Thanks to the widely adopted Gregorian calendar, most people have marked the new year on Jan. 1 for centuries. But with so many other calendar systems — such as the Chinese, Islamic or Hebrew calendar — how did this come to be?
The birth of the Gregorian calendar: The goal of many early Roman calendars was to find a way to align lunar cycles, solar years and seasons, as several religious festivals and holidays revolved around the equinoxes and moon phases. In 45 B.C.E., while Julius Caesar was high priest, he stretched the 12-month calendar to 365 days and a quarter of a day. But that quarter amounted to a full day after four years. So he implemented leap years to catch the calendar back up with the solar year, Hayton said. To fix the overcorrection, in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII added a caveat to leap years: a century year (such as the year 2000) will only be considered a leap year if it is divisible by 400. Hence, the Gregorian calendar was born.
Several cultures celebrate on other days: In some Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese, people celebrate the Lunar New Year between late January and February to coincide with the first new moon on the lunar calendar. Rosh Hashanah is the Jewish New Year and falls on the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar, which is September or October on the Gregorian calendar. Nowruz, the Persian New Year, coincides with the spring equinox in March.
After the Thanksgiving leftovers are gobbled and the Christmas trees come down, many turn their attention to the new year, and may celebrate by making resolutions or watching the Times Square ball drop.
Thanks to the widely adopted Gregorian calendar, most people have marked the new year on Jan. 1 for centuries. But with so many other calendar systems — such as the Chinese, Islamic or Hebrew calendar — how did this come to be? And how did it come to represent new beginnings?
How the Gregorian calendar — and Jan. 1 — was born
Let's go back in time. The Gregorian calendar, and its Jan. 1 start date, has its origins in ancient Rome.
The goal of many early Roman calendars was to find a way to align lunar cycles, solar years and seasons, as several religious festivals and holidays revolved around the equinoxes and moon phases.
For example, many Christians wanted Easter to fall on the spring equinox every year, said Darin Hayton, an associate professor of history at Haverford College.
"So we have a number of competing goals that don't admit easily of mathematical solutions," he said.
When a 10-month calendar didn't do the trick, the Romans borrowed from the Greeks and Egyptians, who figured out that 12 lunar cycles fit into a solar cycle. So Roman King Numa Pompilius extended their calendar to 12 months by adding February and January, named after Janus, the Roman god of beginnings. Jan. 1 was then made the start of the calendar, Hayton said.
In 45 B.C.E., while Julius Caesar was high priest, he stretched the 12-month calendar to 365 days and a quarter of a day. But that quarter amounted to a full day after four years. So he implemented leap years to catch the calendar back up with the solar year, Hayton said.
But there was still a problem. The astronomers of Caesar's day who calculated the length of a solar year were off by about 11 ½ minutes, a misalignment that would grow significantly over time.
To fix the overcorrection, in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII added a caveat to leap years: a century year (such as the year 2000) will only be considered a leap year if it is divisible by 400.
Hence, the Gregorian calendar was born. It was popularized as European countries that were a "dominant economic force" began using it, and took it with them into countries they colonized, Hayton said.
Many cultures use days other than Jan. 1 to ring in the new year
Much of the world uses the Gregorian calendar and its Jan. 1 start date as New Year's personally and professionally, but many cultures also use their own calendars for social and spiritual occasions.
In some Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese, people celebrate the Lunar New Year between late January and February to coincide with the first new moon on the lunar calendar.
"It emphasizes family reunions, honoring of ancestors, and prosperity," said Usha Haley, who teaches international business at Wichita State University's business school.
Rosh Hashanah is the Jewish New Year and falls on the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar, which is September or October on the Gregorian calendar, according to History.com. Nowruz, the Persian New Year, coincides with the spring equinox in March, Haley said.
Rosh Hashanah "marks a time of reflection, repentance, and spiritual renewal," Haley said, while Norwuz celebrates "rebirth and nature."
How to make your own fresh start
People gravitate to New Year's Day to reset as a part of the "fresh start effect," said Katherine Milkman, a professor of operations, information and decisions at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school.
The phenomenon is rooted in humans' tendency to perceive moments in our lives as chapters, instead of one long continuum, and New Year's gives us a "chapter break" from old patterns and previous experiences.
"'That was the old me, and this is the new me, and the new me is going to be different,'" she said. "It gives us optimism about our ability to achieve more."
New Year's is the most popular "fresh start" because there's a strong social pressure, as many other people are doing the same thing at the same time, Milkman said.
But you don't have to start anew on Jan. 1. A fresh start is still valuable if it's on your birthday, the first day in a new apartment or even on a random Monday, according to Milkman.
To stick with the goals you've laid out for a fresh start, Milkman recommends breaking them down into small, actionable items and making them enjoyable. That could mean partnering with someone on a goal or "temptation bundling," which pairs your goals with things you like.
"Like, 'I only get to binge watch my favorite TV shows while I'm exercising,' or 'I can only listen to my favorite podcast while I'm cooking a fresh meal for my family,'" she said.
If you prefer to stick to Jan. 1 for your fresh start, don't worry. Hayton says the Gregorian calendar is unlikely to change anytime soon, as it would be very disruptive. Switching to a new system would likely face heavy resistance due to the potential social costs, like shifting or losing holidays or birthdays.
"The rebel in me would love it to change, but I think that it would take almost an act of God — not an act of the Pope — to get the calendar to change," he said.
Copyright 2025 NPR
Netflix's new docuseries "Reality Check" unpacks how the hit modeling show made for "good TV" for its creators and devastating consequences for its participants.
Why now: This is the age of the accountability documentary, wherein critiques of and grievances about people and past pop culture phenomena like Britney Spears and Abercrombie & Fitch are packaged into salacious tell-alls meant to correct the record.
The backstory: Tyra Banks in 2020 addressed some of the brutal social media dissection of her twisted brainchild, America's Next Top Model. "Looking back, those were some really off choices," she tweeted. "Appreciate your honest feedback and am sending so much love and virtual hugs. ❤️"
Give Tyra Banks credit where it's due: She's not going to pretend as if she hasn't seen the brutal social media dissection of her twisted brainchild, America's Next Top Model. The one-time reality TV juggernaut has found a new life on streaming, and in 2020 the supermodel-turned-media-mogul addressed blowback to the body shaming, black-, brown-, and yellowface, and unethical production choices with a smidgen of humility: "Looking back, those were some really off choices," she tweeted. "Appreciate your honest feedback and am sending so much love and virtual hugs. ❤️"
This is the age of the accountability documentary, wherein critiques of and grievances about people and past pop culture phenomena like Britney Spears and Abercrombie & Fitch are packaged into salacious tell-alls meant to correct the record. It was obvious Banks' empire would be placed under a director's microscope eventually. Enter Netflix's Reality Check: Inside America's Next Top Model, a surprisingly candid three-part docuseries which allows her and other key players from the Top Model world to recount their experiences — good, humiliating, traumatic and everything in between.
True to formula, the behind-the-scenes transgressions described throughout Reality Check start small but grow increasingly more absurd and infuriating with each new voice. There's Shandi Sullivan from Cycle 2 — I guess "cycle" is the couture pronunciation of "season" — who attests to being traumatized by how producers handled an incident where she says she blacked out after a night of drinking and ended up in bed with a male model she barely knew. (She doesn't explicitly describe what happened to her as a sexual assault, but she does take issue with the fact that producers didn't intervene and in fact, kept filming through it all. The 2004 episode was framed and packaged rather crudely as "The Girl Who Cheated.")
Other depressing stories are rattled off — Keenyah Hill (Cycle 4, 2005) describes speaking up about a male model's inappropriate behavior with her in the middle of a photoshoot, and being dismissed by all the producers, including Banks; Giselle Samson (Cycle 1, 2003) recalls overhearing the judges say she's "got a wide ass"; Cycle 6winner Dani Evans exasperatedly details how she was pressured by Banks in 2006 to close the distinctive gap in her teeth to stay in the running, only for Banks to encourage a white contestant to widen their own several cycles later. And that's just the models, the ones who had the least power and the greatest hunger for success. Panelist judges J. Alexander, Jay Manuel and Nigel Barker, Top Model's breakout stars in their own right — and who made their share of insensitive and sometimes ethically dubious contributions to the show —offer blunt, damning insights about the manipulated and highly-controlled behind-the-scenes machinations.
Smack dab in the middle of it all is Banks herself, reinforcing the perception that, as ever, she embodies a staggering wealth of inherent contradictions. Anyone who's spent time watching Top Model or the equally wacky daytime talk show The Tyra Banks Show recognizes her bald attempts at molding herself in the image of her multimedia predecessor Oprah Winfrey — part shrewd businesswoman, part charismatic personality, part fairy godmother who can make dreams come true. Having faced racism and body discrimination in her early career in high fashion, "I wanted to show beauty is not one thing, and I wanted to fight against the fashion industry," she says of her motivation for creating Top Model and intentionally casting women who were something other than tall, stick-skinny and white.
But Banks also knew above all else what would make for "good TV." And revisiting the show only reiterates how often her proclaimed ethos was at odds with her practice; she presented herself as a rebel with industry sway when it was convenient to her mythmaking, only to hide behind the cover of "industry standards" when it wasn't. This was usually framed under the guise of tough love: "I would love to change the rules, but until that happens, I think it's all about choices, Keenyah," Banks tells Hill in archival show footage. "You can eat a burger, and take the bread off."
Even now, Banks' self-perception as a benevolent disruptor persists, and she resolutely clings to it like a life preserver pummeled by wave after wave of evidence presented to the contrary. "I just wanted to change this woman's life," she insists, reflecting on the notorious and frequently memed 2005 moment in which she lashed out at contestant Tiffany Richardson. "We were rooting for you. We were all rooting for you!" Banks yelled at Richardson when she was seemingly unfazed by her elimination.
It's crucial to note Banks isn't credited as a producer on Reality Check, which lends the series more bite and balance than might otherwise be expected in this forum. As such, she cedes most of her storytelling power to directors Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan, whopointedly contrast her apologies and occasional abdications of responsibility with the adamant, hardened perspectives of the women and former coworkers who once looked up to her. (J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, and Nigel Barker, who each had a bitter falling out with Banks after being fired late in the show's run, are all credited as consultants, and come off as much more sympathetic. Make of that what you will.) Clearly, Banks views Reality Check as an opportunity to take some accountability for the damage the show left in its wake, and the extent to which the series manages to accomplish this, by giving considerable room for her critics, is remarkable. (On the other hand, near the end of the final episode of Reality Check, Banks reveals, unsurprisingly, that this "accountability" hinges on yet more self-promotion: "You have no idea what we have planned for Cycle 25" of Top Model, she says.)
Nigel Barker in "Reality Check: Inside America's Next Top Model."
(
Netflix
)
It's tempting to view Top Model as a product of its time for better and worse, when the reality TV ecosystem was still very much the Wild West. I was an impressionable teen watching at home when Banks first threw a bunch of aspiring models into a bare-bones New York City apartment to compete for a professional contract, and I remember how lofty and notable the show's "inclusive" mantra seemed, because expectations lived in the gutter against a backdrop of normalized eating disorders and limited shades of makeup foundation.
The docuseries ultimately leaves us with a truth borne out time and again: Progress isn't linear. Of course it's foolish to think one woman alone has the power to undo decades of deeply ingrained gatekeeping through a hit TV show. Nor is progress easily achieved through individualized symbols. Whitney Lee Thompson Forrester, a plus-sized winner of Cycle 10 in 2008, credits the show with giving her an opportunity she probably never would have gotten otherwise; meanwhile, countless other contestants were shamed for weighing too much at, maybe, 124 pounds soaking wet.
Yet as much as attitudes have shifted and as much grief as Banks has gotten, the tale of Top Model might have foreshadowed the contradictions — and blowback — to body image inclusivity. The show revealed that representing different body types and looks came with limitations and a whole lot of caveats; in 2026 we observe the so-called body positive movement has receded with the proliferation of GLP-1 drugs. The message in both cases is clear: Whether implicit or explicit, thin and white has never not been in. Surely Banks could and should have done more to fight for Dani Evans' right to keep the gap in her teeth, and for all the others in her cohort. But the pendulum of progress always finds a way of swinging itself back before inching forward again.
The art gallery on the second floor of The Last Bookstore.
(
Courtesy Megan Tan
)
Topline:
The next time someone says Los Angeles isn’t walkable, here’s The LA Local Guide to an art-filled stroll through DTLA.
More details: Held on the first Thursday of each month, DTLA ArtNight — traditionally referred to as the Art Walk — reimagines downtown L.A.’s Historic Core as a premier, pedestrian-oriented destination for art enthusiasts.
Why it matters: A lot of people don’t think downtown Los Angeles is worth visiting. For some unfamiliar with the area, DTLA can feel overwhelming, expensive or just not worth the effort.
Read on ... for a curated guide to a fun date night in downtown.
This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 12, 2026.
A lot of people don’t think downtown Los Angeles is worth visiting.
For some unfamiliar with the area, DTLA can feel overwhelming, expensive or just not worth the effort.
But if you’re a little cheap (like me), enjoy walking around the city and love art paired with a solid drink, downtown actually has a lot to offer — especially for a low-stress date night or a spontaneous adventure.
Held on the first Thursday of each month, DTLA ArtNight — traditionally referred to as the Art Walk — reimagines downtown LA’s Historic Core as a premier, pedestrian-oriented destination for art enthusiasts.
So the next time someone says Los Angeles isn’t walkable, here’s The LA Local Guide to an art-filled stroll through DTLA.
A woman holds a map to all the galleries at “DTLA Artnight.”
(
Erick Galindo
/
The LA Local
)
First Stop
The Hive Gallery & Studios
The Hive Gallery & Studios instantly breaks the stereotype of what an art gallery is “supposed” to be. Located on Spring Street, it’s perfect for bringing along that one person in your life who says they’re “not really into museums.”
The art is quirky, creepy, colorful and fun — very Tim Burton-esque at times. It feels expressive and personal rather than polished and institutional. Another big plus is affordability. The gallery genuinely feels like a community of artists who want their work to be seen and sold without breaking the bank.
Just down the street is Beelman’s Pub, a true neighborhood bar. It’s not the kind of spot influencers travel across town to photograph — and that’s exactly why it works.
Drinks and food are reasonably priced, happy hour is solid and there’s a large outdoor patio along with plenty of indoor seating.
The staff is friendly, the vibe is relaxed and it feels like a place where you can actually have a conversation without shouting.
Sports fans will feel right at home. During the Dodgers’ 2024 World Series victory, the energy poured into the streets of downtown. With TVs throughout the bar and a crowd that genuinely cares about the game, it feels like watching from home.
The gallery works especially well for people who may not consider themselves “art people” but appreciate street art and cultural commentary.
The Vault showcases work that feels distinctly Los Angeles — graffiti-inspired pieces, political undertones — and art that blends history, culture and rebellion.
Much of it carries a Banksy-like edge.
I’ve personally picked up Aztec Mega Man pieces and Blood-in Blood-out Dragon Ball–inspired art from The Vault, which reflects the range of work on display.
Arrive early during the DTLA Art Walk, and you may even find complimentary snacks and bubbly.
An art piece on display at Art Walk LA in downtown Los Angeles.
(
Louie Martinez
/
The LA Local
)
Fourth Stop
Emerging Art Gallery
The Emerging Art Gallery may feel more traditional at first glance, but it’s far more dynamic than it appears. The gallery serves as a central hub for the DTLA Art Craw, making it a key stop on any art-focused night downtown.
Inside, visitors can find a rotating mix of photography, paintings and sculptures from both established artists and emerging creatives.
The DTLA Art Crawl takes place on the first Thursday of every month and offers a true choose-your-own-adventure experience.
More than 25 galleries are within walking distance of one another, but the energy extends well beyond the gallery walls.
Local artists line the streets with booths selling everything from original artwork and handmade prints to plants, clothing, vases and small knickknacks.
Many galleries also bring in DJs spinning music, creating a vibe that feels more like a block party than a traditional art show—putting Los Angeles artists front and center.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
A truck driver prepares to leave after receiving a shipping container at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro.
(
Joel Angel Juarez
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
Trump rescinded the legal foundation for U.S. climate policy. California is preparing to sue — and may try to write its own rules.
The backstory: After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government may regulate greenhouse gases if they were found to endanger public health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a scientific determination that greenhouse gases indeed were a threat. By withdrawing its own so-called “endangerment finding,” the EPA is abandoning its justification for federal tailpipe standards, power plant rules and fuel economy regulations.
Why it matters: California opposed the withdrawal of the endangerment finding when it was proposed last year, and is expected to sue over the decision.
Read on... for what this means for California.
The Trump administration formally rescinded the legal foundation of federal climate policy Thursday — setting up a new front in California’s long-running battle with Washington over emissions rules.
“Today, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a White House press conference. “Referred to by some as the holy grail of federal regulatory overreach, the 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding is now eliminated.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government may regulate greenhouse gases if they were found to endanger public health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a scientific determination that greenhouse gases indeed were a threat. By withdrawing its own so-called “endangerment finding,” the EPA is abandoning its justification for federal tailpipe standards, power plant rules and fuel economy regulations.
California opposed the withdrawal of the endangerment finding when it was proposed last year, and is expected to sue over the decision.
California Air Resources Board executive director Steven Cliff testified at the time that the move ignored settled science.
“Thousands of scientists from around the world are not wrong,” Cliff said in his testimony. “In this proposal, EPA is denying reality and telling every victim of climate-driven fires and floods not to believe what’s right before their eyes.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Thursday that California would take the Trump administration to court over the decision.
“Donald Trump may put corporate greed ahead of communities and families, but California will not stand by,” Newsom said. “We will continue to lead because the lives and livelihoods of our people depend on it.”
Other states and environmental groups have also indicated they could sue. They include Massachusetts, which was part of the coalition of states that sued to force the federal government to curb greenhouse gases nearly two decades ago.
Eliminating the federal basis for regulating planet-warming gases will not halt California’s climate policies, most of which – from California’s market-based approach to cutting carbon pollution to clean energy mandates for utilities — rest on state law.
In fact, the decision may open the door for California to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, a possibility that lawmakers and regulators are actively weighing.
The reversal in federal policy could also undercut arguments that federal law blocks state lawsuits against oil companies and boosts interest in expanding California’s authority over planet-warming pollution within its borders.
California prepares for a fight
Ann Carlson, a UCLA law professor and former federal transportation official, has argued that aggressive federal action against climate policy “could, ironically, provide states with authority they’ve never had before.”
Writing in the law journal Environmental Forum, Carlson theorized that California could attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks directly under state law.
Campbell Power Plant in Sacramento on Aug. 31, 2022.
(
Rahul Lal
/
CalMatters
)
Federal law has preempted most states from setting local vehicle emission standards; California has, through a series of waivers granted under federal clean air law, obtained permission to set stricter standards than the federal government does.
This could help California’s efforts “in the long run,” Carlson wrote in an email Wednesday, “but of course withdrawing the United States from all efforts to tackle climate change is a terrible move. We should be leading the global effort, not retreating.”
In California, where cars and trucks account for more than a third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, California regulators at the air board and lawmakers are weighing in. When asked last year by CalMatters whether the air board would consider writing its own rules, Chair Lauren Sanchez said, “All options are currently on the table.”
“This is definitely a conversation,” Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, said during a Wednesday press conference held by the California Environmental Voters. “So stay tuned.”
Ripple effects in court and Sacramento
If Washington formally exits the field of carbon regulation, states may argue they have broader room to pursue liability claims tied to wildfire costs and other climate impacts, experts said.
California has sued major oil companies as recently as 2023, in an attempt to hold them responsible for climate impacts. Oil companies have frequently cited federal oversight as a reason to dismiss climate-damage lawsuits against them.
“California is struggling with wildfire costs, for example, which are linked strongly to a warming climate,” said Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley. “I think that opens up a lot of legal avenues for states like California.”
The federal pullback has prompted lawmakers to consider expanding the Air Resources Board’s powers.
Assemblymember Robert Garcia, a Democrat from Rancho Cucamonga, this week introduced a bill aimed at affirming the state’s power to curb pollution from large facilities that generate heavy truck traffic, such as warehouses and ports, which concentrate diesel exhaust in nearby communities.
“It's no secret that the federal government and California are not seeing eye to eye — we're not on the same page,” Garcia said at Wednesday’s news conference. “This is an opportunity for our state, for California to step in.”
By Mark Betancourt, California Newsroom | The Texas Newsroom
Published February 16, 2026 6:00 AM
The Trump administration is sending pregnant unaccompanied minors to a South Texas shelter (above) flagged as medically inadequate by ORR officials. The facility is run by a for-profit contractor called Urban Strategies. Founder and president Lisa Cummins told the newsrooms the company is “deeply committed to the care and well-being of the children we serve.”
(
Patricia Lim
/
KUT News
)
Topline:
The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas.
Why now: The decision was made over urgent objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need. That’s according to seven sources who work at the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which handles the custody and care of children who cross the border without a parent or legal guardian, or are separated from family by immigration authorities. All of the sources declined to be named for fear of retaliation.
Why it matters: The move marks a sharp departure from longstanding federal practice, which placed pregnant, unaccompanied migrant children in ORR shelters or foster homes around the country that are equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies. ORR sources, along with more than a dozen former government officials, health care professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys, said they worry the Trump administration is putting children in danger at the San Benito shelter to advance an ideological goal: denying them access to abortion by placing them in a state where it’s virtually banned.
Read on ... for more about what this means for pregnant unaccompanied minors.
The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas. The decision was made over urgent objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need.
That’s according to seven sources who work at the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which handles the custody and care of children who cross the border without a parent or legal guardian, or are separated from family by immigration authorities. All of the sources declined to be named for fear of retaliation.
Since late July, more than a dozen pregnant minors have been placed at the Texas facility, which is located in the small border city of San Benito. Some were as young as 13, and at least half of those taken in so far became pregnant as a result of rape, sources said. Their pregnancies are considered high risk by definition, particularly for the youngest girls.
“This group of kids is clearly recognized as our most vulnerable,” one of the sources said. Rank-and-file staff, the source said, are “losing sleep over it, wondering if kids are going to be placed in programs where they’re not going to have access to the care they need.”
The move marks a sharp departure from longstanding federal practice, which placed pregnant, unaccompanied migrant children in ORR shelters or foster homes around the country that are equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies. ORR sources, along with more than a dozen former government officials, health care professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys, said they worry the Trump administration is putting children in danger at the San Benito shelter to advance an ideological goal: denying them access to abortion by placing them in a state where it’s virtually banned.
A Global X plane sits on a runway near Valley International Airport in Harlington, Texas, on Nov. 4, 2025. The Charter airline operates most deportation flights for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, transporting migrants across the country and abroad.
(
Patricia Lim
/
KUT News
)
“This is 100% and exclusively about abortion,” said Jonathan White, a longtime federal health official who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program for part of President Donald Trump’s first term. White, who recently retired from the government, said the administration tried and failed to restrict abortion access for unaccompanied minors in 2017. “Now they casually roll out what they brutally fought to accomplish last time and didn’t.”
Asked via email why the administration is sending pregnant children to San Benito, an HHS spokesperson who asked not to be named wrote that “ORR’s placement decisions are guided by child welfare best practices and are designed to ensure each child is housed in the safest, most developmentally appropriate setting, including for children who are pregnant or parenting.”
But several of the ORR officials took issue with the agency’s statement. “ORR is supposed to be a child welfare organization,” one of them said. “Putting pregnant kids in San Benito is not a decision you make when you care about children’s safety.”
ORR’s acting director, Angie Salazar, instructed agency staff to send “any pregnant children” to San Benito beginning July 22, 2025, according to an internal email obtained as part of a six-month investigation by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom, public media collaboratives that worked together to produce this story.
A screenshot of a July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of a directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas, despite objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.
Several sources said a handful of pregnant girls have mistakenly been placed in other shelters because immigration authorities didn’t know they were pregnant when they were transferred to ORR custody.
Since the July order, none of the pregnant girls at the San Benito facility have experienced major medical problems, according to ORR sources and Aimee Korolev, deputy director of ProBAR, an organization that provides legal services to children there. They said several of the girls have given birth and are detained with their infants.
But officials interviewed for this story said they worry the shelter is only one high-risk pregnancy away from catastrophe.
“I feel like we’re just waiting for something terrible to happen,” one of the ORR sources said.
‘Blown away by the level of risk’
There are dozens of ORR shelters or foster homes across the country that are designated to care for pregnant unaccompanied children, according to ORR officials, with 14 in California alone. None of the officials could recall a time when all of the pregnant minors in the agency’s custody were concentrated in one shelter.
Detaining them in San Benito, Texas, doctors and public health experts said, is a dangerous gambit.
Parked white vans inside a gated building at Urban Strategies, a facility that holds unaccompanied minor immigrants under contract with the US Office of Refugee Resettlement, in San Benito, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2025. Refugio San Benito is a facility operated by the group Urban Strategies.
(
Patricia Lim
/
KUT News
)
“It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are,” said Annie Leone, a nurse midwife who recently spent five years caring for pregnant and postpartum migrant women and girls at a large family shelter not far from San Benito. “So, to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”
Furthermore, Texas’ near-ban on abortion has been especially devastating to obstetric care. The law allows an exception in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or one of her bodily functions is at risk, but doctors have been confused as to what that means.
Many doctors have left to practice elsewhere, and those who’ve stayed are often scared to perform procedures they worry could come with criminal charges. While Texas passed a law clarifying the exceptions last year, experts have said it may not be enough to assuage doctors’ fears.
Getting the care that is available could take too long to save her life or the baby’s, they added.
Adolescents are also more likely to give birth early, which can be life-threatening for both mother and baby. The youngest face complications during labor and delivery because their pelvises aren’t fully developed, said Dr. Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, an obstetrician in Washington state who specializes in adolescent pregnancy.
“These are young adolescents who are still going through puberty,” she said. “Their bodies are still changing.”
Pregnant girls who recently endured the often harrowing journey to the U.S. face even more risk, obstetrics experts said. Many have been raped along the way and have sexually transmitted infections that can be dangerous during pregnancy. Add to that little to no access to prenatal care or proper nourishment, and then the trauma of being detained.
“You couldn’t set up a worse scenario,” said Dr. Blair Cushing, who runs a women’s health clinic in McAllen, about 45 minutes from San Benito. “I’m kind of blown away by the level of risk that they’re concentrating in this facility.”
A history of problems
The San Benito shelter is owned and operated by Urban Strategies, a for-profit company that has contracted with the federal government to care for unaccompanied children for more than a decade, according to USAspending.gov.
The main building, an old tan brick Baptist Church, occupies a city block in downtown San Benito, a quiet town of about 25,000. The church was converted to a migrant shelter in 2015 and was managed by two other contractors before Urban Strategies took it over in 2021.
On a fall day last year, there were no signs of activity at the facility, though children’s lawn toys and playground equipment were visible behind a wooden fence. A guard was stationed at one of the entrances.
Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees children in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”
(
Patricia Lim
/
KUT
)
“It’s pretty quiet, just like it is today,” said Meliza Fonseca, who lives nearby. “That’s the way it is every day.”
She said she occasionally sees kids playing in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”
Reached by email, the founder and president of Urban Strategies, Lisa Cummins, wrote that the company is “deeply committed to the care and well-being of the children we serve,” but directed any questions about ORR-contracted shelters to the federal agency.
When asked about the San Benito facility, the ORR spokesperson wrote that “Urban Strategies has a long-standing record of delivering high-quality care to pregnant unaccompanied minors, with a consistently low staff turnover.”
A gated building at Urban Strategies, a facility that holds unaccompanied minor immigrants under contract with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, in San Benito, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2025.
(
Patricia Lim
/
KUT News
)
But agency sources who spoke with the newsrooms said that as recently as 2024, staff members at the shelter failed to arrange timely medical appointments for pregnant girls or immediately share critical health information with the federal agency and discharged them without arrangements to continue their medical care.
ORR temporarily barred the shelter from receiving pregnant girls while Urban Strategies implemented a remediation plan, but the plan did not add staff or enhance their qualifications, the sources said.
Several sources inside the agency said its leadership was provided with a list of shelters that are better prepared to handle children with high-risk pregnancies. All of those shelters are located outside of Texas, in regions where the full range of necessary medical care is available. Yet the directive to place them at San Benito remains.
“It’s cruel, it’s just cruel,” one of the officials said. “They don’t care about any of these kids. They’re playing politics with children’s health.”
‘A dress rehearsal’
Jonathan White, who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program from January 2017 to March 2018, said he wasn’t surprised to learn the new administration is moving pregnant unaccompanied children to Texas.
“I’ve been expecting this since Trump returned to office,” White said in an interview.
He said he views the San Benito order as a continuation of an anti-abortion policy shift that began in 2017, which “ultimately proved to be a dress rehearsal for the current administration.”
The Rio Grande is seen near the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse Museum in Hidalgo, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2025. Migrants often cross the river en route to the United States.
(
Patricia Lim
/
KUT News
)
Scott Lloyd, the agency’s director at the time, denied girls in ORR custody permission to end their pregnancies, court records show. Lloyd also required the girls to get counseling about the benefits of motherhood and the harms of abortion and personally pleaded with some of them to reconsider.
“I worked to treat all of the children in ORR care with dignity, including the unborn children,” Lloyd told the newsrooms in an email.
In the fall of 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Lloyd and the Trump administration on behalf of pregnant girls in ORR custody. The ACLU argued that denying the girls abortions violated their constitutional rights, established by the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Not long after the lawsuit was filed, White said he received a late-night phone call from Lloyd, who had a request. He wanted White to transfer an unaccompanied pregnant girl who was seeking an abortion to a migrant shelter in Texas, where, under state law, it would have been too late for her to terminate her pregnancy.
White believed following the order would have been unlawful because it might have denied the girl access to legal relief under the lawsuit, so he refused. The girl was not transferred.
Lloyd, who has since left the government, told the newsrooms he didn’t believe his request was illegal.
The class action lawsuit was settled in 2020; the first Trump administration agreed not to interfere with abortion access for migrant youth in federal custody going forward. Four years later, the Biden administration cemented the deal in official regulations: If a child who wanted to terminate her pregnancy was detained in a state where it was not legal, ORR had to move them to a state where it was.
That rule remains in place, and the agency appears to be following it; ORR has transferred two pregnant girls out of Texas since July, though agency sources said one of them chose not to terminate her pregnancy.
But now that Trump is back in office, his administration is working to kill the policy.
‘Elegant and simple’
Even before Trump won reelection, policymakers in his circle were planning a renewed attempt to restrict abortion rights for unaccompanied minors.
Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a politically conservative overhaul of the federal government, called for ORR to stop facilitating abortions for children in its care. The plan advised the government not to detain unaccompanied children in states where abortion is available.
Such a change is now possible, Project 2025 argued, because Roe v. Wade is no longer an obstacle. Since the Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision in 2022, there is no longer a federal right to abortion.
Abortion rights activists rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court after the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade, in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022.
(
Mandel Ngan
/
AFP/Getty Images
)
Upon returning to office, Trump signed an executive order “to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”
Then, in early July, the Department of Justice reconsidered a longstanding federal law governing the use of taxpayer money for abortion. The DOJ concluded that the government cannot pay to transport detainees from one state to another to facilitate abortion access, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.
And now, ORR is working to rescind the Biden-era requirement that pregnant girls requesting an abortion be moved to states where it’s available. On Jan. 23, the agency submitted the proposed change for government approval, though it has not yet published the details.
Several of the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear whether children in the agency’s custody who have been raped or need emergency medical care will still be allowed to get abortions.
“HHS does not comment on pending or pre-decisional rulemaking,” the agency’s spokesperson wrote when asked for details of the regulatory change. “ORR will continue to comply with all applicable federal laws, including requirements for providing necessary medical care to children in ORR custody.”
But the day the change was submitted, an unnamed Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Daily Signal, a conservative news site, “Our goal is to save lives both for these young children that are coming across the border that are pregnant and to save the lives of their unborn babies.”
Like other experts who spoke with the newsrooms, White, the former head of ORR’s unaccompanied children program, said he thinks the San Benito directive and the anti-abortion rule change are meant to work hand in hand: Once pregnant children are placed at the San Benito shelter, the new regulations could mean they cannot be moved out of Texas to get abortions — even if keeping them there puts them at risk.
“It’s so elegant and simple,” White said. “All they have to do is send them to Texas.”
Mose Buchele with The Texas Newsroom contributed reporting.
This story was produced by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom. The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets that includes NPR, CalMatters, KQED (San Francisco), LAist and KCRW (Los Angeles), KPBS (San Diego) and other stations across the state. The Texas Newsroom is a public radio journalism collaboration that includes NPR, KERA (North Texas), Houston Public Media, KUT (Austin), Texas Public Radio (San Antonio) and other stations across the state.
