June

On June 12, Peggy Orenstein’s inbox flooded with booking requests for her Inglewood Airbnb.

The date seemed random, but after a quick search, the influx of interest became clear. It was exactly a year before one of the biggest events in American soccer history, when the U.S. will kick off its World Cup in a match against Paraguay at SoFi Stadium, and Orenstein had set up the system to only accept booking requests up to a year in advance.

Orenstein’s rental sits just across the street from the venue. Suddenly, her Airbnb became one of the hottest homes in the Southland.

She hadn’t adjusted the prices yet to reflect the rabid demand, so she declined the requests and tweaked the rates. Typically, a two-night stay at the house would cost around $1,000. For a two-night stay during the Americans’ opening match June 12, it’ll now cost more than $10,000.

Roughly 6.5 million people are expected to travel to North America during the 2026 World Cup, and many of them will be heading to L.A., where SoFi Stadium is hosting eight games, including two U.S. matches during the group stage. Airbnb hosts are viewing the games as a gold mine, hoping soccer fans will shell out thousands to stay near the stadium.

The World Cup rental market will serve as a test case for the 2028 Olympics, when an estimated 15 million people are expected to visit Southern California.

For the night of the opening match June 12, more than 70% of short-term rentals in Inglewood have already been booked, according to data site Inside Airbnb. That’s a 58% increase compared to typical reservation rates on normal days.

Rates are rising as well. On June 1, the average booked rate for an Airbnb in L.A. is $245, according to data platform AirDNA. On June 12, when the U.S. plays Paraguay, it’s $382 — a 56% jump.

In Inglewood, prices are even wilder. Homes that normally rent for hundreds are listed for thousands. The nightly price for a one-bedroom apartment a block from SoFi is typically around $400. On June 11, the day before the game, it’s $713. On June 12, the day of the game, it’s $1,714.

“It’ll be interesting to see how much people will pay,” Orenstein said.

Some hosts use an algorithm to determine their nightly rates, but Orenstein sets the prices herself. She arrived at the $10,000 number by looking at nearby hotels, which are mostly sold out for the nights of the eight World Cup matches.

“The Lum Hotel had a suite available during the World Cup for $1,943. Meanwhile, our house can accommodate eight guests with four bedrooms, plus a kitchen and yard,” she said.

There are classic amenities such as a grill and hot tub, but the biggest amenity is proximity. Orenstein is banking on visitors ponying up for the convenience of parking at the property and walking to the stadium while everyone else navigates traffic jams and long rideshare waits.

“It gets crazy out there,” she said. “I’ve had people offer to pay me $40 to use the bathroom while walking by during a Taylor Swift concert. Our neighbor sold parking spots for $1,000 during the Super Bowl.”

David (pictured) and Peggy Orenstein, run an Airbnb across the street from SoFi Stadium.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Colin Johnson has been renting out his home near SoFi Stadium for two years. It’s his actual residence, meaning when someone stays there, he has to book a hotel or crash on a friend’s couch. But he said the payouts are worth it.

“There are so many events and venues around us, why wouldn’t we take advantage?” he said.

A typical two-night stay in the three-story townhouse runs about $600. For the U.S. opening match, it costs more than $3,000.

Johnson said demand is roughly 60% Americans and 40% foreigners, but he expects foreign interest to pick up as the games get closer.

Demand isn’t limited to Inglewood. Luxury rentals across Los Angeles are being booked for eye-popping numbers, according to Mokhtar Jabli, founder of luxury rental platform Nightfall Group.

He’s booked two so far. The first was rented by a Florida client coming to Los Angeles to see Iran play two matches at SoFi Stadium against New Zealand and Belgium. The modern home in Hollywood Hills, complete with an infinity pool overlooking the city, rented for $33,000 for seven nights from June 15 to 22.

The second was booked by a New York client coming to see the U.S. play Paraguay. The 7,000-square-foot mansion in Malibu comes with a movie theater, butler, security and full-time staff. For 10 days, it rented for $100,000.

Jamie Lane, chief economist for AirDNA, expects a surge across L.A. County — not just in demand, but in supply.

“There’s a lot of interest right now in what you can make as a host,” Lane said. “In most cities, there won’t be enough lodging, so that pushes rates higher.”

He added that since Airbnb is the official “Alternative Accommodations and Bookings Platform” of the World Cup, the company is urging people to host. AirDNA has hosted multiple bootcamps around the country for people interested in renting out their homes during the World Cup, teaching them how to furnish homes, how to set prices during the games and more.

Lane expects a boost in listings early next year, which would mirror Paris in the months leading up to the 2024 Olympics, when active listings soared by 40%.

It’s unclear how proactive Southern California cities will be in cracking down on illegal listings as homeowners look to make a quick buck by renting out their rooms. Many cities have strict short-term rental regulations, but haven’t taken the steps necessary to enforce them.

Last year, the L.A. Housing Department estimated that 7,500 short-term rentals were violating the city’s Home Sharing Ordinance, but the city only issued 300 citations.

Orenstein said it won’t be easy in Inglewood.

“You have to jump through hoops to have an Airbnb,” she said. “Apply for permits, do inspections, pay your taxes every month. It has to be done right.”

FIFA announced an affordable admission pricing tier for every nation that’s qualified for the 2026 World Cup co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The supporter entry tier will make tickets available at a fixed price of $60 for every match, including the final, for each nation’s participating members associations.

The new tier comes after supporters’ groups from Europe called out FIFA on the dynamic pricing of tickets, which changes the value based on the popularity of the teams playing in each match.

“In total, 50% of each PMA allocation will fall within the most affordable range, namely supporter value tier (40%) and the supporter entry tier (10%),” FIFA said in a statement on Tuesday. “The remaining allocation is split evenly between the supporter standard tier and the supporter premier tier.”

FIFA will also waive the administrative fees for fans who secure participating member association tickets, but their teams do not advance and they seek refunds.

Tickets sales were rolled out by FIFA in phases, with a third of the tournament’s inventory claimed during the first two phases. The third phase started on Dec. 11 and will go through to Jan. 13. During this period, fans have the opportunity to allocate tickets for a match based on a random selection draw.

Before the new tier was introduced, the cheapest ticket for the World Cup final in MetLife Stadium in New Jersey would cost fans more than $4,000. The high prices raised concerns among European supporters.

“The prices set for the 2026 World Cup are scandalous, a step too far for many supporters who passionately and loyally follow their national sides at home and abroad,” the FSA, an organization of supporters for England and Wales, said in a statement posted on its website on Dec. 12. “Everything we feared about the direction in which FIFA wants to take the game was confirmed — Gianni Infantino only sees supporter loyalty as something to be exploited for profit.”

FIFA previously stated it adopted the variable pricing because it was common practice for major North America sporting events.

“What FIFA is doing is adapting to the domestic market,” a FIFA official said in the conference call. “It’s a reality in the U.S. and Canada that events are being priced as per the demand that is coming in for that event.”

A FIFA official told reporters before the first tickets went on sale that world soccer’s governing body expects to make more than $3 billion from hospitality and tickets sales and is confident the tournament will break the all-time World Cup attendance record set in 1994, the last time the competition was held in the U.S.

That 1994 World Cup featured just 24 teams and 52 matches. The 2026 tournament will be twice as large, with 48 teams and 104 games.

FIFA said it received 20 million requests during the random selection draw sales.

SoFi Stadium will host eight matches, beginning with the U.S. opener against Paraguay on June 12. The Americans will finish group play in Inglewood on June 25, playing the winner of a March playoff involving Slovakia, Kosovo, Turkey and Romania. Two Group G matches — Iran vs. New Zealand on June 15 and Iran-Belgium on June 21 — also will be played in SoFi, sandwiched around a Group B match between Switzerland and the winner of another European playoff, this one featuring Wales, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy and Northern Ireland.

The teams for the three knockout-stage games to be played at SoFi Stadium — round-of-32 games on June 28 and July 2 and a quarterfinal on July 10 — haven’t been determined, but the possibilities include Mexico, South Korea, Canada, Spain, Austria and Algeria.

Staff writer Kevin Baxter contributed to this report.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must immediately end the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, the latest legal blow to the president’s embattled efforts to police American streets with armed soldiers.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in his ruling that command of the remaining 300 federalized National Guard troops must return to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued the administration in June after it commandeered thousands of troops to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

On June 12, Breyer ruled that deployment illegal — a decision that was challenged and ultimately reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court said the esoteric statute Trump invoked to wrest command of the Guard from the governor afforded him “a great level of deference” to determine whether a rebellion was underway in Los Angeles, as the Justice Department claimed at the time.

The same sequence repeated this autumn in Oregon, where 200 California Guard troops were sent to help quash demonstrations outside an ICE facility.

Unlike in California, the Oregon decision was vacated amid claims the Justice Department inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland and misrepresented other facts to the court.

The decision is now under review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, while the Supreme Court weighs an almost identical challenge to the deployment in Illinois.

In both cases, conservative judicial appointees have signaled skepticism about the president’s authority to order boots on the ground, and to keep troops federalized indefinitely.

“States are not only owed protection by the federal government, they are owed protection from it,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote in a lengthy filing Tuesday in support of the 9th Circuit review. “There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs.”

The “domestic violence” clause of the Constitution was part of a careful compromise between its framers allowing the president to deploy armed soldiers against citizens “only as a last resort,” the judge argued. The president should be compelled to provide some proof of his claims and the states should be empowered to test it — “particularly in the face of contrary evidence.”

That position earned him a sharp rebuke from the court’s newest member, Trump appointee Judge Eric Tung, who echoed the administration’s claim that its deployments were “unreviewable” by the courts.

A demonstrator interacts with U.S. Marines and National Guard troops standing in line at the entrance of the Metropolitan Detention Center following federal immigration operations in July.

(Etienne Laurent / AFP via Getty Images)

Their exchange reflects a deepening rift on the 9th Circuit, once the most liberal appellate division in the United States.

Trump remade the 9th Circuit in his first term, naming 10 judges to the bench. Those picks were largely curated by Leonard Leo of the libertarian-leaning Federalist Society.

But Leo has since lost favor to Tung’s longtime friend Mike Davis of the Article III Project, whose recommendations tack well to the right of his predecessor, experts said.

Still, infighting on the appellate bench is far from the only hurdle facing Trump’s domestic deployments.

In October, the Supreme Court ordered both the administration and the state of Illinois to address a theory by Georgetown University law professor Martin S. Lederman, who argued the statute only allows presidents to federalize the National Guard after they send in the army.

“If the court wants to rule against Trump on this, that’s the least offensive way,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State College of Law. “It’s a way to avoid all factual determinations for the moment.”

But such a ruling could open the door to even more aggressive military action in the future, he and others warn.

“If the Supreme Court comes in and says, ‘you have to use the active duty military before you can use the National Guard,’ it has the effect of saying everything that happened until now [was illegal],” said David Janovsky from the Project on Government Oversight. “But then you have the prospect of more active duty troops getting deployed.”

Congress, too, is taking a fine-toothed comb to Trump’s troop cases. The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to hear testimony Thursday from military top brass about repeated domestic deployments.

“Across the United States, Donald Trump has illegally deployed our nation’s servicemembers into American cities under unclear and false pretexts and despite the costs to our military and civil rights,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement announcing the hearing. “The American people and our troops deserve answers.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to broaden its claims of executive power in court.

In recent weeks, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that, once federalized, state Guard troops would remain under the president’s command in perpetuity. Breyer called that position “contrary to law” in his ruling Wednesday.

“Defendants’ argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government,” Breyer wrote.

California leaders cheered Wednesday’s ruling as a turning point in what until now has been an uphill legal battle to constrain the president’s use of state troops. The order was set to take effect on Monday, though it was all but certain to be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

“The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations,” Newsom said in a statement Wednesday morning. “We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.”

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called it “a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.”

Still, some legal scholars and civil liberties experts warn repeated deployments — and the slogging court battles that attend them — could inure the public to further politicization of the military around the midterms.

“The sense of normalization is probably part of the plan here,” Janovsky said. “Having troops trained for war on the streets of American cities puts everyone at more risk. The more we normalize the blurring of those lines, the higher the risk that troops will be used for inappropriate purposes against the American people.”

Times staff writers Kevin Rector and Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.