The Brief

In a sport known for turf battles, SoCal surfing is facing perhaps its most epic turf challenge yet — all the way from the ski slopes of Utah. U.S. Ski and Snowboard, the Olympic organization for those sports, is making a bid to add surfing to its roster.

“When you look at the heart of what we do — supporting elite athletes and growing action sports — it makes complete sense,” Sophie Goldschmidt, the head of U.S. Ski and Snowboard, told LAist in an email. “Surfing is a natural extension of our mission.” (Goldschmidt also headed the World Surf League, a pro circuit, before taking the top job at U.S. Ski and Snowboard.)

Many surfers disagree. Ian Cairns, a former champion surfer and coach who helped develop the sport competitively, said the snow group is “ trying to ski-jack the crown jewels of surfing away from the surfing world.”

“ Effectively what they're doing is they’re skimming the cream off the top,” Cairns said of U.S. Ski and Snowboard’s bid to become what’s known as the National Governing Body for the U.S. Olympic surfing team. “They're going to take the commercial rights and they're going to put those dollars into their infrastructure.”

The backers of USA Surfing say they have proof that their rival U.S. Ski and Snowboard doesn't know anything about the sport of surfing: In a presentation to the Olympic committee, they used a surfing icon that appears to show a surfer facing backward on a board. The surfing organization has made it the centerpiece of their P.R. campaign against the group.

San Clemente native Sawyer Lindblad surfs in the 2024 Rip Curl Pro Bells Beach on March 27, 2024 in Winkipop, Australia. Lindblad is backing USA Surfing in its bid to manage the U.S. Olympic surfing team.

(

Morgan Hancock

/

Getty Images

)

Cairns and a number of other pro surfers are throwing their weight behind USA Surfing, the comparatively scrappy organization that trains and develops young surfers with Olympic dreams. The San Clemente-based nonprofit — which helped make surfing an Olympic sport to begin with — is not giving up its chance to represent Olympic athletes without a fight.

They recently launched a public relations blitz in an effort to win over Olympic leaders, who will soon decide which organization will represent the U.S. Olympic surf team at the 2028 Games in L.A. At stake is whether that team will have its home base, and the accompanying money and prestige, on the shores of San Clemente or the slopes of Park City.

The backstory: A brief history of USA Surfing’s troubles

Why is an organization focused on snow sports even in the running to take over Olympic surfing? Because USA Surfing has had a tough run of late.

Back in 2017, USA Surfing became the national governing body for the sport of surfing, charged with training young surfers, developing the sport, and nominating athletes to compete on the Olympic stage. But they lost that status shortly after the sport made its Olympic debut, in the 2021 Tokyo summer games.

That’s because in 2019, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee audited USA Surfing and found numerous problems, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest. The audit also found minimal documentation and oversight of how the organization’s leaders were spending its money. As a result, USA Surfing voluntarily agreed to relinquish its control over the U.S. Olympic surf team until after the 2024 Paris games.

Despite the turmoil, the U.S. surfing team won gold medals at both games — Carissa Moore in Tokyo and Caroline Marks in Paris (in case you missed it, the actual surfing took place in Tahiti).

During all that time, and to date, USA Surfing has been training Olympic hopefuls and holding competitions at Lower Trestles in San Clemente — the same place surfers will compete in the LA28 games.

And USA Surfing now has entirely new management. CEO Becky Fleischauer told LAist the organization has done all the things the Olympic committee said it needed to in order to regain its role as the National Governing Body, including adopting financial best practices, improving transparency, and showing financial stability.

Fleischauer called the surfing competition at the 2028 games a “legacy building opportunity.” “We want the Olympics to provide the lift to the surfers, the community, the businesses, and our program,” she said.

Despite the high stakes, Fleischauer declined to diss on U.S. Ski and Snowboard and their bid to intrude on the local surf turf.

“ We never really wanted to be in an antagonistic position with another sport that athletes work really hard to do,” she said.

Ian Cairns, a former surfing champion and coach, is among those campaigning for USA Surfing to oversee the entire pipeline of U.S. competitive surfing, including the U.S. Olympic surfing team. (And yes, that neck brace is the result of a surfing accident.)

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

What’s this really all about?

For most of the public, the Olympics are a national ego-boosting spectacle and a chance to watch athletes and sports that usually don’t get much play in the mainstream media. But the Olympics are also big business.

For one thing, there are sponsorships from companies that want their name associated with popular sports and winning athletes. For another, national governing bodies for Olympic sports get money directly from the Olympic committee. Both US Ski and Snowboard and USA Surfing acknowledge that money is part of their motivation.

For the winter sports group, adding surfing would free them from their seasonal confines. “From a commercial perspective adding a summer sport to our winter sport portfolio gives us year-round assets and programming to sell,” US Ski and Snowboarding wrote in its official bid to absorb Olympic surfing. (Goldschmidt told LAist that U.S. Ski and Snowboard also is interested in assuming control over Olympic skateboarding.)

If that happens, USA Surfing would essentially continue to do most of the work to develop and support the nation’s top surfers without reaping the benefits of representing them at the world’s most venerated competition.

“ It would siphon money and opportunity,” Fleischauer, from USA Surfing, said of the possibility of permanently losing control over Olympic surfing.

On the flip side, she said, “We've talked to sponsors who would support us at another level if we were the national governing body.”

Of course, there are those who wish surfing had remained the weird, counter-culture activity it once was, out of the limelight, anti-commercial. But that ship sailed long ago.

Today, surfing is a $9 billion industry, according to an article published earlier this year in the Orange County Business Journal. And many of the top brands have their roots in Orange County. They also stand to benefit if USA Surfing wins its Olympic bid, said Vipe Desai, executive director of the Surf Industry Members Association, a trade group.

“This is about local jobs, the local economy, local businesses,” Desai said. “If this money gets transferred out of state to another region, it's not going to support the business and the culture.”

Big snow, big money

Financially, U.S. Ski and Snowboard is a goliath compared to USA Surfing. The snow group took in over $38 million in revenue in 2024 compared to less than $900,000 for USA Surfing, according to tax statements. But that’s at least in part because U.S. Ski and Snowboard has 10 Olympic sports in its current portfolio with dozens of athletes.

Goldschmidt, the head of U.S. Ski and Snowboard, said the group’s robust infrastructure, including high-tech training facilities and “commercial support” for athletes (read: sponsorships) would benefit elite surfers.

“I respect the passion and pride that people have within the surf community," Goldschmidt wrote in an email to LAist. “This isn’t about taking anything away — it’s about adding to what’s already been built.”

Growing support for USA Surfing

As the date nears for a decision from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, USA Surfing has garnered some key support for its bid. In June, they announced a multi-million dollar investment from San Clemente-based businessman Kipling Sheppard, intended to kickstart an endowment for the organization.

“Our motivation is simple,” Sheppard said. “It's to keep surfing with the surf community and those that are involved in it day-to-day and make sure that the Olympic ‘lift’ that will occur here in San Clemente benefits the people and the community of San Clemente.”

The International Surfing Association, which is recognized by the International Olympic Committee as the authority on competitive surfing, is also backing USA Surfing. That’s key because surfers have to surf in ISA competitions to qualify for the Olympics. Perhaps an even bigger snub: The World Surf League, Goldschmidt’s former organization, is also backing USA Surfing.

USA Surfing has also clinched a bunch of letters of support from local leaders, including a group of U.S. Congress members, O.C. Supervisor Katrina Foley, and the San Clemente City Council. And they have support from some of the nation’s top surfers. Sawyer Lindblad was among a group of pro surfers who showed up at a San Clemente City Council meeting in August to ask for support for USA Surfing. Lindblad, a San Clemente native, was fresh off her first place win, two days earlier, at the 2025 US Open of Surfing in Huntington Beach.

“ I don't think I would be as successful as I am without them,” Lindblad said of USA Surfing. “ It truly shaped me into the surfer I am today.”

 Kirra Pinkerton, another San Clemente native and the 2022 International Surfing Association World Champion, is also throwing her support behind USA Surfing.  “Obviously all of our goals eventually is to qualify for the Olympics,” she said. “I believe the best way to do that is to stick to what our roots are.”

Asked whether fellow athletes might appreciate the bigger platform and deeper coffers offered by U.S. Ski and Snowboard, Pinkerton said she doubted the snow sports group would find much support in the water.

“ Surfers will back surfers forever,” she said.

The ultimate decision about which of the two groups will represent surfers on the world stage is up to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. They’re expected to hold their second and final public hearing on the issue later this month, although the exact date hasn’t been set.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that USA Surfing had lost its status as the national governing body for Olympic surfing prior to the 2021 Tokyo games.

The FBI seized about 15 drones near SoFi Stadium and L.A. Memorial Coliseum on Friday and Saturday for violating temporary flight restrictions, Amir Ehsaei, special agent in charge of counterterrorism and crisis response at the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office, told LAist. Multiple operators were cited.

Stadiums hosting World Cup games and official fan festival venues are designated as "No Drone Zones" by the Federal Aviation Administration on match days.

“We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to drones violating the temporary flight restrictions," Ehsaei said.

One of the drones seized near SoFi Stadium on Friday.

(

Courtesy FBI Los Angeles

)

One of the drones seized Friday at SoFi Stadium.

(

Courtesy FBI

)

He said drone detection teams are deployed at all SoFi games. "We will be out at other places depending on the nature — the size, the scope — [and] different intelligence that we'll get based on  threat assessments."

Drones are prohibited at SoFi within a three-nautical-mile radius and up to 3,000 feet above ground level. They are also banned at the Coliseum for the official fan festival within a one-nautical-mile radius and up to 1,000 feet above ground level.

Violators could face fines of up to $100,000 and federal criminal charges.

Residents in East LA are weighing the promise of a new Metro E Line extension with concerns over construction disruptions, small-business impacts and whether more outreach is needed about the project.

The 4.7-mile extension of the Metro E Line would connect East Los Angeles to Montebello with four new stations. The project would relocate the existing Atlantic and Pomona station underground and include a mix of underground, aerial and street-level track transit.

The $7.9 billion project is expected to open for service between 2035 and 2037, according to Metro.

Construction will begin in 2029 and last approximately eight to 10 years, pending full funding approval. It’s part of a wider plan to connect the E Line to the city of Whittier, though officials say the work will be built in two phases due to funding constraints.

While officials say the project is intended to reduce traffic congestion and ease pressure on local roads, residents at a recent community meeting focused more on the immediate impact and communication.

Concerns over construction and local impact

“Thirty days for comment on a complex issue like this is ridiculous. … We need better outreach,” said East LA resident Clara Solis about a 30-day public comment period ending June 26.

Solis and others also raised concerns about how construction could affect traffic and disrupt local commerce, pointing to past transit projects.

“How is this going to impact the businesses? When the Gold Line went through, a lot of our businesses really suffered economically. We want to see a presentation on that. You should have a presentation just on how it’s going to impact the businesses,” Solis added.

A map shows the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project will extend the E Line nearly nine miles east from East Los Angeles to the City of Whittier. ()

(

Courtesy Metro

)

Calls for broader outreach

East LA resident Kristie Hernandez said community outreach for the project should also extend to people who do not necessarily live within the immediate 200-foot project radius.

“We need to understand that folks who don’t necessarily live within that close proximity also frequent that area when they drive,” said Hernandez.

Hernandez advocated for a 90-day public comment window and also called for presentations on underground infrastructure, especially in the wake of the East LA pipeline that was punctured during construction work in late May.

“We do not want that to happen again,” she said.

A promise for greater mobility

Lucia Martinez spoke favorably about the extension plans, considering that she relies on buses to get around East LA to do her shopping. She said she looks forward to using the Metro to travel to the Citadel as well as to the hospital in Pasadena.

“As an older woman who became aware of this project, I think it is amazing because I am someone who does not drive,” she said.

LA Documenter Rafael Cazzorla contributed reporting for this story. LA Documenters trains and pays LA residents to take notes at local government meetings around Los Angeles. You can find meeting notes and audio at losangeles.documenters.org

For the first time in nearly three decades, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new chemical UV filter for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S. And that has many dermatologists cheering.

"This is a very big deal," says Dr. Heather Rogers, a dermatologist in Seattle and a fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The new ingredient is called bemotrizinol, and it has several advantages over the chemical sunscreen ingredients previously available in the U.S., Rogers says.

"It hits like really every box for us that we have been waiting for as dermatologists and consumers," Rogers says.

Here's what you need to know about this new ingredient and how it could lead to better sunscreens sold stateside.

1. It blocks both UVA and UVB rays

Rogers says in general, you want to use sunscreens that are broad spectrum, meaning they protect against both UVA rays — the longer wavelengths that cause premature aging and wrinkles — and UVB rays, which lead to sunburns. Both types of UV rays can cause skin cancer.

She says the sunscreens currently sold in the U.S. do an excellent job of protecting against UVB rays, but the chemical UV filters available in sunscreens in the U.S. until now aren't as good at blocking out UVA rays.

In general, chemical sunscreens sold in the U.S. rely on an ingredient called avobenzone to block out UVA rays, says Kelly Dobos, a cosmetic chemist who teaches at the University of Cincinnati.

But avobenzone by itself isn't photo stable, meaning its protection can start to break down rapidly when exposed to sunlight. And as avobenzone breaks down, it can release molecules that lead to skin irritation, says Alexa Friedman, a senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, or EWG.

By contrast, bemotrizinol offers protection against both UVA and UVB rays all on its own, and it is photo stable, so it breaks down more slowly, offering better protection, Rogers says.

"So if you go a little longer than two hours to reapply your sunscreen, there will be more protection left," Rogers says. However, she says you should still reapply sunscreen every two hours.

2. It's long been used in other countries 

Bemotrizinol has been widely used in European and Asian sunscreens for decades. But it has taken 20 years for the FDA to approve its use in this country.

That's because in the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics, as they're classified in Europe. That means ingredients need to undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before they can be approved for use in the U.S.

"It's really expensive and time consuming," Dobos says. The European company DSM-Firmenich spent at least $18 million over more than two decades in its push to gain FDA approval for bemotrizinol.

3. It has a well-documented safety profile

However, all that testing means bemotrizinol has more safety data to back it up than any other chemical sunscreen ingredient currently approved in the U.S., says Friedman of EWG.

"This ingredient is exciting because we have that data to support its safety," Friedman says.

Friedman says animal testing showed bemotrizinol doesn't lead to concerns like reproductive harm, while clinical testing on humans found that it does not irritate the skin, even after repeated application over time, "which is hopefully how people are using sunscreens."

And because bemotrizinol's molecules are larger, it's not readily absorbed by the skin and into the bloodstream, she says.

That's important, because studies have shown that some of the other chemical sunscreen UV filters sold in the U.S. can be absorbed in the bloodstream, prompting calls for more safety data and leading to a backlash against sunscreen on social media fueled by misinformation. Rogers says that trend is concerning because skin cancer is the most common form of cancer.

"We just need to have sunscreen that people will use, that they'll trust," Rogers says. "And this ingredient is going to allow that to happen. And that is very exciting."

And bemotrizinol is also considered to be non-irritating, Friedman says. That should be welcome news to people who've been put off by chemical sunscreens in the past.

4. It could lead to sunscreens that look better on you

Until now, Rogers says, the only sunscreen ingredient available in the U.S. that offered the aforementioned advantages of bemotrizinol — photo stable, non-irritating, minimally absorbed into the skin and with good broad spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB rays — was zinc oxide.

Both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are mineral UV filters. Both chemical sunscreens and mineral sunscreens work by absorbing UV rays from the sun. Mineral sunscreens also reflect some UV rays. The bigger difference is that mineral sunscreens sit on the surface of the skin, while chemical sunscreens get absorbed into the skin, Rogers says.

The downside of mineral sunscreens is that they can leave an unattractive white cast on the skin — think of lifeguards with white paste on their noses. "Particularly if you're a person of color, zinc is going to make you look pale, white or ashy, which really makes it hard to use on a regular basis," Rogers says.

Bemotrizinol, on the other hand, is transparent on the skin, and because it protects against both UVA and UVB rays on its own, it doesn't have to be mixed with as many other chemical filters and stabilizers to achieve broad spectrum protection, Dobos adds. She says that should lead to more aesthetically pleasing, less greasy sunscreen formulations in the near future.

"I think it's a real win for public health," Dobos says. "If we can make a sunscreen that consumers like to use and want to use and apply in the proper amounts, I think that's something that's really going to be a win for consumers."

DSM-Firmenich has exclusive rights to market bemotrizinol in the U.S. for 18 months. It will be sold under the brand name Parsol Shield. The company says the first sunscreen products containing the ingredient should start hitting American store shelves around September.

The Justice Department on Friday approved Paramount's proposed $111 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

After concluding its antitrust investigation into the pending merger, the department said in a statement that it found that the deal posed no threat to competition or consumers of film, broadcast television or streaming.

The decision clears the way for a merger of two rival Hollywood studio titans: Paramount, the owner of CBS, including CBS News, will swallow the much larger Warner, which includes HBO and CNN.

The DOJ''s Antitrust Division concluded that a union of two studio giants isn't anti-competitive because the streaming market has expanded the competition for conventional Hollywood studios, which includes Netflix, Apple and Amazon, as well as smaller streamers. The Justice Department's view is that, for the same reason, consumers won't lose out because there are plenty of other places to get entertainment.

Several states, including California, have raised antitrust concerns. The European Union is investigating as well.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has been investigating the deal for antitrust violations, said in a post on social media following the Justice Department's approval: "The merger of Warner Bros and Paramount is not a done deal and remains under investigation by my office."

In a statement following the decision, Paramount described the deal as "pro-competitive," and would result in "a stronger company better positioned to compete against dominant technology platforms in an industry increasingly defined by intense competition for audiences, talent, technology, and investment."

The company said it planned to complete the merger as soon as possible, "delivering its benefits to consumers, creators, and the entertainment industry as a whole."

The consolidation will put media mogul David Ellison — son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison — at the helm of Warner Bros. studio as well as its cable and streaming properties, including CNN and HBO. The Ellison family took over Paramount and CBS last summer.

In the months leading up to the regulatory approval, critics in Hollywood feared the deal would consolidate an already concentrated media landscape and lead to fewer jobs and less creative content.

In April, thousands of directors, actors, writers and other industry talent — including Kristen Stewart, Pedro Pascal and Javier Bardem — signed an open letter opposing the merger.

The elder Ellison is also a financial backer and adviser to President Trump on artificial intelligence. Critics of recent changes at CBS under the Ellisons' control are concerned that, as they say has happened with CBS News, the acquisition would make CNN more friendly to Trump.

NPR's Carrie Johnson and Mandalit del Barco contributed to this story.
Copyright 2026 NPR