The Brief

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation has a new general manager.

Laura Rubio-Cornejo, who previously served as Pasadena's transportation director, will oversee 52 transportation services and projects, including the Vision Zero initiative that aims to reduce traffic related deaths.

Susanne Whatley, who hosts LAist 89.3's a.m. news show Morning Edition, spoke with Rubio-Cornejo about what's ahead for transportation in Los Angeles. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Top priorities

LAist: Talk about your top priorities as L.A.'s new transportation general manager.

Rubio-Cornejo: My top priority would be ensuring that our streets are safe for all Angelenos, but particularly for the most vulnerable amongst us. Ensuring that whether you're a child, you're an elderly person, that you can walk out your front door and that is safe, and that is inviting.

LAist: And that's quite a challenge for a city that was pretty much constructed, at least in modern times, on the automobile. Back in 2015 is when the city approved Vision Zero, and it was called a commitment to eliminate traffic deaths by the year 2025. And yet we're seeing the numbers actually increased since then. It's up, my understanding is, nearly 70% percent in this past year compared to when Vision Zero was adopted. Talk about what's behind this increase and how you plan to make L.A. streets safer.

RC: The trend is one that we're seeing not just in Los Angeles, not just statewide, but nationwide. And it's a very disturbing trend that despite efforts to make our streets safer, despite ongoing infrastructure that LADOT and the City of Los Angeles has been implementing, we continue to see an increase in fatalities, particularly amongst pedestrians. But what we know is that where there is safe street infrastructure — it is effective. And so this isn't a time to scale back. This isn't a time to throw our hands up and say this isn't working. We know it is working. And so we need to continue to address safe streets.

We need to continue to implement safe street infrastructure and we need to do that one street at a time, one community at a time.

What it will take to make streets safer

LAist: What specific steps do make a difference in making the streets safer?

RC: When we have streets that acknowledge that they're intended to be for all modes. We have a very good example with Avalon Boulevard, where we were able to reallocate road space and make that a multimodal street. We saw a reduction in speeds there. We saw pedestrian amenities be more inviting for that mode. And so that's just one example. Bicycle infrastructure isn't just about allocating road space for the bicyclist. It's about also traffic calming. It's about providing some additional protections for the pedestrian. And really, when we plan our streets, when we design them, in consideration that the streets really are intended to be shared. By all modes, that really makes the greatest impact.

Where does Vision Zero stand?

Map of L.A.'s High-Injury Network (HIN). Just 6% of city streets account for 70% of deaths and severe injuries for people walking.

(

Courtesy City of L.A.

)

LAist: On the city's Vision Zero website, the most recent progress report was from about six years ago in 2017, just a couple years into the program. When do you anticipate another update for the public on where things are with the Vision Zero goal?

RC: We just provided an update to our city council this last summer. We do anticipate a more comprehensive update report coming out of the city's CAO office in a couple of months, if not sooner. And so that will really be a full view of the program, its effectiveness, and some recommendations on how to proceed.

How to get involved

LAist: If people in L.A. want to get involved in supporting Vision Zero, how can they do that?

RC: They can participate, be active participants when we do have meetings. They can coordinate with our community engagement team here with LADOT. They can work directly with their council offices. I would say the best way is when we do have a project and we have a community meeting, attend speak out, share with us what your concerns are, your preferences. That's what we're there to gather. Making sure that whatever infrastructure we move forward with, really reflects the priorities of that community.

What's next for transportation is L.A.?

LAist: Moving ahead, what have been the biggest changes involving transportation in Los Angeles in recent years, and are there any major projects that you'd like to highlight for our listeners?

RC: You know, we've had the ability to implement over 20 miles of bus only lanes. We're really excited about our Safe Routes to School programs where we're advancing safety at the nearby schools. Those are just two of the ways that we're really working on advancing safety at a more local level.

LAist: Governor Newsom just signed hundreds of bills into law over the past month or so after the end of the legislative session. And I'm wondering if there are any new laws Angeleno's in particular should keep in mind when it comes to driving or street safety or just transportation in general.

RC: One in particular that the City of Los Angeles really participated in advancing to the governor's desk is AB645 sponsored by Assemblymember Friedman that allows for us to be able to detect speeding and enforcement of speeding. And so that's one that we'll be working really closely over the next several years with our fellow departments on implementing and reporting back out to the state on its effectiveness.

LAist: Is that the speed camera law?

RC: It is. And I think what's really important about that law is it allows us to enforce speeds in a way that's consistent, in a way that is accountable. So really looking forward to having that implemented.

LAist: And that encompasses city of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale, where Laura Friedman is from, in addition to three cities up north. How long is this going to be a pilot program and what method is going to be used to evaluate whether that works or not?

RC: I believe we have to report back a couple of years into the program being in effect. Five years or so is my understanding. There are a couple of metrics we have to report back on to the state, and so we'll be making sure that we're tracking that in house and reporting out to the state as well as to our fellow cities, working with our other cities that are part of that legislation to ensure that the application is consistent across the board.

LAist: Anything else that you'd like to add?

RC: I would just like to reinforce the department's commitment to safe streets. It is really important that individuals at Angelenos, whether you're a resident, you're visiting, that you feel safe walking down our streets, that you be mindful as you're driving that we are sharing the same road space. There's a strong commitment here to make sure that the streets really do reflect that they are intended to be for people.

The Trump administration is suing California over a law that prevents oil and gas drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, hospitals and schools — the latest in the power struggle between the state and federal government over energy rights.

The complaint, filed Wednesday by the Department of Justice, argued that a law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 — SB 1137 — violates longstanding federal law allowing the government to lease public lands for oil, gas, coal, and other minerals.

The law, which creates one-kilometer “health-buffer zones” around “sensitive spaces,” according to the California Department of Conservation website, will shut down one-third of all federally authorized oil and gas leases in the state.

The guidelines were developed based on recommendations from a 15-person expert panel to effectively protect residents from harmful emissions.

About 8% of California’s population lives within this distance to an oil or gas well. Low-income people are disproportionately affected by resulting health risks.

“The Trump administration just sued California for keeping oil wells away from elementary schools, homes, day cares, hospitals, and parks. Think about that,” said Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Newsom.

The Valero Benicia Refinery in Benicia, on May 8, 2025, which processes up to 170,000 barrels of oil a day, making gasoline, diesel, and other fuels for California. Valero plans to shut down the Benicia refinery by April 2026, citing high costs and strict environmental rules. (Beth LaBerge/KQED)“SB 1137 creates a science-based buffer zone so kids can go to school, families can live in their homes, and communities can exist without breathing toxic fumes that cause asthma, birth defects, and cancer.”

This comes days after the Trump administration sued two Bay Area cities over energy-efficiency measures, blocking natural-gas infrastructure in new construction.

And in November, President Donald Trump proposed to ramp up oil drilling off the California coast, outraging many state officials.

In April, Trump directed the Justice Department to target state laws that banned or limited the production of energy, “particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources”.

Trump has claimed that increasing the use of these resources domestically will make energy more affordable, and has said his administration is committed to “unleashing American energy.”

“This is yet another unconstitutional and radical policy from Gavin Newsom that threatens our country’s energy independence and makes energy more expensive for the American people,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said.

“In accordance with President Trump’s executive orders, this Department of Justice will continue to fight burdensome regulations that violate federal law and hamper domestic energy production — especially in California, where Newsom is clearly intent on subverting federal law at every opportunity.”

The complaint directly references the Mineral Leasing Act, passed in 1920. The law’s text states: “Prior to issuance of any coal lease, the Secretary shall consider effects which mining of the proposed lease might have on an impacted community or area, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, on agricultural and other economic activities, and on public services.”

President Donald Trump arrives to deliver remarks about American energy production during a visit to the Double Eagle Energy Oil Rig on July 29, 2020, in Midland, Texas. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, suggested the Trump administration was working on behalf of the oil lobby, which failed to overturn SB 1137 in 2024.

“Big Oil backed down from their deceitful referendum campaign because Californians wouldn’t stand for it,” Siegel said. “This is a last-ditch attempt to overturn the law’s critical health protections. I’m confident this historic law will stand.”

Siegel added that if the Trump administration’s attempt to strike down California’s law is successful, it would set a “terrible precedent” for environmental protections nationwide.

California prosecutors are expressing alarm at the Trump administration’s response to the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an immigration agent, pointing to statements that the agent has absolute immunity from prosecution and to the decision to exclude Minnesota investigators from the inquiry into the incident.

In interviews with KQED, state and local prosecutors vowed to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute federal agents who act illegally in California. But they acknowledged that those probes would be difficult to undertake without federal cooperation.

“Despite what Vice President [JD] Vance has irresponsibly and erroneously said ... there’s no such thing as absolute immunity,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said. “Of course, there can be criminal liability for an ICE agent who commits a crime. ICE agents do not have carte blanche and license to kill and commit crimes and assaults and batter and rape and murder Americans. That’s what JD Vance is saying.”

Amid aggressive immigration raids in Minneapolis, Renee Macklin Good was shot three times by an ICE agent as she appeared to turn her car away from the officer on Jan. 7.

Following the shooting, federal authorities — including President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — blamed Good for the shooting, excluded state and local law enforcement from the investigation and moved to focus the probe on Good’s possible activism, not the ICE agent’s actions.

“The precedent here is very simple — you have a federal law enforcement official, engaging in a federal law enforcement action,” Vance said from the White House podium two days after the shooting. “That’s a federal issue; that guy is protected by absolute immunity, he is doing his job.”

That claim prompted outrage from Democrats around the nation, in part because Macklin Good’s shooting, while she drove her car, is not unique.

Immigration agents have been involved in at least two nonfatal shootings of drivers in Los Angeles in recent months, and a Wall Street Journal investigation identified 13 times since July when ICE agents fired into civilians’ vehicles, twice fatally.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem immediately defended the actions of the officer who killed a woman in Minnesota.

(

Michael Gonzalez

/

Getty Images

)

Outrage in California and beyond

Vance’s comments in particular outraged law enforcement in California and beyond; the administration’s response led six federal prosecutors in Minnesota to resign this week.

“I’ve never in my career seen a government official, an elected official, or the head of a law enforcement agency come out and within minutes justify the conduct of the officer or agent [involved in a shooting],” San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said on KQED’s Political Breakdown on Tuesday.

“It tells me that there’s already been a conclusion drawn, that we will not have a full and fair and independent investigation because they’ve already told us that they’ve determined that this shooting was justified. And so there will not be an opportunity for justice should that need to happen.”

Jenkins, a Democrat, made headlines in October amid threats of Bay Area immigration raids when she said she would not hesitate to prosecute federal agents who break the law in San Francisco. Her comments prompted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to write a letter that offered a preview of the government’s response to the Minnesota case: He declared any arrest of federal agents “illegal and futile.”

But Jenkins’ comments were correct, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.

San Mateo County's Stephen Wagstaffe said recent events have him worried about the public's trust in law enforcement

(

KQED

)

“That’s exactly what I feel. I don’t care who they are; I don’t care who or what their role is. If they come into our county, violate the law, they get held accountable just like anybody does,” he said. “Stature or occupation is not relevant as to whether you get prosecuted if you violate the law.”

In one of the Los Angeles cases, TikTok streamer Carlitos Ricardo Parias was accused by federal agents of using his car as a deadly weapon; agents claimed they fired at him in self-defense. But a federal judge dismissed the assault charges filed by federal prosecutors, and video of the incident has raised questions about the agents’ account.

It’s not clear if there are state or local investigations into that incident: Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman declined an interview request for this story, and Bonta declined to confirm or deny a state investigation, saying he cannot comment on pending cases.

But prosecutors said that federal authorities’ actions are eroding trust in law enforcement — and making their jobs harder.

“Rule of law doesn’t truly exist in our country at the highest level right now,” Jenkins said. “We already know that based on the history in this country, there’s so much distrust when it comes to the prosecution of law enforcement for unlawful shootings or even fair investigations into those shootings.”

Wagstaffe said he was dismayed to see the rush to judgment by both the Trump administration and local elected officials, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Within hours of the Good shooting, Frey declared the federal government’s self-defense claims “bulls—.”

Still, Wagstaffe said none of that should affect the investigation.

“What we’re trying to do here is inspire public trust,” he said. “But I’m not going to be influenced in even the slightest by what any other person says.”

Questions about state officials' power

Bonta, Wagstaffe and Jenkins all said that after Good’s killing and the subsequent decision by the FBI to shut out Minnesota investigators, they have real concerns about their ability to probe potential use-of-force incidents involving federal authorities.

Wagstaffe noted that federal prosecutors generally are not empowered to investigate homicides — local district attorneys are. Jenkins said if federal authorities take control of a scene and refuse to share evidence, “it would nearly negate our ability to prosecute.”

Bonta said that what should happen after a federal agent uses deadly force is a joint investigation.

“We should have access to the scene. We should have access to the evidence. We should get cooperation from the federal government,” he said.

California's response to ICE

California has made moves to push back on what Democrats here see as ICE’s overreach: Last year, the governor signed a law barring local and federal law enforcement from wearing a mask while on duty, a law that’s now tied up in court. The author of that bill, state Sen. Scott Wiener, is currently pushing legislation to make it easier for Californians to sue over violations of constitutional rights, like illegal searches and seizures or retaliating against someone for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bonta urged Californians to report federal misconduct to a new website his office created, including video of encounters with ICE, which the public is allowed to record. But he also encouraged protesters and others not to take the bait if federal agents appear to be provoking a violent response.

“You cannot, and you should not, assault or strike or commit a crime against an officer. You just can’t, no matter what they did in terms of approaching you. If they use force and you think it was unreasonable, you’re not going to figure it out at that moment,” he said. “I’ll have to get it figured out later in a court of law.”

“Follow orders, be peaceful, but you can observe, you can record, and that can be used later as evidence in a case that you might bring.”

Since September, 16 major drug companies have inked deals with the Trump administration to lower prices. But in January — the time of year when pharmaceutical companies typically roll out price hikes — all 16 companies released higher list prices for some of their drugs.

The agreements, nicknamed "most favored nation" deals, were aimed at getting lower prices for American consumers and pushing other wealthy countries to pay higher prices for new drugs.

But drug companies, including the 16 that made deals, raised the prices of 872 brand-name drugs in the first two weeks of 2026, according to a new analysis by 46brooklyn, a drug price research firm.

The drugs with price hikes included medicines to treat cancer, heart failure and Type 2 diabetes. The price of some COVID shots also went up.

"The real truth serum is what's happening in the marketplace after those deals occur," says Antonio Ciaccia, chief executive of 46brooklyn, a nonprofit that tracks the list prices of prescription medications. "January is prime time for list price changes on brand-name drugs. So in examining where we are today, we're pretty much in line with the last few years."

The price increases came in at a median of 4% — the same as last year — despite the deals announced with fanfare by the Trump administration.

Pharmaceutical list prices are the starting point for negotiations with insurers and the middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. List prices play a role in which drugs insurers choose to cover and what the patient ultimately pays out-of-pocket at the pharmacy counter.

Asked about the price hikes and whether they break the terms of the deals, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the list prices aren't important, and that the specific discounts addressed in the deals are coming to state Medicaid programs and patients who want to pay cash for some prescriptions.

The White House announced Thursday that it was asking Congress to pass legislation to support his Great Healthcare Plan. During a press call, Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, claimed the plan would "codify" what was in the individually negotiated drug company deals.

What we know about the deals

Details are hard to come by since the administration's deal documents haven't been made public.

During the news conferences, health and White House officials mentioned the companies had made commitments for Medicaid discounts — but that's something the program already gets, says Dr. Ben Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

The deals also included pledges for future drugs to be launched at the same price in other wealthy countries as in the U.S. And some drugs will be made available at a discount to cash-paying customers — that is, those who are uninsured or not using their health insurance — through a new website called TrumpRx.gov.

But those efforts don't affect prices for a lot of the companies' products and most healthcare consumers and insurance plans.

"Those deals probably are not very important in terms of manufacturer drug pricing and the prices paid by most Americans for prescription drugs," Rome said.

Pfizer, which reached the first deal with the Trump administration in September, raised the prices of 72 products in January, according to 46brooklyn. They include a 15% increase on the price of its COVID shot.

New York-based Pfizer says its new price increases were modest and necessary to invest in new medicines and address added expenses. In an email to NPR, the company also pointed out that while list prices have gone up, the prices that insurance companies actually wind up paying Pfizer, after various discounts and rebates paid to middlemen and other programs, have gone down.

Merck also raised prices on 18 products, including Isentress for HIV and Belsomra for insomnia, according to 46brooklyn's data.

The New Jersey-based company said in an email that it made these decisions "responsibly to reflect a product's clinical value to patients and the healthcare system." Asked about how the price increases fit into its agreement with the administration, Merck spokesperson Julie Cunningham said the "exact terms" are "confidential" but the company is working on "fairer global pricing."

Some drug prices went down

There were 18 big price cuts in the first few days of the year, according to 46brooklyn. That includes four drugs that were part of the first round of Medicare drug price negotiation — an initiative launched by the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The negotiations lowered some drug prices paid by Medicare, but many wondered whether that might also lead to lower prices for privately insured patients.

The new data holds some clues. Fiasp, an insulin product, got a 75% price cut in the commercial market, according to the 46brooklyn data. The drug's maker, Novo Nordisk, said it also cut the prices of other drugs, and its goal was to make them more affordable.

AstraZeneca's Farxiga and Boehringer Ingelheim's Jardiance, both used for diabetes and heart failure, and the blood thinner Eliquis, made by Bristol Myers Squibb, also got price drops between 37% and 44%.

When a company decides to lower prices, it's due to a variety of factors and policies, but 46brooklyn's Ciaccia says, "Medicare drug price negotiations, I would argue, are the straw that broke the camel's back."

Dr. Ben Rome isn't sure he agrees with that analysis: "It's hard to sort of pin any one drug or any one situation on any one policy," he says. "But it's probably a confluence of factors that have led to some of these drug [companies] making that decision."

After the first round of negotiations in 2024, Medicare prices for 10 chosen drugs were reduced by 38% to 79%, with those discounts going into effect in January of 2026.

The new report presents a mixed picture of what happened to those drugs outside of Medicare: Four posted big drops in list price this month, four didn't have price changes and two had price increases.

Copyright 2026 NPR