Housing costs climbed to record highs in 2025, as prices rose and mortgage rates remained far above pandemic-era lows. This kept housing out of reach for a larger number of home searchers and led to a historically slow housing market.

Redfin economists predict that affordability will begin to improve in 2026 and beyond. But how much does housing cost in Los Angeles, CA, right now?

Whether you’re a high-end buyer or just starting out, Redfin Real Estate analyzed home prices in Los Angeles across different price tiers to show how expensive housing is—and how it compares to the national average. If you want to find out how much you can afford, try Redfin’s Affordability Calculator.

All data represents the monthly average for January 2026. Redfin defines housing price buckets as follows: Bottom (bottom 5%); Starter (5%-35%); Mid (35%-65%); High (65%-95%); Luxury (top 5%).

How expensive is housing in Los Angeles?

• Bottom tier median sale price: $388,148
• Starter tier median sale price: $639,432
• Mid tier median sale price: $910,238
• High tier median sale price: $1,588,390
• Luxury median sale price: $4,494,644
• Median household income: $98,148

How expensive is housing nationwide?

• Bottom tier median sale price: $125,384
• Starter tier median sale price: $260,000
• Mid tier median sale price: $375,000
• High tier median sale price: $581,000
• Luxury tier median sale price: $1,341,493
• Median household income: $87,934

This story was
produced by
Redfin and reviewed and
distributed by Stacker.

The post How much does it cost to buy a house in Los Angeles in 2026? appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

Por Elisabeth Buchwald, CNN

El Gobierno está obligado a reembolsar US$ 134.000 millones (y la cifra sigue aumentando) en ingresos recaudados por los amplios aranceles del presidente Donald Trump que la Corte Suprema declaró ilegales la semana pasada.

¿Cuánto de esa cantidad recuperarán los consumidores que pagaron los elevados aranceles a través de precios más altos?

Casi seguro que nada.

Esto se debe a que los consumidores pagan los aranceles indirectamente: en su mayoría, no son ellos quienes realizan el pago real al Gobierno. Cuando se devuelvan los fondos (y quizás es más correcto decir si se devuelven), se destinarán al importador registrado, es decir, la parte que pagó la factura arancelaria inicial. Piensen en Costco, Walmart, Target, etc.

Por ahora, los reembolsos son en gran parte teóricos. La administración Trump y la Corte Suprema han dado poca claridad sobre cómo se procesarán. Lo único seguro es que será un proceso largo, y Trump declaró a la prensa el viernes que podría tardar hasta cinco años en concretarse.

Las empresas asumieron la mayor parte del costo arancelario. Pero te trasladaron parte de ese gasto a ti. Los consumidores cubrieron aproximadamente una cuarta parte de sus facturas arancelarias mediante el aumento de los precios, según un estudio publicado por el Laboratorio de Precios de la Escuela de Negocios de Harvard.

En total, la Tax Foundation estima que los aranceles aumentaron el pago de impuestos del hogar estadounidense promedio en US$ 1.000 el año pasado.

Ante la presión de los votantes para que mejore la asequibilidad, la administración Trump lleva meses manejando la idea de emitir cheques de reembolso de US$ 2.000 para ayudar a sufragar el costo de los aranceles que soportan los consumidores.

Esos cheques de reembolso, que requerirían la aprobación del Congreso, no serían reembolsos de los pagos arancelarios; en realidad, son cheques de estímulo para ayudar a impulsar la economía, que se ha visto perjudicada por el aumento de los impuestos fronterizos. No está claro si la decisión de la Corte Suprema puso en peligro esos posibles cheques de reembolso.

Lo que sí está claro: la gran mayoría de los consumidores no han pagado directamente los costos arancelarios, por lo que la administración Trump no les debe reembolsos arancelarios.

Costco es una de las miles de empresas que demandaron al Gobierno de EE.UU. antes del veredicto de la Corte Suprema para intentar obtener un reembolso. El secretario del Tesoro, Scott Bessent, comentó en una entrevista el mes pasado que los clientes de Costco probablemente no recibirían ni un céntimo de los posibles reembolsos que la empresa reciba. En cualquier caso, es probable que más empresas sigan el ejemplo de Costco. FedEx presentó el lunes una demanda contra la administración Trump, convirtiéndose en la primera gran corporación en hacerlo tras el fallo de la Corte Suprema.

Nada impide que las empresas repartan una parte de los reembolsos que obtienen a sus clientes. Pero dado que probablemente habrían pagado cuantiosos honorarios legales para obtenerlos y que asumieron la mayor parte de los costos arancelarios, es prácticamente una quimera.

Sin embargo, los consumidores podrían encontrar alivio en otras formas.

Aunque David Suk, director ejecutivo de The Baby’s Brew, un calentador de biberones portátil, duda que reciba los 80.000 dólares en pagos arancelarios que su empresa realizó desde que entraron en vigor los amplios aranceles de Trump el año pasado, en caso de que así sea planea bajar los precios.

Si recupera algún dinero, no representaría el coste total de los aranceles, ya que también incluye una importante inversión anticipada que realizó para adelantarse a los aranceles y primas para acelerar la producción.

“No podría haber una proporción de uno a uno en términos de devolución (devoluciones arancelarias).

By Michal Ruprecht, CNN

(CNN) — Supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” strategy have long railed against pesticides, making opposition to them a pillar of the movement.

But an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last week collides with that long-held stance.

The order states that glyphosate — an herbicide found in Roundup, the world’s most widely used weed killer — is “central to American economic and national security” and calls for an adequate domestic supply.

Glyphosate inhibits protein synthesis in plants and microorganisms, leading to their death. Scientists can genetically modify corn, soybeans and cotton — three field crops that account for the vast majority of glyphosate use in the United States — to choose which crops survive and which die after glyphosate treatment.

US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a key figure in the MAHA movement, has long opposed glyphosate-based pesticides. In 2018, as an attorney, Kennedy helped win a lawsuit alleging that maker Monsanto knew that Roundup caused cancer. He reiterated last month on Katie Miller’s podcast that “I believe glyphosate causes cancer.”

But Kennedy sounded a different tone.

“Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” the HHS chief said in a statement. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

The day before Trump’s order was announced, Monsanto’s owner, Bayer, proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve current and future claims alleging that the product causes cancer. The settlement would not include an admission of liability or wrongdoing, and Monsanto maintains that there is no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.

“Experts and regulators worldwide have concluded that glyphosate-based products can be used safely as directed,” the company states.

Moms Across America, a nonprofit that supports the MAHA agenda, has advocated for glyphosate bans and called the new executive order “outrageous,” saying it could shield Monsanto — the only domestic producer of glyphosate — from lawsuits over products sold in compliance with the order.

“I was outraged. I was actually sick to my st

By Ella Nilsen, CNN

(CNN) — Last week, the Trump administration delivered a catastrophic blow to US climate policy by repealing the longstanding scientific finding that planet-warming pollution poses a danger to humans.

Getting to this point was one of the administration’s most audacious deregulatory goals. But it doesn’t represent a complete success — yet. Now comes the years-long race through the courts to see if they really can pull off kneecapping the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating climate pollution ever again.

They are facing a phalanx of opponents. Last week, more than a dozen major environmental and public health groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Those organizations are setting up a high-stakes legal battle that could go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Ironically, that’s the place this all began. In 2007, a major Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, found that greenhouse gases met the definition of an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA had the authority to regulate them. That ruling gave birth to the endangerment finding two years later.

Now, environmental legal experts say, the Trump administration is hoping a far more conservative court will undo it all. If they are ultimately successful, the administration can more easily overturn other rules that reduce climate pollution emitted from power plants and oil and gas operations — and make it much harder for a future administration to put the rules back in place.

“I think they’re certainly trying to get it to the Supreme Court,” said Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former climate official in the Obama White House. The five justices that ruled in the majority for Mass v. EPA in 2007 are no longer on the bench; the three who dissented — Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts — are still there and have since been joined by three more conservatives.

“The Trump administration is doing math, and they think they might be able to get five votes for their arguments, even though they’re arguing really a rehash of the same kinds of things that were argued back then and lost,” Freeman said.

The lawsuit will first go before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where the process of getting a ruling could be lengthy.

“This will take a few years,” said Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at environmental legal group Earthjustice. “It’s going to be a relatively large, complicated piece of litigation, because there’s so many players involved.”

Asked for comment on the legal challenge, an EPA spokesperson said, “unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended — not as others might wish it to be.”

If the case winds up in front of the Supreme Court, and if its conservative justices side with the Trump administration, it’s game over for the EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Only Congressional action could restore it, Freeman and other experts said, and it is difficult to see a highly polarized Congress agreeing on a bipartisan climate change bill.

But it’s not even clear if this is what the oil companies want. Major industry groups including the American Petroleum Institute have not fought to kill the federal endangerment finding, because a patchwork of state laws could ultimately replace it — leading to legal headaches and a raft of nuisance lawsuits against them, experts said.

“What I think industry wants is a weak EPA with weak regulation; that probably is their sweet spot,” Freeman said. “But not pulling the endangerment rug out from under the Clean Air Act.”

EPA vs. environmental groups

The Trump EPA is relying on a series

By Alexandra Banner, CNN

The US government has to refund at least $134 billion in tariff revenue, which the Supreme Court ruled was collected illegally. You probably paid higher prices due to these tariffs, but unfortunately, you won’t get a slice of the refunds.

Here’s what else you need to know to get up to speed and on with your day.

1⃣ State of the Union

President Donald Trump will deliver the 2026 State of the Union address to the 119th Congress tonight at 9 p.m. ET. The primetime speech will allow Trump to outline his administration’s goals and accomplishments and to address the nation’s most pressing issues. It comes amid a particularly troublesome stretch for the president, as he faces numerous domestic and international challenges. In polling, Trump also remains deeply unpopular, battered by Americans’ anxiety over the cost of living and dissatisfaction with his approach to addressing it. A CNN poll released Monday shows his approval rating at just 36%, down from 48% last February.

2⃣ Bomb cyclone

The Northeast is reeling from a historic bomb cyclone that swept the region overnight Sunday and throughout Monday, dumping more than two feet of snow across several states. Dangerous conditions prompted multiple emergency declarations and travel bans as tens of millions of people under blizzard warnings hunkered down. Parts of the East Coast, including New York, Philadelphia, and Atlantic City, will briefly climb above freezing later today. But meteorologists caution that any melted snow is likely to refreeze after sunset, creating slick conditions through Wednesday morning.

3⃣ Mexico violence

Mexico is grappling with unrest after its military brought down its most wanted drug lord, Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes. He died after being wounded during a raid in Tapalpa on Sunday, triggering clashes that left dozens dead. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said authorities are now restoring “peace, security, and normalcy” after suspected gang members torched buses and businesses while confronting security forces. The US State Department advised on Monday that some areas of Mexico have “returned to normal,” but cautioned US citizens in Puerto Vallarta, Guadalajara, and Ciudad Guzman to continue sheltering in place.

4⃣ Nancy Guthrie

The masked person seen on the doorbell camera footage of Nancy Guthrie’s Arizona home the morning she is believed to have been kidnapped was also at her doorstep on another night, a source tells CNN, another clue in the exhaustive search for the mother of “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie. The 84-year-old disappeared from her secluded Tucson home after she was last seen on January 31. Local, state and federal law enforcement surged to the area and have spent over three weeks scouring the rugged desert landscape for Guthrie or any evidence that could bring her back home.

5⃣ Ukraine

Ukraine today is marking four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion, a somber milestone in a Read more