Connect with us

Business

Mass Federal Firings May Imperil Pets, Cattle and Crops

Published

on

Mass Federal Firings May Imperil Pets, Cattle and Crops

Shortly after taking office for the second time, President Trump began making deep cuts to agencies and programs that play critical roles in human health, slashing funding for medical research, halting global health aid and firing scores of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But the campaign to downsize government, which has been led by Mr. Trump and Elon Musk, has also hollowed out agencies and programs devoted to protecting plant and animal health. The recent wave of mass firings hit federal workers responding to the nation’s growing bird flu outbreak, protecting crops from damaging pests and ensuring the safety of pet food and medicine, among other critical duties.

Although the government has since rescinded some of these firings, the terminations — combined with a federal hiring freeze and buyout offers — are depleting the ranks of federal programs that are already short on employees and resources, experts said.

The damage could be long-lasting. Workers whose jobs were spared said that the upheaval had left them eyeing the exits, and graduate students said they were reconsidering careers in the federal government. The shrinking work force could also have far-reaching consequences for trade and food security and leave the nation unequipped to tackle future threats to plant and animal health, experts said.

“These really were indiscriminate firings,” said John Ternest, who lost his job at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he was preparing to conduct studies on honeybee health and crop pollination. “We don’t know what we’ve lost until it’s potentially too late.”

Advertisement

The most recent wave of firings focused on the roughly 200,000 “probationary” employees across the federal government, who had fewer job protections because they were relatively new to their positions. (For some roles, the probationary period can be as long as three years, and it can also reset when longtime employees are promoted.)

The exact size and scope of the job losses remain unclear, and the U.S.D.A. did not answer questions about the number of workers who had been terminated or reinstated at several of its agencies.

But in an emailed statement, a U.S.D.A. spokesman said that Brooke Rollins, the new secretary of agriculture, “fully supports President Trump’s directive to optimize government operations, eliminate inefficiencies and strengthen U.S.D.A.’s ability to better serve American farmers, ranchers and the agriculture community.”

Reports suggest that the department has lost thousands of employees.

That includes roughly 400 people who worked in its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, according to one U.S.D.A. official who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. The plant protection and quarantine program within APHIS was especially hard hit, losing more than 200 employees, including agricultural inspectors, entomologists, taxonomists and even tree climbers who surveyed for pests, the official said.

Advertisement

Some of the fired workers were responsible for combating invasive, plant-killing insects, such as the Asian long-horned beetle, within the nation’s borders. Others worked to ensure that agricultural products entering and exiting the country were free of pests and pathogens. Exotic fruit flies pose a particular risk to American agriculture, including the citrus and berry industries.

The terminations are already causing import delays at the nation’s ports, according to the U.S.D.A. official. Over the longer term, if agricultural pests and pathogens found their way into the country, they could infest the nation’s homegrown crops, threatening food security and reducing demand for American agricultural products abroad.

“If the United States gets a reputation for having dirty products, does that mean other countries will also, you know, step in and say, ‘Hey, we don’t want to buy your goods’?” the official said.

The firings also hit the agency’s veterinary services program, which inspects imported livestock for disease and plays a key role in the nation’s bird flu response, said Dr. Joseph Annelli, the executive vice president of the National Association of Federal Veterinarians.

The U.S.D.A. has quickly rehired some of the employees who were involved in the bird flu response, suggesting that their firings had been a mistake. But even before the recent terminations, the government was short on veterinarians, Dr. Annelli said. “There has not been adequate staffing for at least 10 years,” he said. “We need more veterinarians, not less.”

Advertisement

The agency was in the midst of hiring additional people to assist with the bird flu response, Dr. Annelli said, but the federal hiring freeze put that process on hold.

The workers who remain are nervous about the long-term stability of their jobs. “I’m not very optimistic,” said one current veterinary services employee, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation and has already applied for another position outside the U.S. government.

Roughly 800 people, including the leaders of laboratories, were also fired across the Agricultural Research Service, the in-house scientific agency at the U.S.D.A, according to a department official who was not authorized to discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The firings brought a wide range of research projects to an abrupt halt and left the technicians and the students who worked in these labs in limbo.

One New York lab was in the middle of investigating a potential outbreak of late blight, a potato disease, when the lead scientist was fired, said Isako Di Tomassi, a graduate student at Cornell University who worked in the lab. Potato samples from a large, commercial farm are now locked up in the shuttered lab, “untouched and untested,” Ms. Di Tomassi said.

Advertisement

Scientists and statisticians working in the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska, which studies livestock genetics and breeding, were also terminated, including those working on research projects in food safety and salmonella testing. The firings have led to objections from Nebraskas’s Republican congressional delegation and industry groups.

“We understand and respect the federal government’s desire to cut wasteful spending, but the truth of the matter is, U.S. MARC does not fall in that category,” the Nebraska Cattlemen Association said in a statement. The work being done at the center, the statement continued, “has potential to reduce costs for the beef industry long term and improve food safety for consumers.”

Some — but not all — of the agency’s scientists were reinstated this week. Still, the mass firings could do lasting reputational damage to the agency, they said.

“I think that people that want to earnestly do science are going to be viewing and remembering these decisions and how scientists are being treated,” said one agricultural researcher who was fired and then rehired and requested anonymity to protect the job.

In interviews, several graduate students in agricultural science said that they were no longer sure whether they could build research careers in the federal government.

Advertisement

“My future as a scientist seems very uncertain right now,” Ms. Di Tomassi said.

“Getting a federal scientist position is a big deal,” she added. “It’s not easy to do, and all of that investment is now being let go.”

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention primarily concerns itself with human health, the agency also aims to prevent zoonotic diseases, including by regulating the entry of animals — particularly those than can carry pathogens — into the United States.

For example, the agency does not permit dogs that have recently been in countries with a high prevalence of rabies to enter the United States unless they have been vaccinated against the disease. C.D.C. officers also examine animals at port stations, and isolate or quarantine those exposed to dangerous pathogens.

But the Trump administration recently dismissed about half of the C.D.C. employees at the agency’s 20 port health stations, leaving some stations entirely unattended.

Advertisement

Calls to the port station in San Juan, P.R., last week were rerouted to the station in Miami, where a C.D.C. employee who declined to be identified said that no one would be at the San Juan post “for a very long time.”

Workers were also fired from the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. Among those affected were employees reviewing data on novel animal medicines and working to ensure that pet food and animal feed were free of contaminants.

Those teams were already short-staffed, said two fired employees, who asked not to be identified because they are appealing their terminations. They worried that the losses could slow down the approval of new animal drugs and even cause dangerous products to fall through the cracks.

“It’s a gap in the safety structure,” one of the employees said. “They’re big challenges and there’s no one else to take it on. That’s the job of government.”

Linda Qiu contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Business

Capital Group buys Bunker Hill skyscraper

Published

on

Capital Group buys Bunker Hill skyscraper

Los Angeles fund manager Capital Group has completed its $210-million purchase of the Bunker Hill skyscraper it already occupied as a renter and vows to continue expanding its downtown presence.

Capital Group was an anchor tenant at Bank of America Plaza, which it will now operate as a landlord. The 55-story tower at 333 S. Hope St. was completed in 1974 and has long ranked as one downtown’s most prominent office addresses. Capital Group has been headquartered there since 1978.

Bank of America Plaza at 333 S. Hope St. was purchased by investment firm Capital Group. The building also houses the firm’s headquarters.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The move to buy the building at a substantial discount to its previous value is part of a pattern of well-heeled tenants deciding to become owners instead of renters in recent years as office property values plunged due to the pandemic and a shift to remote work for many companies.

“We knew the best landlord we could possibly have would be ourselves,” said Capital Group Chief Executive Mike Gitlin when the sale was first announced in April.

Bank of America Plaza’s previous owner, Brookfield Properties, defaulted on a $400 million loan and put the building on the market instead of facing foreclosure.

It was the largest office sale in Los Angeles in 2026 and the largest in Los Angeles County since 2023, according to real estate brokerage Colliers, which marketed the property on behalf of the court-appointed receiver.

Potential buyers competing for Bank of America Plaza included both private and institutional investors from the U.S. and overseas, said Mark Schuessler, a broker at Colliers.

Advertisement

Capital Group has been headquartered in downtown Los Angeles since it was founded in 1931, according to Chief Operating Officer Rob Klausner . “We view it as the ideal location to invest in as we bring our Los Angeles based teams together,” he said.

Capital Group is the largest occupant in the building, taking up 350,000 square feet on 14 floors. It plans to gradually take over another five floors as it consolidates employees from other offices downtown and in Santa Monica.

“The best way to ensure a great environment in downtown L.A. is to create what we’re calling a vertical campus” with 2,100 employees, Gitlin said. “It was just this unique opportunity where the price was much lower than it had been historically, and it was for sale.”

Bank of America is also a large tenant in the building and will continue to have its name on top. Other occupants include economic consulting firm Analysis Group Inc., law firm Musick Peeler & Garrett and Alliant Insurance Services.

Capital Group has more than 9,000 employees in 34 offices in multiple countries. It manages $3.4 trillion in assets for millions of wealth management and institutional clients, a representative said. 

Advertisement

Owner-users have surged as key players in L.A.’s office market, now accounting for nearly half of all deals, according to real estate data provider CoStar , while institutional investors’ share of purchases has fallen from 45% to 26%.

Office users from the public sector are among the buyers. The city of Los Angeles plans to buy a 35-story tower downtown for use by the Department of Water and Power.

Manulife U.S. Real Estate Investment Trust said in April that it would sell its high-rise at 865 S. Figueroa St. for $92.5 million pending approval from Los Angeles officials. It has an assessed value of $248 million.

Another major public buyer of a downtown office building was Los Angeles County, which in 2024 bought Gas Co. Tower for $200 million, a steep drop from its $632-million valuation in 2020. County officials said at the time that the foreclosure sale was too good a deal to pass up.

The county is gradually moving workers into the 55-story skyscraper at the base of Bunker Hill that was widely considered one of the city’s most desirable office buildings when it was completed in 1991.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: Small investors have powered SpaceX higher, but they’ll shoulder much of the risk when reality bites

Published

on

Commentary: Small investors have powered SpaceX higher, but they’ll shoulder much of the risk when reality bites

Who will pay the price when the SpaceX hype ebbs? History says it will be the little guy.

In the second trading day as a public company, SpaceX’s initial public offering still was being treated as an extraordinary event in Wall Street history:

The largest IPO ever, creating the first trillionaire in Elon Musk, its boss, and bringing the company’s market value to $2.28 trillion.

On Monday, the stock gained 19.6% on top of its first-day gain of 19%, closing at $192.50. But the IPO is extraordinary in other ways that are becoming more clear as the pre-IPO frenzy yields to the company’s post-IPO reality.

The SpaceX IPO raises unprecedented questions about Wall Street’s role in future mega-IPOs, what this event means for the current bull market in stocks, the wisdom of concentrating so much wealth in so few hands and the rise of wealth inequality. The answers to these questions may not be pretty.

Advertisement

The fact that Wall Street designed a deal that needed $20 billion of retail money to get it across the line tells you something about who they wanted in the building.

— Financial commentator Patrick Boyle

Last week, I pointed to some issues connected to the SpaceX IPO, including the utterly fantastical rationale for the company’s outsized market valuation and the prospect that billions of dollars of shares may be shoved into the retirement accounts of investors who don’t want them, thanks to the willingness of Nasdaq and other stock index sponsors to accept the shares into their indices well ahead of the customary “seasoning” delay.

But there’s more to think about. Start with the paucity of control that shareholders will get for their investments.

Advertisement

Law professor Ann Lipton, who monitors shareholder rights from the University of Colorado, reminds us of the traditional observation that “shareholders have three powers with respect to the corporations in which they invest: to vote, to sell, and to sue,” enabling them to “protect their investment and discipline management.”

Investors in SpaceX have none of those options.

The single votes that they acquire for every SpaceX Class A share offered in the IPO is swamped by the 10 votes per share of the company’s class B stock. As I reported last week, Musk will own a mere 12.3% of the Class A shares, but 93.6% of the Class B shares, which have 10 votes each. That gives him 85.1% of all shareholder votes.

As a result, the prospectus says, “Mr. Musk will be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval,” including the selection of directors and even whether he himself should step down.

Wall Street firms have enticed retail investors into buying into the IPO — Fidelity, for example, reduced the minimum account balance allowing clients to buy into an IPO from $100,000-$500,000 to $2,000.

Advertisement

But although those buyers can sell at any time, they will be punished for selling within the first 15 days after the IPO: The “first flip,” Fidelity warns, will result in their being blocked from future IPOs for six months; a second flip blocks them for a year and a third blocks them permanently.

On the other hand, insiders can sell a lot sooner than is customary. Typically, insiders of newly public companies have to wait at least six months before selling their shares, a period known as the lockup.

SpaceX insiders, however, can start selling their shares as soon as the second trading day after the company issues its second-quarter financial disclosure, expected around Aug. 11. (Musk and some other highly placed insiders have committed to holding their shares for at least 366 days.)

SpaceX reserved an unusually large tranche of its IPO for retail investors — 20% or more of the $75 billion raised. “The fact that Wall Street designed a deal that needed $20 billion of retail money to get it across the line tells you something about who they wanted in the building,” notes the former hedge fund operator and YouTube financial commentator Patrick Boyle.

Why did the company and its underwriters do that? It’s because, compared with institutions, retail investors are credulous, vulnerable to hype, and given to hanging on to a stock long after institutions have done the math on an underperforming investment and exited.

Advertisement

Shareholder lawsuits? Nope. The SpaceX bylaws require that any shareholder actions be brought not in court, but in arbitration — traditionally a management-favoring venue.

So no vote, no sales, no lawsuits. That might not matter as much if shareholders could count on the SpaceX board to protect their interests, but your old Magic 8 Ball, if it’s on the ball, might counsel: “Don’t count on it.”

Of the six board members listed in the IPO prospectus (not counting Musk and Gwynne Shotwell, who basically runs SpaceX as its chief operating officer), four are old cronies of Musk’s. They’re Ira Ehrenpreis, a longtime director of Tesla, which Musk controls; Antonio Gracias, a director of Musk’s private firms Neuralink and the Boring Co. and a former Tesla director; Steve Jurvetson, another former Tesla director; and Luke Nosek, a co-founder of PayPal, which was the original source of Musk’s wealth.

The boards of Musk’s companies have generally indulged his desires. Gracias and Jurvetson were on the board of SolarCity, which Musk merged into Tesla when the former was looking financially impaired in 2016. Ehrenpreis was on the Tesla board when it gifted Musk with a $1-trillion pay package last year.

That brings us to the question of whether it’s healthy for society to have so much wealth concentrated in the hands of mega-plutocrats such as Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Musk. These are people who are not at all shy about wielding their wealth to get their way, devil take the hindmost. Herman Melville put his finger on the issue in Moby-Dick, through Father Mapple’s sermon, in which he thunders, “Sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport; whereas Virtue, if a pauper, is stopped at all frontiers.”

Advertisement

Melville wrote that in 1851, but it echoes in Musk’s DOGE service, where his henchpersons ran roughshod through federal programs, stripping them of personnel and funds in what turned out to be a vastly overstated claim of budgetary savings. The wreckage included the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which could have played an important role in addressing the ongoing Ebola virus outbreak, the cause of illness and death for hundreds of victims in Africa.

But DOGE helped the Trump administration reduce USAID to an empty shell. “About two weeks into the Trump administration, Musk tweeted that he just spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” recalls former USAID health official Nicholas Enrich, who was present at the destruction.

The siren song of Musk’s wealth and the prospect that investors would buy in despite the fantastical claims being made for SpaceX’s future allowed Musk to bully the biggest Wall Street investment banks into capitulating to his vision, and to his personal IPO design. (The IPO prospectus lists 32 banks as underwriters.)

In a normal IPO, the banks’ role is to test the waters for an upcoming issue, determining the right opening price. In this case, Musk decreed an opening price of $135 per share and the banks went along. They also accepted what may be record-low fees for what turned out to be their order-taking role.

Traditional IPO fees run as high at 7% of the issue, though fees have been trending toward 1% on mega-deals. For SpaceX, the fee was 0.7%; that number is small but it still came to about $500 million, to be doled out by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the lead banks.

Advertisement

This may be the right moment to consider that even the most high-flying investment crazes generally end in tears. AI is beginning to have that acrid smell. It’s proper to note that the driver of SpaceX’s valuation isn’t its space launches or its Starlink orbital wifi satellites, but its commitment to AI.

(Part of what may be driving the SpaceX frenzy my be the gains collected by early investors in Tesla, which have lent Musk a visionary’s halo. That said, however, Tesla wasn’t added to the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and therefore into large-cap index funds until 10 years after its 2010 IPO.)

That’s what accounts for almost all of the $28.5 trillion “total addressable market” the company claims for its services, never mind that it’s a distant also-ran in the AI business. Never mind that for SpaceX, AI does little but burn money, accounting for $12.7 billion of its $20.7 billion in capital expenditures last year while losing $6.36 billion on $3.2 billion in revenue.

Does the SpaceX IPO signal a bull-market top? That question was raised Sunday by Michelle Celarier, one of the nation’s most percipient financial market reporters. “The laws of economics say there has to be a break someday,” she wrote. “How brutal it will be and how effective governments and central banks will be in controlling the fallout is the unknown.”

Celarier quotes Erica Payne, the founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, observing that “86 percent of Americans are worried about the price of food. Elon Musk is a trillionaire. These two things are deeply, inherently connected.”

Advertisement

The SpaceX IPO may eventually stand in retrospect as a monument to this moment.

Continue Reading

Business

Meet the Beverly Hills jeweler who crafted the Seattle Seahawks’ Super Bowl ring

Published

on

Meet the Beverly Hills jeweler who crafted the Seattle Seahawks’ Super Bowl ring

The lord of the rings works behind a nondescript door in a Beverly Hills office building, not far from the UCLA campus where he once sold hair clips and trinkets from a folding table. Jason Arasheben was $28,000 in debt back then, running low on options. Now, eight of the last 11 NBA champions have worn his jewelry on their fingers.

Super Bowl winners have his rings, too — the Rams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Philadelphia Eagles and the Seattle Seahawks, whose players opened their ornate jewelry boxes at a private team party Thursday night to find the prize every NFL player covets.

The Seahawks ring, large as a child’s fist, is encrusted with 20 carats of white diamonds and blue sapphires. It’s a miniature Lumen Field, featuring the hawk-head logo and two Lombardi Trophies. The top lifts off and converts into a pendant. Inside is a cowhide segment of a game-used football. Twelve flags on the sides nod to the “12th Man” fan base; one is a secret button — push it and the arches pop out to reveal the words “World Champions.”

A look at the Seattle Seahawks’ Super Bowl ring celebrating their 2025 season championship.

(Courtesy of Jason of Beverly Hills)

Advertisement

Even the box performs. Three tiny spotlights shine on the ring as it rotates on a mechanical platform. Each weighs about a third of a pound.

“It’s a memento to a certain period of time,” said Arasheben, whose company is Jason of Beverly Hills. He concedes the rings are closer to trophies than wearable jewelry. He competes for ring contracts with Tiffany & Co. and Jostens, both much larger operations. “It celebrates this time that these players and these fans will remember forever.”

His rings appraise for $50,000 to $250,000, though the market can push them higher. In 2024, Kobe Bryant’s 2000 Lakers ring sold at auction for $927,000, the highest price ever paid for an NBA title ring, topping Bill Russell’s 1957 ring at $705,000.

Beverly Hills jewler Jason Arasheben is

Beverly Hills jewler Jason Arasheben is

(Ric Tapia / For The Times)

Advertisement

NFL franchises typically order two or three times what NBA, NHL or MLB teams request — as many as 3,000 rings in four quality tiers. Lower-level employees might get cubic zirconia instead of diamonds. A limited number of fan versions are available at smaller scale and lower price. Arasheben always builds two extra into his contract so each of his sons can have one.

A career in luxury jewelry was never the plan. He grew up in Granada Hills and Calabasas; his Iranian father and Norwegian mother envisioned a doctor, lawyer or engineer. At UCLA, he found himself more interested in bars than books.

“I was $28,000 in debt because I enjoyed going out far too much, like every other college student,” he said.

One day he tagged along with a friend to the wholesale district downtown and had a flash of inspiration. She was buying plastic hair clips and silver trinkets by the dozen. He figured he could sell them to girls on campus.

Advertisement
Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl ring for 2025 season.
Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl ring for 2025 season.
Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl ring for 2025 season.
Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl ring for 2025 season.

(Courtesy of Jason of Beverly Hills)

He pitched the idea of a folding table to the university, which agreed when he offered to split the profits. He bought $400 worth of tchotchkes. One table became two, then six locations across Southern California campuses.

Then came the motherlode. He built acrylic display cases holding 30 to 40 pieces and drove from Agoura Hills to San Diego, stopping at every nail salon he could find, splitting the profits with owners who let him put a case on the counter. By his senior year, he had agreements with roughly 350 salons and was clearing $25,000 to $30,000 a month.

After college, as a regular on the L.A. nightclub scene, Arasheben built relationships with professional athletes and celebrities. He would go home and sketch chain designs for players he’d met, knowing nothing about the jewelry industry.

Advertisement

“Finally, an NBA player said, ‘Why don’t you come to my hotel room tomorrow before we play the Lakers and bring all the jewelry you have? I’m going to buy something from you,’ ” said Arasheben, describing an encounter with the late Anthony Mason.

Problem was, he had no jewelry. He spent the night cutting pictures from magazines and downloading images to create a makeshift catalog, then promised Mason a custom $40,000 necklace. Mason put down $20,000.

Arasheben went downtown, knocked on doors and found somebody to make it for $37,000. A new business was born, growing by word of mouth. Eventually he had four employees and a small office downtown, outsourcing most of his work.

Through his friendship with Jim Buss, son of owner Jerry Buss, Arasheben landed the contract to make the Lakers’ 2009 championship ring. It was a mad scramble. He and his employees slept in sleeping bags on the factory floor the final two weeks of production.

“We delivered the very last player ring 20 minutes before the ceremony began,” he said. “The ring ceremony was on national television, and can you imagine if they had to announce the rings weren’t ready? My career would have been over before it started.”

Advertisement

He made the Lakers ring in 2010, too, and five years later — through relationships with several Golden State players — produced four championship rings for the Warriors.

Tom Brady saw LeBron James’ ring during the 2020 offseason and convinced the Buccaneers to go with Arasheben.

A lot of Arasheben’s rings have James Bond elements such as secret compartments or special elements. The top comes off the miniature SoFi Stadium on the Rams ring, for instance, and the field below is made of a melted-down patch of the actual artificial turf. The World Series ring of the Texas Rangers features a tiny circle of leather from a game-used baseball.

He first incorporated a special feature in the 2018 Warriors ring, when a star player objected to a blue face and wanted white, only weeks from delivery. Arasheben devised a mechanism allowing the face to switch colors.

Jason Arasheben poses with some of the sports championship rings he has crafted over the years.

Jason Arasheben poses with some of the sports championship rings he has crafted over the years.

(Ric Tapia / For The Times)

Advertisement

“We started getting a lot of championship ring contracts after that,” he said. “Because we took it to a new level and showed some ingenuity. We wanted to be innovative.”

Push a button on the Eagles’ ring and wings pop out on the sides. Arasheben came up with that idea while shopping for a Buzz Lightyear toy for his nephew.

Buzz, too, has wings that pop out.

“I thought, ‘I can do that for the Eagles, but with amazing gold and diamonds,’ ” he said.

Advertisement

He will put a proposal together to make the medals for the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Then there’s the one that got away.

“We lost out on the L.A. Dodgers,” Arasheben said. “… But you know, that’s part of the business. You take your lumps.

“But I’ll still pitch. Every year, I pitch.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending