The deadly fire that ravaged Los Angeles’ Palisades was a disaster that didn’t have to happen—according to newly revealed fire department records, it may have started with a decision to walk away from a still-smoldering fire.
According to the New York Post, the blaze claimed 12 lives, leveled entire neighborhoods, and torched over 23,000 acres, all after Los Angeles firefighters were pulled off a small brush fire that wasn’t fully extinguished.
On January 1, 2025, investigators say Jonathan Rinderknecht deliberately set what became known as the Lachman fire, igniting the chain of events that led to one of the county’s most destructive wildfires.
Leadership Calls Spark Deepening Crisis
Just one day later, on January 2, a battalion chief instructed crews to end their suppression efforts in the Lachman burn area, even though there were still hot spots in the rocks and soil—a troubling sign for any veteran firefighter. Texts between firefighters show they voiced clear objections. One responder called the decision a “bad idea,” while another summed up the fallout with grim resignation: “And the rest is history.”
Despite those on-the-ground concerns, command pushed forward with premature mop-up efforts, pulling back personnel from a zone that others recognized might still reignite under the wrong conditions.
Fire Reignites as Winds Surface Hidden Embers
On January 7, just five days after firefighters had been ordered to stand down, those very fears materialized when the fire reignited—and not just anywhere, but from what many believe were embers of the Lachman blaze.
The flames advanced rapidly through the Palisades, Encino, and Mandeville Canyon, ultimately engulfing more than 23,000 acres. Winds drove the inferno as embers, hidden in underground root systems, were brought back to life by the gusts. Some experienced firefighters directly attributed the reemergence to the unresolved Lachman fire and the hasty departure from the burn zone days earlier.
Chief’s Defense Faces Investigation Questions
Interim LAFD Chief Ronnie Villanueva attempted to downplay the operational chain of events, stating the January wildfire was “not a rekindle or due to failed suppression but the reactivation of an undetectable holdover fire under extraordinary wind conditions.”
That explanation, however, has not silenced concern. While the chief insisted crews remained for “more than 36 hours” after the initial blaze, performing containment procedures such as cold-trailing, it’s increasingly clear not everyone was convinced the threat was truly gone.
Villanueva further asserted, “As far as we were concerned, the fire was extinguished,” but added in the same breath, “Unbeknownst to us, it was still in the rooting system.” That’s a contradiction that doesn’t inspire confidence.
Federal Scrutiny Now Turned Toward LAFD Actions
Now, federal authorities are examining whether department missteps—particularly the decision to declare the fire out prematurely—played a role in allowing it to reignite and spiral out of control. A Senate probe, led by Republican lawmakers, is digging into the fire department’s handling of the original incident and its communication breakdowns that may have cost lives and homes.
With entire communities still in recovery mode, the impacts of that one crucial decision are being examined under a microscope—and careful questions are being asked about basic firefighting priorities and who gave which orders, and why.
Political Agendas vs. Practical Risks
It’s not the first time L.A. leadership has struggled under the weight of poor planning and progressive posturing. But in this case, it’s not just political points—it’s life and property at stake. It doesn’t take a genius to know you don’t leave hot ground untended during the dry season in southern California. Yet somehow, against local intuition and seasoned boots on the ground, that order came down anyway.
The people of the Palisades, Encino, and Mandeville didn’t lose their homes to climate, budget cuts, or even arsonist Rinderknecht alone—they lost them because somebody decided the heat wasn’t a threat worth responding to.
