affect

You’re ready for a change of pace — not just leaving the workforce, but moving to another state or country in order to start fresh. While exciting, you’re probably also prepared for some challenges, like learning your way around your new neighborhood and coming up with a new retirement budget.

Though you might not expect it, you could also face Social Security challenges that affect your benefit delivery or how far your checks go. Fortunately, you can minimize the difficulty these issues pose by planning for them well in advance.

Image source: Getty Images.

Moving to another state

Moving to another state won’t change the monthly Social Security check you’re entitled to, whether you’re receiving a retirement or spousal benefit. But it could affect how far your checks go. For example, if you move from a city with a high cost of living to a rural area where living expenses are cheaper, you might find that your checks go further than they would in your current city. On the other hand, if you move to a pricier area, you may have to pay for more of your expenses out of your own pocket.

Moving could also put you at risk of or help you avoid state Social Security benefit taxes. Only nine states still have these, and each has its own rules that determine who owes these taxes. It’s possible to live in a state with a Social Security benefit tax and not pay any state taxes on your checks. But it’s worth reaching out to your new state’s department of taxation or an accountant in that state to learn how it could affect your tax bill.

You could also find yourself owing federal Social Security benefit taxes wherever you go. These depend on your provisional income — your adjusted gross income (AGI), plus any nontaxable interest you have from municipal bonds and half your annual Social Security benefit. If you’re forced to spend more due to a higher cost of living in your new home, this could increase your AGI and your provisional income, potentially forcing you to pay more in federal income taxes.

Moving to another country

If you decide to move to another country, you sidestep the issue of state Social Security benefit taxes. Depending on where you go, you might also be able to secure a lower cost of living to help your benefits go further.

You will still be responsible for paying federal Social Security benefit taxes if your provisional income is high enough. And you could also run into an accessibility issue if you retire in certain countries.

The Social Security Administration can pay you via direct deposit or a prepaid debit card in most parts of the world. However, if you retire in the following countries, you may not be able to receive your benefit payments:

• Azerbaijan
• Belarus
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan
• Uzbekistan

You may be able to petition the Social Security Administration to make an exception for you if you agree to certain restricted payment terms.

This isn’t an option for those who choose to retire in Cuba or North Korea, however. There, you cannot get Social Security benefits at all.

If you retire in a country where the U.S. government won’t send Social Security checks, you may still be able to receive all your back payments if you later move from that country to a place where the Social Security Administration can send benefits again.

It’s best to contact the Social Security Administration directly if you have any questions about how your move could affect your Social Security checks. This way, you’ll be able to get a personalized answer and then you can adjust your budget accordingly.

One bill aims to raise lagging reading skills among California children by mandating how schools teach this critical subject. Another seeks to overhaul cafeteria meals by eliminating highly processed foods. A third aims to protect students from being derailed by discrimination.

These bills and others passed by the Legislature in the session’s final busy days will directly affect the classroom experience of some 5.8 million California public schools students. Broadly speaking, these bills target students’ minds, health and emotional well-being — and the results were not without controversy.

The measures now land on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to approve or reject them.

Assembly Bill 715: Anti-discrimination

Among the most hotly contested education-related measures, Assembly Bill 715 was spawned from dissatisfaction — largely among a coalition of Jewish groups — to the way ethnic studies is being taught in some California classrooms. Critics say that in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and that they reflect bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include the conflict in their syllabus.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — would expand the focus beyond antisemitism, a revision that responds to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California has taken a historic stand against antisemitism in our schools,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. “For far too long, Jewish students have endured slurs, bullying, and open hostility in their classrooms with nowhere to turn. AB 715 is a promise to those students — and to all children in California — that they are not invisible, that their safety and dignity matter.”

The legislation that finally emerged would create a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state anti-discrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Issues related to ethnic studies would include ensuring anti-discriminatory course and teacher training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Critics of AB 715 — which include the California Teachers Assn. — acknowledge that bill was revised to address their concerns but still oppose it. They say it could chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic students and elsewhere and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

AB 1454: Science of Reading

A sweeping bill would overhaul how reading is taught in California classrooms — mandating phonics-based lessons and culminating decades of debate on how best to teach children this foundational skill. The bill is unusual in a state that generally emphasizes local control over instruction.

AB 1454 would require school districts to adopt instructional materials grounded in what supporters call the “science of reading,” which is based on research about how young children learn to read.

The now-favored approach leans heavily on decoding and sounding out words based on the letter sounds, while laying out five pillars for more effective instruction: phonemic awareness (the sounds that letters make), phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The hope is that this teaching style will boost persistently disappointing test scores.

A 2022 study of 300 school districts in California found that fewer than 2% of districts were using curricula that proponents viewed as sufficiently strong in science-of-reading practices.

These advocates have long been critical of alternative “whole language” approaches that rely heavily on the concept that children are more engaged when they learn to read with less emphasis on decoding words. Teachers focus instead on surrounding children with books to foster a love of reading, directing children to figure out unknown words based on context, pictures and other clues.

“Transforming California’s education system requires a coordinated approach rooted in proven solutions,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an education advocacy nonprofit that has championed the change.

Many California teachers, however, remain committed to different methods and chafe at a state-mandated approach, especially one that runs counter to their classroom experience and previous training. Advocates for students learning English have voiced especially strong opposition to the science-of-reading philosophy.

AB 1264: Ultra-processed foods

Chicken nuggets, corn dogs, packaged frozen pizza, chips, canned fruits and sugary cereals are the types of ultra-processed foods in school meals targeted in Assembly Bill 1264, which would require healthier cafeteria options in the years ahead.

Heavily processed foods often include reconstituted meat along with chemical additives such as preservatives, emulsifiers, coloring and other ingredients absent from scratch cooking — not to mention added sugars, fats and salt — that together can harm students “physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” according to bill author Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino).

The bill was opposed by manufacturers who considered it too constraining and too subject to non-scientific whims.

The final version eased some concerns by setting up a review process rather than simply listing foods and chemicals to ban. There also is a gradual phase-in over several years.

The expectation is that processed foods that remain on the menu will be healthier and also that there will be an acceleration of efforts to prepare foods within school kitchens, relying as much as possible on local and fresh ingredients.

AB 564: Cannabis tax and child care

The Legislature also voted to claw back an increase to the cannabis excise tax, which took effect in July and raised the state tax rate paid by consumers to 19%. The goal is to bolster the struggling legal-cannabis industry. A chunk of child-care funding is among the casualties of the lower tax revenue.

Assembly Bill 564 would mean an estimated $180-million annual reduction for law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup. Of the total, about $81 million would have funded subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families. Overall, the state budget to assist with child care is $7 billion, a figure that advocates view as short of what’s needed, especially with further potential cuts looming.

Other notable measures

Assembly Bill 461 would end the treatment of truancy as a crime under state law. Existing law can subject the parent or guardian of a student who is chronically absent or late to school with a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Prosecutions are rare and the potential penalties are typically viewed as deterrents. But the pendulum in California has shifted away from tough-on-truancy measures to alternatives such as counseling and family assistance.

The Legislature also has passed bills in support of immigrant families, that will frequently have a carryover effect on how schools operate, such as a bill that bars immigration officers from campus unless they have a valid judicial warrant.

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

An independent commission of inquiry investigating violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory has warned it cannot continue its work.

Severe funding shortages are derailing the body established by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in 2021.

The United States withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council earlier this year. Still, it continues to owe about $1.5bn in outstanding fees to the UN.

What, then, is the impact on this commission in the face of rapidly increasing Israeli settler violence and the illegal expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank?

Presenter:

James Bays

Guests:

Andrew Gilmour – Former UN assistant secretary-general for human rights

Sari Bashi – Human rights lawyer and founder of Gisha, an Israeli human rights organisation

William Schabas – Professor of international law at Middlesex University and a former chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of up to 300 percent on semiconductor imports, with exemptions for foreign companies that commit to manufacturing in the US.

Trump has cast the proposed tariff as a way to drive investment to the US, but experts say it could also disrupt global supply chains and even penalise companies already making chips in the US.

What are the details of Trump’s plan?

Few details have been released since Trump announced plans for a 100 percent tariff at a White House event on August 7.

The US president said exemptions would be given to companies that build research or manufacturing facilities in the US, but tariffs could be applied retroactively if they failed to follow through on their planned investments.

“If, for some reason, you say you’re building, and you don’t build, then we go back, and we add it up, it accumulates, and we charge you at a later date, you have to pay, and that’s a guarantee,” Trump told reporters.

On Friday, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that more details would be announced soon and that the tariff could be much higher than previously suggested.

“I’ll be setting tariffs next week and the week after, on steel and on, I would say chips – chips and semiconductors, we’ll be setting sometime next week, week after,” Trump said en route to Alaska to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I’m going to have a rate that is going to be 200 percent, 300 percent,” he added.

Why does Trump want to impose tariffs on chip imports?

Trump wants to impose a tariff on chips for several reasons, but the main one is to re-shore investment and manufacturing to the US, said G Dan Hutcheson, the vice chair of Canada’s TechInsights.

“The primary goal is to reverse the cost disadvantage of manufacturing in the US and turn it into an advantage. It’s mainly focused on companies that are not investing in the US,” Hutcheson told Al Jazeera.

“Exclusions are negotiable for entities that align with his goal of bringing manufacturing back to the US.”

More broadly, the tariff is also intended to address the US dependence on imported semiconductors and buttress Washington’s position in its ongoing rivalry with China, another chip-making powerhouse.

Both issues are bipartisan concerns in the US.

The Trump administration earlier this year launched a Section 301 investigation into alleged unfair trade practices in China’s semiconductor industry, and a Section 232 investigation into the national security implications of US reliance on chip imports and finished products that use foreign chips.

Who will be impacted by the tariff?

Foreign tech giants that have already invested in the US, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung, would likely not be affected by the tariff.

It is less clear how the measure could affect other companies, including chip makers in China, where companies face barriers to US investment from both US and Chinese regulators.

Yongwook Ryu, an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, said the tariff could be used as leverage by the US as it negotiates the rate of its so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on China.

The US has imposed blanket tariffs of 10-40 percent on most trade partners since August 7, but negotiators are still hammering out a comprehensive trade deal with Beijing.

“My view is that while the reciprocal tariffs are generally aimed more at addressing the US trade deficit problem and re-shoring manufacturing back to the US, product-specific or sectoral tariffs [like semiconductors] are aimed at serving the strategic goal of strengthening US technological hegemony and containing China,” Ryu told Al Jazeera.

What is the value of US chip imports each year?

The US imported about $40bn in chips in 2024, according to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, citing United Nations trade data.

Imports mainly came from Taiwan, Malaysia, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico and China, but experts say this data does not capture the full picture of chip flows in and out of the US.

Chips can cross borders multiple times as they are manufactured, packaged, or added to finished goods.

Chris Miller, the author of Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology, estimates that another $50bn worth of chips entered the US in 2024 via products like smartphones, auto parts and home appliances from countries like China and Vietnam.

Miller also estimates that a “substantial portion” of US chip imports are manufactured in the US before being sent overseas for packaging – a labour-intensive process – and then re-imported.

“Many of the chips imported from key trading partners like Mexico, Malaysia and Costa Rica are likely actually manufactured by US firms like Texas Instruments and Intel, which have manufacturing in the US but often have their test and assembly facilities abroad,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

Why is the tariff a concern for the global chip industry?

Trump’s tariff plans have injected further uncertainty into an industry already grappling with his administration’s sweeping efforts to reorder global trade.

“It’s unclear whether the US government has the capacity to effectively enforce this and… there’s not really any guidance in terms of what these tariffs are actually going to look like,” Nick Marro, the lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told Al Jazeera.

The White House has yet to provide details on whether the tariff will apply to chips originally made in the US and chips contained in finished products.

If the latter were included in the tariff plans, the fallout would extend to industries like electronics, home appliances, automobiles and auto parts. 

Miller said that it would be consumers in the US and elsewhere who would be among those most affected by the tariff. 

“Initially, it appears that most costs would be paid by companies via lower profit margins, though in the long run, consumers will pay the majority of the cost,” he said.

California is in a standoff with Texas over redistricting that could decide the balance of power in Congress for the end of Donald Trump’s presidency — a high-stakes gambit with risks for both sides. But if the courts have their say, Texas, facing accusations of racial discrimination, may find itself at a distinct legal disadvantage.

Partisanship unleashed

Both efforts by Texas Republicans and California Democrats are blatantly partisan, proposing a mid-decade redrawing of district lines for the express purpose of benefiting their party in the 2026 midterm elections.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is working with a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature on “trigger” legislation that would schedule a ballot initiative this fall for the new maps. It was a direct response to a Texas plan, supported by Trump and currently in motion in the Austin statehouse, to potentially flip five seats in the upcoming election from blue to red.

The Supreme Court has ruled that judges are powerless to review partisan gerrymandering, even if, as it wrote in 2019, the practice is “incompatible with democratic principles.”

The court ruled in Rucho vs. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering “is incompatible with the 1st Amendment, that the government shouldn’t do this, and that legislatures and people who undertake this aren’t complying with the letter of the Constitution,” said Chad Dunn, a professor and legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project who has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court. “But it concluded that doesn’t mean the U.S. Supreme Court is the solution to it.”

What courts can still do, however, is enforce the core provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from redistricting that “packs” or “cracks” minority groups in ways that dilute their voting power.

“Texas doesn’t need to have a good reason or a legitimate reason to engage in mid-decade redistricting — even if it’s clear that Texas is doing this for pure partisan reasons, nothing in federal law at the moment, at least, would preclude that,” said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University. “But Texas cannot redistrict in a way that would violate the Voting Rights Act.”

Vestiges of a landmark law

In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the current makeup of the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

Today, Texas’ proposed maps may face a similar challenge, amid accusations that they are “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said. Already, the state’s 2021 congressional maps are under legal scrutiny over discrimination concerns.

“The Supreme Court affirmed two years ago that the Voting Rights Act works the way we all thought it worked,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. “That’s part of the reason for current litigation in Texas, and will undoubtedly be a part of continuing litigation if Texas redraws their lines and goes ahead with it.”

The groundwork for the current Texas plan appears to have been laid with a letter from Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional. Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority.

The resulting maps proposed by Texas redraw all three.

J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas’ 2021 redistricting effort, said the politics of race in Texas specifically, and the South generally, make its redistricting challenges plain to see but harder to solve.

How do you distinguish between partisanship, which is allowed, and racism, which is not, in states where partisanship falls so neatly down racial lines?

That dilemma may become Texas’ greatest legal problem, as well as its saving grace in court, Kousser said.

“In Texas, as in most Southern states, the connection between race and party is so close that it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between them,” he said. “That seems to give a get-out-of-jail free card, essentially, to anybody who can claim this is partisan, rather than racial.”

Today, nine states face ongoing litigation concerning potential violations of the Voting Rights Act, a law that turned 60 years old this week. Seven are in the South — states that had for decades been subject to a pre-clearance requirement at the Justice Department before being allowed to change state voting laws.

The Supreme Court struck down the requirement, in the case of Shelby County vs. Holder, in 2013.

California moves forward

Newsom has been vocal in his stance that California should position itself to be the national bulwark against the Texas plan.

Last week, the Democratic caucuses of the state Legislature heard a presentation by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on how California might legally gerrymander its own maps for the 2026 midterms.

Matt Barreto, the co-founder of the project and a professor of political science and Chicana/o and Central American studies, said his organization’s position is that gerrymandering “should not be allowed by any state,” he said.

But “if other states are playing the game, the governor is saying he wants to play the game too,” Barreto added.

He said that although five seats have been discussed to match what Texas is doing, he sees a pathway for California to create seven seats that would be safely Democratic.

That includes potential redraws in Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire and the northern part of the state. Barreto said there are many districts that currently skew as much as 80% Democratic, and by pulling some of those blue voters into nearby red districts, they could be flipped without risk to the current incumbents, though some new districts may have odd shapes.

For example, districts in the north could become elongated to reach into blue Sacramento or the Bay Area, “using the exact same standards that Texas does,” he said.

Legislators seemed receptive to the idea.

“We’ve taken basic American rights for granted for too long,and I think we’re ill equipped to protect them,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who attended the meeting.

“To me, this is much bigger than Texas,” she said.

State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who has worked on redistricting in the past, echoed that support for Newsom, saying he was not “comfortable” with the idea of gerrymandering but felt “compelled” in the current circumstances.

“In order to respond to what’s going on in Texas in particular,” Umberg said, “we should behave in a like manner.”

Barreto, the UCLA professor, warned that if any redistricting happens in California, “no matter what, there’s going to be a lawsuit.”

Dunn said that it’s possible voters could sue under the Voting Rights Act in California, claiming the new districts violate their right to fair representation — even white voters, who have more traditionally been on the other side of such legal actions.

The 1965 law is “for everybody, of every race and ethnicity,” Dunn said. A lawsuit “could be on behalf of the places where the white community is in the minority.”

The prospect of that litigation and the chaos it could cause gives pause to some voting rights experts who see the current situation as a race to the bottom that could ultimately harm democracy by undermining voters’ trust in the system.

“It’s mutual destruction,” said Mindy Romero, a voting expert and professor at USC, of the Texas-California standoff.

The best outcome of the current situation, she said, would be for Congress to take action to prohibit partisan gerrymandering nationwide. This week, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who represents a district north of Sacramento that would be vulnerable in redistricting, introduced legislation that would bar mid-decade redistricting. So far, it has gained little support.

“Just like lots of other things, Congress is dropping the ball by not addressing this national problem,” said Richard Hasen, a UCLA professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project.

“When it comes to congressional redistricting, fairness should be evaluated on a national basis, since the decisions made in California or Texas affect the whole country,” he said.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Tired of waiting for the city, Angelenos paint their own crosswalks. Some become permanent
The what happened: Federal agents use Penske rental truck as ‘Trojan Horse’ to raid Los Angeles Home Depot
The L.A. Times special: Inside the high-stakes clandestine poker world that led to a Hollywood Hills murder

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nearly half the global population has also been exposed to dust levels exceeding WHO safety thresholds.

A new report by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has found that sand and dust storms are leading to “premature deaths” due to climate change, with more than 330 million people in 150 countries affected.

On Saturday, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) marked the International Day of Combating Sand and Dust Storms and its designation of 2025 – 2034 as the UN Decade on Combating Sand and Dust Storms.

The storms “are fast becoming one of the most overlooked yet far-reaching global challenges of our time”, said Assembly President Philemon Yang. “They are driven by climate change, land degradation and unsustainable practices.”

The secretary-general of WMO, Celeste Saulo, said on Thursday that sand and dust storms do not just mean “dirty windows and hazy skies. They harm the health and quality of life of millions of people and cost many millions of dollars through disruption to air and ground transport, on agriculture and on solar energy production.”

Airborne particles from these storms contribute to 7 million premature deaths annually, said Yang, adding that they trigger respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and reduce crop yields by up to 25%, causing hunger and migration.

“About 2 billion tonnes of dust are emitted yearly, equivalent to 300 Great Pyramids of Giza” in Egypt, Laura Paterson, the WMO’s UN representative, told the UNGA.

More than 80% of the world’s dust comes from the deserts in North Africa and the Middle East, added Paterson, but it has a global effect because the particles can travel hundreds and even thousands of kilometres across continents and oceans.

Undersecretary-General Rola Dashti, head of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, told the assembly the storms’ economic costs are “staggering”.

In the Middle East and North Africa, it costs $150bn, roughly 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), annually to deal with dust and sand storms, she said.

“This spring alone, the Arab region experienced acute disruption,” Dashti said, citing severe storms in Iraq that overwhelmed hospitals with respiratory cases and storms in Kuwait and Iran that forced school and office closures.

Dust from the Sahara Desert in Africa has travelled as far as the Caribbean and Florida, she said. For the United States, dust and wind erosion caused $154bn in damage in 2017, a quadrupling of the amount since 1995, according to a study in the scientific journal Nature.

The WMO and World Health Organization also warned that the health burden is rising sharply, with 3.8 billion people – nearly half the global population – exposed to dust levels exceeding WHO safety thresholds between 2018 and 2022, up from 2.9 billion people affected between 2003 and 2007.

This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom touched one of the third rails of California politics. He hopes the result sends a shock through the state’s homebuilding industry.

Newsom strong armed the state Legislature into passing what experts believe are the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since the law was signed in 1970.

The changes waive CEQA for just about any proposed low- or mid-rise development in urban neighborhoods zoned for multifamily housing. No more thousand-page studies of soils, the shadows the buildings may cast and traffic they may bring. No more risk of CEQA lawsuits from angry neighbors.

Wiping away these rules shows that no matter how challenging the politics, the state will remove the barriers it has built over decades that have ended up stifling housing construction and suffocating Californians’ ability to live affordably, the governor said when signing the legislation Monday evening.

“The world we invented has been competing against us,” Newsom said. “We have got to perform.”

Californians won’t have to wait long for the effects of the reforms. They took effect with the stroke of the governor’s pen.

At least in the short term, the result may be less of an immediate impact on construction and more of a revolution in how development in California cities gets done. Numerous hurdles both within and outside of the control of local and state governments — interest rates, availability of labor, zoning, material prices and tariffs among them — still will determine if housing is built. What’s changed is that the key point of leverage outside groups have wielded, for good and for ill, over housing construction in California communities is gone.

It can be hard to understand how CEQA became, in the words of one critic, “the law that swallowed California.”

At base, all CEQA says is that proponents of a project must disclose and, if possible, lessen its environmental effects before being approved. Yet the process CEQA kicks off can take years as developers and local governments complete reams of studies, opponents sue them as inadequate and judges send everyone back to start all over again.

Time is money, and project opponents soon realized that they could use this uncertainty to their advantage. Sometimes, if their complaints fell on deaf ears at City Hall, threatening a CEQA challenge was the only way to get themselves heard and avoid harmful outcomes. But in other circumstances, the law became a powerful cudgel wielded to influence concerns that at best had a tangential relationship to the environment.

Examples are legion. The owner of a gas station in San Jose sued a nearby rival gas station that wanted to add a few more pumps. Pro-life advocates sued a proposed Planned Parenthood clinic in South San Francisco. Homeowners in Berkeley sued the University of California over its plans to increase enrollment at the state’s flagship university and the traffic and noise that might result.

Over time, CEQA negotiations became embedded in California’s development regime, known and used by all the major players. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass once recalled that as a community organizer in South L.A. in the 1990s she used CEQA to try to stop liquor stores from opening. A company owned by billionaire developer Rick Caruso, Bass’ opponent in the most recent mayoral election and normally a CEQA critic, this year filed a CEQA lawsuit challenging a major redevelopment of a television studio near a Caruso shopping mall.

For housing, the primary interest group invested in CEQA at the state level has been labor organizations representing construction workers. Their leaders have argued that if legislators grant CEQA relief to developers, which boosts their bottom lines, then workers should share in the spoils through better pay and benefits.

This union opposition was enough in 2016 to prevent a proposal from then-Gov. Jerry Brown to limit CEQA challenges to urban housing development from even getting a vote in a legislative committee. A year later, a version of Brown’s bill passed but only because developers who wanted to take advantage were required to pay union-level wages to workers.

Just about every year since, lawmakers have engaged in this dance with labor groups. In 2022, the California Conference of Carpenters defected from the State Building and Construction Trades Council and supported a less-strict version of labor standards, which lawmakers ushered into multiple bills.

But housing construction hasn’t followed. The number of projects that have been issued permits are millions less than what Newsom promised to build on the campaign trail in 2018. Californians continue to pay record prices to house themselves, and those fleeing the state often cite the cost of living as the reason. Newsom and legislators decided they needed to do more.

“We don’t want to sit here and ram our head against the wall on the politics and then have nothing to show for it,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) at Monday’s signing ceremony.

Wicks authored legislation this year that waived CEQA rules for urban housing development without any labor requirements and was working it through the regular process. In May, Newsom grabbed Wicks’ bill and additional CEQA reform legislation and said he wanted them to pass as part of the budget. Doing so would fast-track the bills into law without the normal whittling down that happens in committee hearings.

As budget negotiations heated up, Newsom doubled down. In a rare move, he insisted on tying the approval of the state’s entire spending plan for this year to the passage of CEQA reforms. That meant legislators who otherwise would be opposed could only vote no if they were willing to torpedo the budget.

What emerged was a clean CEQA exemption for homebuilders in urban multifamily areas. Union-level wages for construction workers only are required for high-rise or low-income buildings, both of which often are paid now because of specialized labor required for taller buildings and other state and local rules for affordable construction.

CEQA doesn’t typically affect single-family home construction in established communities.

How much this is going to matter immediately for homebuilding isn’t clear. Studies are mixed on CEQA’s effects. One by UC Berkeley law professors found that fewer than 3% of housing projects in many big cities across the state over a three-year period faced any CEQA litigation. Another found tens of thousands of housing units challenged under CEQA in just one year. Still, more advocates of reform argue that it’s impossible to quantify the chilling effect that the threat of CEQA lawsuits have on development in California and how much the law has dominated the debate.

“This signals a seismic shift in Democratic politics in California from NIMBYism to abundance,” said Mott Smith, board chair of the Council of Infill Builders, a real estate trade group that advocates for urban housing. “You can touch this mythical third rail and live to see another day.”

Those who live across the street from a proposed five-story apartment building and oppose the housing will have to find a way other than a 55-year-old environmental law to stop it.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with a cabinet and inner circle that is markedly less hawkish on Iran than during his first term.

But analysts told Al Jazeera that it remains unclear whether the composition of Trump’s new cabinet will make a difference when it comes to how the administration responds to the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.

Last week, fighting erupted when Israel launched surprise strikes on Tehran, prompting Iran to retaliate. That exchange of missiles and blasts has threatened to spiral into a wider regional war.

“I think there are fewer of the traditional Republican hawks in this administration,” said Brian Finucane, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a think tank. “And you do have more prominent restraint-oriented or restraint-adjacent people.”

“The question is: How loud are they going to be?”

So far, the Trump administration has taken a relatively hands-off approach to Israel’s attacks, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed were “unilateral”.

While the US has surged military assets to the region, it has avoided being directly involved in the confrontation. Trump also publicly opposed an Israeli strike on Iran in the weeks leading up to the attacks, saying he preferred diplomacy.

However, on Sunday, Trump told ABC News, “It’s possible we could get involved,” citing the risk to US forces in the region.

He has even framed Israel’s bombing campaign as an asset in the ongoing talks to curtail Iran’s nuclear programme, despite several top negotiators being killed by Israeli strikes.

Iran’s foreign minister, meanwhile, accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “playing” Trump and US taxpayers for “fools”, saying the US president could end the fighting with “one phone call” to the Israeli leader.

‘Our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran’

Analysts agree that any course of action Trump takes will likely transform the conflict. It will also reveal how Trump is responding to the deep ideological rift within his Republican base.

One side of that divide embraces Trump’s “America First” ideology: the idea that the US’s domestic interests come before all others. That perspective largely eschews foreign intervention.

The other side of Trump’s base supports a neoconservative approach to foreign policy: one that is more eager to pursue military intervention, sometimes with the aim of forcing regime change abroad.

Both viewpoints are represented among Trump’s closest advisers. Vice President JD Vance, for instance, stands out as an example of a Trump official who has called for restraint, both in terms of Iran and US support for Israel.

In March, Vance notably objected to US strikes on Yemen’s Houthis, as evidenced in leaked messages from a private chat with other officials on the app Signal. In that conversation, Vance argued that the bombing campaign was a “mistake” and “inconsistent” with Trump’s message of global disengagement.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Vance also warned that the US and Israel’s interests are “sometimes distinct… and our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran”.

According to experts, that kind of statement is rare to hear from a top official in the Republican Party, where support for Israel remains largely sacrosanct. Finucane, for instance, called Vance’s statements “very notable”.

“I think his office may be a critical one in pushing for restraint,” he added.

Other Trump officials have similarly built careers railing against foreign intervention, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who had virtually no previous diplomatic experience, had also floated the possibility of normalising relations with Tehran in the early days of the US-led nuclear talks.

By contrast, Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio established himself as a traditional neoconservative, with a “tough on Iran” stance, during his years-long tenure in the Senate. But since joining the Trump administration, Rubio has not broken ranks with the president’s “America First” foreign policy platform.

That loyalty is indicative of a wider tendency among Trump’s inner circle during his second term, according to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“I think Trump 2.0 has a cabinet of chameleons whose primary qualification is loyalty and fealty to Trump more than anything else,” he told Al Jazeera.

Katulis noted that the days of officials who stood up to Trump, like former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, were mostly gone — a relic of Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021.

The current defence secretary, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has shown an appetite for conducting aerial strikes on groups aligned with Iran, including the Houthis in Yemen.

But Hegseth told Fox News on Saturday that the president continues to send the message “that he prefers peace, he prefers a solution to this that is resolved at the table”.

‘More hawkish than MAGA antiwar’

All told, Trump continues to operate in an administration that is “probably more hawkish than MAGA antiwar”, according to Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council, a lobby group.

At least one official, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, has sought to equate Iran’s retaliation against Israel with the targeting of US interests, highlighting the large number of US citizens who live in Israel.

Costello acknowledges that Trump’s first term likewise had its fair share of foreign policy hawks. Back then, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, his replacement Robert O’Brien and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all advocated for militarised strategies to deal with Tehran.

“But there’s a big difference between Trump’s first term, when he elevated and very hawkish voices on Iran, and Trump’s second term,” Costello said.

He believes that this time, scepticism over US involvement in the Middle East extends throughout the ranks of the administration.

Costello pointed to a recent conflict between the head of US Central Command, General Michael Kurilla, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. The news outlet Semafor reported on Sunday that Kurilla was pushing to shift more military assets to the Middle East to defend Israel, but that Colby had opposed the move.

That schism, Costello argues, is part of a bigger shift in Trump’s administration and in the Republican Party at large.

“You have many prominent voices making the case that these wars of choice pursued by neoconservatives have been bankrupting Republican administrations and preventing them from focusing on issues that really matter,” Costello said.

Finucane has also observed a pivot from Trump’s first term to his second. In 2019, during his first four years as president, Finucane said that Trump’s national security team gave an “apparently unanimous recommendation” to strike Iran after it targeted a US surveillance drone.

Trump ultimately backed away from the plan in the final hours, according to multiple reports.

But a year later, the Trump administration assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq, another instance that brought the US to the brink of war.

Who will Trump listen to?

To be sure, experts say Trump has a notoriously mercurial approach to policy. The last person to speak to the president, observers have long said, will likely wield the most influence.

Trump also regularly seeks guidance from outside the White House when faced with consequential decisions, consulting mainstream media like Fox News, breakaway far-right pundits, social media personalities and top donors.

That was the case ahead of the possible 2019 US strike on Iran, with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson reportedly among those urging Trump to back away from the attack.

Carlson has since been a leading voice calling for Trump to drop support for the “war-hungry government” of Netanyahu, urging the president to let Israeli officials “fight their own wars”.

But Carlson is not the only conservative media figure with influence over Trump. Conservative media host Mark Levin has advocated for military action against Iran, saying in recent days that Israel’s attacks should be the beginning of a campaign to overthrow Iran’s government.

Politico reported that Levin visited the White House for a private lunch with Trump in early June, just days before the US president offered his support for Iran’s strikes.

But Katulis at the Middle East Institute predicted that neither Trump’s cabinet nor media figures like Levin would prove to be the most consequential in guiding the president’s choices. Instead, Trump’s decision on whether to engage in the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to come down to which world leader gets his ear, and when.

“It’s a favourite Washington parlour game to pretend like the cabinet members and staffers matter more than they actually do,” Katulis told Al Jazeera.

“But I think, in the second Trump administration, it’s less who’s on his team formally and more who has he talked to most recently – whether it’s Netanyahu in Israel or some other leader in the region,” he said.

“I think that’s going to be more of a determining factor in what the United States decides to do next.”

Kyiv, Ukraine – Any description of Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s fleet of strategic bombers could leave one scrambling for superlatives.

Forty-one planes – including supersonic Tu-22M long-range bombers, Tu-95 flying fortresses and A-50 early warning warplanes – were hit and damaged on Sunday on four airfields, including ones in the Arctic and Siberia, Ukrainian authorities and intelligence said.

Moscow did not comment on the damage to the planes but confirmed that the airfields were hit by “Ukrainian terrorist attacks”.

Videos posted by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), which planned and carried out the operation, which was called The Spiderweb, showed only a handful of planes being hit.

The strategic bombers have been used to launch ballistic and cruise missiles from Russian airspace to hit targets across Ukraine, causing wide scale damage and casualties.

The bomber fleet is one-third of Moscow’s “nuclear triad”, which also consists of nuclear missiles and missile-carrying warships.

According to some observers, the attack shattered Russia’s image of a nuclear superpower with a global reach.

The attack inadvertently “helped the West because it targeted [Russia’s] nuclear potential”, Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, former deputy head of the Ukrainian military’s general staff, told Al Jazeera.

While the assault decreases Russia’s potential to launch missiles on Ukraine, it will not affect the grinding ground hostilities along the crescent-shaped, 1,200km (745-mile) front line, he said.

Romanenko compared The Spiderweb’s scope and inventiveness to a string of 2023 Ukrainian attacks against Russia’s Black Sea fleet that was mostly concentrated in annexed Crimea.

Although Ukraine’s navy consisted of a handful of small, decades-old warships that fit into a football field-sized harbour, Kyiv reinvented naval warfare by hitting and drowning Russian warships and submarines with missiles and air and sea drones.

Moscow hastily relocated the decimated Black Sea fleet eastwards to the port of Novorossiysk and no longer uses it to intercept Ukrainian civilian vessels loaded with grain and steel.

The Spiderweb caught Russia’s military strategists off-guard because they had designed air defences to thwart attacks by missiles or heavier, long-range strike drones.

Instead, the SBU used 117 toy-like first-person-view (FPV) drones, each costing just hundreds of dollars, that were hidden in wooden crates loaded onto trucks, it said.

Their unsuspecting drivers took them right next to the airfields – and were shocked to see them fly out and cause the damage that amounted to $7bn, the SBU said.

“The driver is running around in panic,” said a Russian man who filmed thick black smoke rising from the Olenegorsk airbase in Russia’s Arctic region of Murmansk, which borders Norway.

Other videos released by the SBU were filmed by drones as they were hitting the planes, causing thundering explosions and sky-high plumes of black smoke.

Russia’s air defence systems guarding the airfields were not designed to detect and hit the tiny FPV drones while radio jamming equipment that could have caused them to stray off course wasn’t on or malfunctioned.

The SBU added a humiliating detail – The Spiderweb’s command centre was located in an undisclosed location in Russia near an office of the Federal Security Service (FSB), Moscow’s main intelligence agency, which Russian President Vladimir Putin once headed.

“This is a slap on the face for Russia, for FSB, for Putin,” Romanenko said.

However, Kyiv didn’t specifically target the pillar of Russia’s nuclear triad.

“They are destroying Russian strategic aviation not because it’s capable of carrying missiles with nuclear warheads but because of its use to launch … nonnuclear [missiles],” Nikolay Mitrokhin, a researcher with Germany’s Bremen University, told Al Jazeera.

The operation, which took 18 months to plan and execute, damaged a third of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

“This is our most far-reaching operation. Ukraine’s actions will definitely be in history textbooks,” he wrote on Telegram late on Sunday. “We’re doing everything to make Russia feel the necessity to end this war.”

The SBU used artificial intelligence algorithms to train the drones to recognise Soviet-era aircraft by using the planes displayed at an aviation museum in central Ukraine, the Clash Report military blogger said on Monday.

‘The very logic of the negotiations process won’t change’

The attack took place a day before Ukrainian and Russian diplomats convened in Istanbul to resume long-stalled peace talks.

But it will not affect the “logic” of the negotiations, a Kyiv-based political analyst said.

“Emotionally, psychologically and politically, the operation strengthens the positions of Ukrainian negotiators,” Volodymyr Fesenko, head of the Penta think tank, told Al Jazeera. “But the very logic of the negotiations process won’t change.”

“Both sides will consider [US President] Donald Trump an arbiter, and whoever is first to leave the talks loses, ruins its negotiation positions with the United States,” Fesenko said.

Once again, the talks will likely show that the sides are not ready to settle as Russia is hoping to carve out more Ukrainian territory for itself and Ukraine is not going to throw in the towel.

“Russia wants to finish off Ukraine, and we’re showing that we will resist, we won’t give up, won’t capitulate,” Fesenko said.

By Monday, analysts using satellite imagery confirmed that 13 planes – eight Tu-95s, four Tu-22Ms and one An-12 – have been destroyed or damaged.

“What a remarkable success in a well-executed operation,” Chris Biggers, a military analyst based in Washington, DC, wrote on X next to a map showing the destruction of eight planes at the Belaya airbase in the Irkutsk region in southeastern Siberia.

Five more planes have been destroyed at the Murmansk base, according to Oko Hora, a group of Ukrainian analysts.

The Spiderweb targeted three more airfields, two in western regions and one near Russia’s Pacific coast, according to a photo that the SBU posted showing its leader, Vasyl Malyuk, looking at a map of the strikes.

But so far, no damage to the airfields or the planes on them has been reported.

Russia is likely to respond to The Spiderweb with more massive drone and missile attacks on civilian sites.

“I’m afraid they’ll use Oreshnik again,” Fesenko said, referring to Russia’s most advanced ballistic missile, which can speed up to 12,300 kilometres per hour (7,610 miles per hour), or 10 times the speed of sound, and was used in November to strike a plant in eastern Ukraine.

After the Palisades fire ignited, top brass at the Los Angeles Fire Department were quick to say that they were hampered by broken fire engines and a lack of mechanics to fix them.

If the roughly 40 fire engines that were in the shop had been repaired, they said, the battle against what turned out to be one of the costliest and most destructive disasters in Los Angeles history might have unfolded differently.

Then-Fire Chief Kristin Crowley cited the disabled engines as a reason fire officials didn’t dispatch more personnel to fire-prone areas as the winds escalated, and why they sent home firefighters who showed up to help as the blaze raged out of control. The department, she said, should have had three times as many mechanics.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, right, and Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley address the media at a press conference onJan. 11.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

But many of the broken engines highlighted by LAFD officials had been out of service for many months or even years — and not necessarily for a lack of mechanics, according to a Times review of engine work orders as of Jan. 3, four days before the fire.

What’s more, the LAFD had dozens of other engines that could have been staffed and deployed in advance of the fire.

Instead, the service records point to a broader problem: the city’s longtime reliance on an aging fleet of engines.

Well over half of the LAFD’s fire engines are due to be replaced. According to an LAFD report presented to the city Fire Commission last month, 127 out of 210 fire engines — 60% — and 29 out of 60 ladder trucks — 48% — are operating beyond their recommended lifespans.

“It just hasn’t been a priority,” said Frank Líma, general secretary treasurer of the International Assn. of Fire Fighters who is also an LAFD captain, adding that frontline rigs are “getting pounded like never before” as the number of 911 calls increases.

That means officials are relying heavily on reserve engines — older vehicles that can be used in emergencies or when regular engines are in the shop. The goal is to use no more than half of those vehicles, but for the last three years, LAFD has used, on average, 80% of the trucks, engines and ambulances in reserve, according to the Fire Commission report.

“That’s indicative of a fleet that’s just getting older,” said Assistant Chief Peter Hsiao, who oversees LAFD’s supply and maintenance division, in an interview with The Times.

“As our fleet gets older, the repairs become more difficult,” Hsiao told the Fire Commission. “We’re now doing things like rebuilding suspensions, rebuilding pump transmissions, rebuilding transmissions, engine overhauls.”

The problem stems from long-term funding challenges, Hsiao said in the interview, with the department receiving varying amounts of money each year that have to be divvied up among competing equipment needs.

“If you extrapolate that over a longer period of time, then you end up in a situation where we are,” he said.

To make matters worse, Hsiao said, the price of new engines and trucks has doubled since the pandemic. Engines that cost $775,000 a few years ago are now pushing $1.5 million — and it takes three years or more to build them, he said.

The number of fire engine manufacturers has also declined.

Recently, the IAFF asked the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate a consolidation in emergency vehicle manufacturers that it said has resulted in skyrocketing costs and “brutal” wait times. In a letter, the IAFF said that at least two dozen companies have been rolled up into just three main manufacturers.

Firefighters battle the Palisades fire on El Medio Avenue on Jan. 7 in Pacific Palisades.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

“These problems have reduced the readiness of fire departments to respond to emergencies, with dire consequences for public safety,” the letter said.

The IAFF is the parent organization of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, the local union representing LAFD firefighters. IAFF has been running the local labor group since suspending its top officers last month over allegations of financial impropriety.

Hsiao said the LAFD’s fleet is well-maintained, and engines don’t often break down.

But the age and condition of the fleet could deteriorate further, even with an infusion of cash to buy new equipment, because the wait times are so long.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office has previously said that she secured $51 million last year to purchase 10 fire engines, five trucks, 20 ambulances and other equipment. The 2025-26 budget passed by the City Council last month includes nearly $68 million for 10 fire engines, four trucks, 10 ambulances and a helicopter, among other equipment, the mayor’s office said.

“The Mayor’s Office is working with new leadership at LAFD to ensure that new vehicles are purchased in a timely manner and put into service,” a spokesperson said in an email.

A majority of the Fire Department’s budget goes toward pay and benefits for its more than 3,700 employees, most of them firefighters.

Members of the Los Angeles Fire Department fill the council chambers to show support for former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, who was at City Hall March 4 to appeal her termination to the Los Angeles City Council after Mayor Karen Bass fired her as head of the Fire Department. Under the city charter, Crowley would need the support of 10 of the 15 council members to be reinstated as chief.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Despite the city’s financial troubles, firefighters secured four years of pay raises last year through negotiations with Bass. And firefighters often make much more than their base pay, with about 30% of the LAFD’s payroll costs going to overtime, according to the city’s payroll database. Firefighters and fire captains each earned an average of $73,500 in overtime last year, on top of an average base salary of about $140,100, the data show.

Líma said that while new engines will be useful, “a one-year little infusion doesn’t help a systemic problem that’s developed over decades.” Asked whether firefighters would defer raises, he said they “shouldn’t fund the Fire Department off the backs of their salaries.”

The National Fire Protection Assn. recommends that fire engines move to reserve status after 15 years and out of the fleet altogether after 25 years.

But many larger cities need to act sooner, “because of the constant wear and tear city equipment takes,” said Marc Bashoor, a former fire chief who now trains firefighters across the country, in an email. “In my opinion, 10 years is OLD for city apparatus.”

Bashoor also noted that incorporating a variety of brands into a fleet, as the LAFD does, can increase repair times.

“When a fire department doesn’t have a standardized fleet, departments typically are unable to stock enough … parts to fit every brand,” he said in an email. “They then have to find the part or use a 3rd party, which can significantly delay repairs.”

Of the roughly 40 engines in the shop before the Palisades fire, three were built in 1999. Hsiao said engines that old are typically used for training and don’t respond to calls.

Those that are too old or damaged from collisions or fires to ever return to city streets sometimes remain in the yard so they can be stripped for parts or used for training. Some are kept as evidence in lawsuits.

According to the service records reviewed by The Times, a work order was opened in 2023 for a 2003 engine burned in a fire, with notes saying “strip for salvage.” A 2006 engine damaged in an accident was waiting for parts, according to notes associated with a work order from last April. Two 2018 engines were damaged in collisions, including one with “heavy damage” to the rear body that had to be towed in, according to notes for an order from last July. Other orders noted oil leaks or problems with head gaskets.

Almost 30 of the engines that were out of service before the fire — 70% on the list — were 15 or more years old, past what the city considers an appropriate lifespan. Only a dozen had work orders that were three months old or less. That included three newer engines — two built in 2019 and one in 2020 — whose service records showed they were waiting for “warranty” repairs.

After the fire, LAFD union officials echoed Crowley’s fleet maintenance concerns. Freddy Escobar, who was then president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, blamed chronic underfunding.

“The LAFD does not have the funding mechanism to supply enough mechanics and enough money for the parts to repair these engines, the trucks, the ambulances,” Escobar told KTLA-TV.

The issues date back more than a decade. A 2019 report showed that LAFD’s equipment was even more outdated at the time, with 136 of 216 engines, or 63%, due for replacement, as well as 43 of 58 ladder trucks, or 74%. In a report from 2012, LAFD officials said they didn’t have enough mechanics to keep up with the workload.

“Of paramount concern is the Department’s aging and less reliable fleet, a growing backlog of deferred repairs, and increased maintenance expense,” the 2012 report said, adding that mechanics were primarily doing emergency repairs instead of preventative maintenance.

LAFD’s equipment and operations have been under heightened scrutiny since the Palisades fire erupted Jan. 7, destroying thousands of homes and killing 12 people, with many saying that officials were severely unprepared.

A total of 18 firefighters are typically on duty at the two fire stations in the Palisades — Stations 23 and 69 — to respond to emergencies. Only 14 of them are routinely available to fight brush fires, The Times previously reported. The other four are assigned to ambulances at the two stations, although they might help with evacuations or rescues during fires.

The Palisades fire burns along Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu.

(Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times)

LAFD officials did not pre-deploy any engines to the Palisades ahead of the fire, despite warnings about extreme weather, a Times investigation found. In preparing for the winds, the department staffed only five of more than 40 engines available to supplement the regular firefighting force.

Those working engines could have been pre-positioned in the Palisades and elsewhere, as had been done in the past during similar weather.

Less than two months after the fire, Bass dismissed Crowley, citing the chief’s pre-deployment decisions as one of the reasons.

Bass has rejected the idea that there was any connection between reductions at the department and the city’s response to the wildfires.

Meanwhile, the number of mechanics on the job hasn’t changed much in recent years, fluctuating between 64 and 74 since 2020, according to records released by the LAFD in January. As of this year, the agency had 71 mechanics.

According to its report to the Fire Commission, the LAFD doesn’t have enough mechanics to maintain and repair its fleet, based on the average number of hours the department said it takes to maintain a single vehicle.

Last year, the report said, mechanics completed 31,331 of 32,317 work requests, or 97%. So far this year, they have completed 62%, according to the report.

“With a greater number of mechanics, we can reduce the delays. However, a limited facility size, parts availability, and warranty repairs compound the issue,” LAFD said in an unsigned email.

Special correspondent Paul Pringle contributed to this report.

AMAZON is now weeks away from shutting down an app that’s been used by hundreds of millions of people.

There are major downsides for affected users – and you might even be owed a big refund.

3

Millions of people using the Amazon Appstore will be cut off in mid-August.

The closure affects anyone using the app on Android phones.

Amazon’s Appstore is a rival to the default Google Play Store, letting you download apps and games. It launched on Android all the way back in March 2011.

But on August 20, the Amazon Appstore will close – and any apps downloaded from it will no longer receive updates.

That means support will end for all apps you’ve downloaded via the Amazon Appstore.

They may become buggy or stop work entirely, and won’t be able to receive any important security fixes either.

In an FAQ, Amazon warned that these apps “will not be guaranteed to operate on Android devices”.

Amazon has already begun killing the Appstore off by blocking developers from uploading new apps to it.

That change kicked in on February 20 this year.

ALL CHANGE

Amazon first revealed the closure earlier this year in a dry statement uploaded to its website.

“In our ongoing effort to streamline and improve our services and programs, we are making some changes to Amazon Appstore for Android devices and Amazon Coins program,” Amazon explained.

“We will be discontinuing support of Amazon Appstore for Android devices on August 20, 2025. As of February 20, 2025, developers will no longer have the option to submit new apps targeting Android devices.

“However, developers will have the option to submit updates to their existing live apps on Amazon Appstore for Android devices until August 20, 2025.”

Amazon added: “All existing apps on Amazon Appstore for Android devices will continue to be available to customers until August 20, 2025. Developers can continue to submit app updates until August 20, 2025.”

3

It’s worth noting that the Amazon Appstore is only shutting down on Android phones.

The Amazon Appstore was never available on iOS for iPhone, so it can’t disappear because it was never there.

And the Amazon Appstore will still be available on Amazon’s own Fire TVs and Fire Tablets.

ACTION STATIONS

One important step you’ll want to take is reviewing your Amazon Appstore subscriptions.

HOW TO CHECK YOUR AMAZON APPSTORE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Here’s the official advice from Amazon…

Manage Your Appstore Subscriptions from the Amazon Appstore App

Change, update, cancel, or turn off auto-renewals for subscriptions purchased from the Amazon Appstore app.

• 1. Open the Amazon Appstore app
• 2. Tap My Apps
• 3. Tap Subscriptions
• 4. Update your subscription as needed

Manage Your Appstore Subscriptions from the Website

Change, update, cancel, or turn off auto-renewals for subscriptions purchased from the Amazon Appstore app.

• 1. Go to Your Account
• 2. Select Your Apps under Digital content and devices.
• 3. Select Your Subscriptions under Manage.
• 4. Update your subscription as needed.

Picture Credit: Amazon

Make sure to cancel them before the Appstore shuts down on your Android phone.

Just go into the Amazon Appstore app, then choose My Apps > Subscriptions and kill off any remaining memberships you have.

Amazon Coins are also being sunsetted.

These were a special currency used to make purchases on certain apps in the Amazon Appstore.

3

You’ll need to use any remaining Amazon Coins by August 20, 2025.

If you have any left over after that date, they’ll be refunded.

Amazon hasn’t said exactly how long this will take, but promised “additional details” at a later date.

You can see your Coins balance by logging into the Amazon Appstore and checking the homepage.

The Trump administration’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is a serious challenge to the 14th Amendment, which enshrined a radical principle of our democratic experiment: that anyone born here is an American. But the order will most affect average Americans — whose own citizenship, until this point, has been presumed and assured — rather than the intended target, illegal immigrants. The irony is hiding in plain sight.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, birthright citizenship is not entirely settled U.S. law. The executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and it is very narrowly drafted to exploit this uncertainty by rejecting citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents. Federal law and practice has recognized American citizenship to anyone born here since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. But that case did not specifically protect the birthright of children born in the United States to noncitizen, nonresident aliens.

This is a massive blind spot that states are sleep-walking into. They are depending on weak legal precedent, federal code, policy and hair-splitting over the meaning of “subject of the jurisdiction thereto.” In a brief, the states argue that the “understanding of birthright citizenship has permeated executive agency guidance for decades — and no prior administration has deviated from it.” But that won’t matter to this Supreme Court, which has demonstrated a certain glee in dismantling precedent. There is a clear risk that the justices could fundamentally restrict the definition of birthright citizenship and overturn the 1898 ruling.

The executive order directs the federal government not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born to parents unlawfully present here — but also to parents who are here legally but temporarily. This second group is a potentially vast population (the State Department issued 14.2 million nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2024) that includes students, artists, models, executives, investors, laborers, engineers, academics, tourists, temporary protected status groups, ship and plane crews, engineers, asylees, refugees and humanitarian parolees.

A limited change targeting a specific population — nonresident aliens — will have huge effects on those who will least expect it: American citizen parents giving birth to children in the United States. Until this point, a valid, state-issued birth certificate established prima facie evidence of U.S. citizenship to every child born in the country. That would no longer be the case if citizenship depended on verifying certain facts about every U.S.-born child’s parents. With that presumption removed by executive order, citizenship must be adjudicated by a federal official.

I know what that adjudication involves. I was a U.S. consular officer in Latin America, and both of my children were born overseas to married U.S. citizen parents carrying diplomatic passports. But because they did not have the presumption of citizenship conferred by an American birth certificate, we had to go to the U.S. Consulate for adjudication of transmission to demonstrate to the U.S. government that our children were American citizens.

This was document-intensive and time-consuming. Each time, we filled out forms. We photographed the baby in triplicate. We swore an oath before the consular officer. We brandished our passports. We presented the baby to the consular officer. We surrendered the local birth certificate. We demonstrated our hospital stay. Only then did we receive a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and only with that report could we apply for U.S. passports for our children. Without the report or a passport, our children could neither leave the country of their birth nor enter the United States.

That is an evidentiary and bureaucratic burden that all natural-born American citizens have until now not had to bear. The Trump administration’s change, if allowed by courts, will require those same parents to prove their own citizenship to the federal government. Good luck, because showing your birth certificate wouldn’t be sufficient in the new regime: The government would require proof not only that you were born in the U.S., but also that at least one of your parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. (Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over this “practical question” during oral arguments last week.)

Americans several generations removed from their immigrant forebears — even those whose ancestors came to North America 10,000 years ago — will suddenly be treated like the unlawfully present parents they thought this rule was designed to exclude.

This rule will lead to chaos, even danger. The federal bureaucracy will have to expand drastically to adjudicate the 3.5 million children born here every year. (For comparison, 1 million people are issued permanent residency status each year and 800,000 become naturalized citizens. This population is typically much better documented than a newborn.) Fearing immigration enforcement, undocumented parents will avoid hospitals for childbirth, dramatically escalating medical risk for mother and baby. Because hospitals also generate birth certificates — as Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted last week — those babies will form a large, new and entirely avoidable population of stateless children.

It is a truism in some communities that ancestors and family members came to this country legally. But the administration is prepared to dismantle the presumption of citizenship that has been a literal birthright for 125 years. U.S. citizenship is on the brink of becoming a privilege rather than a right, bestowed on those who can afford protracted bureaucratic struggles. Most of the burden will fall on those who least expected it: American parents themselves.

James Thomas Snyder is a former U.S. consular officer and NATO International Staff member.