federal

CALIFORNIA: Three people were charged by federal authorities in Los Angeles on Wednesday with stealing $12 million in federal and state homelessness aid to pay for real estate, luxury trips and vintage vehicles.

It was the second such arrest of people on federal fraud charges in Southern California this week, as President Donald Trump’s administration tries to emphasize a crackdown on fraud and waste in government and aid programs. On Tuesday, 12 people were charged with stealing more than $10 million in federal childcare aid.

The three defendants each worked for or ran Southern California-based nonprofit organizations, which often contracted with city, county, state or federal agencies to provide aid or money to find housing and social services for homeless people. Prosecutors allege that the defendants used funds from those contracts to pay personal expenses, accepted bribes, and billed for services that were never provided.

“Make no mistake, HUD and the Trump administration will not tolerate the theft and abuse of taxpayers in this country,” Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner said at a news conference.

Turner used the indictments to accuse the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, which approved grants to these defendants, of being negligent with taxpayer dollars.

Taxpayer aid spent on video games, nightclubs

Two defendants, Lakiya Malone, 48, and Michael Young, 46, were arrested early Wednesday in Los Angeles. A third defendant charged with wire fraud, Donye Mitchell, 55, is considered a fugitive.

Young is the founder of Home At Last, a nonprofit that took in more than $118 million in public funds since 2019 for its stated mission of providing housing and aid to homeless people.

Federal prosecutors say Young instead created shell companies that he claimed were independent contractors but were, in fact, controlled by him. This alleged self-dealing allowed Young to be paid both at Home At Last and overbill federal and local authorities, prosecutors said. They say Young misused an estimated $7.5 million in taxpayer funds through fake contractors and vendors.

Young used the proceeds to take luxury trips to Tahiti, and used funds to open a nightclub in Inglewood called the Six Seven Five Lounge and other commercial real estate projects, prosecutors allege.

Mitchell is the CEO of Big Blue Umbrella, which was awarded more than $1.2 million from a federally supported nonprofit for housing and mental health care aid. Prosecutors say Mitchell not only misstated his organization’s ability to provide such services, but also used money from the award to pay off his credit card debts, give funds to family members, buy video games and pay legal expenses for an unrelated case.

Malone was charged with accepting more than $180,000 in bribes from another homelessness-aid nonprofit. Malone allegedly not only accepted bribes but also placed people in homeless aid programs who weren’t homeless.

Separately, federal prosecutors announced that a fourth person pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering charges for stealing at least $2 million in homeless aid. Alexander Soofer, the executive director of Abundant Blessings, admitted to working with Malone to bill federal and state authorities for homelessness aid services when there were no participants in his programs.

Big money, little documentation

Some 72,000 to 75,000 people live in shelters or encampments in Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, making it one of the largest homeless populations in the country. It has been a significant issue in Southern California for years, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass made it a cornerstone of her 2022 election campaign.

City and county authorities spend roughly $1 billion a year trying to help the homeless population, often using LAHSA to coordinate aid. While significant funds are spent to address the issue, city and county reviews have repeatedly found that the programs lacked appropriate recordkeeping, audit trails and documentation.

Nathan Hochman, the district attorney for Los Angeles County, told reporters that the public should expect more investigations and indictments into the misuse of homeless aid funds. Hochman’s office’s investigation into Soofer and Abundant Blessings led to his indictment earlier this year.

“I can assure this is the beginning of these prosecutions and we are far, far from the end,” he said, adding that his office’s investigation had found that the only “abundant blessings” Soofer provided were to his friends and family.

Some of the Trump administration’s efforts to go after fraud and abuse of government benefit programs have faced criticism and legal challenges. In December, Vice President JD Vance, who chairs the administration’s task force on the subject, amplified a YouTube video of a popular right-wing influencer accusing childcare providers in Minnesota, many of them immigrants from Somalia, of running scams. State authorities visited the centers and found nearly all of them operating normally.

Nonetheless, the administration launched a massive immigration crackdown in Minnesota. Officials later attempted to freeze federal funds for childcare in five Democratic-led states but were halted by a lawsuit.

A federal film and television tax credit could boost U.S. production spending by $125 billion and add more than 143,000 jobs by 2035, according to a new study commissioned by the Motion Picture Assn.

The analysis, released Tuesday morning, is expected to bolster Hollywood’s push for a federal production incentive, which the industry says is necessary to compete with the generous credits offered abroad. Sixty-five nations now offer them, the study said.

The effort has been quietly building for more than a year. It got a major boost last month when President Trump posted on Truth Social backing a proposed credit.

Details are still being worked out,, but the study assumed a transferable credit with a minimum rate of 20% on qualified spending for U.S. resident labor — broadly what industry groups have supported. It also assumed add-ons of 5% for independent production companies and 5% for labor costs in areas the Federal Emergency Management Agency has declared disasters.

If the incentive took effect Jan. 1, 2027, U.S. production spending would reach $277.5 billion through 2035, the study said, compared with $152.2 billion without it.

A coalition that includes the Motion Picture Assn., industry unions, producers’ groups and small production businesses, along with Democratic and Republican lawmakers, is expected to press the case at a virtual news conference Tuesday.

“A federal incentive would be a gamechanger for our industry,” Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., said in a statement. “This study tells us that we can bring more opportunities to life for people in all 50 states who bring great stories to life.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.

The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organizations had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security, which was then led by Secretary Kristi Noem, violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, contesting efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.

“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.

FEMA responded in a statement late Saturday saying that while it does not comment on personnel matters and ongoing litigation, “DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season.”

“We’re ensuring workforce stability and a strong, deployable force for upcoming national events and potential disasters; making the agency leaner, faster and laser-focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners before, during and after disasters,” the statement said. “FEMA continues to maintain a roster of experienced leadership and support staff across headquarters and regional offices.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In the opinion, Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security, and that prevented Homeland Security from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.

Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.

Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.

FEMA was one of the agencies targeted for staff reductions in the federal government as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs and delays of disaster aid.

In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.

The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by the Associated Press.

The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”

In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found that the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”

More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.

The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.

Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON: A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.

The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organization had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, pushing back on efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.

“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security and that prevented DHS from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.

Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.

Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.

FEMA was one of the agencies targeted in the federal government for staff reductions as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs, and delays of disaster aid.

In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.

The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by The Associated Press.

The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”

In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”

More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.

The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.

Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”

Allegations of misconduct between two justices threaten to pull court into political battles ahead of upcoming election.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Andre Mendonca has ordered the suspension of federal police chief Andrei Rodrigues and the force’s intelligence chief Leandro Almada amid growing divisions that have tested the credibility of the country’s highest court.

The suspensions were announced on Tuesday. Mendonca, appointed by former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, has accused Rodrigues and Almada of producing six illegal reports on the activities of justices.

The move was backed by a majority on one of the high court’s five-member panels.

But it is likely to be challenged by the government, possibly pulling the administration of leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva into a political battle ahead of October’s presidential election.

“Investigating possible evidence of crimes is correct,” Institutional Relations Minister Jose Guimaraes, a top aide to Lula, said in response to the decision on social media. “But this measure smells electoral to me. That cannot happen.”

Polls show Lula and Jair Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, in a tight race ahead of the first round of voting on October 4.

The Supreme Court has been roiled by mutual accusations of wrongdoing between Justice Alexandre de Moraes, appointed under centre-right President Michel Temer, and Mendonca, a Bolsonaro appointee.

De Moraes has become a prominent target of right-wing criticism, particularly after he oversaw the case against Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup after the 2022 election.

A report detailing possible links between de Moraes and disgraced banker Daniel Vorcaro was made public by Mendonca last week.

De Moraes, however, responded by accusing Mendonca of abusing his power, citing federal police intelligence reports and urging the court to investigate him. Mendonca has now challenged the legality of those reports.

The Vorcaro corruption scandal has widened to include powerful political figures on both the left and right.

Vorcaro was arrested in 2025 for allegedly overseeing one of the largest bank fraud schemes in the history of Brazil, leaving billions in owed money.

Flavio Bolsonaro has also faced scrutiny for his ties with Vorcaro, after he approached the banker for assistance in funding a film about his father. Jair Bolsonaro is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence.

The right-wing senator used Tuesday’s suspension to push his claim that the prosecution of his father was a political “witch-hunt”. The Federal Police had recommended charges be brought against the elder Bolsonaro in November 2024.

“Lula’s special group in the Federal Police officially unmasked,” Senator Bolsonaro wrote in a social media post. “May the honourable and glorious Federal Police regain its autonomy to go after criminals, and not Lula’s political adversaries.”

William Marcel Murad, the federal police’s executive director, released a statement saying that Rodrigues has the agency’s “full confidence” and that agents “will not be shaken by attacks”.

The Los Angeles federal public defender’s office on Friday joined a renewed effort to oust Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Southern California, accusing the government of “playing shadow games with the most consequential powers a government can wield against its population.”

Citing a recent order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Jackson, the public defender’s office renewed a motion seeking to disqualify Essayli from participating in or supervising the prosecution of their client, Jaime Ramirez.

The federal appellate court ruled last month that the Department of Justice cannot keep an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate in charge of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by giving that person a different title and the full powers of the job.

In their motion filed Friday, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, accused the government of asking them “to trust that there are some undisclosed limits on Essayli’s authority that render it valid.”

“The buck should stop here, and it should stop now,” they wrote.

The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney, first kicked off the renewed effort last week, filing a motion asking Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright to reconsider his prior ruling. Steward argued that Essayli should not be allowed to continue leading the office.

Seabright previously disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney in October, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But Seabright — who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush — said the court had “no basis to preclude Essayli from performing the lawful duties” of first assistant U.S. attorney, which left the door open for him to remain in charge.

Seabright scheduled a hearing for Oct. 13 on the latest motion. At a Zoom hearing on Aug. 28, Seabright appeared to signal which way he is leaning.

“I’m not sure if the government is just saying my decision was different from Jackson and therefore it stands. I’m not sure that passes muster given how the 9th Circuit ruled in Jackson,” Seabright said. “I think there’s going to have to be more in-depth briefing than the government has given me to date.”

The federal appellate court ruling stemmed from a challenge to the authority of Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, whom the Justice Department had designated “first assistant” U.S. attorney. With no one above her in the office, Chattah has seemingly been calling the shots on federal prosecutions in the state, handling cases referred by the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies.

The Justice Department previously said it disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s decision and plans to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The agency did not respond to questions about what effect the ruling could have on Essayli.

The Trump administration has used a similar workaround to keep Essayli running the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. without going through the Senate confirmation process, where he likely would have faced strong opposition from California’s elected representatives.

Essayli, 40, has continued leading the federal prosecutor’s office in the Central District of California as “first assistant” despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that said he was unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney. The Justice Department did not appeal that ruling.

Instead, Essayli’s office has maintained that he can prosecute and supervise cases as first assistant. He also was appointed as a “special attorney” by the Trump administration, a title similarly held by Chattah in Nevada.

“To be sure, First Assistant Essayli may be the highest-ranking DOJ lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and (like many in the office) he supervises others,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said in a filing last month. “But that cannot make him a “de facto” U.S. Attorney, and he does not purport to exercise “all of the functions of [that] office.”

Flynn and Sarsour pushed back on that claim in their motion, arguing that the government “is asking this Court to accept a theory that the Ninth Circuit rejected, nearly verbatim less than three weeks ago.” The government, they wrote, “appears to be asking this Court to consider and approve a hypothetical delegation to Essayli of some subset of the U.S. Attorney powers.”

“For over a year, this illegal exercise of prosecutorial powers has violated Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional rights and undermined the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in this district,” Flynn and Sarsour wrote. “In line with Jackson, two other Courts of Appeals have now affirmed the common-sense remedy that this illegality should be stopped.”

The deputy federal public defenders said a defense analysis identified invalid service as acting or de facto U.S. Attorneys in at least 16 districts across the country.

A former Republican member of the California state Assembly from Riverside, Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits challenging transgender and environmental policies in California.

Essayli was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney in April 2025. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, he resigned from his interim role and was allowed to continue under his current titles by then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

Challenges to Essayli’s position were brought in several criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges filed under his watch are invalid and should be dismissed. The federal public defender’s office in L.A. had asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions.

Sept. 3, 2026 9 AM PT

BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston said Thursday the U.S. Postal Service has told her nothing about how it would implement a plan to regulate mail ballots for the midterms as she considers whether to let the plan proceed in the weeks before Election Day.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani is deciding whether to extend her prohibition on the proposed regulation of mail ballots, an effort undertaken as part of an executive order by President Trump. The hearing in the closely watched case came a day before the first state begins sending mail ballots to voters.

“We are 70 days from the election and I have nothing from the USPS about how this will happen,” Talwani told Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer representing the Postal Service.

Last week, Talwani imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order to keep it from being used. That order expires next week as more states begin sending out mail ballots. Velchik said the administration will most likely go to the Supreme Court by the end of the week to seek permission to resume implementing the plan.

Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump’s order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.

But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani’s order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump’s order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.

They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated in the Constitution to the states and in some cases Congress.

They won an initial victory with Talwani’s restraining order, which has already been appealed by the administration.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

Election officials say there’s simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.

Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.

The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal. But the portal was still not active this week, and most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.

Velchik told Talwani that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system. But the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so.

A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters, but if a single one’s bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

Riccardi and Casey write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver.

For years, Hollywood has talked about a federal film and television tax credit that could help the industry combat the growing number of productions fleeing overseas.

This week, the entertainment business got a glimmer of hope.

After more than a year of quiet work from California lawmakers, industry lobbyists and Hollywood unions to build a bipartisan coalition, President Trump endorsed the effort in a post on Truth Social, providing a major boost to the issue.

If passed, a federal incentive is expected to help draw some productions back to the Golden State, industry experts and advocates said. While it probably won’t immediately end Southern California’s production crisis — as many states now have established film hubs stocked with experienced crews and more generous tax breaks — an added federal credit could certainly help make California more competitive, they said.

“I will put our crews and our talent against any talent anywhere in the world,” said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), a former producer who has been pushing for a national film tax credit. “If we have a level playing field upon which to shoot, where we are not much more expensive than other locations, productions will come back to Los Angeles.”

Trump’s Truth Social post came after a meeting with actor Jon Voight, one of the president’s designated Hollywood ambassadors who has played a key role in lobbying for the film industry and advocating for a federal tax credit. Though Trump has had frosty relations with Hollywood, particularly since many heavyweights did not support his presidential campaign, the industry’s jobs push aligns with his focus on re-shoring work, marking a rare moment of agreement.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he has done “a lot of work” in the last week to get something done on federal tax incentives for the film and television industry.

Trump said he has spoken to streaming giant Netflix; Ari Emanuel, chief executive of TKO Group Holdings Inc.; and “many others,” and that he is hopeful there will be a bipartisan push to revive productions in Hollywood with “big subsidies and big credits.”

“We don’t give anything and we should,” Trump said, referring to proposed tax breaks for U.S. productions. He added that he wants legislation to “match” what other countries are offering.

Now, lawmakers must hammer out the details of that legislation.

The bill will have a Republican sponsor from a state known for film and TV production, but Friedman declined to name the person, saying she was waiting for Republicans to make their internal decision about that lead lawmaker.

The bill is likely to go through the House Committee on Ways and Means. While exact provisions are still being negotiated, the expectation is that the credit will be stackable with states’ incentives — similar to how Canada’s tax credit works. A 20% federal tax credit on all labor costs — including for salaries of actors and crew members — is being discussed.

An earlier proposal from Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) had called for a baseline labor-based tax credit of 15% to 20%, in addition to bonus add-ons for indie productions among others, a Schiff spokesperson said.

Schiff has previously noted that 45% of all U.S. films and scripted TV shows were shot internationally last year, up from about 33% in 2022.

Having Schiff and Trump on the same side of this national tax credit is emblematic of the odd bedfellows the effort has gathered.

The Motion Picture Assn. studio lobbying group has released a statement backing the proposal, as have unions such as the Screen Actors Guild — American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

“I am in strong agreement with the President,” Schiff wrote Monday in a post on X. “Congress should immediately take up and pass a federal film tax incentive to bring back these good-paying jobs that we’ve lost to other countries.”

Production incentive experts say any national film tax credit will need to have a seamless process, one with minimal red tape.

One idea is to make the national production incentive an overlay that’s attached to states’ incentives, so the federal government doesn’t need a separate agency to vet the same criteria, which could slow the process, said Peter Marshall, managing principal of media insurance services at Epic, an insurance broker and consultant.

Parameters will also need to be clear, and the program easy to access, said Kathleen Thompson, vice president of tax incentives at payroll service Cast & Crew.

“There is an excitement and an energy and a hopefulness right now from the production community,” she said. “I’ve certainly gotten notes from clients, potential clients and industry colleagues that are very excited about the possibility of this passing and becoming a reality.”

Stacking a federal tax credit on top of the newly bolstered California production incentives could help give the state an edge when producers are pricing out location shoots.

“California is still the leader in production,” said Joe Chianese, senior vice president at Entertainment Partners, which tracks production incentives worldwide. “Producers would like to stay home if they can, but it boils down to the math.”

But even with the improvements to California’s film and TV tax credits, the state’s program still has limitations.

California has an annual funding cap of $750 million, has designated application windows and does allow the cost of actors’ salaries — a major driver of movie budgets — to be counted toward the tax breaks.

Beyond the program, the Golden State is just more expensive than other U.S. locales, and some filmmakers have criticized the red tape that makes shooting in L.A. more difficult.

“Can we be more competitive with a federal incentive? Absolutely,” Thompson said. “Can it completely turn the tide? I don’t know, but I hope so for our industry and our state.”

Industry stakeholders say they are hoping for quick movement on the issue, particularly since it will probably take more than a year after any tax credit is passed for producers to start making plans to move filming back to the U.S. due to lengthy production timelines for movies and TV shows.

“There is a ticking clock,” said Marshall of Epic. “If something isn’t done by the end of the year or in sight, there will be a further solidification of offshoring.”

For Peter Max-Muller, owner of The Ruby, a North Hollywood contemporary clothing rental business, the loss of film and TV shoots in L.A. is one of many threats his business faces, in addition to the use of AI production.

His sales typically mirror the production data from the nonprofit FilmLA, which recorded a 13% drop in shoot days in L.A. County in the second quarter over the same period a year ago.

The goal of a federal incentive, Max-Muller said, “is that we get that runaway production back.”

It’s why Friedman said she is pushing to get the tax credit legislation done as soon as possible.

“The film industry is deep in the identity of Los Angeles,” she said. “And it’s worth saving.”

Staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday urged Congress to approve federal tax incentives aimed at reviving American film and television productions, saying Hollywood has been hollowed out by productions moving to Canada and other countries.

In a social media post, Trump said he met with actor Jon Voight, whom he has designated as “Hollywood Ambassador,” and concluded there is “no incentive” to work in Hollywood anymore and that it is “hurting California very badly.”

“Jon, and many others in the Industry, are suggesting we do Federal Tax Incentives in order to Make our Movie and Television Production Business GREAT AGAIN, Perhaps GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!,” Trump said wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said meetings are already being set up to talk to lawmakers from both parties, noting that he wants to the discussions to be bipartisan, “especially since so much money is being lost in California, and other largely Blue States.”

“I am going to suggest that Republicans and Democrats get together, and immediately craft Legislation to save the Movie, Television and Entertainment Business in America,” he said.

There are few details about what these incentives would look like at this time, but Trump said “the amount of money spent” on tax breaks will be made up “tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury’s coffers.”

Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., applauded Trump’s announcement, and, in a statement, added that “for over a century, American studios, casts, and crews have produced the films and series that the world wants to see.”

“A federal incentive,” Rivkin added, “would be a landmark step toward bringing more production to local communities in all 50 states, strengthening our nation’s economy, and making our country a more competitive place to produce, create, and tell great stories.”

Trump’s push comes as production has continued to shift overseas. Last year, 45% of all U.S. films and scripted television shows were shot internationally, up from about 33% in 2022, an issue that has worried California lawmakers such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

California and other states have bolstered their production incentive programs, but Schiff has said in the past that it is not enough. He, too, has made the case for a federal tax credit.

“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” Schiff said at an event in March. “The urgency could not be greater.”

Trump has previously floated more aggressive measures, including a threat to impose tariffs on foreign-made films, but that idea did not gain traction.

An aspiring Los Angeles-area rapper was arrested on Wednesday and charged in connection with a multimillion-dollar check-cashing scheme, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Ada William Obayuwana of Quartz Hill, who goes by “ColdheartedAC” and “AC,” and two others were charged in a 25-count federal grand jury indictment alleging that they illegally possessed more than 50 stolen U.S. Treasury checks and hundreds of other checks belonging to individuals and businesses worth more than $8.1 million, then cashed or attempted to cash them at lenders throughout Southern California.

Albert Tai Vu, of Westminster, and Cassandra Marie Murrillo, of San Diego, are the other two defendants charged in the case.

According to the indictment, between April 2022 and December 2023, the trio obtained the stolen checks, some containing tax refunds and veterans’ and Social Security Administration benefits, then forged endorsements or modified names and addresses to steal the money.

The trio is accused of opening bank accounts to receive the money. They also used business documents to impersonate the identities of the victims connected to the stolen checks and deposited the money into bank and credit union accounts across Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, the indictment says.

During this period, Obayuwana allegedly tried to cash at least three Treasury tax refund checks worth $382,109 and was successful in cashing one, withdrawing $229,109, federal authorities allege.

In December 2023, Obayuwana “possessed in his car in Oceanside more than 100 stolen or fraudulent checks, cumulatively worth more than $6.1 million,” states the indictment. Among the checks were 48 stolen Treasury checks worth some $2,555,417 in tax refunds, veterans’ benefits,and Social Security benefits.

Obayuwana was able to cash eight of them worth about $1.7 million, according to federal investigators.

Vu tried to cash at least six Treasury checks totaling $2.15 million and successfully cashed two tax fund refunds worth $772,159, the indictment says. He also allegedly cashed a pair of cashier’s checks, each valued at $250,000, at an Anaheim bank and used money from one to buy a Range Rover and the second to pay Murillo.

Murillo is accused of trying to cash at least two checks worth $60,193, successfully cashing one for $31,405.

Following his arrest, Obayuwana remains in federal custody. He is charged with nine counts of bank fraud and faces three counts of delivering stolen Treasury checks and one count of aggravated identity theft.

Vu, who was arrested Thursday, is charged with five counts of delivering stolen Treasury checks, four counts of money laundering and two counts of aggravated identity theft.

Murillo, who is expected to surrender to federal authorities in Los Angeles on Monday, is charged with an additional count of delivering stolen Treasury checks.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against a policy by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that greatly expanded detention for migrants living in the country for years.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has changed its policies to treat people with extensive ties to the United States as still “seeking admission.”

That policy shift allows the agency to subject people who have lived in the country for years to mandatory detention without bond.

On Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy, marking the eighth time ICE has been rejected over this same issue in federal appeals court.

In more than 13,000 cases challenging the policy, judges have ruled against ICE more than 90% of the time, Politico reported.

The federal panel said ICE’s policy is incongruent with the law, which is to be applied differently depending on how recently a specific person entered the country.

“Contrary to the Government’s view, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘IIRIRA’) retained two tracks for detention even though it overhauled the procedures for removing noncitizens from the United States,” the court wrote in its decision.

“Before IIRIRA, noncitizens arriving in the United States were subject to ‘exclusion’ and those already in the country were subject to ‘deportation’ — the former were held in mandatory detention while the latter were afforded bond.”

The appeals court also ruled that ICE’s policy violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

“The Supreme Court has recognized the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.'”

The court added: “Because Petitioners here have lived in the United States for decades, they have ‘established connections’ in the country and are entitled to due process rights beyond those provided to noncitizens at the border.”

After an outcry from immigrant and civil rights advocates over plans to equip immigration officers with gloves capable of delivering electric shocks, California lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a bill that would ban the use of shock gloves by any law enforcement agent in the state.

The gloves deliver can an electrical shock strong enough to drop a strong man to his knees in an instant, and proponents say the gloves provide a fast and non-lethal way to subdue a person.

Two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland security planned to use $10 million to $20 million to procure the gloves from Compliant Technologies of Lexington, Ky., for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The department defended its decision, saying it was “made with careful consideration” and that other law enforcement agencies in the country already use the technology.

Civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union accused the department of attempting to intimidate the public by arming agents with another use-of-force option. They noted that ICE already is contending with criticism for multiple deaths in custody and during arrests.

Assembly Bill 2760, authored by state Assemblymember LaShea Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), would prohibit local, state and federal agencies from possessing, using or procuring electric taser gloves in the state or with state funds.

“We cannot spend state money or tax dollars on technology that is not to better our state,” Sharp-Collins said during a news conference with other lawmakers in Sacramento. “It cannot be used on our children, it cannot be used on our teachers, our business owners, it cannot be used on anyone.”

The CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E — standing for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — resembles a thick work glove and can be activated to emit a 380-volt shock upon contact with a body. Compliant Technologies has maintained that the gloves are weaker than traditional tasers, but critics say they can be life-threatening in the hands of ICE.

“Many people try to say weapons like this are about de-escalation, but I don’t know how many people have put hands on someone and said that’s de-escalation,” state Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-Alameda) said. “There’s already a spectrum of non-lethal, less-than-violent weapons out there that exists… ICE and law enforcement don’t need another tool.”

The gloves have been adopted in detention centers, law enforcement agencies and jails across the country, though apparently none in California. Last week, AP reported that Omaha police agreed to stop using the shock gloves after parents realized they’d been adopted by departments that monitored schools.

Sharp-Collins said she prepared the legislation in consultation with the state attorney general’s office and legislative council to ensure it would withstand a challenge from the Trump administration if it became law.

The Senate voted 30-9 on Monday to approve a rule change that would allow for the bill to pass quickly before the end of the legislative session on Aug. 31.