The Brief

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.

A 2017 Los Angeles Times article tells the tragic story of Lai Hang, a terminally ill woman who killed her 18-year-old son George, who’d been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

It’s a carefully reported story by journalist Frank Shyong about a family, about the shame and stigma that can surround mental illness in Asian American communities, and how media portrayals of people with mental disorders can perpetuate harmful misconceptions.

So when Shyong was first approached about the idea of adapting the story he wrote into a narrative film, he had some “very intense” concerns about whether a film would get the story right.

But after conversations with the filmmakers, and thinking through the potential value of telling fictionalized stories based on real-life events, Shyong says, “ I think I realized that my story was in a lot of ways incomplete.”

Nine years later, the film, titled Rosemead, is finished. Directed by Eric Lin and written by Marilyn Fu, the film stars Lucy Liu as Irene, a character based on Hang, and Lawrence Shou as Joe, who’s based on George.

And Shyong, who is credited as an executive producer and served as a consultant on the film, says “it’s sort of completing the circle a little bit” — fleshing out Hang and George as “full 360 degree human beings” and giving glimpses of how their story might have ended differently.

Reporting on trauma in Asian American communities

Back in 2015, when the events depicted in Rosemead happened, the breaking news coverage revealed the basics of what was known at the time — that a woman had fatally shot her son in a Rosemead motel and turned herself in.

“ I think a lot of people probably realized there was more story there,” Shyong says. But the only person who knew the details, Hang’s longtime friend Ping Chong, had declined to talk to the media.

Still, Shyong kept following up because the court records hinted at a story that he thought should be told.

The court records revealed that Hang had been dying of cancer, and that Chong continued to visit her after she turned herself in, performing Buddhist rituals for her.

“Just knowing those two facts,” Shyong says, “and knowing Asian American families, and how complete and terrifying the sense of responsibility that a parent can feel toward a child, I just thought there's gotta be something there.”

He would visit Chong’s shop, a traditional Chinese pharmacy, leaving notes for her and talking to her about why he wanted to know more. And he gained her trust.

 ”You just have to say, ‘This is [the] story I think is here. And do you think that story is true? And if so, can you help me tell it?’ And that's all I did,” Shyong says. “I think that's all any journalist ever does.”

It’s a story that Shyong says he would come to learn is more common than many may expect.   “When you are a caregiver in these communities,” Shyong says, “you can find and name a tragic story like this in probably every zip code.”

How filmmaking and journalism can complement each other

Shyong’s article ends with this poignant quote from Chong, about her friend: “People will only know her as the mother who killed her son [...] But she was more.”

The piece itself goes a long way toward dispelling Chong’s concern, including details about Hang’s life — that she was a talented graphic designer, that she was “beautiful, smart and ambitious,” that she’d lost her husband to cancer, and that she deeply cared about her son.

But “in this case fiction,” Shyong says, “could give closure to characters in a way that I couldn't in reality. It could tell the fullness of this family story.”

The film shows Liu’s character Irene having fun with her son at the beach, and joining his therapy sessions at the urging of a psychiatrist, despite being visibly uncomfortable doing so.

It shows George (Joe in the film) with his friends, who come to visit him after he has an intense schizophrenic episode at school.

The sound design gives a sense of what it’s like to experience schizophrenia, and a part of the film where Joe runs away shows how quickly a boy with a mother and friends who care about him can become an unhoused person who someone might fear on the street.

Ultimately, the film ends on a note of hope, which grew out of something that Shyong learned from Chong after the article was published. In a way that he couldn’t do in print, “It added parts to the story that I wanted to see depicted.”

The Anaheim Ducks had a 9-game losing streak before they finally beat the Dallas Stars 3-1 Tuesday night. There must be a plausible, sensible reason for the losing streak right? Well, social media has been awash with fans blaming the removal of the beloved Wild Wing statue for the team’s losing streak.

“I mean, sure, it’s an inanimate object.... but they took it down mid December, and the team hasn't looked right since. Obviously, this is the problem... right?,” one person wrote on Reddit.

Another fan called it a “holy relic.”

“My delusions will allow me to believe anything at this point,” someone else chimed in.

On Reddit, Instagram, Facebook and Threads, dozens of fans voiced their support for the theory.

So, what happened to the beloved duck? 

The bronze statue was temporarily removed from its perch in front of the Honda Center as construction ramped up for the OCVibe project, a 92-acre, $4 billion entertainment expansion project around the Honda Center.

“It’s not goodbye. It’s see you later,” the Ducks posted on social media. “As progress continues for OCVIBE and renovations at Honda Center, the Wild Wing statue located outside of the Team Store will be temporarily relocated …. The statue will return to OCVIBE as construction nears completion."

Construction will be handled in phases. The Honda Center's South Plaza is expected to be finished in 2027, though the full project won't be done until at least 2029.

Superstitions and sport 

Superstitions are an important part of any sport.

There’s LeBron James with the chalk toss. Anthony Davis was known to wear the same socks for every game. Former baseball player Moisés Alou never wore batting gloves, saying he’d pee on his hands to toughen them up and prevent blisters.

And I had to kick every flagpole every time I walked to the Coliseum to watch the USC Trojans play.

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.”