State Farm stalled, rejected claims and stretched the process out for wildfire survivors far longer than they say the law allows. Now, those victims are headed for court.

Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit this week against the Illinois-based insurance giant, accusing State Farm of violating California laws and regulations in the way it handled claims tied to the Palisades and Eaton fires on Jan. 7.

The county alleges the company delayed payments on fire claims, offered homeowners settlements far below what they were owed and left policyholders in financial distress. The lawsuit also claims State Farm repeatedly reassigned insurance adjusters, forcing customers to restart or re-explain their cases, downplayed or suppressed smoke-damage claims and misled the public with advertising suggesting it would be there to help.

For residents of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and Pasadena, the accusations will sound painfully familiar.

In 2025, as State Farm reported nearly $13 billion in profit — more than double the previous year’s total — the county says the company was squeezing desperate California families over the coverage they needed most.

Rather than paying 100% of losses for personal property off the bat, State Farm only offered 50%, unless customers compiled “the list” — the dreaded itemization of every lost possession, an experience that many fire victims likened to losing their homes all over again.

Only media coverage, and legislative pressure, moved the company to raise its default payout to 65%.

California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara showed little interest in cracking down on State Farm, at first.

MORE STORY: Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas Adviser to Former FBI Director James Comey: Report

It took a protest movement — organized by the Every Fire Survivor’s Network — to push him to take action, and investigate the company.

Lara’s investigation ultimately found a shocking pattern of violations by the company, and threatened its license to operate in California.

Ironically, wildfire survivors who still had State Farm policies were the lucky ones: The company canceled coverage for many residents in the months, and even days, leading up to the fire.

The drama continues. Earlier this week, legislators in Sacramento reached a deal on SB 492, a bill to protect wildfire victims from caps on damages. Gavin Newsom wanted to protect the big utilities, but backed down in the end.

However, on Monday, the Legislature failed to vote on SB 492. That means Gov. Newsom could call a special legislative session to deal with the issue.

Rather than bailing out utility companies, or protecting insurance companies, our leaders need to put wildfire victims first. 

LA County did that this week. State Farm will be held accountable — and it’s about time.

CHICAGO (WLS) — Newly released internal emails from U.S. Customs and Border Protection are offering fresh insight into the sudden departure of the official who oversaw aggressive immigration enforcement efforts in the Chicago area last fall.

Gregory Bovino, the former U.S. Border Patrol commander-in-chief, became the public face of “Operation Midway Blitz,” drawing sharp criticism from residents who accused agents of creating chaos through their use-of-force tactics.

ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

The newly disclosed federal emails indicate Bovino was the subject of an investigation at the time he announced his retirement in March.

Speaking with the I-Team on Tuesday, Bovino said he was “forced to leave.”

In a March 2, 2026, email, an internal investigator informed Bovino that officials were “conducting an official Inquiry into allegations of misconduct reported to CBP” and directed him to respond to a set of questions “fully and truthfully.”

Those questions centered around allegations of Bovino lacking credibility in a Chicago federal course case, and allegations that he made an antisemitic remark to a prosecutor in Minnesota.

Responding to the I-Team’s questions, Bovino sent a statement he attributed to an attorney that said in part, “Greg Bovino was forced to retire” and that the investigation was politically motivated and “weaponized.”

“Bovino had enough experience to know he wouldn’t get a fair shake, a fact driven home by legal counsel who advised him to retire immediately,” the statement read.

Last November, Bovino’s tactics during Operation Midway Blitz were the focus of a federal use-of-force lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis questioned the credibility of Bovino’s testimony, writing he was “evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing ‘cute’ responses to Plaintiff’s counsel’s questions or outright lying.”

During a deposition, Bovino was asked about an incident where federal agents shot pepper balls at a Reverand protesting outside of the Broadview ICE detention center.

MORE STORY: New York Rangers Near One-Year Contract Agreement With Eeli Tolvanen

An attorney asked Bovino, “Can you look me in the eye and acknowledge that the use of force applied against Reverend Black that is depicted in the video and in these photographs is unacceptable and inappropriate and should not have happened?”

“I can tell you that I don’t know what the use of force was here, and I can’t make a judgment either way because I don’t know,” Bovino responded.

Judge Ellis cited that exchange and in a court order, wrote, “when shown video of agents hitting Rev. Black with pepper balls, Bovino denied seeing a projectile hit Rev. Black in the head.”

Ellis also referenced Bovino’s denial of his own use of force against a man he tackled outside of the facility, and another incident in Little Village captured on cell phone video showing Bovino throwing a tear-gas cannister into a crowd.

Bovino “admitted…that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters,” Judge Ellis declared.

Bovino has repeatedly defended all use of force by immigration agents in Chicago.

“I believe that all uses of force that I’ve seen, and all arrests that I’ve seen, have been more than exemplary,” Bovino said during a Nov. 4 deposition.

In his text response to the I-Team, Bovino denied any wrongdoing, saying the country should be uniting conservatives toward true mass deportations ahead of the midterms, not doing the opposite.

The newly released emails show sixteen days after Bovino was notified of the misconduct inquiry, he announced his retirement in late March.

Tyler Robinson, accused in the assassination of conservative commentator and activist Charlie Kirk, is headed to trial after a Utah judge determined Tuesday that the prosecution had presented enough evidence to advance all seven charges in the case.

Moments after Judge Tony Graf delivered the ruling, Robinson entered not guilty pleas to every count. Graf also allowed prosecutors to continue pursuing capital punishment, finding there was probable cause to support the allegation that Kirk had been specifically targeted — a key factor in keeping the death penalty enhancement in play.

“Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is sufficient at this stage to support a reasonable belief that the defendant is the individual who shot and killed Charlie Kirk,” Graf said.

Graf emphasized that the standard at a preliminary hearing is not whether prosecutors have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there is enough evidence to send the charges to trial.

“Whether the state can prove the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt remains for trial,” Graf said. “Count one is bound over for trial.”

The judge also sided with prosecutors on the victim-targeting allegation against Robinson, concluding that the state had established probable cause for the allegation.

Graf ultimately ordered Robinson to stand trial on all seven charges: aggravated murder; felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury; two counts of obstruction of justice; two counts of witness tampering; and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child.

The aggravated murder and firearm charges are first-degree felonies, while the obstruction charges are second-degree felonies and the witness tampering charges are third-degree felonies. The final charge,committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, is a Class A misdemeanor.

The court moved directly into Robinson’s arraignment after Graf issued his ruling. The defense waived a formal reading of the charges, and Robinson’s attorney entered not guilty pleas on his behalf.

The ruling came hours after another courtroom fight over whether cameras should be allowed to remain in the high-profile proceedings.

Following closed-door arguments Tuesday morning and additional arguments in open court, Graf again denied a defense motion seeking to remove cameras from the courtroom.

Robinson’s attorneys had raised concerns about the intense publicity surrounding the case, including what they described as online marketplace gambling tied to its outcome.

RELATED: Christian Nielsen Now: Inside the Labor Day B&B Murders

Graf ruled cameras could remain, subject to the restrictions laid out in his courtroom decorum order.

Kirk, 31, was shot and killed Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking before thousands at an outdoor Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Prosecutors have accused Robinson of firing the fatal shot from an elevated position overlooking the crowd.

Before Tuesday’s hearing ended, Jeff Neiman, an attorney representing Kirk’s family, urged the court to move the case toward trial without unnecessary delays and pushed back against comments defense attorney Richard Novak made about Kirk.

“Charlie devoted his life to building a community of over a million young people rooted in faith and freedom. He had hard conversations others were too afraid to have,” Neiman told the court.

“Charlie was the opposite of hate,” he continued. “Firing a bullet into a crowd and assassinating him. That is hate.”

Neiman said Kirk’s family recognizes Robinson’s right to a fair trial but wants the case to move forward swiftly.

“The United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants many rights. The right to delay is not among them,” Neiman said. “The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, and he must be given one. But nothing more is owed.”

“We have no doubt this court will give the defendant a fair trial,” he added. “We ask that it do so swiftly.”

Neiman later specifically asked Graf to set a trial date at Robinson’s next court appearance so Kirk’s family would know when the case is expected to move forward.

Robinson is due back in court Oct. 23 at 1 p.m. local time for a status conference and has been ordered to appear. A trial date could be set at that hearing.

Following Tuesday’s hearing, Kirk’s family said Graf’s decision to send Robinson to trial marks “an important step” in their pursuit of justice nearly one year after Kirk’s death.

“Today’s decision, which comes nearly a year since Charlie was taken from us, marks an important step in our family’s pursuit of justice for him,” the family said in a statement.

The family said every stage of the case has carried “the weight of all that Charlie’s murder has taken,” especially for Kirk’s children, who “will grow up without their father.”

As the case moves toward trial, the family said they remain committed to seeking justice for Charlie while praying for “a transparent and timely process.”

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey defeated a much younger primary rival on Tuesday, reinforcing the staying power of veteran lawmakers in one of the nation’s most reliably blue states.

Markey, 80, was declared the winner of the U.S. Senate primary Tuesday evening after a contentious race against Rep. Seth Moulton, 47.

Early results showed Markey holding a commanding lead of more than 35 points over Moulton.

Moulton centered his campaign on a call for generational change, arguing that long-serving politicians in Washington have produced too few meaningful wins for their constituents.

But that message failed to gain traction in Massachusetts, where Markey leaned on his decades-long reputation as a progressive standard-bearer and drew a sharp contrast with Moulton’s more moderate record.

Ro Khanna, one of the most progressive members of the US House caucus who has complained about the ‘old guard’ of his party but endorsed Markey, told CNN State of the Union host Dana Bash last Sunday that,’ Markey, on the other hand, has been a champion for working-class values.’ 

‘He’s been a critic of globalization and wealth inequality. So, to me, it’s not about just your age, though I think that is a relevant factor. It’s also your platform,’ Khanna noted. 

Markey’s other progressive backers include Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal. 

He heralded his progressive platform before the vote was even tallied, championing Medicare for All, abolishing ICE and ‘taxing the rich.’ 

MORE STORY: Nevada Couple Explains Why They Drove Into Top-Secret Facility

Tuesday’s result also marks the end of another unsuccessful bid for higher office from Moulton, who also ran for Democratic nomination for president during the 2020 cycle, aged just 40 years old at the time.

His long-shot bid ended early in the primary cycle in 2019, after he failed to gain viability in a field that at the time had over 20 candidates.

Incumbents have fallen in other primaries this year – at the hands of progressives. 

Three candidates backed by socialist New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won their primaries in June, among them Brad Lander, who once ran against Mamdani for mayor and who ousted Representatibve Dan Goldman as the congressman sought a third term.

Adriano Espaillat, the 71-year-old chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, was toppled by Mamdani-backed Darializa Avila Chevalier.

In Colorado, 29-year-old Democratic socialist Melat Kiros unseated Diana DeGette after nearly 30 years in Congress.

Republicans face an uphill battle to keep their sweeping power as the November midterm general elections quickly approach.

An exclusive Daily Mail/JL Partners poll in July showed that voters said they’d vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming November midterm elections – by nine points.

And even Trump himself has cast doubt on the GOP’s chance at success with concerns about whether conservative voters will show up to vote this fall – especially because he’s not on the ballot.

Despite close races in other states across the country, the US Senate seat in Massachusetts is all but set to remain in Democratic hands. John Deaton, a lawyer and Marine veteran, is the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has set the stage with the spotlight firmly on Hollywood.

Now the question is whether Congress is ready to deliver the next act.

On Monday, the Trump administration urged federal lawmakers to help revive American film and television production by approving nationwide tax credits designed to keep more projects shooting in the United States.

Such tax breaks are not a flawless cure for the entertainment industry’s deeper challenges, and they will not solve every problem facing studios, crews and the broader Hollywood economy.

Still, they are a practical move in the right direction. If Washington wants to strengthen domestic production and protect U.S. entertainment jobs, lawmakers should get behind Trump’s proposal.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Trump would play a starring role in reviving an industry whose denizens mostly revile him?

But it just goes to show how fundamental show biz is to the health, success and creative vitality of California –– and the nation.

Tax credits to select industries are generally not ideal as policy; government, as a rule, should not pick winners and losers. But in this case they’re the better option: a key tool toward part of what ought to be a larger effort to revitalize Tinseltown.

Hollywood’s under duress for a range of reasons, including industry labor strife; lower production costs abroad; better tax credits in other states; and years of woke content, changing viewer habits and the growth of AI.

But it’s not scene over.

Instead, it’s time for reinvention.

The storied hub of glitz, glamor and (some) great stories can rebound. 

ALSO READ: Chase Stokes Responds to Plastic Surgery Rumors Circulating Online

The federal tax relief can help –– and we credit Trump and his allies, including former LA mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt and actor and Hollywood ambassador Jon Voigt, for bringing them closer to screen. 

Heck, even California Sen. Adam Schiff backs the proposed production incentives. When’s the last time we saw Trump and Schiff agree on something? 

They have the right idea. 

Hollywood’s health is key to the broader story. The entertainment biz supports more than 325,000 jobs in the Los Angeles region –– and generates an estimated tens of billions of dollars a year for LA County’s economy.

The region is also a creative engine for California –– and the state and nation need the innovation that sectors like Hollywood and Silicon Valley deliver.

But, as we have noted, California needs more than federal support.

It needs a culture change.

The state and its regions need to curb regulations, restrain taxes, support business, quash crime and deal far more seriously with homelessness –– moves that would help all state industry flourish.

And Hollywood itself, and its unions, need to be realistic about what audiences want and what the industry can sustain in a world of AI, streaming, YouTube and more.

The lights and camera are set. 

Now comes the hard part: the action. Let’s get cracking.