questions

At more than 2,700 feet, “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” is one of the longest murals in the world and among the most important public artworks in the city. Created by artist Judy Baca between 1974 and 1984, the mural is a groundbreaking depiction of Southern California history from the viewpoint of women and minorities and a potent national symbol at the intersection of art and activism.

Baca’s leadership of the collaborative project made her a legend in the art world. She is the co-founder and artistic director of Social and Public Art Resource Center, or SPARC, a community mural nonprofit and has been hailed as one of the most influential figures of L.A.’s Chicano muralism. “The Great Wall” is on the National Register of Historic Places, and Baca is a National Medal of Arts recipient.

But now Baca, 79, has come under criticism from some of those who have worked most closely with her in recent years.

In interviews, 10 former SPARC employees — including two managers — accuse Baca of using her nonprofit to benefit her private, for-profit art practice, Judy Baca Inc. They allege Baca personally benefited from a $5-million Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant to expand “The Great Wall,” sold the project’s archives to the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art at a large profit to herself, and has blurred the line between her nonprofit and for-profit endeavors.

Baca and SPARC’s board chair, Zojeila Flores, vigorously deny any impropriety or misuse of funds. In an interview, they said grant funds were used appropriately and that Baca maintains a mutually beneficial profit-sharing agreement with SPARC.

Baca ascribes the criticism to disgruntled former employees and hopes SPARC can finish its work on the mural “without more of this sort of rage and hostility and anger and hate.” It’s on schedule to be completed by 2028, she said, showing The Times sections of the mural in progress at a rented space at Bergamot Station Arts Center, an acclaimed, high-end gallery in Santa Monica.

Artist Judy Baca talks to the media after starting to paint a new section of “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” as part of a LACMA exhibition on Oct. 26, 2023.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Baca supporters believe she is a visionary who has used the reputation she earned with “The Great Wall” to continue lifting underserved communities.

“I don’t know how to better serve a community than to represent them well,” said Kelly Watts, who, as a teen in the 1980s, participated in painting “The Great Wall” as a student artist. Watts now lives in Tennessee and said she isn’t familiar with the inner workings of SPARC but that what matters to her is Baca’s guidance over the years. “Judy has been a mentor of mine and has always been a really positive influence on me and my growth as an artist.”

The $5-million grant

At the root of the allegations is Baca’s 2017 announcement that she intended to expand “The Great Wall” to include hundreds of feet of new imagery, representing history from the 1960s up to the present day. The mural, which is in a floodwater channel that runs through the leafy Valley Glen neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, originally concluded with depictions of two Olympic gold medalists, track star Wilma Rudolph and Native American runner Billy Mills. Baca also sought to add interpretive stations, illuminate the mural at night and build a pedestrian bridge over the Tujunga Wash flood control channel to provide a better view of the work.

Judy Baca painting “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” in 1983.

(SPARC Archives / SPARCinLA.org)

Baca’s goals were boosted in 2021 when the Mellon Foundation — one of the largest and most important nonprofit funders of art projects in the nation — supported “The Great Wall” plans with a $5-million grant to be paid over three years, ending in 2024. The grant was distributed through Mellon’s newly formed $250-million Monuments Project “to express, elevate, and preserve the stories of those who have often been denied historical recognition.” (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Emmett Till Interpretive Center in Mississippi and other noted institutions also received separate grants.)

Among those who question Baca’s stewardship of the grant are Pete Galindo, a former director of the Great Wall of Los Angeles Institute, which SPARC formed to oversee the mural expansion, and Carmen Garcia, who served as director of SPARC for six months ending in early 2023. Both alleged Baca required SPARC employees to also do work for Judy Baca Inc., Baca’s private business for her art.

Garcia resigned after repeatedly raising concerns about alleged misappropriation of Mellon grant funds, which Baca denied, and calling for the board to investigate Baca. She said she was “forcefully” led out of the building.

Galindo was fired in February 2022 after less than a year in his role. He alleges Baca terminated him in retaliation for questions he raised about how she was using the grant and objecting to her work assignments. Before his Great Wall Institute role, Galindo said he had known Baca for nearly 30 years, beginning as a UCLA student in 1996 and later working in various roles on a variety of SPARC initiatives, including as a community public art director.

According to documents reviewed by The Times, including Galindo’s offer letter and a spreadsheet with Mellon grant line items, Galindo’s $75,000 salary was paid through SPARC and the grant, which stipulates the money be used “to support the preservation, activation, and expansion of one of the country’s largest monuments to interracial harmony through civic engagement and muralist training.” But Galindo alleged Baca assigned him work outside SPARC and the Great Wall: to help sell her personal artwork, aid in fixing a termite infestation in her archives and help to manage the production of a mural titled “La Memoria de la Tierra: UCLA,” which was not related to “The Great Wall.”

The Times reviewed a series of text messages between Galindo and Baca in which Baca asked Galindo to help with jobs outside his Great Wall duties, including dealing with termites. The messages included a question to Baca from Galindo confirming she’d like the team to “print the UCLA mural at scale for review.” Baca replies that she will call momentarily. Another group chat between Galindo and two other SPARC employees is about meeting to move Baca’s belongings out of her office at UCLA in 2021.

Baca denied Galindo’s allegations, including that she asked Galindo to help manage the UCLA mural — a task outside of the Mellon grant’s purview. She said the project was brought to her personally and she referred the work to SPARC. The mural was completed on-site through a research and teaching facility known as the Digital/Mural Lab, she said. SPARC received money for the project, Baca wrote in a statement, although Baca got paid a commission — an “established practice” at SPARC for paying artists for their work.

In an interview, SPARC board chair Flores declined to say how much Baca earned from that project or Baca’s specific commission rate. However, on a hypothetical $200,000 project she said about $58,000 could go to SPARC for costs and fees. The remaining $142,000 could go to other vendors and Baca.

For decades, Baca brought in dozens of commissions to SPARC without being paid, SPARC said in a statement. The board voted to change that in recent years with a so-called “fiscal sponsorship arrangement,” which allows paid projects to piggyback on SPARC’s tax-exempt status. In this case, Baca earns a commission and SPARC receives funds for employee work on projects.

SPARC’S website currently lists nine board members. Baca and Flores are included, as is Mercedes Gertz, who rents an art studio in SPARC’s building. Baca’s cousin, Anthony Salcido, serves as the board’s finance chair. Bookkeeper Gloria Thompson is also Baca’s cousin.

“Mr. Salcido began working with SPARC only after consultation with legal counsel and Board approval, with Judy recused from the vote,” Flores wrote in an email. “Ms. Thompson began with SPARC as a volunteer and later became bookkeeper following formal consultation with legal.”

In 2022, after he was fired from SPARC, Galindo wrote a letter to Emil J. Kang, then the Mellon Foundation’s program director for arts and culture, to allege that Baca had misused the Mellon grant money by asking him to do work for her personal business.

“Throughout my time as the Great Wall of Los Angeles Institute Director, she focused my work on her personal exhibitions, sale of artworks, training her personal assistant, overseeing commissions, press and documentation,” Galindo wrote in the letter, concluding, “While Judy’s contribution to the field over the years cannot be denied, her treatment of employees, unequal pay scales and overall exploitation of staff and artists is anathema to the values and ideals of social justice movements and the monuments they inspire.”

Baca said she could not comment on personnel matters, but in a statement, SPARC said, “We strive to be fair and professional in all our personnel matters.”

Judy Baca poses in front of her artwork “La Salsera” at LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes in downtown Los Angeles in 2024.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Galindo said he did not receive a reply to his letter from Kang or the Mellon Foundation.

The Mellon Foundation issued a statement to The Times, confirming it had received Galindo’s letter, which “was handled in accordance with Mellon policy on third party complaints about our grantees.” The foundation added that it “does not comment on issues pertaining to internal matters of its grantees.” SPARC’s grant status never changed.

Garcia, who was hired as SPARC’s executive director after Galindo left the organization, remembered dealing with heightened inquiries from Mellon representatives, including culture program director Kang. Once, she said, the foundation asked SPARC for additional information on how grant money was being spent.

SPARC said in its response to The Times that such questions from funders were routine.

“Mellon consistently reviews all of its grantees’ performance, as is standard for nonprofit funders,” SPARC said.

Baca told The Times that she was unaware that Mellon had raised questions about how the grant was being used. However, in a text exchanged with Garcia in 2023 and reviewed by The Times, she indicated she had spoken to Kang at a National Medal of Arts event in Washington, D.C.

“They will ask us to improve some things but generally we had a long discussion and lots of laughs about me ‘hating the interrogation by a bunch of white me[n],’” Baca wrote. “He got a laugh out of it and knew they were a pain in the a—.”

When asked about the text she sent to Garcia, Baca said, “It was an informal conversation at a White House reception. We didn’t talk about the specifics of the grant itself. The conversation really was about the review process.”

Who should profit from ‘The Great Wall’?

Work on “The Great Wall of Los Angeles” began in 1974 and was completed over five summers by Baca with the help of many now well-known artists including Isabel Castro, Ulysses Jenkins, Judithe Hernández, Patssi Valdez, Margaret Garcia, Christina Schlesinger and Judy Chicago. More than 400 young people and their families — many from underserved neighborhoods — also contributed to the project, including 80 youths recruited from the juvenile justice system.

The collective effort made “The Great Wall” a work of social justice, and in 1976 led to the founding of Baca’s nonprofit, SPARC, with its stated mission of producing, preserving and promoting, “activist and socially relevant artwork,” and fostering “artistic collaborations that empower communities who face marginalization or discrimination.”

“The Great Wall of Los Angeles” on April 9, 2025.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Some former SPARC employees feel that Baca has failed to honor the community that toiled to create “The Great Wall.” They have expressed concern that Baca has benefited unfairly from the project, and, in particular, the sale of work related to it.

Flores disagrees, writing, “For 50 years, SPARC has used art to empower communities facing marginalization and/or discrimination. This currently includes immigrant populations traumatized by ICE. Further, SPARC ensures that working artists can remain in Venice, a neighborhood with deep artistic and cultural roots.”

When “The Great Wall” was originally copyrighted in 1983, authorship of the work was attributed to both “Judith F. Baca” and the “Social Public Art Resource Center.” In 2011, however, after a restoration effort led by SPARC in which the mural was completely painted over, the project was again copyrighted, this time solely under Baca’s name. Former employees question the ethics of Baca’s profiting off a celebrated community effort, but Flores said Baca has always retained ownership of her work and that, “Owning a copyright is not the same as owning an artwork itself.” Baca, Flores said, evenly splits copyright licensing fees with SPARC.

Baca sold “The Great Wall” archives to the Lucas Museum in 2021. The sale included more than 350 objects and ephemera, including concept drawings, site plans, sketches and correspondence with community leaders, scholars, historians and collaborators.

A Lucas Museum representative declined to comment on how much the museum paid for the archive or whether or not the acquisition was made from Baca or SPARC.

Galindo said he was told by former SPARC executive director Carlos Rogel that it sold for $1.5 million. Rogel declined a request for comment. Another source close to SPARC, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, also said the sale was for $1.5 million.

Baca and Flores declined to say what the archives sold for. In an emailed response, Flores wrote that Baca was the owner of “The Great Wall” archive and was not paid by SPARC to produce that work.

“Nonetheless, following the sale, and although Judy was not required to do so, she generously donated $521,000 to SPARC,” Flores wrote.

Galindo and other former employees also expressed concern about Baca’s rising salary and believe it is out of proportion with SPARC’s mission of uplifting and aiding underserved communities and youth. In the two years prior to receiving the Mellon grant, Baca made $42,916 and $50,000, respectively. The year after SPARC received the grant, Baca’s salary rose to $215,000. In 2023, she made $236,149, and the following year, $211,004. The increase in Baca’s salary is discussed in an internal email and executive board meeting minutes reviewed by The Times, which state that SPARC’s board voted to set Baca’s annual compensation to be commensurate with what Baca was paid before she retired as a UCLA professor and that the additional money should come from the Mellon grant. Records of her 2025 and 2026 salaries were not currently available.

“The Great Wall of Los Angeles” depicts the history of California through the 1950s. An expansion to be completed in 2028 will add scenes from the 1960s to 1990s.

(Carlin Stiehl/For The Times)

SPARC said in a statement that Baca’s salary “is lower than the market rate for similar non-profit CEOs and lower than the market value commissioning rate for artist Judy Baca who is the author of The Great Wall Mural.”

Ongoing work on “The Great Wall” is currently done by a variety of people. For the new panels, which begin with the civil rights era of the 1960s, research is done by Baca and her team from the Great Wall Institute (there is currently no institute director, according to SPARC’s website). From there, Baca creates rough drawings, and drafts are made by artists from SPARC’s Digital/Mural Lab. Baca suggests edits and gives directions, and later she will add her own personal touches.

Eventually, colorations are submitted by various artists, and Baca does one final hand coloration of the entire piece. During The Times’ visit to see the mural expansion in progress, two artists were painting on sketches that had been fine-tuned by Baca and printed onto giant panels. These panels will eventually be attached to the wall of the flood water channel where “The Great Wall” resides, Flores said.

Former SPARC digital mural artist Toria Maldonado alleged it was not always clear if the work they were doing was for SPARC or for Judy Baca Inc. They were asked on occasion to work on assignments that appeared to be for the benefit of the latter, Maldonado said.

Maldonado said they and two other SPARC employees once redrew the 1960s segment of “The Great Wall” for a private collector. Baca, Maldonado said, “was selling a print, and wanted to refine it, and had us do that assignment.” Maldonado shared a checklist with The Times featuring notes about what work needed to be done on the segment, including shading Malcolm X’s hair.

In an email, Flores called Maldonado’s allegations, “factually inaccurate” and “misleading.”

“Judy was the owner of the segment referenced. It was hand-colored by Judy and assistants whom Judy paid personally, and this work was done in her personal studio,” Flores wrote. Baca’s studio is a Frank Gehry-designed space at her Venice home.

Maldonado said that they had never been to Baca’s personal studio and that their salary was always paid through SPARC.

From May through August 2023, segments of “The Great Wall” were exhibited at Jeffrey Deitch Gallery in L.A. Baca didn’t sell any works during that show, Flores wrote in an email, but in 2025, “a coloration by Judy’s hand of a segment presented in that show was sold. This work was created in Judy’s private studio and owned by her.” Baca declined to disclose how much the segment sold for. SPARC began showing more of “The Great Wall” expansion in February at Jeffrey Deitch Gallery. The original panels will not be for sale, but “if a work of Judy’s is sold at the show, she receives the proceeds as the owner of the work,” Flores wrote.

The room where art happens

Galindo and Garcia also alleged that SPARC inappropriately leases its premises to board member Gertz and others.

Since 1977, SPARC has been housed in a former Venice police station and jail, a 1920s Art Deco building owned by the city of Los Angeles. In 2000, the city signed a lease allowing SPARC to use the building for free until 2055. That agreement stipulates the property be used for “production, exhibition, promotion and distribution of and education about public art on a nonprofit basis.” SPARC can sublease portions of its building to those engaged in similar work with a city official’s approval. It must submit annual financial reports to the city with earnings from such deals.

The Times reviewed Instagram posts made by Gertz touting a 2023 exhibition of her personal art at SPARC, another in 2024 advertising a holiday sale, as well as one that shows her working in her studio inside the building. SPARC said Gertz pays market rate for her studio but declined to specify how much that is, only that it is, “equivalent to the rent paid by all the other artists who sublet space in the building.”

Judy Baca outside her Venice nonprofit, the Social and Public Art Resource Center, better known as SPARC, in 2021.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

According to documents obtained through a California Public Records Act request, the city only has one sublease on file for SPARC from 1991. When asked if the city had approved SPARC’s deal with Gertz, Amy Benson, the director of the city’s real estate services division, wrote in an email that she had no further information to provide.

Flores wrote in an email that she was unable to speak to the specifics of a question about whether or not SPARC submits annual financial reports, inclusive of its subleasing income, to the city but noted, “we will follow up to make sure that the City has the documents you mention.” According to the latest available tax filings, SPARC made $64,991 in “rental property income” in 2024 and $57,590 in 2023.

Asked if Gertz’s use of SPARC for her personal, for-profit art practice, violates SPARC’s understanding of the lease, Flores wrote, “Our understanding is that our lease allows any use of the premises that is reasonably consistent with our nonprofit mission… Ms. Gertz uses her studio to weave textiles and also to lead art workshops for immigrants in the community, an activity that we think is entirely in keeping with our mission.”

Baca has also sold her personal art for profit at SPARC. When Baca’s art is for sale she “is treated like all other artists” and receives 60% of profits, the nonprofit said in a statement.

According to SPARC’s website, of the eight exhibits presented by SPARC in Venice and at Bergamot Station since 2022, five showcased Baca’s work, including on “The Great Wall,” and one featured work by Gertz. The remaining two shows accounted for roughly five months of programming in more than three years.

“I’m certain there are hundreds of artists in Los Angeles making socially engaged work who would benefit from a solo exhibition at SPARC,” Galindo wrote in an email.

Feb. 18 (Asia Today) — An alleged financial link between a National Intelligence Service employee and a graduate student accused of sending a drone to North Korea has fueled questions about oversight and accountability within South Korea’s intelligence community, an Asia Today columnist wrote Tuesday.

The case surfaced last month when authorities disclosed that a man in his 30s had allegedly sent an unmanned aerial vehicle to North Korea. Initial investigations focused on possible involvement by the Army Intelligence Command.

However, political and intelligence sources cited in the column questioned why the National Intelligence Service, widely regarded as the control tower of South Korea’s intelligence apparatus, was not initially central to the probe.

The controversy deepened when investigators said an NIS Grade 8 employee had engaged in financial transactions with the graduate student. A joint military-police task force reportedly applied charges including general treason, a serious offense involving harm to national military interests or aiding an enemy state.

The NIS said the matter involved “a personal financial transaction by an administrative department employee” and denied any organizational link to North Korea-related operations. The agency argued that without proof of institutional involvement, the actions of an individual cannot be attributed to the entire organization.

The columnist wrote that regardless of whether the agency was formally involved, sustained contact and financial dealings between an intelligence officer and a suspect in a North Korea-related case raise concerns that go beyond individual misconduct.

The commentary also questioned whether internal control systems functioned properly and whether warning signs were missed. It noted that less than two years have passed since a separate intelligence leak involving a civilian employee at the military intelligence service.

The writer argued that the issue ultimately points to the broader condition of South Korea’s intelligence oversight system and called for a thorough investigation to address public doubts.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260218010005525

PHILADELPHIA — In the first one-on-one debate of the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign, front-runner Michael S. Dukakis and his sole remaining adversary, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, both contended Friday night that it was too soon to discuss whether Dukakis should ask Jackson to be his running mate.

But the fact that the subject came up several times during the hourlong televised encounter, in advance of Tuesday’s presidential primary here in the Keystone State, reflected the degree to which Gov. Dukakis’ victory in the contest is widely considered all but assured. At the same time, the questions about Jackson’s becoming the first black to run on the national ticket of a major party were a measure of the impact the civil rights leader has had on the Democratic campaign.

‘Are You Interested?’

For their own differing reasons–Jackson because he is unwilling to have his presidential candidacy written off and Dukakis because he is leery of overconfidence–both men sought to dismiss the idea. Nevertheless, Dukakis twice during the debate leaned over to Jackson when the subject of the vice presidency was raised and asked: “Are you interested?”

While his comments brought laughter, as they were intended to, they also will inevitably fan speculation about what is certain to become the preoccupation of the two candidates and other Democratic leaders until the Atlanta convention in July is concluded.

When he was asked if he would accept an offer from Dukakis, Jackson said: “It’s a bit premature to be giving out coronation roses for the governor and taps for me.”

Jackson asserted that he and Dukakis were really in a “neck-and-neck contest,” contending that he trailed the governor by only about 170,000 votes after weeks of campaigning and made plain that he was not prepared to call it quits.

Pride of Accomplishment

“We’re sitting here side by side,” Jackson said of himself and Dukakis at one point, signaling not only his pride at what he had accomplished but his determination to press on. “But we’re not equal because I’ve come from furthest back to get here.”

And when Dukakis was asked about his ability to run well in the South, as a Northeastern governor, Jackson interjected: “With Mike Dukakis on my ticket we will win the South.”

Dukakis, when asked if he would choose Jackson to be his running mate, said: “My job right now is to work hard to win this nomination, and it is by no means won.”

In their first encounter since last Tuesday’s New York primary effectively eliminated Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. from the race and significantly fattened Dukakis’ lead in the race for delegates, both candidates aimed most of their shots past each other at the Reagan Administration and at the presumptive Republican standard-bearer, Vice President George Bush.

Thus when he was questioned about his plans to expand industry in Pennsylvania and other states that are in worse economic shape than his own Massachusetts, Dukakis criticized Reagan for threatening to veto the trade bill passed Thursday by the House because of its provision requiring a 60-day advance notice of plant shutdowns or layoffs.

Hits Reagan on Terrorism

And he also used a question on terrorism to condemn the Reagan Administration for trying to trade arms to Iran in the hope of gaining the release of U.S. hostages as “the worst possible thing we could have done.”

And Jackson attacked the Reagan Administration for its dealings with Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega, whom he denounced as a drug dealer, and for what he charged was its general ineffectiveness in combatting drugs.

In one of the rare occasions that either of the two Democrats challenged each other, Jackson pressed Dukakis on whether the governor would apply his terrorist policy to South Africa after Dukakis said he would never negotiate with terrorists, even to save the lives of hostages and also said that if necessary he would order military strikes against terrorist base camps and support bases in other countries.

“If we are serious about international terrorism,” Dukakis said, the United States might have to launch such strikes. “I think a President who is serious about this,” Dukakis said, “can work with our allies and the international community to mount a very serious effort against terrorism.”

Questioned on South Africa

Jackson then contended that South Africa had committed aggression against several of the “front-line” African states on its borders and, declaring that such tactics amounted to “state terrorism,” asked Dukakis what his response would be.

Dukakis said he would be “very tough” on South Africa and would impose economic sanctions against that country but refused to say whether he would take military action.

Jackson also subtly needled Dukakis after the governor took credit for the prosperity in Massachusetts, which he referred to as “an economic miracle.”

Jackson noted that Dukakis and Massachusetts had the advantage of substantial federal investment and said that Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was in attendance at the debate sponsored by the state Democratic Party, “could have a boom too” under similar conditions.

WASHINGTON — Since a government raid near Waco, Tex., turned into a fiery disaster two years ago, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno has steadfastly defended her decision to storm the besieged compound of the Branch Davidian religious sect and cited a need to rescue the 24 children inside from unsafe and worsening conditions.

But as the episode becomes the focus of renewed attention in the nation’s capital and beyond, fresh questions are centering on certain tactics used by federal agents–specifically the firing of hundreds of rounds of a military-style tear gas into the camp–that may themselves have endangered the children.

At 6:02 a.m. on April 19, 1993, following a 51-day standoff, FBI agents in military tanks advanced from siege lines around the Branch Davidian compound and fired volleys of CS gas inside the buildings to immobilize the heavily armed occupants.

The wooden structures were filled with the gas over the next six hours before the building erupted into flames, leaving more than 80 people dead, including all of the children. Before giving the order to advance, Reno said, she was assured by military experts that CS gas would cause no serious harm or permanent damage to the children of the besieged cult members.

However, it is now clear that medical literature and manufacturers’ warnings available at the time dispute that conclusion.

CS gas is potentially so hazardous when applied in confined spaces that California prison guards are cautioned against using it in the cells of unruly inmates. A Sherman Oaks company suspended sales of CS to the Israeli government in 1988 at the same time Amnesty International linked the gas to the deaths of Palestinians in homes and other buildings in the occupied territories.

Although adults can withstand CS exposure by wearing gas masks, and the Branch Davidian compound was well stocked with military equipment, no masks were available to properly fit children.

“All of those young children who breathed that gas for hours and didn’t have masks would have been in intensive care if they had survived,” said Dr. Alan A. Stone, a Harvard University professor of law and psychiatry who was chosen by the Justice Department to review its performance at Waco and only recently began to speak out. “This seems so clear and apparent that it’s hard for me to imagine how the attorney general, who I have great respect for, could have OKd this.”

The official cause of death for the children, whose bodies were badly burned in the blaze, could not be determined. Smoke inhalation was a leading possibility. However, autopsy records also show that some of the victim’s bodies contained cyanide, a chemical emitted when CS gas–and other substances such as plastic–are heated in a fire. Many of the toddlers and infants may have been overcome by the gas before they died, some experts believe.

In contrast, a government specialist in riot-control agents who requested anonymity said scientific studies indicate that it would be “almost virtually impossible” for large quantities of CS to severely injure any of the Davidians, including the 17 children under age 10. And Justice Department officials say they doubt that many, if any, Davidians breathed significant amounts of CS because of strong winds that whipped through large holes knocked in the building by tank-mounted battering rams to insert the gas.

*

Controversy surrounding the Branch Davidian incident has been fanned by the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, the second anniversary of the Waco blaze. The leading suspect in the fatal attack on the federal building, Timothy J. McVeigh, reportedly considered the Waco siege an example of government’s intention to crush individual liberties, particularly the right to bear arms.

He is not alone. Some conservatives and civil libertarians question whether the full story of the government’s actions at Waco has come to light. At least two congressional committees plan to hold hearings into the Branch Davidian incident this summer.

Officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which conducted the initial raid at Waco to serve search warrants related to weapons violations, maintain they have learned painful lessons from their mistakes and adopted changes to ensure they are not repeated.

But the Justice Department has denied being at fault, instead blaming the loss of life solely on Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, who was suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons.

“There is much to be angry about when we talk about Waco, and the government’s conduct is not the reason,” Reno told a gathering of federal law enforcement officers this month. “David Koresh is the reason.”

Henry Ruth, a former federal prosecutor who served on the independent board that reviewed the ATF’s actions, said he found the Justice Department’s review of Waco full of glowing appraisals.

“That is appalling to me when children die in a fire and there is a precedent for it,” said Ruth, citing the five children who burned to death in 1985 when authorities dropped a bomb on the MOVE community building in West Philadelphia. “When they don’t learn their lessons, are children going to die the next time?”

The FBI was called in on Feb. 28, 1993, to resolve an exceedingly difficult situation at the Branch Davidians’ compound after the ATF raid there went awry. As ATF agents stormed the compound, armed cult members opened fire, killing four officers and five Branch Davidian members. After negotiating a cease-fire with Koresh, the FBI decided that its principal goal was gaining the release of the children inside, according to the Justice Department review of the incident.

Koresh sent out 21 children and 14 adults through March 23. But the releases stopped, and he showed no willingness to surrender.

*

As weeks passed, the uncertainty about the outcome began to mount. The FBI’s longest previous standoff had lasted four days. When the Waco encounter entered its second month, the situation became more “dangerous” because of the difficulty in maintaining security around such a large area and because the FBI’s hostage rescue team was exhausted and in need of retraining, Reno said. The FBI had no backup unit.

On the 22nd day, FBI officials recommended using tear gas to clear the compound. Three weeks later, on April 12, the attorney general was briefed on the FBI’s proposal to use CS gas.

In meetings with military experts, Reno was reassured that the plan to drive out the Branch Davidians with gradual applications of CS gas was safe. They referred to cases of children who had completely recovered within hours of being exposed to CS with no long-term effects.

Reno spent more time weighing the merits of the gassing strategy than any other issue at Waco, said Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern. Among those she consulted was Harry Salem, a toxicologist at the Army’s Chemical and Biological Defense Command.

Reno was advised that although no laboratory tests measuring the effects of CS gas on children had been performed, “anecdotal evidence was convincing” that there would be no permanent injury, according to the Justice Department report. “The military personnel made Reno feel more confident with the concept of tear gas, as opposed to the original concept in her mind of ‘gassing,’ ” the report said.

Salem declined to be interviewed. In written responses to questions submitted by The Times, Salem wrote that CS can be used indoors as long as safety ratios are not exceeded. Achieving lethal concentrations of CS, Salem wrote, would be “extremely difficult.”

After the Waco standoff’s fiery end, Stone, one of the experts retained by the Justice Department to examine what happened, specifically requested the briefing materials Salem provided to Reno. Stone said he was furnished a copy of a 1971 report by the British government that advocated CS as a crowd-control agent in open-air settings.

“There was nothing the attorney general was given in her material and nothing I was ever given which addressed the problem of CS gas in a closed space,” Stone said.

Stone issued a scathing 33-page report in November, 1993, which the Justice Department declined to make available, that criticized the decision to deploy CS gas. In the Justice Department report, Stone wrote, there is no mention during Reno’s deliberations that young children do not have the lung capacity to use gas masks.

“I find it hard to accept a deliberate plan to insert CS gas . . . in a building with so many children,” Stone wrote. “It certainly makes it more difficult to believe that the health and safety of the children was our primary concern.”

Reno has discounted Stone’s criticism, saying he lacks expertise in the field of toxicology.

The danger of applying CS in enclosed spaces is spelled out in an array of medical literature and manufacturers’ reports, including the Army’s guidelines on civil disturbances. Army Field Manual FM 19-15, published in 1985, warns that CS “is not to be used in buildings, near hospitals or in areas where lingering contamination could cause problems.”

Kelly Donahue, spokeswoman for Federal Laboratories Inc., which produces CS gas, said the chemical is designed for use in a large, open area. “If you were to shoot too much in a building or enclosed area, you could suffocate individuals.”

*

CS takes its name from two scientists, B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton, who invented it in 1928. The chemical, ortho-chlorobenzal malononitrile, is considered a “super tear gas” because it works instantly, causing burning eyes, coughing, breathing difficulty, stinging skin and vomiting. Though it is commonly referred to as a tear gas, CS is actually a white crystal that looks like talcum powder. In 1959, the Army adopted CS as its standard riot-control agent, and the chemical was used extensively in the Vietnam War.

The widespread use of CS by South Korea on hundreds of thousands of civilians in 1987 was researched by the Physicians for Human Rights group. After discovering that civilians suffered serious acute illnesses, sometimes with permanent injury, the group called for banning the use of CS on humans.

“Exposure to high concentrations of tear gas in small, enclosed spaces for 10 minutes is potentially lethal, particularly to infants and children. . . ,” the organization concluded.

High levels of CS exposure have led to heart failure and death in adults, according to a 1989 report in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. The principal author of the study, Dr. Howard Hu of Harvard University Medical School, said he would have strongly recommended against firing CS into the Branch Davidian compound if there was any chance the occupants would remain inside.

*

In the days leading up to the assault, FBI officials told the attorney general they planned to introduce the CS gradually over two or three days. They hoped to force the Davidians out the front door by using gas at opposite ends of the compound.

But the tear-gas raid on April 19 was anything but gradual.

Within minutes of the initial delivery of two bottles of CS, the Davidians fired automatic weapons at the military armored vehicle, according to the Justice Department report. Two M-60 tanks and four Bradley fighting vehicles responded by launching an all-out assault on all areas of the building. Under the plan approved by Reno, the FBI was authorized to escalate the gassing operation if the tanks encountered resistance.

By 6:31 a.m., half an hour after the mission began, the entire building had been filled with CS. The rest of the morning, the FBI continued to deliver gas volleys through all openings of the residential structure to increase the pressure on the occupants.

The attack was so rapid that the tanks quickly exhausted the supply of tear-gas canisters that was to last for several days. At 7:45 a.m., senior FBI officials requested additional rounds of CS from field offices around the country. By the time the final gas volleys were fired at 11:40 a.m., the Bradley tanks had fired at least 300 rounds at the building and the M-60 combat vehicles had made six gas injections.

*

Clive Doyle was inside the chapel when an M-60 tank burst through the front door spraying CS and as additional so-called ferret rounds from the Bradley vehicles landed through the windows. While most Davidians in the chapel had gas masks, Doyle said, they only worked for about half an hour before the filters started to fail. He said there were screams as the gas burned the skin of some people and left others gasping.

“The ferret rounds were almost like rockets,” said Doyle, 54, who lived at the compound off and on for nearly three decades and was acquitted of all charges at the Branch Davidian trial last year.

“They crashed through windows, came whistling past your head and embedded themselves in the wall,” he said. “You could hear them hissing once they broke open. We were praying to God that somehow we would be delivered.”

Doyle said there was “no doubt” the gas poured into an aboveground concrete bunker where the women and children had retreated. The 20-by-21-foot bunker, which had been used as a locked vault and food cooler, was waist-deep in stored ammunition.

“The children had no protection from [the gas] being sprayed because there were no windows or major holes,” Doyle said. “I can imagine it was agonizing for them without gas masks and being in a cul-de-sac part of the building with no wind.”

FBI officials offered a contrasting view. They say that any suggestion that CS could have worked its way through rooms into the bunker is highly improbable.

“They probably would not have had to don gas masks or shed one tear from the CS that would have entered that bunker,” said the government specialist on tear gas.

The charred remains of children, including at least 10 who were younger than 3, were found in the bunker along with 13 women, seven men and a fetus. Coroner’s investigators determined that mothers put wet blankets around the children and held them in their arms before they died.

Given the large quantities of CS pumped into the building, it would have been very difficult for children to have walked out to safety, as envisioned by the FBI plan, some experts say.

“The kids would never have made it,” said George F. Uhlig, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of chemistry at the College of Eastern Utah who has researched the use of CS at Waco. “Eventually you pump in enough gas and you exclude breathing.”

An arson investigation team compiled by the Texas State Rangers found that the ensuing fire that engulfed the compound was deliberately set by one or more people inside the building. The team concluded that the fire was not caused or spread by any chemicals used in the gassing operation.

It is unclear how many Davidians inhaled the CS gas, according to the Justice Department report. The passage of at least an hour between the last gas attacks and the end of the fire would have allowed evidence of the gas to dissipate in the bodies.

“It is impossible to predict what role CS played in this case,” said Dr. Nizam Peerwani, chief medical examiner of Tarrant County, Tex., whose office performed the toxicological tests on the bodies.

While the criticism has mounted, the Justice Department has held firm that the use of the CS was appropriate. Within the past two weeks, Reno went back to Salem to ask him about the safety of CS gas, according to Justice Department spokesman Stern.

“He hasn’t changed his thinking at all,” Stern said.

Times staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow contributed to this story.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted associate and former girlfriend, invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to testify before a US congressional committee, with her lawyers saying she would only answer questions if granted clemency.

There have certainly been glimpses of what this team could be in recent weeks.

There was a devastating first-half display against Chelsea, a spirited hour away to Paris St-Germain and a fine opening half an hour or so at Anfield.

But games are not won in snatches.

It has been a frustration of the coaching staff that they have lacked the training time during an unrelenting run of fixtures to really work on things and piece it all together like they have during previous sticky spells.

Instead the players have come to rely on meeting rooms, analysis sessions and walk-throughs.

This is the reality of life at clubs who aspire to fight on multiple fronts, of course, but competing in four competitions was an unprecedented feat for Newcastle going into February.

The relentless nature of the schedule has had a knock-on effect on the squad – Bruno Guimaraes, Joelinton, Tino Livramento and Fabian Schar are all currently sidelined, while Anthony Gordon hobbled off with a hamstring issue on Wednesday night.

It has also had an impact on the adaptation of Newcastle‘s summer signings who, aside from defender Malick Thiaw, are still finding their feet at the club.

Thiaw, Jacob Ramsey, Nick Woltemade and Yoane Wissa all joined in the final fortnight or so of a turbulent window, in which the club operated without a sporting director and missed out on a host of top targets.

Newcastle, remarkably, are still searching for a settled combination in the final third despite spending £179m on forwards.

Elanga enjoyed a lively second-half cameo at the Etihad, but Woltemade was substituted at half-time – having failed to score since December – while the rusty Wissa missed a host of good chances in both legs.

It leaves Newcastle with more questions than answers as they embark on a crunch run of fixtures.

“Where does that leave our season?” Howe asked. “We’re still fighting on several fronts.

“The games are coming thick and fast. There’s no let-up for us. We need to get back to winning ways as quickly as possible. It’s the only thing that gives you new energy.”

The US has intensified threats against Iran if it doesn’t agree to its demands, as Trump says a ‘massive armada’ is amassing in the region. Al Jazeera’s Virginia Pietromarchi answers key questions on the latest escalation.

Published On 29 Jan 202629 Jan 2026

Click here to share on social media

Share

WHETHER you’re wondering which park to pick or you’ve already got yours booked, Tracy Kennedy is helping Sun readers make the most of their £9.50 holiday.

Tracy Kennedy, a Hols from 9.50 expert who has more than a quarter of a million followers online, has long been helping Sun holidaymakers plan their getaways.

If you fancy asking Tracy something else about the Sun’s Hols from £9.50, she’ll be answering your questions in her new agony aunt column in Sun Club.

One top question each week will be rewarded with a £100 Amazon voucher – use the form further down to send her your question.

Having stayed in holiday parks across the UK from the Isle of Wight to Bognor Regis, Tracy has experience staying in a range of locations.

Along the way she’s picked up some of the best tips and tricks for making the most of your break – and now she’s here to answer your questions.

Read more on £9.50 holidays

PITCH IN

We reveal the most popular £9.50 Holiday Parks last year as booking opens for 2026

TAKE FIVE

Our top picks for ‘fun under £5’ across all £9.50 Holiday destinations in the UK

From how to plan a romantic getaway for couples, to how to find a quiet site to avoid the crowds, our £9.50 Hols Agony Aunt has got you covered.

This week, Sun reader Paula Cubitt has been awarded best question of the week – which means she’s been selected to win a £100 Amazon voucher. Congratulations, Paula!

If I am unable to go on the holiday after booking, can I alter the date or venue? How do I do it?

Denise Houghton

Once you’ve had your confirmation through, speak to your chosen holiday site.

The £9.50 holidays website tells you to speak directly to the parks themselves.

They’re the best ones to tell you. Don’t do anything until you’ve spoken to them!

A lot of the parks are happy to change, but sometimes there’ll be a £20 admin fee or so to make amendments.

Some have rules that you can’t change dates, but some parks will change it for you. So it’s always worth asking. But they don’t give refunds.

How can I make sure I get disabled friendly caravans or chalets?

Paula Cubitt

If you need certain accommodation, use the contact form straight after you’ve booked.

You can fill it in to request the right kind of space. Make sure to contact them straight away, because there’s only so many at each resort.

It says more on the £9.50 Holidays website about how to speak to them once you’ve booked your holiday.

Where is ideal for a romantic getaway for couples?

Adam Meacham

For couples, I suggest maybe going somewhere abroad on a European holiday.

Somewhere in Italy, as there’s quite a few Italian sites. Because Italy is such a romantic country!

If you’re wanting to go away in the UK, it depends on how far you’re willing to travel and where you’re based.

But if you can, I’d say to go up to Scotland for one of the beautiful sites up there – plenty of the Scottish sites welcoming to dogs too.

Can an older couple enjoy a £9.50 holiday, or are they for families?

Tracey Wolverson

There’s lots of things to do for couples and older couples.

Check your preferred park on the website to see what they offer. You can always go for a drink, have a meal, play bingo or go swimming.

Walks along the beach are nice too, or going out to explore the little villages nearby.

For couples looking for lots of things to do, I’d recommend Billing Aquadrome in Northampton.

There’s loads of adults and kids stuff. Lakes and streams to walk around, a lovely bar. It’s absolutely amazing.

It’s also only a 10-minute taxi ride from the closest train station.

Tips for those who want to travel by train?

Monica Johnstone

Firstly you should look at your preferred sites to work out how to get there from where you live.

Look at how far the train station is from the park and how easy it would be to take a bus or a taxi from there.

Also you should book your train tickets as early as you can to get the best deals.

If you go to somewhere like Caerelwan, you can literally get off the train, walk out the station and you’re there.

You’re practically next to the tracks, but you can’t hear the trains, it’s great!

There you’ve got a pub down the road, arcades, and a little shop.

How to find quieter sites?

Dora White

I’d say all sites can be quiet, if you book to go out of season.

Maybe book a holiday just before the kids break up. But bear in mind that Scotland break up for school before England do.

If you go between the school holidays, the sites won’t be full of children so are usually quieter.

A good park for some peace and quiet is The Lakes Rookley on the Isle of Wight.

The views are amazing around there, and it’s definitely very quiet.

You can go off site and do plenty of walking. Even on the site itself there’s a lovely lake to walk around, it’s very peaceful.

Everywhere is reachable from there, too. You can jump on an island hopper bus and they can literally take you around the whole island.

You just buy a day saver ticket. So then you can leave the car behind if you fancy a drink.

Tracy’s top tips for £9.50 Holiday planning

Before booking, Tracy recommends researching any dates you can and can’t make ahead of time.

This includes making a note of when the school holidays are, and any key events you have coming up in the year.

You should also consider how far you’re willing to travel, and how exactly you’ll reach the holiday park.

This includes planning out the car journey, or researching ahead of time where the nearest train stations are to the holiday parks.

You should also double check that the park you want has the right facilities for you.

Whether this is accessible accommodation or dog-friendly sites, Tracy says you should definitely check ahead of time to see if the park offers what you need.

Entertainment on offer can change depending on which holiday park you choose, and which time of year you go.

Tracy recommends looking up the entertainment schedule ahead of time to know what will be available once you’re there – especially if you’re bringing kids.

And if your top picks have already been fully booked – don’t worry, they might just be back.

Lots of popular parks get snapped up the minute that booking opens, and gradually more and more places become filled.

But sometimes, later in the year, new spots open up at various holiday parks.

Tracy recommends hopping back on the website from time to time to see if any secret deals have been added.

However, there;s no guarantee that more spaces will open up – so make sure to have some backup holiday parks in mind that you wouldn’t mind booking.