The Brief

The city of Los Angeles is overhauling how and where it places crossing guards before the start of the upcoming school year.

The L.A. City Council voted Wednesday to conduct a citywide assessment of elementary school crossings informed by:

• Safety data
• Equity measure
• And existing infrastructure

These metrics will now inform decision on where to place crossing guards. It's a significant change, moving the city away from its previous practice of only studying intersections where a school principal requested a crossing guard.

How we got here

The item passed with 11 “yes” votes. Council members Traci Park and John Lee voted against the update because they were concerned how it will affect current crossing guard assignments, and council members Bob Blumenfield and Adrin Nazarian were absent.

Laura Rubio-Cornejo, the general manager of the Department of Transportation, said at a committee meeting in June that the new approach will integrate the city’s crossing guard program into the same process it uses to evaluate the need for other school safety treatments, like speed tables and speed limit reductions.

“It would allow us to have a more comprehensive approach to addressing school safety that capitalizes and leverages all the different tools that we use to make the streets leading to schools safer,” Rubio-Cornejo said when the updated methodology was first considered.

While the updated methodology has generally been received positively for offering a more equitable and comprehensive distribution of resources, it’s still unclear if volunteers can fill in the gaps created by the city’s shortage of crossing guards.

The city has been able to place crossing guards at about two-thirds of the intersections requested, Rubio-Cornejo wrote in a budget memo this spring.

What’s changing

For years, school principals would request a crossing guard for an intersection around their school. Then, engineers working for the city would decide if a crossing guard was necessary based on the kind of intersection, number of lanes, speed limits and volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, according to the Department of Transportation.

In the June report, Rubio-Cornejo wrote that this system “inherently limits deployment…and may not address safety concerns at locations that have not been requested.”

To produce the new crossing guard assignments, the Department of Transportation will apply the same criteria it used previously to intersections within a 1,000-foot radius of all elementary schools — not just the ones identified by school principals.

The details

That’s the high-level description. There are a lot more details, but bear with us, it’s a bit complicated:

First, the Department of Transportation will extract elementary schools from a list of all schools within the city that it ranked by need of street safety intervention.

That list, which you can see starting on page 10 here, was created last year. It was based primarily on collision data. Other factors, including how the areas around each school scored on various socioeconomic, environmental and health variables, were also considered in the ranking.

Elementary schools, in ranked order, will then be categorized by geographic region. The purpose of this, according to the Department of Transportation, is to ensure crossing guards aren’t deployed to a different region than the one they were already assigned to.

The regions schools will be sorted into.

(

City of Los Angeles

)

Within each region, intersections within the 1,000-foot radii of schools with higher need will be prioritized. For those intersections, the Department of Transportation will apply the same criteria it used in its previous approach to assign crossing guards.

So, for example, if there’s a high-ranked school in the Western region with two unmarked crosswalks, each with several lanes of fast-moving traffic and a high proportion of students who are pedestrians, that school could get two crossing guards.

Carlos Torres, the director of the L.A. Unified School District’s office of environmental health and safety, said updating the methodology is a “good move.”

“There’s a lot of positivity in it because essentially they’re looking at a number of different factors,” Torres said.

L.A. Unified School Board Member Tanya Ortiz Franklin, whose district includes South L.A., said she’s in favor of the “more strategic, inclusive, equitable approach.”

“Principals are not equally overwhelmed,” said Ortiz Franklin, who has led school safety initiatives for the county school system. “In higher need areas, there tends to be a lot more on their plate, and so they’re not always able to get to everything in the same way that a calmer, school environment might lead to.”

Old system fueled frustration

John-Ryan Shea was walking his third-grader to school in November when he heard the screeching sound of brakes followed by a thud on Avoca Street and Yosemite Drive.

When Shea turned around, he said he saw a girl “thrown about 10 feet” after a car hit her at the corner of Rockdale Elementary School, an arts-focused magnet school in Eagle Rock.

Luckily, the girl survived the collision and was doing relatively OK, at least physically.

“The one thing I‘ll just never forget is her face,” Shea said. “Just how absolutely stunned she was that she got hit by a car.”

According to an LAist review of state-level data, seven children ages five to 11 have been killed while walking on the street on a weekday between 2013 and 2022 in the city of L.A. There have been several more collisions in the same time period that resulted in injuries.

Rockdale parents had been campaigning to get a crossing guard at that intersection to no avail, despite warning that a collision like the one in November was bound to happen. Shea said drivers at the intersection regularly run through the four-way stop sign, and an LAist reporter observed that the stop and speed limit signs near the intersection are obscured by vegetation.

A public comment submitted about the new crossing guard methodology details more than two years of email communications between concerned Rockdale parents, local officials and Department of Transportation staff.

Today, the intersection is one of the nearly 240 in the city where, under the outgoing system, requests for crossing guards weren’t fulfilled.

The gray area of volunteers

A looming question about the city’s program is whether parents can volunteer to provide crossing guard services at locations otherwise not covered, like the one near Rockdale.

The city has said it is unable to administer a volunteer program itself while employing people to provide the same service because of labor rights issues.

The city added in its June report about the updated methodology that it could train volunteers that schools themselves manage to “augment the crossing guard program.”

That was news to Torres at L.A. Unified, who said the city has been “ very adamant there are no volunteer crossing guards.”

Torres, who LAist interviewed in June, added that the idea the city put forth about volunteers hasn’t been “vetted” by his office and that he hasn’t heard anything from the city on volunteer crossing guards that he can recall in “recent times.”

LAist reached out to the L.A. Unified to confirm there hasn’t been communication since the interview about volunteer crossing guards but hasn’t heard back.

It was only during budget negotiations in the spring, when the more than $10 million program was primed to be slashed, that City Council members learned it’s possible that volunteers can provide crossing guard services, as long as they’re managed by the school or school district.

“That’s the opposite of everything I’ve been told,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who presided over the hearings, said. “I’ve talked to school board members who were very frustrated that they can’t [have volunteer crossing guards].”

Potential “heartache”

The crossing guard program emerged from the budget negotiations intact, which meant that Secorra Gagau, a Hollywood-based crossing guard supervisor, could expect to continue doing the job she loved.

“A lot of times, besides their family, we're the first face that [kids] see going to school,” Gagau said. “They are so excited to tell us about their morning and what they have planned at school.”

For Park, the connection communities develop with crossing guards was enough to vote against the updated methodology, which is likely to result in a reshuffling of resources.

“I just can’t explain to my constituents that we may lose crossing guards where they have long been deemed necessary and essential,” Park said in June.

Torres agreed that there will be “growing pains” if the city’s forthcoming evaluation determines a crossing guard is better served elsewhere.

“ It's gonna cause a little bit of heartache,” he said.

Why we are limited in evaluating the impact of the change

Neither the Department of Transportation nor the school district would send data on where crossing guards were placed last school year, despite multiple requests.

LAist believes it’s important to have that list to evaluate how the updated methodology affects where crossing guards are placed in the future, so that data is now being pursued through a public records request.

How to watchdog your local government

• One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.
  

• Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community,

  • Read tips on how to get involved.
    

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that Attorney General Pam Bondi is out from the top job at the Justice Department. Her departure comes amid simmering frustration over her leadership and her handling of the Epstein files.

In social media post, Trump called Bondi "a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year."

"Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900," Trump said. "We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future."

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is Trump's former personal attorney, will step in to serve as acting attorney general, the president said.

Bondi, a longtime Trump loyalist, is the second member of the president's Cabinet to be forced out. Her departure comes almost one month after Trump fired Kristi Noem as secretary of Homeland Security.

Bondi leaves after a tumultuous 14 months in charge that critics say damaged the Justice Department's credibility, hollowed out the career ranks and undermined the rule of law.

Under Bondi, the department jettisoned its decades-old tradition of maintaining independence from the White House, particularly in investigations and prosecutions, to insulate them from partisan politics.

Instead, she used the department's vast powers to go after the president's perceived foes. That includes the high-profile cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, which were brought after Trump publicly called on Bondi to prosecute them.

A federal judge later tossed both cases after finding the acting U.S. attorney who secured the indictments was unlawfully appointed.

Other political opponents of the president or individuals standing in the way of his agenda also have found themselves under DOJ investigation, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, and former Obama-era intelligence officials James Clapper and John Brennan.

Bondi also oversaw sweeping changes to the career workforce at the department. The agency fired prosecutors and FBI officials who worked on Capitol riot cases or the Trump investigations.

The elite section that prosecutes public corruption was gutted; the Civil Rights Division, which protects the Constitutional rights of all Americans, experienced a mass exodus of career attorneys who say the division is being turned into an enforcement arm of the White House.

Political firestorm over Epstein files

Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, has defended her actions. She has portrayed the firings as a necessary house cleaning of politicized career officials. She's also tried to focus on what she views as major accomplishments during her tenure: targeting drug cartels, cracking down on violent crime, and helping in immigration enforcement.

But ultimately, the department's handling of the files related to the investigations of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein played a large role in her downfall.

Early in her tenure, Bondi told Fox News that she had Epstein's client list "sitting on my desk right now to review." A few months later, the Justice Department and the FBI said there was no client list and that no additional files from the Epstein investigation would be made public.

That touched off a political firestorm and ultimately led Congress to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which forced the Justice Department to make public all of the Epstein files in its possession.

The department failed to meet the Act's 30-day deadline to release the materials, fueling frustrations on Capitol Hill, before eventually releasing millions of pages of files. Democratic and Republican lawmakers also expressed concerns about heavy redactions that were made to many of the documents.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Long Beach has fired the contractor that operated almost all of its homeless shelters following an audit of the $69 million the city has spent on homeless services over the last five years.

The nonprofit First to Serve ran 423 of the city’s 500 shelter beds until yesterday, but after a closed-door City Council meeting last month, Long Beach cut ties and quickly swapped in the L.A.-based nonprofit People Assisting The Homeless (PATH).

Long Beach is now investigating First to Serve, according to Deputy City Attorney Nicholas Masero. It’s unclear if that investigation could result in the city pursuing criminal or civil charges. Masero said that “we’ll make that determination as the investigations progress.”

The investigation stemmed from a broader review of Long Beach’s homelessness programs launched by City Auditor Laura Doud in 2023.

The audit, Masero said, looked into documents submitted by vendors like First to Serve “seeking reimbursement or payment on contracts.”

“During our audit, we identified information that requires further review,” Doud wrote in a recent memo to the city manager. “To protect the integrity of our ongoing investigation, we cannot provide additional details regarding the matter at this time, nor can we discuss our audit in greater detail.”

What she discovered, though, was enough to compel Long Beach to cut ties with First to Serve.

By November, the city began to withhold payments and started the search for a new provider after finding enough instances of “contractual concerns that we were confident we needed to switch providers,” Masero said.

Doud has not yet released the full results of her audit, but she said contractors like First to Serve must do a better job showing they’ve performed the work they were hired to do before they’re paid, and the city needs to verify the services were actually provided before paying.

According to Homeless Services Bureau Manager Paul Duncan, Long Beach has paid First to Serve $13 to $14 million annually to operate four shelters, as well as for rapid rehousing and prevention programs.

Paul Duncan, Long Beach’s homeless services bureau manager, informed the city’s Homeless Services Advisory Committee on Wednesday, April 1, that the city had terminated contracts with its largest homeless shelter provider.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

The organization oversaw the shelter at 702 West Anaheim St., the Atlantic Farms Bridge Housing Community at 6841 Atlantic Ave., the Project Homekey site at 1725 Long Beach Blvd., and the former Luxury Inn at 5950 Long Beach Blvd.

As of Wednesday, the sites were being operated by PATH. The city plans to release bids in the next month or two to evaluate new operators for each of the four shelters, Duncan said.

In response to the audit, the city said it’s already tightening up its processes, including the launch of a new tracking system and stricter oversight standards.

There’s been no official accounting of exactly what alleged wrongdoing is being investigated. According to their agendas, the City Council met in private on March 3 to discuss the situation, and then, on March 10, approved new contracts for PATH to operate the shelters without any public discussion.

On Wednesday, Long Beach officials also appeared to try to tamp down the idea that the move to fire First to Serve was related to accusations raised last week by mayoral candidate Chris Sweeney.

In a video posted to Instagram, Sweeney toured the shelter at 5950 Long Beach Blvd. and alleged there was fraud at the nearly empty shelter, where only 12 of its 78 rooms were being used.

First to Serve’s other three shelters were 78% to 88% occupied, according to city data, though about one-third of the rooms at the 1725 Long Beach Blvd. site were under construction and are not being used.

Officials say the city and First to Serve met weekly to review inventory at each shelter, transfer existing case files, and do walkthroughs of each site to make sure everything was accounted for.

Mayor Rex Richardson, Councilmember Tunua Thrash-Ntuk, and other city officials celebrated the completion of the shelter at 5950 Long Beach Blvd. on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2025. Photo by Thomas R. Cordova. In a memo, the Long Beach health director Alison King said the decision to cut ties with First to Serve was related to the city auditor’s review of “prior administrative documentation” that “is not related to shelter operations.”

Nevertheless, she wrote, “Based on the findings of that review, the City determined it is in the best interest of the community to move forward with a new service provider for shelter operations.”

The city’s investigation has been ongoing since October, according to Masero.

Nobody from First to Serve was immediately available to answer questions late Wednesday night.

For the first time in more than 50 years, astronauts are heading to the moon. The Artemis II crew launched Wednesday atop NASA's SLS rocket, which left thick trails of vapor across a clear-blue Florida sky. The four astronauts and their team on the ground are now busy preparing for the challenges that lie ahead.

NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Christina Koch, along with Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen, launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, ensconced in an Orion capsule attached to an SLS rocket. The historic mission — the first time in more than half a century that humans have visited the moon — will take them on a 230,000-mile journey around the lunar body and back that will serve as a critical test flight of the Orion spacecraft.

The nearly 10-day mission will not only test the spacecraft's life-support systems and maneuverability, but conduct critical science ahead of future deep space missions to the lunar surface.

The trajectory

The mission is on a flight path that keeps the spacecraft in Earth's gravitational influence past the moon, then falls back to the planet for splashdown. This path, called a free return trajectory, uses less fuel and is less risky than entering a lunar orbit.

This graphic shows key milestones along the Artemis II astronauts' journey around the moon and back.

(

NASA

)

About a day after launch, the spacecraft is set to perform a translunar injection, firing its engine and sending the Artemis II crew members on their lunar journey.

The path will take the crew to within about 5,000 miles above the lunar surface. Apollo missions typically orbited the moon under 100 miles (or touched down on the surface).

"When they pass by the far side of the moon, it'll look like a basketball held at arm's length," said Artemis II mission scientist Barbara Cohen. "It'll be that kind of view."

Testing, testing

After separating from the rocket that got them into space, but before heading to the moon, the crew tested the Orion spacecraft closer to home.

Just hours after entering high-Earth orbit, the crew performed what's known as a proximity operations test — taking manual control of the vehicle to see how it handles in space.

"We are essentially going to make sure that the vehicle flies the way that we think it does, that we designed it to do," Artemis II pilot Victor Glover said ahead of the launch.

Controlling the spacecraft will be important for future missions, which will need to dock with a lunar lander in orbit. And while this process is likely going to be automated, NASA wants to know how it handles should astronauts have to take manual control.

"We also want to give qualitative and quantitative feedback to the ground team, so letting them know what it feels like now that we can hear and feel the thrusters, and to just understand the human experience," said Glover.

Near the end of the maneuver, the pilot appeared to give the vehicle high marks.

"Overall guys, this flies very nicely," he told team members on the ground.

Time for science

The astronauts themselves will be the subject of science experiments: Because the crew is going farther into deep space than any human has gone before, researchers are taking this opportunity to study the impact it will have on the human body.

Medical researchers will be collecting data on physiological changes in response to space travel and increased radiation exposure. The astronauts' cells have been placed on tiny chips and distributed throughout the capsule in an effort to understand these effects in greater detail.

Crew members will also lend their eyes for geological research, since they are flying around the far side of the moon, at at altitude offering views that no human has seen before.

"They'll be able to see places on the moon that, actually, no human eyes have ever seen before," said Cohen.

Geologists on Earth trained the crew to spot unique features on the lunar surface, and snap photos of them for further study. (This follows in a time-honored tradition: Apollo astronauts who visited the moon more than a half-century ago were also trained by geologists.) These observations will help them better understand that side of the moon and possibly help plan for a human landing.

And the mission's high-altitude flyby of the moon gives them a unique perspective.

"The benefit of that to science, is that kind of like when you're traveling cross country on an airplane, what you can see is a strip of land below you. You don't see the whole globe of the Earth. That's what the Apollo astronauts did," said Cohen. "The Artemis II astronauts will be able to see it from much farther away."

The mission is also carrying stowaways in the form of CubeSats — tiny satellites bound for high-Earth orbit. The payloads are from Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Argentina and will study various impacts of space radiation on space hardware, monitor space weather, and how the environment affects electrical hardware bound for the moon.

Heading home

As the crew returns home, its capsule will be traveling close to 25,000 miles per hour as it reenters the atmosphere. The friction generated by hitting the atmosphere at that speed will cause the Orion capsule to experience temperatures of close to 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The capsule is equipped with a heat shield to protect the astronauts from the intense heat of reentry. During an uncrewed test flight in 2022, NASA discovered unexpected damage to the heat shield. To further protect the crew, the capsule will hit the atmosphere at a much steeper angle than Artemis I, which will limit the time it will experience those harsh conditions.

Once the spacecraft is past that danger zone, eight parachutes will slow the spacecraft down even more before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California. A series of airbags will deploy to make sure the capsule is right side up. A crew at sea will scoop up the astronauts, bringing their mission to a close.

What's learned on this flight is critical to future Artemis missions. Last week, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman announced plans to increase the frequency of launches to the moon and a plan to establish a permanent base on the lunar surface. That effort begins with Artemis II.

"It is our strong hope," said Artemis II mission specialist Christina Koch, "that this mission is the start of an era where everyone, every person on Earth, can look at the moon and think of it as also a destination."
Copyright 2026 NPR

A majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration's argument on birthright citizenship Wednesday and appeared ready to rule in favor of upholding automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil.

That included multiple conservative justices, who had tough questions for Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer. Sauer argued the government's case against birthright citizenship, the practice enshrined in the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, which became law in 1868.

It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Sauer, however, asserted that contrary to the law as understood for 160 years, the 14th Amendment does not confer automatic citizenship on every baby born in the U.S. He told the court that the true meaning of the amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves and their children, no more. And, therefore, President Trump was well within his rights when he signed an executive order barring citizenship for children born in this country to parents who are illegally here, or who are here legally, but on long-term visas.

But Chief Justice John Roberts was doubtful about that executive order.

"The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky," Roberts told Sauer. "And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens," he continued. "I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and, sort of, idiosyncratic examples."

"We're in a new world now," Sauer contended. "A billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen."

"It's a new world," Roberts replied, but "it's the same Constitution."

Not seeing a play button? Click here.

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that the Trump executive order focuses on parents, but the 14th Amendment focuses on birthright for the child. He asked: how would you know who the father is, or the mother? What if they're unmarried? Whose house do they live in?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the practicality of the Trump proposal.

"How would it work?" she asked. "How would you adjudicate these cases? You're not going to know at the time of birth whether they have the intent to stay or not, including U.S. citizens by the way."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wondered, "So [are] we bringing pregnant women in for depositions? What are we doing to figure this out?"

The justices also grilled Sauer about the landmark 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong had birthright citizenship, because he was born in the United States. Sauer, however, maintained that Wong was only given birthright citizenship because his parents were legally domiciled in the United States.

"I think even your brief concedes that the position you're taking now is a revisionist one with respect to a substantial part of our history," Justice Elena Kagan said. "That's, in part, because of Wong Kim Ark and the way people have read that case ever since then."

Challenging the Trump birthright plan, the American Civil Liberties Union's Cecillia Wang told the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War in order to have a universal rule of citizenship, subject to a closed set of exceptions, and that the birthright applies to all children born on U.S. soil.

"We can't take the current administration's policy considerations into account to try to re-engineer and radically re-interpret the original meaning of the 14th Amendment," Wang argued.

However, in reference to current perceived immigration problems versus those that existed at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted, Kagan posited: "What do we do if we think we have a new problem that didn't exist at the time of the 14th Amendment?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh followed up, asking whether the provisions of the 14th Amendment are frozen in place.

Yes, replied Wang, because the framers of it were intent on putting the citizenship question out of the reach of Congress.

The decision, expected by this summer, will almost certainly result in a historic ruling, and Trump himself made his mark at the court Wednesday morning.

He became the first sitting president known to attend oral arguments, signaling the importance of this issue to him personally.

After leaving the courtroom before the arguments were over, he wrote on Truth Social, "We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" In fact, roughly three dozen countries offer it.

Trump arrived about 10 minutes before the arguments began, listened to Sauer field the justices' questions for a little over an hour and then left a few minutes after Wang began to make her case.

Outside the court, dozens of people rallied in support of birthright citizenship

Volunteers with the ACLU, joined by immigrant rights organizations like CASA and the League of United Latin American Citizens, handed out fliers that read "protect birthright citizenship" and "14th Amendment."

"We're all out here to protect the fundamental right of birthright citizenship. It's written in the 14th Amendment," said Anu Joshi, a staff member of the ACLU. "It's what makes us America."

Among the crowd were several people who were citizens by birthright themselves.

"I am a birthright citizen so this hits really, really close to home because without birthright citizenship I wouldn't even have my citizenship in the United States," said Stephanie Sanchez, a first-generation Mexican-American who came to the rally. "Here I am representing my community and fighting back."

After the arguments, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told the crowd he felt confident in the way the arguments played out inside.

"We are fighting for the heart and soul of this country. The fight to protect birthright citizenship is about our neighbors, our families, our kids. It's not about the past, it's about the future," he said. "We will only accept what is just and what is right."

Largely absent from the crowd were proponents of the president's position.

Domenico Montanaro, Ximena Bustillo and Anusha Mathur contributed to this story.
Copyright 2026 NPR