The Brief

It's hard to fathom now, but we used to be able to arrive at the airport just minutes before a flight. We'd keep our shoes and coats on as we went through a simple metal detector, and virtually anyone could go right to the gate without a boarding pass or even showing an ID.

The 19 al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists who hijacked four commercial jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, knew that and exploited lax airport security measures, strolling through metal detectors at four airport security checkpoints with ease, with deadly weapons in hand. This allowed the hijackers to commandeer those airplanes and use them as jet fuel-filled missiles as they flew them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., killing nearly 3,000 people.

"It was so easy — a lot of us were surprised it hadn't happened sooner," says Jeff Price, who was assistant security director at Denver International Airport on Sept. 11, 2001, and is now an aviation security expert at Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Airport security at that time was carried out by private contractors, usually hired by the airlines, with few federal standards. Those security contracts usually went to the lowest bidder.

"Before 9/11, security was almost invisible, and it was really designed to be that way," Price says. "It was designed to be something in the background that really wasn't that noticeable and definitely did not interfere with aircraft or airport operations."

"You could walk up to the gate at the very last minute. You did not have to have a boarding pass," Price says. "All you had to do was go through the security checkpoint — no questions asked, no ID needed."

That forever changed on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, travelers often stand in long lines at security checkpoints with wait times that can exceed an hour. We take off our shoes, empty our pockets and take laptops and other devices out of carry-on bags before stepping into high-resolution, full-body scanners, while our bags go through 3D-imaging X-ray machines. And don't forget to take your liquids of 3.4 ounces or less out of your carry-on.

Some of us enroll in known- or trusted-traveler programs such as PreCheck, surrendering some of our privacy in an effort to have a smoother expedited screening process.

Aviation security experts acknowledge that prior to 9/11, no one envisioned suicide terrorists wanting to use commercial airplanes as weapons and being willing to kill themselves in order to kill hundreds of innocent people.

Now, counterterrorism and homeland security officials in the federal government work to imagine the unimaginable and enhance defenses to prevent the ever-changing and growing threats to aviation security.

Here's a look at how airport security has evolved over the past 20 years.

Sept. 11, 2001

Terrorists hijack and crash four passenger jets

The 19 hijackers checked in for their flights at the airport in Portland, Maine, at Boston's Logan International Airport, at Liberty International Airport in Newark, N.J., and at Dulles International Airport in the Washington, D.C., area.

When Mohamed Atta checked in at the Portland airport with a fellow hijacker for their short flight to Boston, he was selected for additional scrutiny under what was then known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System). But according to The 9/11 Commission Report, "Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta's plans."

Several of the other hijackers were flagged by CAPPS at the other airports, but none was questioned and they were allowed to board in the same way Atta was — without much additional scrutiny. As they strolled through metal detectors at the airports, a couple of the hijackers set off alarms, but they were quickly cleared and sent on their way after going through a second metal detector or being scanned by a hand-held wand. It's not clear what exactly set off the alarms, but according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the hijackers used knives and/or razor blades in their attacks, which they likely had on them or in their carry-on bags. Even if those weapons were detected, it wouldn't have mattered.

"The FAA allowed knives of up to 4 inches in length on board an aircraft," says Price, the aviation security expert. "So even if the hijackers would have been caught with their knives prior to boarding the plane, the screeners would have handed it right back to them. "By 8:00 A.M. on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, they had defeated all the security layers that America's civil aviation security system then had in place to prevent a hijacking," The 9/11 Commission Report states.

September and October 2001

Enhanced airport security, fewer Americans flying, longer wait times in airport security lines

After the planes hit the twin towers and the Pentagon, the Federal Aviation Administration immediately ordered all remaining commercial aircraft still in the air to land at the nearest available airport. All flights remained grounded until Sept. 14. But when air travel did resume, very few Americans were willing to fly. Nonetheless, in the days and weeks after the stunning terrorist attacks, airport security immediately intensified.

Armed National Guard soldiers joined local and state police in some cities to help patrol airports and screen travelers. Knives, box cutters, razors and other types of blades were banned, and the list of other items prohibited on aircraft grew significantly.

Military police from the Massachusetts National Guard on their first day of duty at Boston's Logan International Airport on Oct. 5, 2001. Several thousand National Guard troops were called up around the U.S. to ensure airport security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

(

John Mottern

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Airport security officers began searching through carry-on bags and patting down passengers, and that, according to Price, is when wait times in airport security lines started to grow longer, even though few Americans were flying. He says authorities were "slowing down the lines at the checkpoint to do a more thorough search of passengers and baggage."

November 2001

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act creates the TSA; checked baggage screened by X-ray

Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the law that would create the Transportation Security Administration, which would become part of the newly created Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (left) meets with the CEOs of major U.S. airlines, including U.S. Airways CEO Rakesh Gangwal (right), and Federal Aviation Administration Director Jane Garvey on Nov. 15, 2001, at the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C. Mineta called the meeting to discuss improvements in airport security.

(

Shawn Thew

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

In addition to creating the TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act required 100% of all checked baggage to be screened by X-rays, the Federal Air Marshal Service was expanded to put more armed air marshals on many more flights, and the law required airlines to reinforce cockpit doors on their aircraft to prevent attackers from entering.

The law also mandated that the TSA oversee security for all modes of transportation, such as passenger rail (including Amtrak) and intercity bus travel. Experts say the TSA was a major step forward in improving security.

December 2001

The shoe bomber and how shoe removal at airport security checkpoints started

On Dec. 22, 2001, on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami, British-born terrorist Richard Reid tried to detonate explosives that he had packed in his shoes. Passengers subdued and restrained Reid as the flight was diverted to Boston, the closest airport.

This still frame from television footage obtained by ABC News and released Feb. 7, 2002, shows a shoe worn by shoe bomber Richard Reid.

(

ABC News/Getty Images

)

Investigators later said that Reid had enough explosive material to blow a hole in the fuselage of the plane, but that rainy weather and Reid's foot perspiration made the fuse too damp to ignite. Reid pleaded guilty to eight terrorism-related charges in October 2002 and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences and 110 years, with no possibility of parole. The incident led to the TSA and airlines asking passengers to voluntarily remove their shoes when going through screening at airport security checkpoints.

December 2002

Deploying explosives detection systems, very detailed 3D images

The TSA meets the mandate to screen 100% of all checked luggage by deploying machines that can scan bags for explosives and other dangerous weapons in every airport in the country.

The technology used in these screening systems has improved greatly over the intervening years, according to Deb Scovel, a TSA baggage and checkpoint supervisor at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, who says today's X-ray scanners are similar to CT scanners used in hospitals.

Left: On Jan. 24, 2002, at Port Everglades in Florida, customs inspector Lance Howard (left) demonstrates the operation of the American Science and Engineering Micro-Dose 101 X-ray machine to Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rob Bonner (center) and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Jim Ziglar. Right: A handgun inside a briefcase is displayed on the machine's screen.

(

Joe Raedle

/

Getty Images

)

"The X-rays take images of it from all sides," says Scovel, "so it does an all-around picture of whatever goes inside so you see it from every point of view." She says the 3D images are so detailed that "I can tell you the difference between Irish Spring and Dove soap — yes, I can. And officers that have been here a while can do the same thing. You can tell the difference between an Apple and a Dell laptop; they're very detailed."

April 2003

Pilots start to carry firearms on board flights, and other cockpit protections
The first pilots certified under a voluntary program allowing them to carry handguns were on board flights. Bush signed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act into law in November 2002, and the TSA began training flight deck personnel on how to use firearms on board, if needed, soon after.

Participants in the first class of commercial airline pilots who volunteered to carry handguns learn defense tactics on April 17, 2003, in Glynco, Ga., as part of the TSA's federal flight deck officer training program. The inaugural group of federal flight deck officer candidates spent the week learning how to use a handgun and defensive tactics.

(

Gary Wilcox

/

Getty Images

)

Also in April 2003, the TSA announced that all airlines had met the requirement to reinforce cockpit doors on their entire fleets of planes.

Pilots and their unions continue to push for additional cockpit barriers and fortifications to protect them from possible attacks from outside the cockpit.

August 2006

Liquids banned, shoe removal mandated and more air marshals added

British authorities disrupted a terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives on board 10 commercial aircrafts bound from London to various cities in the U.S. and Canada. U.K. prosecutors alleged the would-be bombers prepared to disguise the explosives as soft drinks in 500-milliliter branded plastic bottles.

As a result, the TSA banned all liquids, gels and aerosols from passenger carry-on luggage.

Containers holding liquids and gels that were taken from passengers lie in a trash can at Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C., on Aug. 10, 2006.

(

Mark Wilson

/

Getty Images

)

A month later, in September 2006, the TSA lifted the ban on liquids and amended its rule to allow airline passengers to carry liquids, gels and aerosols in containers of only 3.4 ounces or less in a single, clear, resealable 1-quart plastic bag that had to be removed from carry-on baggage when going through security screening.

August 2006 is also when the TSA began to require that all travelers remove their shoes so footwear could be screened for explosives at airport security checkpoints.

The TSA also began deploying more federal air marshals, including on international flights.

March 2008

Canine units join airport security forces

Although bomb-sniffing dogs were already being used in a limited capacity as part of transportation security, the TSA began deploying canine teams to specifically aid in the screening of cargo loaded onto passenger aircraft at U.S. airports.

The program later expanded to use dogs to detect possible explosive materials on passengers and in checked and carry-on baggage.

Sgt. Cliff Java of the San Francisco Police Department and his dog, Jacky, check luggage at San Francisco International Airport on July 3, 2007.

(

David Paul Morris

/

Getty Images

)

December 2009

The "underwear bomber" and the installation of full-body scanners

On Christmas Day 2009 on board a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, al-Qaida extremist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an improvised explosive device that he had hidden in his underwear.

Abdulmutallab later told FBI agents that he had been following the jetliner's flight path on his seat back's screen, as he wanted to blow up the plane over U.S. soil. Inside his briefs, he had explosive chemicals that would ignite when mixed. After going into the plane's lavatory to make final preparations, he returned to his seat and pushed a plunger to mix the chemicals.

But the volatile mix didn't explode as he intended, possibly because of excess moisture after the chemicals were inside his pants for so long. The mixture only caught fire, seriously burning Abdulmutallab, who tried to get his burning pants off before fellow passengers and crew members subdued him.

Abdulmutallab later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

A passenger goes through a full-body scanner at Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 24, 2010.

(

Jewel Samad

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

In response to the failed attack in which a terrorist was able to sneak dangerous explosives through security, in March 2010 the TSA began installing hundreds of full-body scanners that used advanced imaging technology.

By the end of 2010, approximately 500 such machines were deployed nationwide.

December 2011

TSA PreCheck begins, vetted travelers pay to go through shorter security lines
With hundreds of millions of travelers passing through the TSA's airport security checkpoints each year, the agency wanted a better way to discern who was and who wasn't a serious threat. So it started its known- and trusted-traveler PreCheck program to provide expedited screening for those willing to pay for it and undergo a more detailed background check.

The TSA says it makes risk assessments about passengers prior to their arrival at airport checkpoints via these thorough background checks. Vetted travelers pay $85 for a five-year membership and get to go through a shorter security line where they no longer have to remove shoes and belts.

The TSA, meanwhile, says it is able to focus resources on more high-risk and unknown passengers.

June 2015

TSA flunks undercover tests

The TSA's inspector general reported that 95% of the time, TSA officers failed to detect weapons, explosives and other prohibited items that undercover agents smuggled through various airport security checkpoints.

The astronomically high failure rate led to the reassignment of Melvin Carraway, who was then the TSA's acting director. It also prompted significant changes in TSA training and procedures, including enhanced screening and increased random searches.

March and June 2016

Attack outside Turkish airport security perimeter, concerns about soft targets

In June 2016, three suicide bombers who had been turned away at an airport security checkpoint opened fire with semiautomatic weapons before detonating explosive belts at Ataturk Airport's international terminal in Istanbul, killing themselves and 45 other people, while injuring more than 200.

Bullet impacts mar a window at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul on June 29, 2016, the day after a suicide bombing and gun attack targeted the airport, killing 45 people.

(

Ozan Kose

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

That deadly assault followed a similar coordinated terrorist attack just three months earlier that killed 32 people and injured more than 300 at an airport terminal and subway station in Brussels. The incidents raised concerns about what security experts call soft targets — the areas outside the hard security perimeter where large groups of people wait at baggage claim, line up at check-in counters and kiosks or queue up to go through security checkpoints.

Some critics, including counterterrorism expert Tom Mockaitis at Chicago's DePaul University, say it exposes a flawed approach to security.

"I've seen, in this country, us waste literally millions of dollars on what I call placebo security — highly visual measures like armed guards strutting up and down in our airports, you know, creating a feeling of well-being and a feeling of security without providing any real added benefit," Mockaitis told NPR in July 2016.

March 2017

The laptop ban

The Trump administration, citing threats gathered from credible intelligence sources, prohibited travelers from certain countries from bringing laptops, tablets and other large electronic devices into the cabin on commercial flights to the United States.

John Kelly, secretary of homeland security at the time, said the intelligence indicated that terrorists were developing bombs powerful enough to bring down an airplane but small enough to be hidden inside those devices. The laptop ban affected travelers from 10 airports in eight countries with majority-Muslim populations.

"We didn't feel at the time that overseas airports had the kind of security initially that could give me a comfort that they could detect this device, the airports in those countries," Kelly said a couple of months after the ban was imposed.

The laptop ban was lifted in July 2017.

June 2017

Facial recognition, biometric screening and privacy concerns

In 2017, some airlines, in collaboration with the TSA, began trials of facial recognition software that allows passengers' faces to be their boarding passes.

The system takes a photo and matches it with one on file with the airlines, speeding up the passenger-screening process and providing greater customer convenience. And because users of the system must be enrolled in the federal government's known-traveler program, it provides an extra layer of security.

But this and other biometric-screening methods, which could allow the government to track your whereabouts at home and abroad, raise significant privacy concerns, as NPR's Asma Khalid reported.

Aviation security experts say the TSA's efforts to expand the use of facial recognition and biometric screening was significantly delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic but could begin to ramp up again in the next couple of years.

September 2021

Still room for improvement but layers of hard and soft security

TSA officials say aviation security continues to evolve to address ever-changing threats, with a layered approach that involves surveillance, intelligence and technology. The agency has 65,000 employees and spends billions of dollars each year in an effort to stay one step ahead of potential foreign and domestic terrorists.

Travelers pass through security screening at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Nov. 29, 2020.

(

David Ryder

/

Getty Images

)

"People are very creative. The threats are very creative," says Louis Traverzo, the TSA's deputy federal security director. He adds: "It's up to us to anticipate that, and it's up to us to look at those things and try to come up with ideas to counter methods" that terrorists may come up with.

There hasn't been a successful attack against commercial aviation in the U.S. in the 20 years since 9/11, and outside experts agree that while there is still room for improvement, the TSA has been effective in preventing another terrorist attack.

The immigration detention center closest to Los Angeles has placed dozens of people in solitary confinement each month since June, according to the most recent data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In May 2025, the Adelanto ICE Processing Center had 14 people in isolation. When the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort revved up in June 2025, the number of detainees in solitary confinement there more than tripled. By July, it was 73; by August, 105.

The most recent data available shows that number went down slightly in January, to 74 people.

Ranked by percentage of the detainee population in “segregation,” as it is called at immigrant detention centers, Adelanto is among the U.S.’s top 10 facilities as of January, according to an LAist analysis of the most recent ICE data.

The data shows that of 229 ICE facilities that reported holding people since October 2024, between 50 and 60 usually reported putting at least one person in segregation in a given month. Out of the facilities that did place people in solitary confinement, Adelanto tended to do so less often than others until June 2025. (The facility held just a few people from October 2024 into January 2025.) When ICE’s presence increased in L.A. in June, the number of people sent to isolation in the facility also shot up — three to five times as many people have been isolated in Adelanto compared to the average facility that used any solitary confinement.

Since June, only two facilities have sent people to solitary confinement more times than Adelanto: one southwest of San Antonio, the other in central Pennsylvania.

Both of those facilities held twice the number of detainees as Adelanto on average from October 2024 through September 2025; but the number of people held in Adelanto since then has tripled, growing larger than either of the other facilities to hold an average of 1,800 people a day since October.

More on solitary confinement  

According to ICE, detainees may be placed in segregation for “disciplinary reasons,” or because of:

• “Serious mental or medical illness.”
• Conducting a hunger strike.
• Suicide watch.

The agency also says it might place detainees “who may be susceptible to harm [if left among the] general population due in part to how others interpret or assume their sexual orientation, or sexual presentation or expression.”

Not only is ICE holding more people in solitary confinement, but the agency's data also shows that detainees across the country are being isolated for longer periods of time. Detainees ICE considers part of the "vulnerable & special population" spent an average of about two weeks in solitary confinement each time they were isolated in 2022, when ICE first made the data available. By the end of 2025, the average stay in isolation had risen to more than seven weeks straight.

The GEO Group Inc., a private company that operates the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, has not responded to requests for comment.

How isolation can affect immigrant detainees  

UN human rights experts consider solitary confinement placements that last 15 days or more to be torture, though the U.S. Supreme Court has held that isolation doesn’t violate the Constitution.

The UN also maintains that solitary confinement should be prohibited for people “with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.”

In January, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of current detainees, calling for conditions at Adelanto to be improved. In addition to an unsanitary environment and a lack of healthy food and clean drinking water, detainees say solitary confinement is frequently used to punish those who speak out about conditions at the facility.

People held in immigrant detention centers are technically in “civil detention,” meaning that they are being detained to ensure their presence at hearings and compliance with immigration orders — not to serve criminal sentences.

According to the immigrant rights groups’ complaint, one detainee was placed in solitary confinement after complaining about the showers being broken. Another detainee said that, after asking a guard to “use more respectful language toward him, he was ridiculed, written up and given the middle finger by a guard who shouted, ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’” Then, the detainee was placed in solitary confinement for 25 days.

Alvaro Huerta, the director of litigation and advocacy at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center who is representing detainees at Adelanto, told LAist that when people are placed in isolation at the facility, they’re typically in the same cell for 23 hours per day, unable to receive visits from their families.

For clients who are experiencing mental health challenges — especially those with suicidal thoughts — being placed in solitary confinement “can really exacerbate their condition,” he added.

In multiple statements to the media, ICE has said that the agency “is committed to ensuring that all those in custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments.” The agency has also said that detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” and that all detainees “receive medical, dental, and mental health intake screenings within 12 hours of arriving at each detention facility.”

Huerta called that “laughable.”

“We have countless examples of people who have said that this is not true, that they're not getting the medication that they're requesting, that they're not being seen for chronic conditions and emergency conditions,” he added. “And we know it's not true because 14 people have died in ICE custody this year alone.”

Lori Rovner of Manhattan Beach is a big sports fan, so there was no question that when tickets for the Olympic Games went on sale, she'd be signing up.

She scored a slot in the first ticket drop, which launched Thursday, and logged on right at 10 a.m., hoping to score tickets to the Opening Ceremonies and some finals too. After battling her computer to get through "access denied" screens and a lost shopping cart due to a 30-minute time limit, she bought 16 tickets.

It was only when she was about to purchase that she noticed the service fees, which were around 24% of each ticket. One $2,100 ticket had a $505 service fee, bringing the total cost to $2,604.63.

"It's insane," she said of the fee. "I don't understand what the service is."

As the locals-only sale kicks off and Southern Californians have their first chance to buy tickets to the Olympic Games, some fans are wide-eyed at the high fees on all tickets and the prices in general, which start at $28 but go up to more than $5,500 a pop. Opening Ceremony tickets start at $328.68

The service fees aren't a surprise add-on. The price fans see when browsing the site is the total cost, including the fee. Still, some who bought in the first phase of sales were surprised when they saw the fees add up.

One user on Reddit of shared their cart of 10 tickets, which added up to $11,264. That included $1,038 in fees alone. Commenters responded in shock and awe.

Service fees are standard in ticket sales, but the percentage they charge can vary widely. High fees have been a source of ire for music and sports fans for years. A 2018 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the average fees on a primary ticket market were 27%.

LA28 did not respond to LAist's requests for details on the service fee, like what it pays for or why it's a percentage rather than a flat rate.

Not everyone seemed bothered by the prices. Some people LAist spoke with opted for only $28 or similarly priced tickets, even if it meant missing some of the biggest Olympic events. One user on Reddit said they purchased 18 tickets for around $550.

"I went with all $28 tickets," they wrote in the online forum about the Olympics. "I got women’s soccer, gymnastics, beach and regular volleyball, track and field, baseball and a few others."

For some, the ticket process, the prices and the dense web of events to choose from made it too hard to pull the trigger.

Jeff Bartow of Sierra Madre made a spreadsheet with some competitions he was interested in seeing before he logged on to buy tickets Friday.

"So many times, so many schedules, so many events," Bartow said. "I think I initially thought I was going to go to a bunch, but thinking about how crazy it's going to be … I might be a little more limited."

This is just the first ticket drop. There will be more opportunities to buy tickets in the months to come — and on a resale market that launches in 2027.

Some ticket-buyers told LAist they already were contemplating which tickets they'd keep and which ones they'd re-sell, just minutes after buying them.

In the more than two months since the Department of Justice released its latest batch of files on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, prosecutors have not brought any new charges based on the documents, despite federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continuing to demand accountability.

The more than 3 million pages of documents include accusations by alleged victims of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse and thousands of emails and photos showing Epstein associated with prominent figures. The files indicate that many of these people maintained contact with the disgraced financier long after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to sex crimes that involved minors. Appearing in the files is not necessarily an indication of criminal wrongdoing.

The release of the Epstein files came after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Justice Department to make public all documents it held related to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison about a month after a 2019 arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Maxwell was convicted on sex-trafficking charges in 2021 and is serving a 20-year sentence. Since the release of the files in 2025 and 2026, there have been no related arrests in the U.S. However, the disclosures have led to some resignations and other reputational repercussions for some high-ranking Americans.

The lack of arrests in the U.S. contrasts to the fallout in the U.K., where investigators have pursued charges related to corruption, not sexual abuse, in their dealings with Epstein. Two former government officials — former Prince Andrew and ex-ambassador Peter Mandelson — were arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as he is now known, has denied wrongdoing and has not been formally charged. Mandelson has also not been charged, and lawyers for Mandelson have said that the arrest was prompted by a "baseless suggestion."

In the U.S., top Justice Department officials have said that they found no evidence compelling enough to pursue further charges related to Epstein, and that the public can make their own assessments based on the disclosed documents.

In a statement to NPR, Justice Department spokesperson Katie Kenlein said that "there have not been additional prosecutions beyond Epstein and Maxwell because there has not been credible evidence that their activities extended to Epstein's network. However, if prosecutable evidence comes forward, the Department of Justice will of course act on it as we do every day in sexual trafficking and assault cases across the count[r]y."

On Thursday, President Trump announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out of the top job at the Justice Department, following bipartisan criticism over her handling of the Epstein files.

NPR asked four former prosecutors and one former law enforcement officer why there may not have been enough evidence to levy additional charges. Here's what they said.

Prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Prosecutors must prove to a jury that a person committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt," according to Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

"One of the biggest misconceptions people have is how difficult it is to charge and convict somebody for a criminal case," said McQuade, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

A prosecutor's ethical responsibility is to charge cases only if they believe there is enough evidence for a conviction, McQuade said. Documents, including emails, jokes, and even plane itineraries, can be a place to start, but, alone, they are not enough to prove guilt, McQuade said.

"What you would need [is] rock solid evidence," McQuade said. "You can't charge someone for a crime without sufficient evidence, and I have yet to see evidence of a crime involving an Epstein associate that has gone uncharged."

Based on his understanding of the case, Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law, said he agreed that prosecutors who investigated Epstein's alleged associates "may have believed that they couldn't persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." He said problems with witness credibility or certain forensic evidence can prevent a case from moving forward.

The U.K. cases are focused on corruption 

In the U.K., the two people arrested are being investigated on suspicion of "misconduct in public office." McQuade said the U.S. does not have a single equivalent federal law. Instead, the U.S. prosecutes public corruption through statutes that focus specifically on crimes such as bribery and extortion.

After the release of the latest files, British police began investigating Andrew's correspondence with Epstein when Andrew was a U.K. trade envoy. At that time, Andrew allegedly shared government itineraries, investment plans and notes from official foreign trips with Epstein. The information may have been covered by the United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act.

Similarly, Mandelson has been accused of passing confidential government information to the late sex offender when Mandelson was a U.K. Cabinet minister.

Meeting the burden of proof is especially challenging for sex crime cases

Victim statements are essential for establishing basic elements, such as the timeframe of events, required to build sexual assault cases, said Diane Goldstein, a retired police lieutenant from California and the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. But a victim may be reluctant to come forward because of a fear of retaliation, not believing the police can help, believing it is a personal matter, or not wanting to get the perpetrator in trouble.

McQuade noted that in some sex trafficking cases, especially those in which a perpetrator is in a position of power, victims may experience intimidation or threats that prevent them from speaking out.

Victims also may be hesitant to move forward with allegations because they fear having to testify at trials where defense attorneys may attempt to poke holes in their allegations, McQuade said.

Goldstein said that for sex crime cases to advance, investigators need to follow certain policies and procedures. "If you don't have a legitimate police investigation to start, you're not going to get any type of criminal filing," Goldstein said.

Other potential charges are also a difficult path

Prosecutors may have considered pursuing charges of criminal conspiracy related to sex trafficking against people associated with Epstein, said Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo School of Law. FBI documents in the files relating to its investigation into Epstein's crimes identify certain people as "co-conspirators."

But Ankush Khardori, a senior writer and columnist at Politico magazine who worked as a federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases, told NPR those identifiers are not "formal accusation[s]" and are simply part of "interim documents."

"The FBI does not determine who is a co-conspirator," Khardori said. "That is a legal judgment that prosecutors make."

But for those conspiracy cases, "criminal intent," in particular, is difficult to establish, said Roth, who worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York for seven years. Criminal conspiracy charges "would require knowledge and intent on the part of each individual who was charged," Roth said. If a person who communicated with Epstein had some suspicion that he was engaged in illegal activity, that alone would not be sufficient evidence to press charges, she said.

Investigators may have considered charges related to criminal tax violations, McQuade said. But the statute of limitations has likely ended on those cases, she said, meaning that prosecutors can no longer bring charges.

The current evidence lacks context

Legal experts say the haphazard way the documents were released and redacted makes it difficult for the public to understand why no additional charges have been filed.

Roth, the Cardozo law professor, said the information is in "isolation," without the appropriate context. "We'll see an individual photograph that looks perhaps incriminating. We'll see an email that looks incriminating, but we don't necessarily have everything that was said before and after that email and that exchange," Roth said.

One document that could explain why no charges were pursued, according to Butler, is a heavily redacted DOJ memo naming "potential co-conspirators" of Epstein. "The parts that should indicate why the department declined prosecution on any alleged co-conspirators other than Ghislaine Maxwell [are] redacted," said Butler, the Georgetown law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

Butler said those redactions are "unusual" because they do not appear to follow the permissible reasons for redactions in the Epstein documents. Those reasons include confidentiality for Epstein's alleged victims, or anything that would compromise an ongoing investigation, Butler said.

"When the Justice Department grudgingly releases information when pressed by politics or forced by Congress, it also creates the impression that they have something to hide," Butler said. "That there is some cover-up going on."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Nearly 30% more students in Los Angeles County experienced homelessness from 2022-23 to 2023-24, making it the county’s highest rate in the past five years and far outpacing the rate of homelessness across the state in the same timeframe, as the resources to identify and support this student population have decreased.

The UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools published two reports on Wednesday on the state of student homelessness in the county: “Rising Numbers, Fading Resources: Students Experiencing Homelessness in Los Angeles County” and “Hidden in Plain Sight: Fear, Underidentification, and Funding Gaps for Housing-Insecure Students in Los Angeles County.”

Researchers found that Norwalk-La Mirada Elementary Unified School District had the highest rate of student homelessness in the county — 1 in 3 students, meaning that over 4,700 students were identified as experiencing homelessness during the 2023-24 school year out of a total cumulative enrollment of about 15,600.

The city of Norwalk, where the district is located in the eastern region of the county, was sued by the state in 2024 for banning emergency shelters and other support services for people experiencing homelessness. Last year, the state reached a settlement with the city, which was forced to overturn the ban and put $250,000 toward building affordable housing.

Student homelessness is defined differently under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a federal law that requires every public school to count the number of students who are living on the street, in shelters, in motels, in cars, doubled up with other families, or moving between friends’ and relatives’ homes.

As a result of this expanded definition, McKinney-Vento includes doubled-up students in the count of homelessness. Doubled-up is a term used to describe children and youth ages 21 and under living in shared housing, such as with another family or friends, due to various crises.

There were a few other patterns seen in the L.A. County data analyzed by the UCLA researchers:

• Latino students were disproportionately more likely to experience homelessness: they represent 65% of the county’s student population, but 75.5% of student homelessness
• A third of homeless students were in high school
• Many districts with the highest rates of homelessness had higher school instability but lower dropout rates

While McKinney-Vento has an expanded definition that includes more types of homelessness than several other definitions, identifying students remains difficult.

The second report from the UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools focuses on the lack of dedicated funding for school staff to identify and support homeless students. Students and families facing homelessness do not always self-identify, whether due to fear, shame or being unaware that their housing situation is considered homelessness under McKinney-Vento.

“A lot of these young people are dealing with a lot of trauma, so they don’t want to be identified. They don’t want to be pointed out; sometimes it’s scary for them, because they think we’re going to report them to the Department of Children and Family Services,” said L.A. County Office of Education staff interviewed for this report.

School staff, known as homeless liaisons, who work with homeless students received a historic influx of federal funds during the Covid-19 pandemic — $98.76 million for California, out of $800 million nationwide, from the American Rescue Plan-Homeless Children and Youth.

That funding has since ended, and there is no other dedicated, ongoing state funding set aside solely for the rising number of homeless students. This has led districts in California to “heavily depend on highly competitive and unstable federal streams,” the UCLA researchers wrote. Those federal streams have become increasingly precarious as the federal administration last year sought policy changes that would shift how they are structured.