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 Los Angeles Unified School District is weighing the future of its artificial turf and natural grass athletic fields. The district is in the midst of a study and collecting feedback from parents, students, staff and other stakeholders.

The outcome of the study, expected this summer, will inform the immediate replacement of seven deteriorated high school athletic fields and future projects.

The vast majority of the district’s turf, from front lawns to baseball fields, is natural grass, Krisztina Tokes, LAUSD’s chief of facilities, told LAist.

The percentage of synthetic turf increases if you isolate the district’s athletic fields — about 20% of the district’s athletic fields are synthetic turf and about 80% are natural grass. The concentration is highest in high schools’ combination soccer/football fields, 40% of which are synthetic.

“Synthetic turf was used at many of those school sites where we anticipated there would be very high use,” Tokes said. For some, the district shared the fields with city and youth sports programs.

Synthetic turf has a higher upfront cost than natural grass but requires less maintenance and water.

In recent years, researchers have raised concerns about the artificial turf’s impact on children’s health and the environment— for example, artificial turf can get hot enough to burn skin.

About a decade ago, LAUSD had to replace seven turf fields at the cost of $8.8 million because of defective materials, including plastic pellets that melted in the heat. The district later recovered $3.6 million from contractors associated with the fields, according to a report from the LAUSD inspector general.

Why this process is starting now

The study is the result of a unanimously adopted November 2025 board resolution that also prohibited the installation of artificial turf at early education centers, elementary and middle schools.

“No 4-year-old, no elementary student should be playing on surfaces hot enough to burn their skin or expose our children to chemicals,” said Rocío Rivas, the board’s vice president, during the meeting.

Student board member Jerry Yang said his peers wrote to him with concerns about artificial turf.

“In a dense, urban city like Los Angeles, where the amount of green space is often a reflection of a community's income level, it is all the more important that we switch away from artificial turf,” Yang said.

Speakers during public comment also called on the district to move away from synthetic turf.

The study will consider four key topics: playability, health and safety, environmental impact and cost and maintenance. The district has also brought on consultants LPA and Core America to help evaluate the fields’ environmental impact, health and safety.

LAUSD isn't the only district weighing the future of its athletic fields.

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District recently completed a study that found synthetic turf increases field availability and saves water but that the findings about health and safety are less clear.

Here’s how to weigh in

The district is hosting a series of hybrid meetings and is inviting people to complete an online survey to collect feedback.

Today 

When: 6 p.m.
Where:

• In person at Cleveland High School, 8140 Vanalden Ave., Reseda
• Online

Thursday

When: 6 p.m.
Where:

• In person at Dymally High School, 8800 San Pedro St., South Los Angeles
• Online

May 7 

When: 6 p.m.
Where:

• In person at Los Angeles High School, 4650 W. Olympic Blvd., West Los Angeles
• Online

May 12 

When: 6 p.m.
Where:

• In person at Garfield High School, 5101 E. Sixth St., East Los Angeles. 
• Online

A courtroom brawl between two of the tech industry's most powerful leaders, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, is underway in Oakland, California, in a case that could transform one of the world's most important artificial intelligence companies.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today because the defendants in this case stole a charity," Steve Molo, an attorney for Musk, said in his opening statement.

In his lawsuit, Musk has argued that Altman steered the company they cofounded a decade ago, ChatGPT creator OpenAI, away from its original mission as a nonprofit meant to develop advanced AI for the benefit of humanity and free of profit motives.

The case hinges on a decision early on by OpenAI's founders that they needed to create a for-profit entity to tap capital markets for funding on a scale necessary to build advanced AI. When discussions about who would run the for-profit business broke down in 2018, Musk left.

The following year, OpenAI launched a for-profit division, which has since ballooned in value; at the end of March, the company said it was worth $852 billion.

Now, Musk's lawyers are set to argue that Altman and others enriched themselves illegally through that for-profit conversion.

"They enriched themselves, they made themselves more powerful, and they breached the very basic principles on which the charity was founded," Molo said in court.

According to his suit, Musk is seeking a rollback of that change, and wants Altman, OpenAI President Greg Brockman and financial backer Microsoft to "disgorge" tens of billions of dollars in "ill-gotten gains" that have flowed from it.

Musk is also seeking Altman's ouster as a director of OpenAI's nonprofit board, and removal of both Altman and Brockman as officers of the for-profit company.

As part of his opening statement, Molo asked Musk to stand up, which he did — waving to the people in the courtroom.

"Everybody seems to know Mr. Musk and everybody seems to have an opinion about Mr. Musk," Molo said. But he reminded the jury that they took an oath to put their opinions aside, and thanked them for it. "The case isn't about Mr. Musk, it's about the defendants," he said.

He also filled the jury in on Musk's personal and business history; growing up in South Africa, immigrating to Canada and the United States, and giving a brief overview of Musk's companies including SpaceX, Tesla, and Neuralink.

Molo said that since college Musk has been concerned about what could happen when computers become smarter than people, and that over the course of the trial, his attorneys would call experts to testify about some of those risks, including the possibility that an AI could manipulate financial markets or disseminate misinformation, or that there could be a "concentration risk" caused by one powerful corporation or small group of people controlling a superpowerful AI.

"As AI became more advanced, Elon became more worried," Molo said, particularly about the idea that the government was not doing enough to curtail these risks. That led him to develop OpenAI along with Altman, Molo said, as a nonprofit intended to develop safer AI. "It wasn't a vehicle for people to get rich," Molo said. "And they wanted the technology to be open."

Musk poured about $38 million into the nonprofit over the course of about 5 years, Molo said. "Without Elon Musk there would be no OpenAI, pure and simple," he said.

Over time, Molo said, Musk and OpenAI's other leaders began discussing creating a for-profit entity to support the non-profit — he compared it to the way a museum store supports a museum.

Initially, Molo said, Musk would have majority control of the for-profit subsidiary, but eventually that would be diminished over time. But the partners could never come to an agreement, and Musk ended negotiations and later resigned from the OpenAI board.

The crux of his dispute with OpenAI, Molo said, is that OpenAI later did a $10 billion deal with Microsoft. At this point, Molo said, OpenAI "was no longer operating for the good of humanity as a whole. It was for profit operating for the good of the defendants."

OpenAI responds

OpenAI has long contended that Musk was onboard with the conversion to a for-profit company.

In an online statement published before the trial began, OpenAI has said Musk was involved in the discussions about converting part of the company to a nonprofit, and that in 2017, "We and Elon agreed that a for-profit was the next step for OpenAI to advance the mission."

OpenAI has also argued online that its mission has never changed. The for-profit entity is a subsidiary of the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation.

The company has framed the dispute as being more of a struggle over control than over the launch of a for-profit arm: Online, OpenAI has said that Musk wanted control of the for-profit company, but "we couldn't agree to terms on a for-profit with Elon because we felt it was against the mission for any individual to have absolute control over OpenAI."

"We're sad that it's come to this with someone whom we've deeply admired—someone who inspired us to aim higher, then told us we would fail, started a competitor, and then sued us when we started making meaningful progress towards OpenAI's mission without him," the OpenAI statement said.

In 2023, Musk launched his own AI company, xAI, now a subsidiary of his aerospace firm SpaceX.

And in court on Tuesday, OpenAI's lead counsel William Savitt hammered those points in his opening statement. "We're here because Mr. Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI," he said. And "because he's a competitor, he will do anything he can to attack OpenAI."

In 2017, he said, Musk wanted to turn OpenAI into a for-profit with himself at the helm. But, he said, "the other founders refused to turn the keys of artificial intelligence over to one person."

Musk sought to merge OpenAI with Tesla, he continued, but the other founders rejected that, too. "They didn't want to be part of a car company that Musk controlled," Savitt said.

"Most importantly," he continued, "One person having control wasn't consistent with OpenAI's mission."

After Musk left, Savitt said, Musk was furious that OpenAI succeeded without him: "Then he launched his own competitor. Then he launched lawsuits."

Savitt said that during the trial, OpenAI's attorneys will produce evidence to show that the OpenAI nonprofit foundation remains in control of the organization and that it's doing good work.

And they will argue that Musk's true interest in this suit is not OpenAI's nonprofit status. "What he cares about is Elon Musk being at the top," Savitt said.

The trial is expected to last around three weeks.

In addition to Musk, Altman is expected to testify, along with Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and several key researchers and engineers involved in OpenAI's launch.

Microsoft is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2026 NPR

On his show Monday night, Kimmel responded to first lady Melania Trump's call for ABC to "take a stand" against him for a joke he made about her ahead of the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Two days after Kimmel's original segment aired, authorities subdued a heavily armed man who they say entered the event at the Washington Hilton ballroom in an attempt to target administration officials.

In a segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live! on Thursday, the comedian delivered a mock White House Correspondents' Dinner roast. "Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow," Kimmel quipped.

In a post on X, the first lady called Kimmel's joke about her "hateful and violent."

On Monday, Kimmel told his audience, it "obviously was a joke about their age difference, and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together." He said it was a "light roast" and was "not, by any stretch of the definition, a call to assassination. And they know that." Kimmel added that he's been very vocal for many years against gun violence.

Melania Trump didn't see it that way. "His monologue about my family isn't comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America," she wrote on Twitter on Monday. "People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate."

Mrs. Trump urged ABC, the network that airs Kimmel's weeknight show, to take action, asking "how many times will ABC's leadership enable Kimmel's atrocious behavior at the expense of our community?"

First lady Melania Trump attends the White House Correspondents' Dinner on April 25, 2026.

(

Mandel Ngan

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Hours later, President Trump took to social media to lend support to his wife. Trump wrote that Kimmel's comments went "beyond the pale" and that Jimmy Kimmel should be "immediately fired by Disney and ABC."

In September, Kimmel was taken off the air after a conservative backlash over comments Kimmel made in the aftermath of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk's assassination. In his monologue, Kimmel said the "MAGA gang" was trying to score political points from the Kirk killing.

The FCC Chair Brendan Carr responded to the backlash by threatening ABC affiliates. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr said to podcaster Benny Johnson. "These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Disney — which owns ABC — decided to suspend Kimmel's show. That decision sparked a furor over free speech and censorship. Kimmel's show returned six days later, and the host said, "it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man." Kimmel accepted why some people were upset with his remarks and said they had been "ill-timed,or unclear or maybe both."

Meanwhile, users on X have been responding to Melania Trump's post. Some appear to be supportive. Others point to the president's history of strongly worded, disparaging and racist remarks in posts about women and his political detractors such as Barack Obama.
Copyright 2026 NPR