Who Is Responsible for the Palisades Fire?

We’re coming up on a year since the Palisades Fire became the most destructive fire in LA history. In the last few weeks we’ve learned a lot more about what happened with that fire and who was responsible.

We now know, for instance, that an arsonist set a fire in the hills above the Palisades. This was known as the Lachman fire and it burned 8 acres before, apparently being put out. However, embers from the fire continued to burn beneath the soil and when the winds whipped up five days later it became the Palisades fire which killed 12 people and destroyed 6,800 structures.

In October, a grand jury indicted Jonathan Rinderknecht with starting the Lachman fire. He has pleaded not guilty and is still awaiting trial. However, we’re also learning a lot more about what happened in the days between the time the Lachman fire was supposedly put out and the day when it roared back to life as the Palisades fire.

For instance, the LA Times has reported that firefighters at the scene thought it was a bad idea to leave because they could see the ground was still smoldering.

Firefighters mopping up a small brush fire that authorities say reignited as the Palisades fire five days later were ordered to leave the original burn scene even though they complained the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch, according to firefighter text messages reviewed by The Times.

To the firefighters’ surprise, their battalion chief ordered them to roll up their hoses and pull out of the area on Jan. 2 — the day after the 8-acre blaze was declared contained — rather than stay and make sure there were no hidden embers that could spark a new fire, the text messages said…

In one text message, a firefighter who was at the scene on Jan. 2 wrote that the battalion chief had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave the burn scar unprotected because of the visible signs of smoldering terrain…

A different firefighter said this month that crew members were upset when told to pack up and leave, but that they could not ignore orders, according to the texts. The firefighter also wrote that he and his colleagues knew immediately that the Jan. 7 fire was a rekindle of the Jan. 1 blaze.

The Times even identified the battalion chief who ordered the firefighters to leave. He didn’t respond to questions from the LA Times.

So the firefighters who were on the scene knew the fire wasn’t out and that it had eventually rekindled a few days later. But their private statements by text are completely at odds with a statement issued by interim LAFD Chief Ronnie Villanueva. Villanueva issued a statement last month saying the Palisades Fire was the result of a “holdover fire” which would have been undetectable from the surface. He added that it was definitely not the result of a rekindle caused by a failure to properly suppress the Lachman fire.

“Holdover fires can be nearly impossible to detect with infrared imaging, as smoldering often occurs deep below the surface, especially in chaparral terrain where dense root systems conceal residual heat. Under extreme winds, low humidity, and prolonged drought, these fires can reignite despite full suppression and containment efforts. The January 7 fire was not a rekindle or due to failed suppression but the reactivation of an undetectable holdover fire under extraordinary wind conditions.”

But it’s likely this wasn’t a holdover fire. In fact, the burning was probably happening just beneath the surface. A former battalion chief named Rick Crawford said the use of “holdover” was an attempt to dodge responsibility.

Crawford, who retired from the LAFD last year and now is the emergency and crisis management coordinator for the U.S. Capitol, said he believes the federal agency prefers the term “holdover” to “rekindle” because the latter “is a word that implies that you didn’t do your job. ‘Holdover’ suggests it was beyond our control. This is not that.”

And the rabbit hole gets even deeper. Gov. Gavin Newsom has claimed that the fire was caused by an arsonist and that the state was not notified about the Lachman fire and had no role whatsoever in monitoring or dealing with that fire. But NewsNation has uncovered evidence that the state was notified and a park ranger was on site hours after the Lachman fire started.

In a response to a lawsuit filed by more than 3,000 Palisades residents alleging that the state failed to monitor embers from the initial fire, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office told NewsNation the state wasn’t responsible.

“The state didn’t start this fire (that was an arsonist), and the state wasn’t responsible for respnding to or monitoring the fire,” his office said in a statement.

In new court filings, the state went further, saying that Palisades victims cannot allege that the state had notice of the Lachman Fire because they themselves never had notice.

State records show a call at 12:27 a.m. on Jan. 1, but the rest of the incident report was redacted, including the response to that call…

That LAFD incident report shows what the state has not revealed: That the LAFD contacted the state after midnight on Jan. 1, and a parks representative was on scene by 4 a.m.

So, to summarize, we have false claims the state didn’t know about the fire backed up by a completely redacted report. We have the interim chief making claims about the nature of the fire which are contradicted by firefighters who were there. And we have a battalion chief who won’t answer questions. All of this feels a bit like an attempt to escape responsibility by everyone involved. And that’s without even mentioning the reservoir which was emptied for a cover repair that led to fire hydrants without any water pressure. You may recall they denied that too initially.

We may eventually get the truth about what happened here but it won’t come from any of the elected or appointed officials who seem to think their job is to dodge responsibility. Here’s the NewsNation report.

EXCLUSIVE: LAFD call logs prove Calif. state parks rep was on scene a week before deadly Palisades fire, BEFORE the Lachman Fire was declared fully contained. Appears the State lied about it, too, in court.

— Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) Nov 16, 2025

Update: NewsNation has photos which show a state rep at the scene talking with firefighters. So much for the claim the state didn’t know.

Photos contradict Calif. State position that they didn’t have any State Park Reps at the Lachman burn scar, leading up to the Palisades Fire, and that it ‘wasn’t their responsibility to monitor or respond to it.’

— Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) Nov 17, 2025