federal fund

Two Senate Republicans have opened yet another investigation into the deadly Palisades fire, adding to a long list of ongoing probes aimed at determining whether local officials prepared sufficiently for the emergency.

The investigation will look at whether emergency preparations were sufficient, including an examination of whether there was enough reservoir water to respond to the deadly wildfire.

Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin announced Monday that they were leading the congressional investigation, which they said is necessary to “uncover and expose the truth” about how the state and local governments responded to the major blaze, which broke out amid hurricane-force winds and quickly overwhelmed firefighting resources.

“Families in this community deserve answers and accountability,” Scott and Johnson wrote in a joint statement.

The new probe is the latest in a string of ongoing investigations into the start of the fire and how officials responded. It comes almost nine months since the fire broke out on Jan. 7, killing 12 and largely destroying Pacific Palisades. That same day, the Eaton fire erupted in Altadena, killing 19 people and devastating the foothill community.

The congressional investigation appears to focus only on the Palisades fire, and will look specifically at what water resources were — or weren’t — available, and why.

The Times first reported that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, located in the heart of Pacific Palisades, was empty when the fire broke out, and remained that way as firefighters experienced dry hydrants and water pressure issues. The 117-million-gallon water storage complex had been closed for repairs to its cover for nearly a year, officials said.

After The Times’ reporting on the reservoir, Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered an investigation into the city’s water system and how it may have hampered firefighting efforts.

Times reporting also exposed poor preparation and deployment by the Los Angeles Fire Department, even as city officials were repeatedly warned about life-threatening winds and red flag conditions. Top brass at the agency decided not to deploy roughly 1,000 available firefighters and dozens of water-carrying engines in advance of the Palisades fire.

The announcement of this federal investigation comes a few weeks after Scott — the former governor of hurricane-prone Florida — met with former reality star Spencer Pratt to tour some of the areas destroyed by the Palisades fire. At the time of their meeting, Pratt, who lost a home in the fire, was demanding a congressional investigation — an action that Scott said he would do his “best to make sure it happens.”

Pratt has also sued the city, alleging it failed to maintain an adequate water supply and other infrastructure.

In recent weeks, Scott has sent letters to several agencies seeking answers about how California used federal funds for wildfire management and response. In an August letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Scott said it appeared that the state and the city of Los Angeles had not used the agency’s funds “wisely or appropriately.”

The response to the January firestorm, particularly in the Palisades, has become a polarizing topic — and rife with misinformation —among national and local political leaders, from President Trump to developer Rick Caruso, a former mayoral contender against L.A.’s current mayor, Karen Bass. Caruso, who owns Palisades Village mall, became an immediate critic of the city’s response, blasting officials for struggling to meet water demands during the fire fight.

But fire and water experts have repeatedly said that the conditions during the fire were unprecedented, and one that no urban water system could have been properly prepared.

Still, understanding what, if anything, went wrong during the Palisades fire appears to have struck somewhat of a bipartisan note. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday said his team will “absolutely welcome” this additional review.

“It complements the thorough investigations already taking place — including by the federal government, the state, and an independent review by the nation’s leading fire experts,” Newsom said in a statement. “From day one, we’ve embraced transparency because Californians deserve nothing less.”

Los Angeles officials last month delayed releasing one of those reports, so as not to interfere with a federal investigation into the cause of the Palisades fire.

The new congressional investigation, which will be led by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, will give senators the power to issue subpoenas and seek documents for the committee’s review.

Even as Californians protest the crude and often brutal deportation tactics employed by President Trump’s ICE and Homeland Security agents, we’re giving too little thought to how our state, and the nation, is failing the very immigrant community we want to protect.

In the past, particularly in the last century, when the U.S. economy, and California’s, was growing at a fast rate, loosely controlled immigration filled critical needs and, over time, moved many immigrants into an increasingly diverse middle class. But now newcomers are getting stuck. According to new findings from USC and University of California researchers, immigrants account for nearly a quarter of the U.S. population living in poverty, up from 14% three decades ago.

The immigrant poverty rate fluctuates, but it has been rising in recent years, especially since the pandemic. In 2024, 22.4% of all immigrants and 28.4% of non-citizen immigrants, including the undocumented, were poor, the highest rates since 2008.

As well, welfare dependency is more pronounced among immigrants than the native born. A 2023 analysis of census data showed that 54% of households headed by naturalized citizens, legal residents and the undocumented use one or more welfare programs versus 39% of U.S.-born households.

In California, the overall situation is only slightly better. A 2023 report from the Public Policy Institute of California put the poverty rate for all foreign-born residents at 17.6%, compared to 11.5% for those born here. For unauthorized immigrants, however, the rate was even higher than the national figure: 29.6%. Undocumented households, notes a separate USC study, have consistently had the lowest median household income in L.A. — $46,500, compared to $75,000 among all Angelenos in 2024.

The grim statistics reflect a decline starting in the 1980s in blue–collar industries in California, which traditionally offered upward mobility to immigrants. Unionization in the immigrant-heavy hospitality industry has helped lift some families, but those gains may lead to fewer jobs as employers look to rein in costs, potentially by automating some services. And immigration itself, especially mass immigration, puts downward pressure on many of the jobs newcomers fill — in agriculture, for example, or construction.

The dearth of jobs that support families has pushed California toward a model that Michael Lind, a Texas-based historian and author, describes as the “low wage/high welfare model.”

The fiscal implications are severe. The president has signed executive orders denying federal funds to sanctuary cities, funds that would shore up city and state budgets for policing, education and many other services affected by immigration. Those orders have been stymied in the courts, although Trump is sure to try again. At the same time, the budget the president signed into law on July 4 boosts funds for border enforcement but cuts back such things as medical services for non-citizens, even for those who are here legally.

This will cause particular distress in deep blue states. California’s current budget shortfall has forced Trump “resistance” leader Gov. Gavin Newsom to scale back healthcare for the undocumented, which is also occurring in other progressive hotbeds such as Washington state, Illinois and Minnesota.

The simple truth is that the low wage/high welfare economy dependent on illegal immigration isn’t sustainable. Economic reality suggests we need a commonsense policy to restrict new migration and to focus on policies that can allow current immigrants — especially those deeply embedded in our communities and those with useful skills — to enjoy the success of previous generations.

What would a commonsense policy look like? It would secure the border, which the Trump administration is already doing, and shift immigration priorities away from family reunion and more toward attracting those who can contribute to an increasingly complex economy. Deportations should prioritize convicted criminals and members of criminal gangs, whose presence is hardly welcomed by most immigrants.

Law-abiding immigrants who are here without authorization should be offered a ticket home or a chance to register for legal status based on a clean record, paying taxes and steady employment. In addition we need to consider a new Bracero Program, which allowed guest workers to come to the U.S. legally without their families in the mid-20th century. Even President Trump has been forced to acknowledge that low-wage immigrant labor is difficult to replace in some sectors.

This kind of immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades, but a clear-eyed assessment shows that merely welcoming newcomers willy-nilly won’t pay off for most migrants or for California. A large pool of undocumented labor is the exact opposite of what is needed to nurture a strong and sustainable economy. If you are protesting against ICE raids and immigrant bashing, you should also be protesting for remaking U.S. immigration according to economic fundamentals. The prospect of a better life should be available to us all.

Joel Kotkin is a contributing writer to Opinion, the presidential fellow for urban futures at Chapman University and senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas, Austin.

Four of the six Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa and four in Minnesota will shut down in a year, the Midwestern affiliate operating them has announced, blaming a freeze in federal funds, budget cuts proposed in Congress and state restrictions on abortion.

The clinics closing in Iowa include the only Planned Parenthood facility in the state that provides abortion procedures, in Ames, home to Iowa State University. Services will be shifted, and the organization will still offer medication abortions in Des Moines and medication and medical abortion services in Iowa City.

Two of the clinics being shut down by Planned Parenthood North Central States are in the Minneapolis area, in Apple Valley and Richfield. The others are in central Minnesota, in Alexandria and Bemidji. Of the four, the Richfield clinic provides abortion procedures.

The Planned Parenthood affiliate said it would lay off 66 employees and ask 37 additional employees to move to different clinics. The organization also said it plans to keep investing in telemedicine services; it sees 20,000 patients virtually each year. The affiliate serves Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

“We have been fighting to hold together an unsustainable infrastructure as the landscape shifts around us and an onslaught of attacks continues,” Ruth Richardson, the affiliate’s president and chief executive, said in a statement Friday.

Of the remaining 15 clinics operated by Planned Parenthood North Central States, six will provide abortion procedures — five of them in Minnesota, including three in the Minneapolis area. The other clinic is in Omaha.

The affiliate said that in April the Trump administration froze $2.8 million in federal funds for Minnesota to provide birth control and other services, such as cervical cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

While federal funds can’t be used for most abortions, abortion opponents have long argued that Planned Parenthood affiliates should not receive any taxpayer dollars, saying the money still indirectly underwrites abortion services.

Planned Parenthood North Central States also cited proposed cuts in Medicaid, which provides health coverage for low-income Americans, as well as a Trump administration proposal to eliminate funding for teenage pregnancy prevention programs.

In addition, Republican-led Iowa last year banned most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant, causing the number of abortions performed there to drop 60% in the first six months the law was in effect and dramatically increasing the number of patients traveling to Minnesota and Nebraska.

After the closings, Planned Parenthood North Central States will operate 10 brick-and-mortar clinics in Minnesota, two in Iowa, two in Nebraska and one in South Dakota. It operates none in North Dakota, though its Moorhead, Minn., clinic is across the Red River from Fargo, N.D.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.