News
Top Florida Republicans praise California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s banning of homeless camps
GOP Rep. Sam Garrison, in line to be the next Fla. House speaker, said he was glad Newsom acknowledged ‘the damage chronic homelessness does to communities and businesses.’
Gov. Newsom issues executive order for removal of homeless encampments
The order comes after the recent Supreme Court decision giving local governments more leeway in the removal of homeless encampments.
Fox – Ktvu
Top Florida Republicans, including a leading lawmaker and governor’s office staff, are applauding Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom for his executive order to remove homeless encampments across the Golden State.
“I’m glad to see Governor Newsom finally accept reality and acknowledge the damage chronic homelessness does to communities and businesses,” said state Rep. Sam Garrison, R-Fleming Island, in a statement.
Garrison, who is in line to be Florida House speaker in 2026-28, thanked Gov. Ron DeSantis for signing “Unauthorized Public Camping and Public Sleeping” (HB 1365), which prohibits local municipalities from allowing people to camp or sleep on public property.
“The Free State of Florida rejects the siren song of comfortable inaction and instead chooses to lead the way,” Garrison added.
The order requires state departments and agencies in California to address encampments on state property. Notices to vacate must be posted at least 48 hours in advance, and personal property will be bagged, tagged and stored for at least 60 days, according to the executive order.
“No more excuses. We’ve provided the time. We’ve provided the funds. Now it’s time for locals to do their job,” Newsom wrote in a post on X.
California’s move to ban homeless encampments comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late June it’s not “cruel and unusual” to fine and jail people for being camping and living in public spaces.
DeSantis spokesman Bryan Griffin urged California to make the executive order a state law. “Keep following the Florida model,” he posted on X.
Christina Pushaw, the special projects director for DeSantis’ communications team, wrote in a social post that she was doubtful Newsom could enforce his executive order.
“I do hope California is able to clean up the homeless encampments because they’re squalid, dangerous, and should not exist in a civilized society. However, as with anything Newsom says, I’ll believe it when I see it,” she wrote.
As previously reported, the deadline to comply with Florida’s new anti-camping law is drawing near, and local municipalities are scrambling to comply.
In March, the City of Orlando was looking at facilities for an emergency overnight shelter, said spokesperson Ashley Papagni.
And the Tampa Bay Times recently reported Pinellas County law enforcement agencies have started to track the location and number of homeless people who sleep outside.
DeSantis has touted the state’s anti-camping law as the “Florida Model,” a way to keep the state from looking like San Francisco, a city that he had previously said “collapsed because of leftist policies.”
DeSantis and Newsom have a fierce rivalry, even debating each other last year on Fox News. Newsom has criticized DeSantis over abortion and immigration, and DeSantis has consistently used California as an example of what Florida isn’t.
“We’re basically saying in the state of Florida, a municipality or county is just simply not allowed to embrace San Francisco-style policies,” DeSantis said in March. “You can make other choices, but you can’t make that choice. Why? Because every time that choice has been made, the result has been destructive.”
In 2023, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) counted 18,815 year-round shelter beds in emergency, safe haven and transitional housing in Florida. That same year, the state had 30,756 people experiencing homelessness, with 15,482 people unsheltered.
In 2023, the Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found Hardee, Hendry and Highlands counties had the second-highest rate of homelessness in the nation.
Ana Goñi-Lessan, state watchdog reporter for the USA TODAY Network – Florida, can be reached at agonilessan@gannett.com.
News
Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn
Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.
Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.
A sloppy edit
At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.
The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”
Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”
The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”
While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.
A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.
Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.
The appeal of BritBox
For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.
That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.
Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”
Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)
It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.
Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.
Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)
“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.
NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.
Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn
Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.
Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.
In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.
Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.
Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.
“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”
An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.
“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”
Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement
Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.
“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”
Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.
News
Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
transcript
transcript
Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.
-
Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.
By Shawn Paik
December 16, 2025
News
Nick Reiner will be charged with first degree murder in his parents’ killing
Michele Singer Reiner, Rob Reiner and their son Nick in 2013.
Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue
hide caption
toggle caption
Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue
Nick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer Michele Singer Reiner, is being charged with two counts of first degree murder. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said at a press conference Tuesday that the charges include a “special circumstance” of multiple murders and a “special allegation” that Reiner used a dangerous and deadly weapon — a knife.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
“No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty,” Hochman added.
Hochman called Rob Reiner an “iconic force in our entertainment industry” and his wife Michele Singer Reiner an “equally iconic photographer and producer.” The police became aware of their deaths on Sunday after a call from the fire department. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the cause and time of the deaths aren’t available at this time as they await updates from the coroner’s office.
Alan Hamilton, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said that Nick Reiner was arrested in public on Sunday, in the Exposition Park area of Los Angeles, near the University of Southern California campus. In response to questions, McDonnell said he was unable to say whether or not Nick Reiner was under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest. Reiner had been open about his struggles with addiction in the past.


When asked whether there was evidence of mental illness in Nick Reiner’s background, Hochman said “any evidence, if there is any” would be presented in court. Hochman wouldn’t answer a question about whether Reiner admitted to the crimes, saying that is the type of evidence that would come out in court.
Hochman emphasized that “charges are not evidence” and that his office would be presenting evidence to jurors in a court of law. He asked people to rely on trusted sources and not hearsay about the case.
He said that, as in any case, his office would be taking “the thoughts and desires of the family into consideration.”
Prosecutors are filing charges Tuesday afternoon. Reiner is going through medical clearance – a normal process, according to officials – and will be brought to court for arraignment, where he will enter a plea. Reiner is currently being held without bail.


-
Iowa2 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maine18 hours agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Technology6 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster