The Brief

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday called for U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to resign and Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino to be fired a day after federal immigration enforcement officers shot at another U.S. citizen in Minneapolis multiple times, killing him.

Weeks after the death of Renee Good, Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti on Friday, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse who worked for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. During an altercation in which Pretti was observing and documenting federal agents beforehand, multiple officers tackled Pretti to the ground. Pretti reportedly had a gun, for which he had a lawful permit to carry. After one agent took away the gun while Pretti was pinned on the ground, officers appear to have fired at him at least 10 times.

Immediately after the shooting, members of the Trump administration called Pretti a domestic terrorist. First Assistant U.S. Attorney and former California Republican Assemblymember Bill Essayli defended the agents, arguing that there “is a high likelihood” law enforcement officers “will be legally justified in shooting you” if you approach them with a gun — an assertion that the National Rifle Association called “dangerous and wrong.”

On Sunday President Donald Trump also blamed Democrats and sanctuary laws, such as those in California, for the two deaths in Minneapolis.

In response, Newsom called for Border Patrol officers to return to the border, ending the militarization of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and investigations into “every single federal agent who is breaking the law.” His office also posted a know-your-rights guide for dealing with local police and immigration enforcement officers.

But the governor’s statements are part of a political calculus that is playing out as he makes a likely bid for the presidency. After Good’s death, Newsom’s team responded that ICE is “state sponsored terrorism.” Newsom eventually walked back this description during an interview with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro.

Meanwhile, as Congress weighs a spending deal that would include billions of dollars more for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan of Culver City called for a general strike to oppose ICE, similar to the large-scale walkout organized in Minneapolis.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also filed a brief supporting Minnesota’s lawsuit opposing the federal government’s immigration campaign in the state. Along with 19 other attorneys general, the brief argued that the “government’s unlawful conduct … infringes upon (Minnesota’s) constitutionally-guaranteed state sovereignty,” and that without legal intervention the government “will no doubt threaten other States and local communities across the nation.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Long Beach Unified students returned to school Monday for their spring semester, but under a new policy, classrooms will be free of cellphones.

The district convened a working group of staff, educators, students, parents and caregivers in October 2024 to develop such a policy in response to a California law that requires schools to restrict student cellphone use by July 2026.

The district announced the policy in September, promising the rollout would begin this month.

How does the cellphone ban work?

Here are the basics:

• The policy applies to smartwatches, headphones and gaming consoles.
• Students in transitional kindergarten (TK) through eighth grade must turn off and store their devices when they arrive on campus until they leave, including before- and after-school programs. 
• High school students can use their devices during passing periods and at lunch. 
• Students can’t use their phones in restrooms or on field trips. 

There are exceptions. Students can use their phones:

• In case of an emergency.
• With administrator permission.
• At the direction of their doctor.
• If they have a disability and using their device is part of an individualized education program (IEP). 

Each school is responsible for creating a plan to implement the district-wide policy and individual teachers may use lockers or other methods to store students' phones.

The district’s policy prohibits specific types of cellphone and social media use, too:

• Cyberbullying on or off campus. 
• Recording or photographing fights, criminal behavior or another person without their permission. “We've had major problems with kids filming inappropriate things in the bathroom, with things like fights,” said Chris Itson, a program administrator in the district’s communications department, during a July 16 board meeting. “It's a motivator because it's ‘Now I can get attention by doing this online.’”
• Impersonating another person online. For example, creating a fake social media profile or posts that falsely represent another student. 

The policy also cites research that shows young people interact less often in-person than previous generations and that social media use can be linked to negative mental health outcomes, including anxiety and depression.

What we know about bans in other districts

Listen 46:11

Apple

Spotify

On Feb. 18, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. Now that it’s the end of the school year, we head to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

Did the cellphone ban in LAUSD schools work?

On Feb. 18, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. Now that it’s the end of the school year, we head to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

For the second year in a row, Gov. Gavin Newsom is celebrating California’s declining homicide rate while using it as a cudgel against his political foes.

“Your state's homicide rate is 117% higher than California's,” he told a Missouri congressman who needled Newsom on social media last summer.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders caught his attention, too. “Your homicide rate is literally DOUBLE California’s,” he wrote on social media addressing her.

What’s been clear for the last three years is that homicides are down in Los Angeles and San Francisco — but also in Fresno, Oakland, Richmond and Lodi.

“California cities are seeing record-low homicide rates,” Newsom said in his state of the state speech earlier this month. “Oakland, the lowest since 1967; LA, the lowest since 1966; and San Francisco, the lowest since 1954.”

After a spike during the early days of the pandemic, homicides are in fact down nationwide.

The reason why is far less clear. To put it in the language of crime researchers, the answer is “multifactorial.”

Magnus Lofstrom, policy director of criminal justice at nonpartisan think tank the Public Policy Institute of California, said the spike of homicides during the pandemic may have been the result of disruptions in government activities: Schools were shut down, people were out of work, community-based programs for violence prevention and many basic public services were put on pause, Lofstrom said.

The 2020 numbers were a shock. After years of decline, the homicide rate in California surged by 31% in 2020 to 5.5 homicides per 100,000 people. In 2021, it rose again, to about 6 per 100,000 people.

But that trend began to turn in 2022, when the number of homicides dropped by 7%, then in 2023 by 14% and in 2024 by another 12%. By the end of 2024, the homicide rate in California was down to 4.3 per 100,000 people.

California’s population was about 20 million people the last time the state recorded such low homicide numbers, half of what it is today.

At the same time the homicide numbers were climbing, the percentage of cases cleared by police was falling. A police department’s “clearance rate” compares the number of crimes reported to the number of arrests made.

Lofstrom said that the homicide clearance rate statewide was 64.7% in 2019, and that it had dropped to 54.6% in 2021 – though the rates can vary dramatically among police departments.

“What we see now in the data up to 2024 is that we’re back up over 64% for homicide clearances,” Lofstrom said.

Half as many homicides in Oakland

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee said homicides are down along with major gun crimes including robberies and assaults with firearms. Oakland’s 67 homicides in 2025 were its lowest since 1967. It had 134 homicides in 2021.

In Los Angeles, homicides dropped by more than 18% to 230 in 2025, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of LAPD data.

The numbers documenting the recent decline in homicide rates, and the earlier spike, come with a major asterisk: The way crime data is collected is inconsistent. Law enforcement agencies self-report to the FBI, which each year publishes data under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The California Department of Justice then produces statewide reports from those numbers.

But not every department reports its statistics. And among those that do, some don’t report all their data — or report the information differently. For example, some jurisdictions only report crimes that lead to incarceration.

Homicide numbers in California are provided by the state Justice Department near the end of the fiscal year in June, so the most recent statistics are from 2024. The Justice Department declined to provide CalMatters with updated numbers through 2025.

The drop in homicide rates wasn’t as pronounced in Orange and Orange and Ventura counties, which never experienced a significant pandemic spike, and Kern County, where the homicide rate maintains a stubborn hold as the state’s highest.

Nationwide drop in crime

A long-range look at crime statistics, particularly homicide data, shows that the 2020-21 crime rate nationally and in California was still a fraction of its highs in the early 1990s. Simply counting the year-over-year changes belies a larger truth: Crime throughout the 2020s has been down significantly compared to the rate 20 or 30 years ago.

As with the long-term homicide rate declines, the recent tapering in California is part of a nationwide trend. A report published Thursday by the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., think tank found that among 35 major cities nationwide, homicides dropped by 21% between 2024 and 2025.

When the FBI publishes its crime statistics later this year, Council on Criminal Justice researchers said in the report that the national homicide rate could drop to 4 per 100,000 people, which would be the lowest homicide rate ever on record.

Shani Buggs, an associate professor at UC Davis and public health researcher, said in the report that cities with major decreases in their homicide rate tended to spend federal pandemic funds on violence prevention and have police departments that focused on people with repeated allegations of violent crimes, helping them quickly resume pre-pandemic clearance rates.

“We do not have reliable, multi-sector data or comparable contextual information available across jurisdictions to definitively identify — now or perhaps ever — what drove these declines,” Buggs said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The death of Renee Macklin Good, a Minnesota mother who was shot by an immigration enforcement agent in South Minneapolis earlier this month, has raised questions about the Department of Homeland Security's use-of-force policy.

But among federal leaders, the questions appear only to be coming from Democrats. The lack of widespread inquiry over policies that may have factored into a high-profile death involving a federal agent has drawn comparisons to another episode, more than 30 years ago, that prompted sweeping changes.

In August of 1992, in an incident often referred to as "Ruby Ridge," armed federal officers were engaged in an 11-day standoff outside a cabin in northern Idaho. The agents were tasked with arresting Randall Weaver, a white separatist, over his failure to appear in court on charges that he illegally sold firearms to an undercover government agent. Ultimately, three people died: a deputy U.S. marshall, Weaver's 14-year-old son and Weaver's wife. Weaver had connections to the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations and held antisemitic, anti-government beliefs. Though many in policy-making and legislative positions may have found his views repellant, that did not distract from bipartisan concern that the federal enforcement operation may have overstepped constitutional bounds.

"If you take the rules of engagement [at Ruby Ridge] on their face and in a vacuum, they are unconstitutional," then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified during an October, 1995 Senate subcommittee hearing about the incident. It was during those hearings that Gorelick announced to senators that the Department of Justice had, as a result, formulated its first "uniform, written deadly force policy" applicable to all of its law enforcement agencies.

This Aug. 23, 1992, file photo shows Randy Weaver supporters at Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho. A 1992 standoff in the remote mountains of northern Idaho left a 14-year-old boy, his mother and a federal agent dead and sparked the expansion of radical right-wing groups across the country.

(

Jeff T. Green

/

AP

)

"The paramount value of human life"

John Cox, a retired FBI agent, began his career at that agency two months after the DOJ's new use-of-force policy took effect.

"The use-of-force policy for the department started from the notion of the paramount value of human life, that we're holding that top of mind," Cox said.

Cox, who had previously been an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., before pivoting to the FBI, served as an agent there for seven years. He said through training scenarios, the agency taught them that deadly force may only be used when the subject of the force presents an imminent danger to the officer or another person. But Cox said the instruction went even further, to impress upon new recruits that they could only use deadly force when there was no safe alternative available to them.

"It was stricter than the constitutional standard, so it actually restricted when you could use deadly force in accordance with the policy because you were elevating and honoring human life, and that's what you were trying to preserve," Cox said. "So there were instances where maybe constitutionally you could use deadly force, but the policy said no."

Cox said during his career as an agent, he encountered situations where targets threatened him or others. In some of those cases, where firing a weapon would have created risk to himself or others nearby, Cox said his training supported the judgment that it was safer to let the target go. In at least two cases, he was able to arrest the target later that day, or the next day.

Cox said that had Jonathan Ross, the immigration enforcement agent who fired at Good, been an FBI agent, the department would look particularly at his position at the time of shooting.

"Without knowing all the facts – and I don't know all the facts – if stepping out of the way was a reasonable alternative, then, under the policy that I was trained on, the department would have expected you to step out of the way," he said.

Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent-in-charge Gene Glenn talks to reporters in Naples, Idaho on Aug. 30, 1992.

(

Gary Stewart

/

AP

)

Looking at DHS use-of-force policy

In 2023, during President Joe Biden's term, the DHS updated its use-of-force policy. It emphasized the importance of "no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative" in its framework, and "respect for human life" as first among its general principles. However, the policy was an administrative update, not codified by statute. Since President Trump took office, his administration has taken a starkly different posture.

In the days following Good's death, White House adviser Stephen Miller addressed the issue during an appearance on Fox News. The Department of Homeland Security's X account reposted the clip.

"To all ICE officers: you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties," Miller said. "Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony."

Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., told NPR she believes this has created space for Congress to act. She and Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., have co-sponsored the DHS Use of Force Oversight Act to establish a baseline policy.

"What my bill does, it actually codifies and mandates by Congress a legislative requirement that it doesn't matter if it's Trump's ICE, Biden's ICE, Democrats' ICE or whoever," Ramirez said. "They now have to abide by the policy that is set, regardless of who's in the leadership or who is running DHS."

In this Sept. 6, 1995, file photo, photographers capture the arrival on Capitol Hill in Washington of Randy Weaver, left, and his attorney Gerry Spence for a hearing of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

(

Dennis Cook

/

AP

)

In 1995, when senators questioned Randy Weaver in a subcommittee hearing over the Ruby Ridge standoff, some asked pointed questions about his political beliefs, including whether he had swastikas in his home. Weaver had testified to having attended a handful of conferences on the compound of Aryan Nations, also in northern Idaho. He had also been photographed with his family wearing a T-shirt alluding to an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Despite disagreement with Weaver's politics, however, legislators at that time appeared to agree that the policy and conduct of federal agents merited scrutiny. Ramirez said that she would like to see a similar discussion today.

"This should not be a controversial bill to sign on to," Ramirez said. But she said that the administration's rapid characterization of Good's activities as "domestic terrorism" complicated further movement. "It leaves very little room for a real dialogue of 'Let's talk about the policy.'"

So far, no Republicans have signed onto the bill.

"But I am not very optimistic that enough of them will understand how critical this is," she said. "With that said, I'm not going to lose hope."

Copyright 2026 NPR