitting American store shelves around September.

  • DOJ approves Warner acquisition, CA pushes back

    Topline:

    The Justice Department yesterday approved Paramount's proposed $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

    How we got here: The decision came after the DOJ concluded its antitrust investigation into the pending merger. The department said in a statement that it found that the deal posed no threat to competition or consumers of film, broadcast television or streaming.

    What's next: The decision clears the way for a merger of two rival Hollywood studio titans: Paramount, the owner of CBS, including CBS News, will swallow the much larger Warner, which includes HBO and CNN. But several states, including California, have raised antitrust concerns. The European Union is investigating as well.

    The Justice Department on Friday approved Paramount's proposed $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

    After concluding its antitrust investigation into the pending merger, the department said in a statement that it found that the deal posed no threat to competition or consumers of film, broadcast television or streaming.

    The decision clears the way for a merger of two rival Hollywood studio titans: Paramount, the owner of CBS, including CBS News, will swallow the much larger Warner, which includes HBO and CNN.

    The DOJ''s Antitrust Division concluded that a union of two studio giants isn't anti-competitive because the streaming market has expanded the competition for conventional Hollywood studios, which includes Netflix, Apple and Amazon, as well as smaller streamers. The Justice Department's view is that, for the same reason, consumers won't lose out because there are plenty of other places to get entertainment.

    Several states, including California, have raised antitrust concerns. The European Union is investigating as well.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has been investigating the deal for antitrust violations, said in a post on social media following the Justice Department's approval: "The merger of Warner Bros and Paramount is not a done deal and remains under investigation by my office."

    In a statement following the decision, Paramount described the deal as "pro-competitive," and would result in "a stronger company better positioned to compete against dominant technology platforms in an industry increasingly defined by intense competition for audiences, talent, technology, and investment."

    The company said it planned to complete the merger as soon as possible, "delivering its benefits to consumers, creators, and the entertainment industry as a whole."

    The consolidation will put media mogul David Ellison — son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison — at the helm of Warner Bros. studio as well as its cable and streaming properties, including CNN and HBO. The Ellison family took over Paramount and CBS last summer.

    In the months leading up to the regulatory approval, critics in Hollywood feared the deal would consolidate an already concentrated media landscape and lead to fewer jobs and less creative content.

    In April, thousands of directors, actors, writers and other industry talent — including Kristen Stewart, Pedro Pascal and Javier Bardem — signed an open letter opposing the merger.

    The elder Ellison is also a financial backer and adviser to President Trump on artificial intelligence. Critics of recent changes at CBS under the Ellisons' control are concerned that, as they say has happened with CBS News, the acquisition would make CNN more friendly to Trump.

    NPR's Carrie Johnson and Mandalit del Barco contributed to this story.
    Copyright 2026 NPR