Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Why it may hit hardest in California
    Donald Trump is holding an executive order at his desk in the Oval Office. Three men stand near him.
    President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order to curb states' ability to regulate artificial intelligence, something for which the tech industry has been lobbying.

    Topline:

    Since 2016, California has enacted more AI regulations than any other state. President Donald Trump's new order against such laws, signed yesterday, worries state officials.

    What the order does: Trump’s order would require the heads of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. It also calls for the development of model AI legislation to preempt or supersede state law unless those laws address children’s safety, data center infrastructure, state government use or AI, or other yet-to-be-determined areas.

    Why it matters: Opponents of the executive order say it leaves Californians vulnerable to harm.

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to discourage state governments from regulating artificial intelligence and urge Congress to pass a law preempting such regulations.

    The order is likely to hit hardest in California, which since 2016 has passed more laws to regulate artificial intelligence than any other state, according to a Stanford report from earlier this year. California is also home to the world’s leading AI companies, including Anthropic, Google, Nvidia and OpenAI.

    Trump’s order would require the heads of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. It also calls for the development of model AI legislation to preempt or supersede state law unless those laws address children’s safety, data center infrastructure, state government use of AI or other yet-to-be-determined areas.

    For states that continue to regulate AI, the order instructs federal agencies to explore whether they can restrict grants to them, including by revoking funding known as Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment. California has a potential $1.8 billion in broadband funding at stake, much of which was committed to specific projects earlier this month and is set to deliver internet access to more than 300,000 people.

    In a social media post earlier this week and remarks from the Oval Office today, Trump said the executive order was written to prevent businesses from needing to comply with laws from multiple states and that having to do so threatens America’s competitive advantage over other nations. Investors in tech startups, such as the Menlo Park venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, have urged the president to restrict state AI regulation and celebrated the president signing the order.

    Laws affected by the order

    Trump’s order specifically criticized a Colorado law that requires testing and disclosure of AI that makes consequential decisions about people’s lives and seeks to prevent discrimination, a standard California lawmakers may revisit next year.

    Among recently-passed California laws that federal agencies may challenge are:

    Members of Congress routinely call California an example of AI regulation run amok, but lawmakers from both major parties have supported regulating AI, with more than 70 laws passed by 27 states this year, according to a report by the Transparency Coalition. California again led the nation with the passage of roughly a dozen laws as Texas, Montana, Utah and Arkansas followed with the most AI bills signed into law this year.

    The executive order comes on the heels of a second attempt in Congress to preempt state AI laws, which fell short last week. Republican members of Congress first attempted to ban AI regulation by state governments for 10 years this spring, an initiative derailed in part by concerns about the fate of a law that protects country music musicians in Tennesse and others that seek to block child sexual abuse material.

    A look at public opinion

    Polls show Californians and Americans support AI regulation. A Carnegie Endowment California poll released in October found that nearly 80% of Californians strongly or somewhat agree that, when it comes to AI, safety should be prioritized over innovation. A September Gallup poll also found that four out of five Americans want lawmakers to prioritize safety over innovation, even if that means the technology is developed more slowly.

    In addition to endangering the lives of children, artificial intelligence can lead to false arrests, discriminate against job applicants and employees and deny people government benefits or health care that they’re entitled to. The technology is also power hungry, potentially driving up electricity rates and endangering clean energy goals. It also needs large amounts of fresh water for the cooling systems in data centers. Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that sued to stop a California data center project one year ago, called the executive order an early Christmas gift to big tech.

    What opponents say

    Opponents of the executive order say it leaves Californians vulnerable to harm.

    “Make no mistake: this order doesn’t create new protections, it removes them. That’s not governing. That’s a dereliction of duty wrapped in yet another distraction from a fracturing MAGA movement and a president who doesn’t understand the real dangers of rapidly advancing tech,” state Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat representing Santa Ana, said in a statement last month, when a draft of the executive order leaked to the press.

    In the California Legislature enthusiasm for regulating AI shows little sign of abating. More than 100 film industry workers from groups like the Animation Guild and SAG-AFTRA showed up at a committee hearing earlier this week about protecting the work of creatives. Many spoke in support of a bill requiring AI companies to disclose what copyrighted material they use to train their models.

    Animation Guild president Danny Lin said at the hearing that AI threatens nearly 40,000 jobs in California’s film, television and animation industries.

    “L.A. is bleeding out before my very eyes,” Lin told state lawmakers.

    In response to the executive order Lin told CalMatters calling out a Colorado law that seeks to prevent discrimination and protect working class people doesn’t give her confidence that the legislation the president is calling for will address the concerns of creatives whose work is used to train generative AI models.

    “It’s pretty apparent that if we had a federal government that was actually focused on regulating this technology then the states would not feel the need to step in and create state specific legislation,” she said.

    More on AI

    Listen 35:31
    How AI became a Hollywood villain – especially for animators
    Hollywood taught us to be afraid of a super powerful artificial intelligence that will one day conquer humanity. So not surprisingly, many screenwriters and actors are very skeptical of AI, and concerns about AI were central to the Hollywood labor strikes in 2023.

  • Councilmember says removal is politically charged
    Woman in red blazer at podium
    L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman at a mayoral campaign event in May 2026.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman will lose her spot as chair of the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, she confirmed in a campaign video Monday. Raman, who is running for mayor, claims her removal is politically motivated.

    Why it matters: Raman is running against incumbent L.A. Mayor Karen Bass in the November election. The councilmember has been chair of the Housing and Homeless Committee since 2023, where she’s had considerable power and responsibility.

    Why now: The California Post reported that L.A. City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson is planning to announce this week that the city will split the committee into two parts — one on housing, the other on homelessness — neither of which will be led by Raman. Harris-Dawson, a longtime political ally of Bass, represents a large portion of South Los Angeles. He did not immediately respond to LAist’s inquiry late Monday.

    Raman's reaction: Raman said in the campaign ad the move was a political attack. “I called for an audit of our homelessness programs in Los Angeles, and now I’ve been removed as Chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee,” Raman said. “I might be getting punished for running against Mayor Bass, but Angelenos are the ones paying the price for these political games.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Trump administration threatens state management
    A pier is in the foreground. Behind is an offshore oil and gas platform. The sun is setting.
    President Joe Biden will reportedly permanently ban future offshore oil and gas drilling in over 625 million acres of federal waters in an effort to cement his environmental legacy before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated January 20th. Platform Esther is located approximately 1.5 miles away from Seal Beach and operates within California state waters.

    Topline:

    Hearings being held this week could decide whether California continues to have a say over what happens in federal waters off its coast. It’s part of the Trump administration’s efforts to supercharge industrial activities, including offshore drilling, rocket launches and desalination plants along California’s coast.

    Why now: The hearings aim to gather public comments as part of a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices. Dozens of people turned out Monday to decry the administration's review.

    Read on ... to learn how to give public comment.

    Hearings being held this week could decide whether California continues to have a say over what happens in federal waters off the state’s coast.

    It’s part of the Trump administration’s efforts to supercharge industrial activities, including offshore drilling, rocket launches and desalination plants along California’s coast. At a hearing Monday at a Santa Monica hotel and at a news conference beforehand, speaker after speaker decried any effort that would allow the federal government to revoke California's ability to manage its coast.

    A federal law called the Coastal Zone Management Act gives states with coastlines the right to review and veto projects that may conflict with state policies and economies. The law was signed by President Richard Nixon after a devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara and is credited with launching the modern environmental movement.

    More than 50 years later, the federal government has called for a detailed review of California's compliance with the 1972 law.

    In a May social media post, the Trump administration said California is standing in the way of economic progress and called the state’s coastal management practices “obstructionist” and “environmental extremism.”

    California officials, including state Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, dispute that, saying the state approves federal initiatives 96% of the time.

    “ Never before in the five-decade history of this federal act has this sudden baseless review taken place on any state's coastal management program, and never before in the history of this act has a coastal management program ever been revoked,” Crowfoot said at a news conference in Santa Monica on Monday.  ”This federal administration is bent on industrializing our coast.”

    The hearings, which are being administered by NOAA, could result in the federal government decertifying California’s rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. A decision to do so would almost certainly be challenged in court, experts say.

    That possibility has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to call on Californians to submit public comments on the issue.

    “Give the Trump administration an earful,” Newsom said in a statement.

    How to get involved

    NOAA will accept public comment until midnight Aug. 22. You can attend a virtual hearing or submit a comment via email. 

    Virtual hearings: 

    • When: Aug. 11 and 12, 2 to 5 p.m.
    • Where: Virtual.
    • How: Each person who wants to attend either meeting must electronically register by 11:59 p.m. Aug. 10. Attendance will be limited to 1,000 people, and NOAA asks you only register for one meeting. After you register, you’ll receive a link to attend. To register for either meeting, use the following link: https://noaabroadcast.adobeconnect.com/​e23ewcr5d65q/​event/​event_​info.html. 

    Submit comment via email to czma.california-evaluation@noaa.gov. Include “Comments on Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program” in the subject line.

    The hearings this week are solely for public comment. The review “seeks any new input from relevant stakeholders regarding spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects, and undersea cables,” according to a notice in the federal register. 

    Such reviews have happened before — in 2024 a draft review by NOAA found the state’s coastal agencies had properly carried out the CZMA. The review, however, was not finalized due to the change in administration.

    The latest review comes after the Trump administration gutted NOAA staff and funding. It has also aggressively worked to expand drilling off the California coast, while at the same time using taxpayer dollars to pay offshore wind companies to abandon their energy projects — something L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath highlighted at the Monday news conference.

    “ L.A. County will soon achieve 100% renewable and reliable electricity. This is the change that we want to see,” she said. “Meanwhile, the Trump administration is recklessly starting foreign wars and skyrocketing the price at the pump.”

    Horvath is part of a coalition of local, state, tribal, environmental, legal and business leaders who are calling the review a “takeover” of state and local rights.

    Orange County resident Grant Bixby, who founded the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, pointed out at the news conference that offshore drilling makes up a tiny fraction of the state’s coastal economy, which generates between $44 billion and $50 billion a year, according to NOAA.

    "Should we put 99% of the other employment at risk for the benefit of one dirty industry?” Bixby said.

    Bixby recalled how the 2021 Huntington Beach oil spill turned the beaches into a “ghost town.”

    People sit in chairs in a hotel ballroom. Two people can be seen on a stage at the front of the room.
    The NOAA hearing was held in a ballroom at the Santa Monica Hilton.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    Among the speakers at the news conference and hearing, a clear theme emerged: The coast is an integral part of being a Californian, whether you’re lucky enough to live beachside or you live inland and have a favorite spot to call your own on hot summer days.

    “The point is that we all love our beautiful saltwaters,” said Tina Calderon, Gabrielino Tongva and Chumash culture bearer, at the news conference. “These are sacred waters, and it's up to us to be the voice. It's up to us to cause no more human harm. We've done enough.”

  • The beloved bald eagle has died, rescuers say
    An adult bald eagle is being swaddled in a towel and held by two hands wearing thick yellow gloves. A woman with a blue and white face mask is holding the eagle in front of her.
    Jackie and her partner Shadow had successfully fledged six chicks together over the years at their Big Bear nest.

    Topline:

    Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.

    What we know: The famous eagle, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia.

    Read on … for more on Jackie’s life.

    Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.

    The famous raptor, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia. She ultimately succumbed to her condition after a team of veterinarians struggled for weeks to figure out what was causing it.

    Jackie remained critically ill despite receiving oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock monitoring. 

    "We know this news will be deeply felt by the many thousands of people around the world who have followed her journey, hoped alongside us, prayed for her, and supported the people caring for her,” the Ojai Raptor Center said in an Instagram post. “Our team is heartbroken. It has been an extraordinary privilege to care for her."

    Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that launched the popular nest livestream in 2015, confirmed the news on social media.

    “It is with great sadness and heavy hearts, to bring you the latest update from Ojai Raptor Center,” the nonprofit said to its roughly 1.3 million Facebook followers. “Please be kind to yourself, to others, to the FOBBV team and to those at the Ojai Raptor Center. Soar free Jackie…”

    What happened to her?

    The rescue center said on social media Sunday that she was “critically ill,” “unstable” and still in an "extremely serious” condition.

    She was getting oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock care from vets and specialists across the country. But her red blood cell levels continued to drop well below normal after rebounding a bit after she was rescued.

    Jackie was rescued in July by Big Bear’s Dana Point Park after a brief fight with two other eagles. Jackie was weak, vulnerable, underweight and unable to fly, according to the Ojai Raptor Center.

    The center said the fight is likely what left her grounded, but her condition suggests she had been sick for some time.

    How Jackie’s Big Bear saga started

    Jackie was the matriarch of the famous Big Bear bald eagle nest since around 2017. She’s believed to be the first bald eagle chick hatched in Big Bear Valley in recent history, according to the nonprofit.

    The pair believed to be her parents, Ricky and Lucy, left the area around 2016. The young Jackie then started hanging out in their old nest, where the livestream camera had been installed.

    Jackie took on her first mate, a bald eagle known as Mr. B, and laid her first clutch of eggs in the nest the following season. Shadow came into the picture in the summer of 2018, refusing to leave until Mr. B eventually flew away from the area, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.

    Jackie and Shadow were mates ever since. They successfully raised six chicks together — Sandy and Luna this season, Sunny and Gizmo last year, Spirit in 2022 and Simba in 2019.

  • New poll shows voters are open to big changes

    Topline:

    Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

    More details: A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.

    Why now: Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.

    Read on... for more on the poll.

    Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.

    A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.

    Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.

    "There should be little doubt that the single-member district system is failing to deliver fair and representative outcomes," they wrote. "We urge Congress to adopt a proportional system of representation, solving the gerrymandering problem at its source."

    According to the poll conducted by the advocacy group Fix Our House and liberal think tank New America, half of 1,000 respondents said they support proportional representation, with nearly a quarter opposed. A third of those who participated said they were not sure whether they supported it or not.

    Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, said he was surprised to see how much backing there is for proportional representation, despite the idea being fairly obscure in the United States.

    "It really did shock me how supportive people were of the various principles of proportional representation across the board," he told NPR.

    While support was highest among younger, more educated, more left-leaning voters, Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too.

    American voters want more political parties

    Pollsters also walked respondents through some of the tradeoffs of proportional representation — including that it can lead to multiple parties having to find a way to work together.

    "For every one of those questions, people prefer the proportional system with multiple parties," Drutman said, "even if it leads to a coalition government that is maybe not quite as efficient."

    He said voters also weren't very concerned when asked about the possibility of proportional representation leading to some more extreme political parties.

    "One thing people said is they already think the parties are pretty extreme right now," Drutman explained. "So that's not quite the fear that some in the political class think it would be."

    Jocelyn Kiley, director of political research at the Pew Research Center, said voters writ large have been in a "prolonged period of disaffection with politics and the political system."

    She said Pew has found there is a lot of openness to reform, with nearly 70% of respondents to its polls saying they wish, at least somewhat, there were more political parties to choose from.

    Kiley said detailed knowledge of what any election reform would look like is rare among voters. And she said that when many reforms "move from theory to practice," they often hit some resistance.

    "People want to understand exactly how that reform will impact them," she said.

    Room for a national conversation

    Drutman told NPR the new poll numbers mark a starting point for what could be a national conversation about how to break out of the country's two-party system.

    "People are dissatisfied," he said. "People are frustrated. People don't have a language for how to talk about alternatives because they haven't really heard all that much about the alternatives, because we haven't had a national conversation about the alternatives yet. So, there's a lot of room to have that conversation."

    Drutman said only about a quarter of the respondents were aware that there are alternatives to a two-party system, and even fewer people could name an alternative when pressed.

    In fact, only about 2% of the participants in the poll could name proportional representation off the top of their heads, said Dustin Wahl, executive director of Fix Our House,

    "But when asked about the kind of underlying values beneath it and the component parts, there was widespread support from all across the political spectrum," Wahl said. "And that's not something we would have expected to see necessarily four years ago, for instance. But as the problems grow, the desire for solutions grows, as well."

    Proportional representation is currently the most widely used electoral system among the world's democracies. Wahl points out that the U.S., along with the likes of Canada and Australia, has a system that was abandoned long ago by other countries.

    "Arguably the only reason we don't use proportional representation is because it wasn't used anywhere in the world at the time of [America's] founding," he said. "And we just kept doing elections the same way."

    The poll also found a majority support (54%) for expanding the House, with 150 new members.

    There are bills in Congress, with all Democratic co-sponsors, that would study or move the U.S. to a system of proportional representation, but Wahl said any bill that doesn't include expanding the House is "politically dead in the water" because without expansion, lawmakers have to choose to potentially vote themselves out of office.

    "That [150-seat expansion] gives you enough of a cushion so that members, incumbents know that they're very likely to hold on to their seats," he said. "It wouldn't run into the problem, at all, of candidates or of sitting members of Congress thinking that they're going to lose their seats because their elections would be totally untouched."
    Copyright 2026 NPR