The Brief

A Republican senator from Missouri is accusing two immigrant rights groups in Los Angeles of “bankrolling civil unrest” prompted by the recent federal immigration raids in the area.

Sen. Josh Hawley, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, sent letters threatening to launch criminal investigations into the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, also known as CHIRLA, and Unión del Barrio.

Hawley wrote to the CHIRLA's executive director, Angelica Salas, saying “credible reporting now suggests that your organization has provided logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive actions.”

The senator offered no evidence in the letter that CHIRLA, one of the largest immigrant rights groups in Los Angeles, had been involved in any specific acts of violence or vandalism that accompanied the mostly peaceful protests over immigration raids over the past few days.

“You must immediately cease and desist any further involvement in the organization, funding, or promotion of these unlawful activities,” Hawley wrote. The letter demands CHIRLA preserve internal communications relating to protest planning, coordination, or funding.

In a statement, Salas rejected Hawley’s allegations.

“Our mission is rooted in non-violent advocacy, community safety, and democratic values,” she stated. “We will not be intimidated for standing with immigrant communities and documenting the inhumane manner that our community is being targeted with the assault by the raids, the unconstitutional and illegal arrests, detentions, and the assault on our first amendment rights.”

Hawley sent a similar letter to Ron Gochez, a community organizer with Unión del Barrio. The group is part of the Community Self Defense Coalition, which began a program in January that involves members patrolling the streets preemptively looking for immigration agents. Gochez was featured in an LAist story confronting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents with a bullhorn outside a home in South L.A.

We have reached out to Gochez for comment, but have not yet received a response.

Free speech advocates react

First Amendment advocates immediately denounced Hawley’s letter.

David Loy, legal director of the California-based First Amendment Coalition, pushed back specifically on a part of the letter that reads: “Let me be clear: bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech, it’s aiding and abetting criminal conduct.”

“It's not enough to say that CHIRLA or any other group is involved in protests and therefore responsible for everything that every single person does during those protests,” Loy said.

“The impact of a letter like this has a strong chilling effect on protected speech.”

Marissa Montes, director of Loyola Law School’s Immigrant Justice Clinic, called Hawley’s message an attempt to limit and silence advocacy on behalf of immigrants.

“We talk about being persecuted for your political opinion — this is a clear example,” Montes said.

CHIRLA has long been a leading advocate for immigrant rights in Los Angeles, conducting dozens of peaceful protests since its inception in 1986.

Salas has been its leader since 1999.

“In her role, she has transformed CHIRLA into a mass membership immigrant-led organization that empowers immigrants and their families to win local, state, and national policies that advance their human, civil, and labor rights,” her biography reads on the group’s website.

Another investigation

Hawley’s letter follows an announcement this week that a House committee and subcommittee would be investigating 200 non-governmental organizations, including CHIRLA, for allegedly improperly using tax dollars to facilitate illegal immigration during the Biden administration.

“Under the Biden Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funneled billions of dollars to NGOs to provide material support, including transportation, translation services, and housing, to illegal aliens throughout the United States,” wrote House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark E. Green (R-TN) and Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability Chairman Josh Brecheen (R-OK).

That news release singled out CHIRLA.

“Most recently…the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), has been linked to the far-left, anti-law enforcement riots in Los Angeles,” it read.

Loy called the government’s actions wrong.

“It's improper for the government to threaten to investigate or prosecute someone in the absence of evidence to show that the protest organizer had specific intent to support unlawful acts,” he said.

Montes agreed.

“This is something we have not seen before and it's truly a threat to American democracy.”

The protests that started Friday, sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, continued through Wednesday.

In Los Angeles, they were mostly contained to a small area of downtown near the Civic Center.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass imposed a curfew in that area Tuesday night into Wednesday morning that encompassed an area slightly larger than 1 square mile in a city that’s more than 500 square miles. The curfew was extended Wednesday night.

Arrests and charges from the protests

There have been multiple arrests, many of them on suspicion of violating curfew, according to the L.A. Police Department.

On Wednesday, federal and local prosecutors announced that charges had been filed against about a dozen people accused of various crimes, including assault on a peace officer, commercial burglary and vandalism, during protests in L.A. and Orange County.

A day earlier, David Huerta, who leads the powerful Service Employees International Union California, was charged in federal court with conspiracy to impede an officer. Huerta was arrested Friday at the scene of a workplace where federal agents were executing a warrant, according to a criminal complaint. He was injured during the arrest.

After his initial court appearance Monday, Huerta was released from custody on bond.

Federal prosecutors in L.A. also charged a man with one count of assault on a federal officer for allegedly spitting on him.

“This defendant found out the hard way: When you spit, we hit — with a felony charge,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli. “Law enforcement officers risk their lives and safety to uphold the law. To treat them with disrespect, like this defendant did, mocks our great nation and such behavior will be punished accordingly.”

Prosecutors have said more charges are likely.

President Donald Trump's long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it's not as simple as flipping a light switch.

"It's hard to see the big headlines of, 'Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,'" says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. "You know, those things are not true as of now."

That's because on its own, Trump's Dec. 18 order isn't enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

"The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug," Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump's order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won't automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It's not yet known how other policies might change.

"We don't know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements," Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here's a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump's order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III" of the Controlled Substances Act "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … "

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order's mention of the Controlled Substances Act's Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

"That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug," Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

President Donald Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

(

Evan Vucci

/

AP

)

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration's approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

"I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period," shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

"Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end," Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump's call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA's earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

"The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us," would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill's company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they're blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Section 280E "does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct," Brill says. "I can't deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense."

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

"For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve" was about $38 million, Brill says, "which includes interest and penalties."

Brill hopes marijuana's changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

"The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers," he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: "For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business."

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn't require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

"You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things," neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

"This does a little to make research easier," Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. "But there's a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Tortillas sold in California are going to have a new ingredient, one that’s intended to help nurture healthy infants.

Starting Jan. 1, a new law will take effect requiring most tortillas and corn masa products sold in the state to contain folic acid, a vitamin that’s important to infant health.

Latinas in California are far less likely than other women to get enough folic acid early in pregnancy — a gap that can lead to life-altering birth defects.

State data show that, between 2017 and 2019 – the latest years for which state data is available – about 28% of Latinas reported taking folic acid the month before becoming pregnant. White women took the vitamin at a higher rate, with 46% of them reporting consuming folic acid, according to the California Department of Public Health.

This puts Latinas at higher risk of having a baby born with neural tube defects — defects of the brain and spinal cord. Some examples of that are conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly.

Research has shown that folic acid can reduce birth defects by up to 70%. That’s why it’s found in prenatal vitamins. But because women may not find out they are pregnant until weeks or months after, public health has long recommended that folic acid also be added to staple foods.

In 1998, the U.S. required manufacturers to fortify certain grain products with folic acid, such as pasta, rice, and cereals, to help women of reproductive age get the necessary amounts. Since that rule took effect, the rate of babies born with neural tube defects dropped by about a third, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But even with the addition to these foods, birth defect rates among babies born to Latinas have been consistently higher. In search of a more culturally appropriate addition, in 2016, the federal government allowed makers of corn masa to add folic acid to their foods – but didn’t require it.

Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, who authored the law said leaving folic acid out of corn masa products, used in many Latino staple foods, was a “real oversight.”

Now, with the implementation of Assembly Bill 1830, California is the first state to require folic acid in corn masa products. The law requires manufacturers that do business in the state to add 0.7 milligrams of folic acid to every pound of flour and to list the addition in their nutrition labels. The law makes exemptions for small batch producers like restaurants and markets that might make their own tortillas from scratch.

Months after California’s law was signed, Alabama passed its own version. Its law goes into effect in June 2026.

Some large manufacturers have already been adding folic acid to their products for years. Gruma, the parent company of Mission Foods, said it started fortifying its foods back in 2016, when the federal government first allowed it. A company spokesperson said Gruma “has a longstanding commitment to supporting legislative fortification initiatives” and supports the new laws in California and Alabama.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

A new year means a new parade of classic characters and works entering the public domain.

Under U.S. law, the copyright on thousands of creations from 1930 — including films, books, musical compositions and more — will expire at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, meaning they will be free to use, share and adapt after nearly a century.

"I think this is my favorite crop of works yet, which is saying a lot," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, who has compiled an annual list of public domain entrants for over a decade.

This year's treasure trove features famous faces like the original Betty Boop — whose iconic hoop earrings originally took the form of floppy dog ears — and the initial version of Disney's Pluto, who first went by the name Rover.

"That's not only exciting in itself, but it's really an opportunity to look back at the history of these two incredible animation studios, Fleischer and Disney, and how their styles are imprinted in the DNA of today's cartoons," Jenkins says. "That's just a fun rabbit hole."

Literary highlights include William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the full version of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon, Watty Piper's The Little Engine that Could, the first four books of the Nancy Drew detective series and The Murder at the Vicarage, Agatha Christie's first Miss Marple mystery.

The movie selection spans war stories, musicals, thrillers, Westerns, comedies and more, coming from directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hughes and Salvador Dalí. Among them are All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Crackers starring the Marx Brothers, 1931 best picture winner Cimarron, and two Marlene Dietrich films, Morocco and The Blue Angel.

Several movies on the list feature future stars in their early days: Bing Crosby's first feature-film appearance in King of Jazz, Greta Garbo's first talkie Anna Christie and The Big Trail, John Wayne's first leading role.

Notably, Jenkins says, the films on this year's list all predate the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed studio guidelines that banned subjects from profanity, violence and nudity to interracial relationships and "lustful kissing" in movies from 1934 to 1968.

The musical compositions include "Georgia on my Mind," "Dream a Little Dream of Me" and four songs by Ira and George Gershwin: "I Got Rhythm," "I've Got a Crush on You," "But Not for Me" and "Embraceable You." Among the artworks are Piet Mondrian's "Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow" and the Jules Rimet Cup by Abel Lafleur — the original trophy of the FIFA World Cup from 1930 to 1970.

Jenkins says her four-person team spent well over 80 hours poring through the archives to compile this year's list. Writing the online summary was another feat, one she says kept her busy from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. over the course of two weeks.

But she thinks the crick in her neck is a small price to pay for shining a light on the value of public domain in "nurturing creativity and enabling access."

"What's really fun is that people are excited about it — people well beyond our world of copyright lawyers — especially when they start recognizing these works," she says. "And for me, one of the most exciting things is when you revisit a work that you loved in a different period of your life and get to look at it again."

The public domain unleashes new possibilities 

You may be wondering: Isn't there already a pretty famous Nancy Drew movie from 2007, and a cult-favorite Betty Boop musical on Broadway now?

Yes. But those productions had to get permission and pay money to adapt those characters at the time, Jenkins explains.

"What's different now is if you and me are really good at choreographing dance moves and writing lyrics for songs, we could make our own musical featuring Betty Boop 1.0 and we can go in whatever crazy directions we want," she says.

As a matter of fact, a Betty Boop horror movie is already in the works, following a string of 2025 scary movies starring villainous versions of the freshly non-copyrighted Peter Pan, Bambi and Popeye. Also, a Minnie Mouse slasher is due for release in 2026.

Not all adaptations have to be dark: Think West Side Story drawn from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Percival Everett's reimagining of Huckleberry Finn in the 2024 book James and, of course, the Wizard of Oz-inspired Wicked movies.

And public domain isn't just good news for those who want to create art, but also for those who simply want to consume it.

"It goes well beyond creativity to availability, to preservation, to being able to use things freely in school," Jenkins explains.

For example, Jenkins says, books tend to become cheaper — and available in more editions — once they enter the public domain.

A lot of creative works from the 1930s haven't been in print for decades, and ownership questions have kept many from being available online at all — at least while they were under copyright.

"Publishing houses go out of business, people die, ownership changes hands," Jenkins adds. "I mean, who on Earth owns the copyright to those random works from … almost a century ago? And when they go into the public domain, you don't have to worry about that."

Another benefit is that third parties can now digitize old films and sound recordings that have physically deteriorated over the decades — allowing for their preservation and wider distribution.

Jenkins says that's especially exciting for teachers, who can make use of these resources for free at a time when school budgets are shrinking. And even those who are not regularly in a classroom can learn a lot from this sampling of works.

"Now we're all having these conversations with our chatbots and wondering what it means that we're reacting to artistic work or to words that are generated by a machine, it was just really striking to feel the humanity behind all these works from 1930," Jenkins says, explaining that they were all created by people living in the shadow of World War I.

While there are many unresolved questions around AI and intellectual property, Jenkins says one thing is clear: "Human authorship is a requisite for copyright." So if a bot writes your Boop musical, don't expect it to be protected.

Copyright 2025 NPR