The Brief

L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez warned this week that Los Angeles could face bankruptcy if it doesn't make an airtight deal with Olympics organizers over how it will be reimbursed for its expenses during the coming 2028 Summer Games.

The Olympics have long been promoted as a "no cost" deal for taxpayers that will be hosted by the city, but funded and orchestrated by private organizing committee LA28.

But a key agreement outlining what city services Los Angeles will provide for the Games – like policing and traffic control – and how the cash-strapped city will be reimbursed for its extra work is now more than six months late.

In a letter to LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover sent Tuesday, Rodriguez warned that if it isn't changed, the current draft agreement could leave L.A. vulnerable to spending hundreds of millions even if LA28 turns a profit.

"Every dollar owed to the City must be reconciled and paid before any surplus is retained or repurposed," Rodriguez wrote. "Bankruptcy cannot be the legacy of these Games."

The major concern is who will pay security costs for the Olympics, including LAPD overtime. The federal government has allocated one billion dollars to security costs for the mega-event, and has put the Secret Service in charge of security planning.

Despite those plans, city officials are concerned about who will be left with the bag if the federal funding doesn't come through, or if it doesn't cover all of the city's security costs.

LA28 has not included security spending in its $7.1 billion budget – a point that City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto raised in a March report sent to the city council. The billion dollars in federal funding will also be allocated across all the law enforcement agencies that police the Games – meaning the actual amount the city of L.A. will receive is unclear.

"What happens if the City's actual extraordinary expenses exceed $1 billion?" Feldstein Soto wrote in her report.

The city made a gamble when it agreed to host the Olympics. To score the host bid, L.A. agreed to be the financial backstop for the Olympic Games, meaning if the organizing committee runs into the red, L.A. will pick up the bill, along with the state of California.

In their missives over Olympic expenses, both the city attorney and Councilmember Rodriguez raised a new potential nightmare scenario for the city: that the Olympics could make a surplus, and L.A. could still be left in debt.

"The City requires unambiguous language in the [agreement] to foreclose any scenario in which funds might go back to the wealthy backers and investors of the LA28 organization without reimbursing taxpayer-funded extraordinary costs," the city attorney wrote.

LA28 did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Next Tuesday, the city council's ad-hoc committee on the Olympic Games will meet for the first time since January.

Is this the year that Gov. Gavin Newsom allows students without legal status to legally work at California’s public colleges and universities?

A state bill with wide support from Democrats but opposed by Republicans seeks to do just that by adopting an untested legal theory that argues a 1980s federal law banning employment for people without legal status doesn’t apply to state agencies. But university leaders and Newsom worry that acting on the theory could put the state on another collision course with the Trump administration.

The bill easily cleared the Legislature Friday, including a "yes" vote from one Republican. The bill now heads to Newsom’s desk.

Assembly Bill 713 by Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat from Lakewood, is seemingly straightforward: The University of California, California State University and community colleges cannot disqualify students without legal status from campus employment. If it becomes law, it would kick in Jan. 6.

The systems together enrolled an estimated 60,000 students without legal status in 2023 and most were in the community colleges. Some attend private colleges and wouldn’t be covered by the bill.

Leading the charge for this right to work on campuses are students without legal status, immigration rights groups and legal scholars. Access to safe working conditions for students without legal status is a high priority because they’re ineligible for federal Pell grants — up to $7,400 annually — and federal student loans that come with more borrower protections than ones offered by private lenders. California awards eligible in-state students tuition waivers regardless of immigration status, so many students without legal status can at least attend a public institution tuition-free.

“While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache said at a bill hearing in June.

Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2024, echoing a chief worry put forward by the University of California: Any effort to employ students without proper status would incur the wrath of the Trump administration, which could attempt to pull some or all of the $17 billion in annual federal support the system gets.

The state’s Department of Finance is recommending a "no" vote on Solache’s bill. The fear of federal litigation and budget cuts are the main reasons why.

The University of California abandoned its own review of employing students without legal status in 2024 for those reasons. Students at the public meeting cried and shouted at the board’s regents when they made the decision.

Some Republicans cited the risk of the Trump administration cutting federal higher education funding as a reason for their opposition to the current bill.

“If we're going to move something forward like this that then threatens 100% of all of the students, I think that's irresponsible for us as legislators,” said Assemblymember David Tangipa, a Republican from Fresno, at a January bill hearing. He voted "no" on the bill Friday.

After Newsom vetoed the 2024 bill, which sailed through the Legislature with minimal opposition, some students sued the University of California. A state appellate court ruled that UC's argument that the federal government might sue the system was an abuse of discretion under the state’s law banning employment and housing discrimination. The court said UC’s policy of not hiring students without legal status was legally indefensible unless it can show that federal law requires the UC to continue its policy of not hiring them. The UC appealed, but the state Supreme Court let the appellate ruling stand. Still, the court ruling was silent on the soundness of the legal theory that the state can hire workers without legal status.

The court ordered UC to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees on behalf of the plaintiffs, a student and a former lecturer.

It’s unclear if Solache’s bill can even force the UC to comply if it becomes law. Since 1879 the state constitution has granted the system a high degree of autonomy.

What is the legal theory being tested?

The bill, like its predecessor that Newsom vetoed, takes its cues from a team of UCLA scholars who advanced a theory in 2022 that a federal law banning employers from hiring workers without legal status doesn’t apply to state employers. The architects of the legal argument say the law in question, 1986’s Immigration Reform and Control Act, never actually listed state agencies as employers covered by the law.

Other laws passed by Congress clearly included states in restrictions that also applied to the private sector or federal employers. The omission, the UCLA scholars say, means Congress never intended to tie the hands of state agencies on whom they can hire. An analyst at the state Senate’s judiciary committee also noted that Congress may be unable to dictate whom states can hire, because that undermines protections for states’ rights.

Student advocates then persuaded the UC Board of Regents to consider adopting that legal theory so students without legal status could obtain campus jobs. But momentum for that policy stalled, culminating with the UC dropping the plan.

Student voice

Some students have found a way to work while enrolled despite the ban on campus jobs.

Working without proper immigration status is not illegal, but employers cannot knowingly employ individuals who lack proper legal status, wrote University of Oklahoma law professor Kit Johnson in a 2022 law article. Employers often take advantage of the legal precarity of immigrants without legal status by paying them less than they’d earn with proper legal status.

A legal workaround, she writes, is for such immigrants to form limited liability companies, or LLCs. That business structure makes them consultants hired for a job, as opposed to employees.

Some students without legal status at the UC did just that, or they formed similarly structured cooperatives. But not every campus student can form an LLC or knows to do that.

Is student data safe from federal inquiry?

Backers of Solache’s bill and the Senate’s judiciary committee analysis say students without legal status employed at a campus aren’t at greater risk of immigration action despite concerns raised by skeptics of the proposed policy to hire them. The judiciary committee wrote that state agencies arguably aren’t required to verify employment eligibility for roles that aren’t funded by the federal government. They also say federal and state laws bar universities from sharing personal student information without that student’s consent.

But public California universities have shared student and personnel information with the federal government under the Trump administration’s investigations into alleged campus antisemitism. Critics say the administration exploited antisemitism accusations to coerce campuses across the country into settlements that align with the conservative values of the White House. The Cal State system settled with staff and faculty unions after they sued over the disclosure of personal information, promising to alert workers before their information is released to federal authorities investigating antisemitism.

Advocates of the bill also argue that the risk of apprehension and deportation is not reason enough to oppose it. Students understand the risk and that doesn’t change if they work legally or not.

Bill addresses questions the appellate court wouldn’t

As a result of the lawsuit students and advocates filed against the UC, the court sided with the plaintiffs because it found that the university’s employment policy discriminated against students based on their immigration status, which state law prohibits. It challenged the UC to provide an argument for why it thinks the federal government would go after the system for establishing this policy. Importantly, the court did not order the UC to begin hiring students without legal status.

“The UC now has to either end the discrimination against undocumented students or defend its decision to do so by reference to federal law, neither of which it has done to date,” wrote Ahilan Arulanantham in an email. Arulanantham is one of the UCLA scholars behind the legal theory and a counsel in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the University of California.

Omar Rodriguez, a UC spokesperson, wrote in an email that the "UC is evaluating its options in light of the court’s ruling and will take appropriate action when that evaluation has concluded.”

“UC does not have a position on AB 713,” he added.

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

Two litters of a rare southwestern rattlesnake were born at the L.A. Zoo last month. The six New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake pups are the first to be bred under a multi-agency recovery program that started two years ago. 

The shy, gray-and-tan snake lives in isolated mountain ranges in Arizona, New Mexico and Northern Mexico and is considered “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.

" Conservation … isn't just about protecting the animals that look most similar to us or that are the easiest to like,” said Byron Wusstig, the L.A. Zoo’s reptile curator. “It's about preserving that ecosystem as a whole.”

The L.A. Zoo is one of three institutions working to breed the snakes so their offspring can be released back into the wild as part of Project Obscurus (the rattlers’ scientific name is crotalus willardi obscurus). This year’s litters are the first zoo-bred pair in the project and the result of pairings made about a year ago. The pups’ parents were collected from the mountains of Sierra San Luis, Mexico, for breeding.

What's life like for the snakelets?

Unlike most egg-laying reptiles, rattlesnakes give birth to live young and “hang out” with the neonates for the first few weeks of life. Wusstig said the baby ridge-nosed rattlesnakes have been basking in the light on top of their mom and sipping water that beads up on her scales. The pups snack on centipedes in addition to bite-sized pieces of the mice and quail that adults eat.

“There is a bit of parental behavior that happens with rattlesnakes that we still have a lot to learn about, but it's really interesting to observe,” Wusstig said.

(

Luc Myers

/

Courtesy LA Zoo

)

In the coming months, Project Obscurus will decide whether these snakes are released back into the wild or remain in the breeding program.

“Success won't be measured by how many individuals we can breed here in the zoo,” Wusstig said. “Ultimate success is getting the populations in the range where they're most threatened in Arizona and New Mexico, getting those to have sustainable populations … that are genetically diverse and stable in the long term.”

Can I see the babies?

The zoo’s ridge-nosed rattlesnakes are quarantined to prevent them from picking up illnesses that could spread to wild populations once they’re reintroduced to their native environment. However, the zoo has several other species of rattlesnake that you can safely observe from behind panes of thick glass.

Computer science, nursing and electrical engineering are among the most lucrative fields of study for recent California undergraduates, who on average earn well over $100,000 four years after graduating in these majors.

That’s according to a new analysis of federal earning data by The HEA Group, an education research organization. The report found that, on average, recent California graduates who received a bachelor’s degree earned nearly twice that of high school graduates, reinforcing that bachelor degrees help expand opportunities for greater economic mobility.

More students are questioning the economic value of higher education amid rising costs to attend college in California. Last year, students who lived on campus reported an 18% increase in their overall expenses compared to the previous year, according to a California Student Aid Commission report.

Growing skepticism of higher education’s value partially inspired Michael Itzkowitz, The HEA Group’s president, to conduct its analysis. He said students should enter post-secondary education with their “eyes wide open” about both the cost of the degree and its potential payoff.

“Before students consider additional levels of education, it’s important that they know what kind of investment they’re gonna make upfront, but also what kind of payoff they’re gonna have on the back end,” Itzkowitz said.

Different degrees, different values

STEM degrees, those related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics, are among the highest paying fields. Itzkowitz said that federal earning data of graduates from California colleges and universities was generally consistent to what he has observed nationally.

Those who earned a degree in mathematics and computer science earned an average salary of $138,785 four years after graduation — the highest of all the majors included in HEA’s analysis.

Other top earners included bachelor’s degree holders in computer engineering and nursing, which resulted in annual incomes of $125,120 and $123,693, respectively.

The analysis included nearly 277,000 graduates who received federal student aid. It found the most popular major is business administration, management and operations, which translated to an average salary of $74,271 four years after graduation.

Itzkowitz cautioned against using the database to determine the value of a particular major.

“A social work degree and an engineering degree exist for very different reasons, and both have different kinds of societal value that goes beyond the paycheck,” he said. “This is about being better informed of the outcomes before students spend the next two to four years of their life earning a degree.”

For students using the HEA database to make decisions about their field of study, it is important to consider what university they are attending, he said. A bachelor’s degree from one institution will lead to different outcomes compared to the same degree from other colleges.

The HEA analysis of roughly 3,000 bachelor’s, associate’s and certificate programs in California found that spending more time in school had economic benefits.

On average, those who obtained an associate’s degree earned on average $23,942 more than those with a certificate. Bachelor’s degree holders earned $34,769 more on average than those with an associate’s degree.

“I would argue it suggests that college is certainly still worth it when it comes to economics,” Itzkowitz said.

The U.S. Postal Service could "derail" the midterm election if it continues rushing out "untested" technology as part of President Trump's push to restrict mail-in voting, a newly released whistleblower report warns.

With voting by mail for the midterms set to officially start this week, key parts of the USPS plan for carrying out Trump's directives, including requirements for states to comply, remain blocked for now by a court order in the legal fight over the president's executive order.

Still, the mailing agency has been preparing for months to launch an online portal that would allow state election officials to submit absentee voters' names and ballot envelope barcodes required by the now-blocked rule.

Testing of that new system, however, has been insufficient, according to claims by a whistleblower, outlined in a disclosure that Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut submitted Monday to USPS.

"USPS leadership, it appears, has discarded all best practices as they speed the project to be ready for a September 1 implementation — raising questions about whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug," said the disclosure, prepared by Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit organization representing the anonymous federal government official with direct knowledge of the Postal Service's development of the new system.

If courts allow USPS' plan for Trump's order to proceed for the midterms, problems with the online portal could lead to eligible absentee voters not receiving their mail-in ballots in time or at all.

One potential logistical hurdle, the whistleblower claimed, stems from an unusual "zero-percent failure policy" USPS has set for the process of verifying that the mail-in ballots states want to send out meet the requirements of its new rule.

"As designed, the process is entirely unforgiving. It could delay ballots by the thousands in repeated verification cycles — and thus prevent states from mailing enormous numbers of ballots," the disclosure said.

Spokespeople for USPS did not immediately respond to NPR's questions about the whistleblower disclosure.

In a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner, Blumenthal urged Steiner to "abandon this ill-conceived, unconscionable plan and ensure that all Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote, including by mail, without interference by USPS."

Blumenthal said on a phone call with reporters that he found the details of the disclosure "mind-boggling" as an elected official and U.S. citizen.

"And what the disclosure reveals is that the Postal Service has designed a system that is intended to fail," the senator added.

The president, who has voted by mail himself, defended his directives for USPS and other federal agencies as a way to curb illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens, which many studies and audits show is extremely rare.

Last week, a federal judge in Boston issued a temporary restraining order against USPS after finding that its plan for Trump's order is likely illegal because the mailing agency has no authority to control voting by mail.

The Trump administration has appealed that ruling to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, setting up what will likely be another battle at the Supreme Court, which has not yet weighed in on the legality of Trump's directives.

More lower court rulings on Trump's order may also be on the way as election officials and mail-in voters attempt to sort through the uncertainty the ongoing legal fight has caused.

Editor's note: USPS is a financial supporter of NPR.

Edited by Megan Pratz

Copyright 2026 NPR