Bill

SACRAMENTO — State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has emerged as one of California’s most vocal critics of President Trump, will run next year for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

A formal announcement from Wiener is expected next week, the San Francisco Standard reported.

Erik Mebust, a spokesperson for Wiener, declined to comment.

Wiener, 55, has already declared his intention to eventually run for the seat held by Pelosi and has raised $1 million through an exploratory committee. But he previously indicated that he would wait until Pelosi, who was first elected in 1987, stepped down.

That calculus changed, according to the Standard, when Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive candidate, entered the race for Pelosi’s seat.

Ian Krager, spokesperson for Pelosi, released a statement saying Pelosi was focused on Proposition 50, which will be on the ballot in California’s Nov. 4 special election. The measure would redraw California’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats and was pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democratic leaders after President Trump urged Texas to reconfigure the state’s district to elect five more Republicans to Congress, part of an effort to keep the GOP in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Speaker Pelosi is fully focused on her mission to win the Yes on 50 special election in California on November 4th. She urges all Californians to join in that mission on the path to taking back the House for the Democrats.”

Pelosi, 85, hasn’t indicated whether will she run again. If she does seek another term, her age could be a factor at a time when younger Democrats are eager to see a new wave of leaders.

Pelosi was among several top politicians who persuaded then-President Biden to forgo a second term after widespread concerns about his age.

Wiener, elected to the state Senate in 2016, is best-known for his work pushing local governments to add more housing density.

He is a member of the California LGBTQ+ Caucus and has been a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. If elected, Wiener would be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

Before his election to the state Legislature, Wiener served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and worked as a deputy city attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Newsom last week signed Wiener’s Senate Bill 79, one the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory. The bill upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near public transit.

The bill was fiercely opposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other L.A. leaders who want to retain power over housing decisions.

Wiener has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration, sparring on social media with the president’s supporters. Another one of his recent bills, to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers from masking their faces during immigration raids, was signed into law by Newsom.

If bill is signed into law, Portugal would join several European countries which already have full or partial bans.

Portugal has approved a bill to ban face veils used for “gender or religious motives” in most public spaces that was proposed by the far-right Chega party and targets burqas and niqabs worn by Muslim women.

Under the bill, approved by parliament on Friday, proposed fines for wearing face veils in public would range from 200 to 4,000 euros ($234-$4,670). Forcing someone to wear one would be punishable with prison terms of up to three years.

Face veils would still be allowed in aeroplanes, diplomatic premises and places of worship.

According to local media reports, the bill is now set to be discussed in the parliamentary committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees – a body responsible for reviewing legislation related to constitutional matters.

If signed into law, it would put Portugal alongside European countries, including France, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, which already have full or partial bans.

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa could still veto the bill or send it to the Constitutional Court for checks.

During Friday’s parliamentary session, Chega leader Andre Ventura was confronted by several female lawmakers from left-wing parties who opposed the bill, but it passed with support from the centre-right coalition.

“We are today protecting female members of parliament, your daughters, our daughters, from having to use burqas in this country one day,” Ventura said.

In a post on X, he wrote: “Today is a historic day for our democracy and for the safeguarding of our values, our identity and women’s rights.”

Andreia Neto, a lawmaker from the ruling Social Democratic Party, said before the vote: “This is a debate on equality between men and women. No woman should be forced to veil her face.”

Two out of the 10 parties in parliament abstained from the vote – the People-Animals-Nature party, and the Together for the People party, according to local media reports.

The parties have suggested that the proposal incited discrimination.

Only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe cover their faces, and in Portugal such veils are very rare.

But full-face coverings such as niqabs and burqas have become a polarising issue across Europe, with some arguing that they symbolise gender discrimination or can represent a security threat and should be outlawed.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week signed a suite of privacy protection bills for transgender patients amid continuing threats by the Trump administration.

But there was one glaring omission that LGBTQ+ advocates and political strategists say is part of an increasingly complex dance the Democrat faces as he curates a more centrist profile for a potential presidential bid.

Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required insurers to cover, and pharmacists to dispense, 12 months of hormone therapy at one time to transgender patients and others. The proposal was a top priority for trans rights leaders, who said it was crucial to preserve care as clinics close or limit gender-affirming services under White House pressure.

Political experts say Newsom’s veto highlights how charged trans care has become for Democrats nationally and, in particular, for Newsom, who as San Francisco mayor engaged in civil disobedience by allowing gay couples to marry at City Hall. The veto, along with his lukewarm response to anti-trans rhetoric, they argue, is part of an alarming pattern that could damage his credibility with key voters in his base.

“Even if there were no political motivations whatsoever under Newsom’s decision, there are certainly political ramifications of which he is very aware,” said Dan Schnur, a former GOP political strategist who is now a politics lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley. “He is smart enough to know that this is an issue that’s going to anger his base, but in return, may make him more acceptable to large numbers of swing voters.”

Earlier this year on Newsom’s podcast, the governor told the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk that trans athletes competing in women’s sports was “deeply unfair,” triggering a backlash among his party’s base and LGBTQ+ leaders. And he has described trans issues as a “major problem for the Democratic Party,” saying Donald Trump’s trans-focused campaign ads were “devastating” for his party in 2024.

Still, in a conversation with YouTube streamer ConnorEatsPants this month, Newsom defended himself “as a guy who’s literally put my political life on the line for the community for decades, has been a champion and a leader.”

“He doesn’t want to face the criticism as someone who, I’m sure, is trying to line himself up for the presidency, when the current anti-trans rhetoric is so loud,” said Ariela Cuellar, a spokesperson for the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network.

Caroline Menjivar, the state senator who introduced the measure, described her bill as “the most tangible and effective” measure this year to help trans people at a time when they are being singled out for what she described as “targeted discrimination.”

In a legislature in which Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses, lawmakers sent the bill to Newsom on a party-line vote. Earlier this year, Washington became the first to enact a state law extending hormone therapy coverage to a 12-month supply.

In a veto message on the California bill, Newsom cited its potential to drive up health care costs, impacts that an independent analysis found would be negligible.

“At a time when individuals are facing double-digit rate increases in their health care premiums across the nation, we must take great care to not enact policies that further drive up the cost of health care, no matter how well-intended,” Newsom wrote.

Under the Trump administration, federal agencies have been directed to limit access to gender-affirming care for children, which Trump has referred to as “chemical and surgical mutilation,” and demanded documents from or threatened investigations of institutions that provide it.

In recent months, Stanford Medicine, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and Kaiser Permanente have reduced or eliminated gender-affirming care for patients under 19, a sign of the chilling effect Trump’s executive orders have had on health care, even in one of the nation’s most progressive states.

California already mandates wide coverage of gender-affirming health care, including hormone therapy, but pharmacists can currently dispense only a 90-day supply. Menjivar’s bill would have allowed 12-month supplies, modeled after a 2016 law that allowed women to receive an annual supply of birth control.

Luke Healy, who told legislators at an April hearing that he was “a 24-year-old detransitioner” and no longer believed he was a woman, criticized the attempt to increase coverage of services he thought were “irreversibly harmful” to him.

“I believe that bills like this are forcing doctors to turn healthy bodies into perpetual medical problems in the name of an ideology,” Healy testified.

The California Association of Health Plans opposed the bill over provisions that would limit the use of certain practices such as prior authorization and step therapy, which require insurer approval before care is provided and force patients and doctors to try other therapies first.

“These safeguards are essential for applying evidence-based prescribing standards and responsibly managing costs — ensuring patients receive appropriate care while keeping premiums in check,” said spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant.

An analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, which independently reviews bills relating to health insurance, concluded that annual premium increases resulting from the bill’s implementation would be negligible and that “no long-term impacts on utilization or cost” were expected.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said Newsom’s economic argument was “not plausible.” Although he said he considers Newsom a strong ally of the transgender community, Minter noted he was “deeply disappointed” to see the governor’s veto.

“I understand he’s trying to respond to this political moment, and I wish he would respond to it by modeling language and policies that can genuinely bring people along.”

Newsom’s press office declined to comment further.

Following the podcast interview with Kirk, Cuellar said, advocacy groups backing SB 418 grew concerned about a potential veto and made a point to highlight voices of other patients who would benefit, including menopausal women and cancer patients. It was a starkly different strategy than what they might have done before Trump took office.

“Had we run this bill in 2022-2023, the messaging would have been totally different,” said another proponent who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

“We could have been very loud and proud. In 2023, we might have gotten a signing ceremony.”

Advocates for trans rights were so wary of the current political climate that some also felt the need to steer clear of promoting a separate bill that would have expanded coverage of hormone therapy and other treatments for menopause and perimenopause. That bill, authored by Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who has spoken movingly about her struggles with health care for perimenopause, was also vetoed.

In the meantime, said Jovan Wolf, a trans man and military veteran, patients like him will be left to suffer. Wolf, who had taken testosterone for more than 15 years, tried to restart hormone therapy in March, following a two-year hiatus in which he contemplated having children.

Doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs told him it was too late. Days earlier, the Trump administration had announced it would phase out hormone therapy and other treatments for gender dysphoria.

“Having estrogen pumping through my body, it’s just not a good feeling for me, physically, mentally. And when I’m on testosterone, I feel balanced,” said Wolf, who eventually received care elsewhere. “It should be my decision and my decision only.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Oct. 16 (UPI) — The Senate failed for the 10th time to approve a temporary funding bill to reopen the federal government and voted down a Defense Department appropriations bill on Thursday.

The Senate voted 51-45 in favor of a funding resolution to reopen the federal government, but the vote total was less than the 60 needed for approval.

Two Senate Democrats, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, voted in favor of the temporary government funding measure, according to CNN.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the lone GOP member to vote against the measure.

The Senate later in the day voted 50-44 on a year-long appropriations bill to fund the Defense Department as the government enters the 16th day of its shutdown over a stopgap funding bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opposed considering the Defense Department spending bill without also considering the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, The Hill reported.

Like the government funding measure, the defense budget needs 60 votes to pass. It also would have given a raise for military personnel.

Senate Democrats have voted consistently with no change during the 10 votes to reopen the federal government, as have GOP senators, including Paul in his funding opposition.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., responded to the legislative stalemate by offering to hold floor debates on respective spending bills to fund federal agencies for the 2026 fiscal year, Politico reported.

Thune also suggested Senate Democrats, who have proposed an alternative temporary funding measure, might have some caucus members vote for the House-approved funding resolution due to the effects of an extended government shutdown.

The House already approved the measure favored by the GOP, which simply extends the 2025 funding through Nov. 21 while continuing negotiations on a full-year funding bill.

Senate Democrats have proposed an alternative measure that would fund the federal government through Oct. 31 and extend Affordable Care Act tax credits on insurance premiums and expand Medicaid access.

Schumer blamed the GOP for the budget impasse by refusing to negotiate a proposed $1.5 trillion in additional spending over the next decade that Senate Democrats want to include in the stopgap funding.

“The Trump shutdown drags on because Republicans refuse to work with or even negotiate with Democrats in a serious way to fix the healthcare crisis in America,” Schumer said, as reported by Politico.

Thune in an interview that aired on MSNBC on Thursday morning said Senate Republicans will not negotiate the ACA tax credits until the government is open again, according to ABC News.

The fiscal year started on Oct. 1, which is the first day of the government shutdown due to a lack of funding.

Thune said his party plans to attach additional funding bills to the Pentagon measure, though it’s unclear if Democrats support the idea, CBS News reported.

The additional bills would seek to fund the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor.

In an analysis published in September, the Urban Institute said the number of uninsured people between the ages of 19 and 34 would increase by 25% if the subsidies expire in the new year.

There would be a 14% increase among children. In all, 4.8 million people would lose health insurance coverage.

The Trump administration has said it’s against extending the ACA subsidies, and has accused Democrats at the state level of using federal tax dollars to provide undocumented immigrants with healthcare services, which Democrats have denied.

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for health insurance under the ACA, the federal healthcare.gov website states.

In an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday night, Thune said he told Democratic leaders he’d be willing to hold a vote on the subsidies in exchange for their help reopening the government.

“We can guarantee you a vote by a date certain,” he said. “At some point, Democrats have to take ‘yes’ for an answer.

“I can’t guarantee it’s going to pass. I can guarantee you that there will be a process and you will get a vote.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are poised for the 10th time Thursday to reject a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government, insisting they won’t back away from demands that Congress take up healthcare benefits.

The repetition of votes on the funding bill has become a daily drumbeat in Congress, underscoring how intractable the situation has become. It has been at times the only item on the agenda for the Senate floor, while House Republicans have left Washington altogether. The standoff has lasted over two weeks, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, even more without a guaranteed payday and Congress essentially paralyzed.

“Every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding that there have been thousands of flight delays across the country as well.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, again and again has tried to pressure Democrats to break from their strategy of voting against the stopgap funding bill. It hasn’t worked. And while some bipartisan talks have been ongoing about potential compromises on healthcare, they haven’t produced any meaningful progress toward reopening the government. Thune has also offered to hold a later vote on extending subsidies for health plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces, but said he would not “guarantee a result or an outcome.”

Democrats say they won’t budge until they get a guarantee on extending the tax credits for the health plans. They warn that millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance — such as small business owners, farmers and contractors — will see large increases when premium prices go out in the coming weeks. Looking ahead to a Nov. 1 deadline in most states, they think voters will demand that Republicans enter into serious negotiations.

“The ACA crisis is looming over everyone’s head, and yet Republicans seem ready to let people’s premiums spike,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in a floor speech.

Still, Thune was also trying a different tack Thursday with a vote to proceed to appropriations bills — a move that could grease the Senate’s gears into some action or just deepen the divide between the two parties.

A deadline for subsidies on health plans

Democrats have rallied around their priorities on healthcare as they hold out against voting for a Republican bill that would reopen the government. Yet they also warn that the time to strike a deal to prevent large increases for many health plans is drawing short.

When they controlled Congress during the pandemic, Democrats boosted subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. It pushed enrollment under President Obama’s signature healthcare law to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. Nearly 24 million people currently get their health insurance from subsidized marketplaces, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Democrats — and some Republicans — are worried that many of those people will forgo insurance if the price rises dramatically. While the tax credits don’t expire until next year, health insurers will soon send out notices of the price increases. In most states, they go out Nov. 1.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she has heard from “families who are absolutely panicking about their premiums that are doubling.”

“They are small business owners who are having to think about abandoning the job they love to get employer-sponsored healthcare elsewhere or just forgoing coverage altogether,” she added.

Murray also said that if many people decide to leave their health plan, it could have an effect across medical insurance because the pool of people under health plans will shrink. That could result in higher prices across the board, she said.

Some Republicans have acknowledged that the expiration of the tax credits could be a problem and floated potential compromises to address it, but there is hardly a consensus among the GOP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) this week called the COVID-era subsidies a “boondoggle,” adding that “when you subsidize the healthcare system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

President Trump has said he would “like to see a deal done for great healthcare,” but has not meaningfully weighed in on the debate. And Thune has insisted that Democrats first vote to reopen the government before entering any negotiations on healthcare.

If Congress were to engage in negotiations on significant changes to healthcare, it would likely take weeks, if not longer, to work out a compromise.

Votes on appropriations bills

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are setting up a vote Thursday to proceed to a bill to fund the Defense Department and several other areas of government. This would turn the Senate to Thune’s priority of working through spending bills and potentially pave the way to paying salaries for troops, though the House would eventually need to come back to Washington to vote for a final bill negotiated between the two chambers.

It could also put a crack in Democrats’ resolve. Thune said Thursday, “If they want to stop the defense bill, I don’t think it’s very good optics for them.”

It wasn’t clear whether Democrats would give the support needed to advance the bills. They discussed the idea at their luncheon Wednesday and emerged saying they wanted to review the Republican proposal and make sure it included appropriations that are priorities for them.

While the votes will not bring the Senate any closer to an immediate fix for the government shutdown, it could at least turn their attention to issues where there is some bipartisan agreement.

Still, there was a growing sense on Capitol Hill that an end to the stasis is nowhere in sight.

“So many of you have asked all of us, how will it end?” said House Speaker Johnson. “We have no idea.”

Groves and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

GERRY Adams will be blocked from claiming taxpayer-funded compensation under changes to the law today.

The former Sinn Féin leader was on track to receive a government payout for his detention in the 1970s.

1

But a new Troubles Bill will now ban him and around 400 other largely republican former-detainees from receiving public cash.

It comes after an unexpected Supreme Court ruling in 2020 on historical detentions in Northern Ireland risked forcing ministers to splurge vast sums of money on individuals who claimed they were wrongfully detained during the Troubles.

The landmark case, brought by Adams, found his initial detention under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) was unlawful because a junior minister signed the order, not the Secretary of State.

This pivotal decision opened the floodgates for thousands of compensation claims for imprisonment and quashed convictions.
Later, Mr. Adams won a court battle in 2023 that ruled he was wrongly denied compensation after his convictions for trying to escape jail in the 1970s were quashed.

Today, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn will introduce new legislation to Parliament to clarify that the relevant law always permitted junior ministers to sign the ICOs and, therefore, ensure no compensation will be paid.

A government source told The Sun: “The last government completely failed to successfully address this issue.

“Today we are making it clear in the law that detentions were legitimate and lawful.

“A result of this will be that those previously eligible will not get a single penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have phased out a range of popular consumer products, including nonstick pots and pans, that contain synthetic chemicals with potential links to cancer.

“I appreciate the efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “I believe we must carefully consider the consequences that may result from a dramatic shift of products on our shelves.”

The legislation would have prohibited the selling or distributing of cookware with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, by 2030. It phased out PFAS in products for infants and children, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging and cleaning products starting in 2028. Previously used items would have been exempt.

Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the legislation, Senate Bill 682, said he will continue to work on the issue moving forward.

“We are obviously disappointed,” he said. “We know there are safer alternatives — [but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.”

Allen previously explained he introduced the bill to help protect the state’s water supply from contamination.

A study released in 2023 by the U.S. Geological Survey found tap water in urban areas of Southern and Central California is more likely to contain PFAS than the drinking water in most of the nation’s other regions.

“The water agencies, sanitation agencies and local governments are faced with increasingly impossible-to-meet standards just to keep the water supply for our constituents clean,” Allen said during a Senate committee meeting in April. “They’re facing the costs while the producers who keep pushing these products out on the market are not being held accountable.”

PFAS are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their well-established longevity. They are linked to adverse health effects, including liver enzyme changes and kidney and testicular cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The chemicals have been used for decades to prevent food from sticking to pans or packaging, or to make materials more resistant to stains. California has taken steps in recent years to ban their use in certain items, like cosmetics and menstrual products.

Dozens of organizations weighed-in on Allen’s bill, with the Sierra Club, California Health Coalition Advocacy and the League of California Cities supporting the legislation.

The Chemical Industry Council of California and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance were among those opposed.

Steve Burns, president of the sustainability alliance, was especially concerned by the provision barring the distribution of the banned products.

“California is the entry point for nonstick cookware and other products that come into the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Oakland, and then get distributed throughout the country,” he told The Times. “They go to warehouses, distribution centers and get loaded up on rail or usually trucks — so there’s a lot of jobs in the California economy that depend on products that have Teflon.”

Burns said science hasn’t shown that all PFAS are harmful and argued California should have studied the issue further. He pointed to Illinois, which recently passed similar legislation but ultimately nixed the line banning nonstick cookware. An amendment instead directs the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess scientific data on fluoropolymers, the type of PFAS used in nonstick pots and pans.

Several states have recently moved toward restricting items with PFAS. Last January, Minnesota became the first state to ban PFAS in cookware. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance filed a lawsuit arguing the law discriminated against out-of-state commerce. A judge dismissed the suit in August.

The sustainability alliance has shared letters of opposition on its website from several prominent chefs and culinary personalities, including cook and television host Rachael Ray and Mark Dommen, the chef at Hestan, a new restaurant in Napa slated to open later this year.

Dommen explained the legislation would have placed an unfair burden on restaurants and food service providers.

“Non-stick cookware is essential to our daily operations and eliminating these products without a viable alternative would drive up costs, disrupt our supply chain, and put California restaurants at a competitive disadvantage,” Dommen wrote.

Ray, who has a cookware line, argued easy-clean cookware helps families eat healthier by making it easier to prepare meals without extra oils or fats.

Her letter drew a gentle rebuke from actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who implored Ray on social media to reconsider her stance and said her advocacy on behalf of the cookware industry was putting the bill in jeopardy.

“Some of us have so much PFAS in our blood that we face a far greater risk of developing cancer,” he wrote in a recent letter shared on X. “Let’s work together to get PFAS out of the everyday products we bring into our home.”

Scientific studies about the health effects of PFAS will continue, according to the CDC.

“Ongoing research has identified associations between PFAS exposure and several health impacts,” the agency’s website states. “There are many factors that can influence the risk of these effects, such as exposure, individual factors and other health determinants. Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity.”

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to study inequalities in youth sports, a move likely to draw ire from Republicans who believe the measure is intended to support transgender athletes.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 749, creates a commission to examine whether a new state board or department is needed to improve access to sports regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, income or geographic location.

In an open letter last month to the governor, Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) zeroed in on the term “gender identity.”

“The author and supporters of [this legislation] know if they were upfront and put forth a straightforward bill allowing biological males to compete against young women and girls, it would be easily defeated,” Jones wrote on Sept. 26. “So instead they are trying to establish a stacked commission to indirectly rig the issue in their favor.”

Jones urged Newsom to veto the bill and referenced the governor’s previous remarks about transgender athletes. During the first episode of his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom,” the governor — a longtime ally of the LGBTQ+ community — acknowledged the struggle faced by transgender people but called transgender women’s participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” and warned it was hurting Democrats at the polls.

Assemblymember Tina S. McKinnor, who introduced the bill, said Jones should keep his focus on Washington.

“Senator Brian Jones’ time would be better spent writing to the Republican controlled Congress to end the Trump Shutdown and reopen the federal government, rather than attacking trans students,” McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) wrote in an email to The Times.

Legislation referencing gender identity tends to be a lightning rod for controversy nationwide, with opinion polls suggesting Americans hold complex views on transgender issues.

A survey conducted this year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 66% of U.S. adults favor laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. At the same time, 56% of adults supported policies protecting transgender people from discrimination in jobs and public spaces.

During legislative committee hearings on the bill, McKinnor focused on the legislation’s potential racial impact. She said last year’s Play Equity Report found 59% of white youth participated in structured sports programs, compared with 47% of Black youth and 45% of Latino youth.

“Participation in youth sports remains unequal despite the well-documented physical, mental and academic benefits,” McKinnor told the Senate Health Committee in July. “These disparities stem from systemic barriers such as financial limitations, uneven program quality, outdated physical education standards and the lack of a coordinated statewide strategy.”

More than two dozen organizations endorsed the bill, including the Los Angeles Rams, city of San Diego, USC Schwarzenegger Institute, YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles and the Boys and Girls Clubs of West San Gabriel Valley and Eastside.

The legislation directs the state public health officer to convene the commission, which will be composed of 10 members appointed by the governor and three appointed by each the speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The health officer will also sit on the panel, or appoint their own designee.

Newsom did not issue a statement when his office announced a slate of bills he signed on Monday.

In March, Newsom infuriated the progressive wing of his party when, while hosting conservatives commentator Charlie Kirk on the governor’s podcast, he broke away from many Democrats on the issue of transgender athletes. Newsom, an outspoken champion of LGBTQ+ rights since he was mayor of San Francisco, publicly criticized the “unfairness” of transgender athletes participating in women’s sports.

WASHINGTON — Troops patrol train stations and streets in the nation’s capital. Masked federal law enforcement agents detain District of Columbia residents. Congress passes bills that further squeeze the city’s autonomy. And the one person who could act as a voice for Washington on Capitol Hill has been a rare sight.

Even longtime allies say Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s nonvoting delegate in the House, has not risen to the challenge of pushing back against the Trump administration’s intervention into her city. They cite her age, 88, and her diminished demeanor.

That has raised questions about the 18-term lawmaker’s future in that office and has led to calls for her to step aside and make way for a new generation of leaders. The race to replace her has began in earnest, with two members of the D.C. Council, including a former Norton aide, announcing campaigns for the 2026 contest.

“D.C. is under attack as at no other time in recent history, and we need a new champion to defend us,” Donna Brazile, a onetime Norton chief of staff, wrote in a Washington Post opinion essay.

Brazile acknowledged Norton’s legendary service and why she might wish to continue. “As I’ve told her in person,” Brazile said, “retirement from Congress is the right next chapter for her — and for the District.”

Norton has so far resisted that call. Her office declined to make her available for an interview, and her campaign office did not respond to requests for comment. The oldest member of the House, Norton came to office in 1991 and has indicated she plans to run next year.

Federal intervention created new demands

Washington is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed by Congress in 1973 that allowed residents to elect a mayor and a city council. But federal political leaders retain ultimate control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by that council.

That freedom came under further restrictions after Republican President Trump issued an emergency order in August. It was meant to combat crime as he federalized the city’s police department and poured federal agents and National Guard troops into the city. Trump’s emergency order expired in September, but the troops and federal officers remain.

While the D.C. delegate position is a nonvoting one, it grants the people of the district, who have no other representation in Congress, a voice through speechmaking on the House floor and bill introduction.

Even without a vote in Congress, “there are so many things that the delegate can do from that position, even if it’s just using the bully pulpit,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a voting rights group. “Even if it’s just giving folks encouragement or showing that fight that a lot of people want to see.”

At public appearances, Norton has seemed unsteady and struggled to read from prepared notes, including at a recent committee hearing focused on stripping some of Washington’s independence on prosecuting crime.

During Trump’s monthlong security emergency and since, Norton has not been as publicly visible as city officials, who attended protests and held media events denouncing the intervention.

Without a push for party unity from congressional leaders on Washington’s interests, the delegate’s role has added importance, said George Derek Musgrove, associate professor of history at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.

“The delegate really has to be a one-person whip operation to try and hold the caucus in line against this Republican onslaught,” Musgrove said.

City leaders step in

It is unclear what a more energetic delegate could have done, given Trump’s expansive view of executive power and Republican control of Congress. Nonetheless, some critics of her performance have suggested it might have helped the city avoid a recent federal budget plan that created a $1.1-billion budget hole earlier this year. Months later, Congress has yet to approve a fix for the shortfall, even though Trump has endorsed one.

With Norton quiet, other leaders in the Democratic-run city have filled the void since Trump’s emergency declaration.

Mayor Muriel Bowser has stepped in as the district’s main mediator with the administration and Congress, joined by the council, although that outreach has been fragmented. D.C. Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb sued the administration in the most combative stance against the federal government’s actions.

As Norton left a recent House hearing about the district, she responded with a strong “no” when asked by reporters whether she would retire.

Among those seeking to challenge her in next year’s Democratic primary are two council members — Robert White Jr., a former Norton aide, and Brooke Pinto. Many others in the city have expressed interest. Allies, including Bowser and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, have declined to publicly endorse another Norton run.

A push for new faces

Norton’s life is a journey through American history.

In 1963, she split her time between Yale Law School and Mississippi, where she volunteered for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. One day during the Freedom Summer, civil rights activist Medgar Evers picked her up at the airport. He was assassinated that night. Norton also helped organize and attended the 1963 March on Washington.

Norton went on to become the first woman to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which helps enforce anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. She ran for office when her predecessor retired to run for Washington mayor.

Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia and a staunch Norton ally who worked with her on a number of bills, said voters should know who she is and what she is capable of, even now.

“She saved the city,” he said, listing off accomplishments such as the 1997 act that spared the city from bankruptcy, as well as improving college access. “She was a great partner.”

Davis said both major political parties are yearning for new faces.

“She’s still very well respected. She’s got a lot seniority,” he said. “I think she’s earned the right to go out on her terms. But that’s gonna be up to the voters.”

Fields, Brown and Khalil write for the Associated Press.

On the campaign trail eight years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes in California by the end of this year. He’ll probably fall short by millions, but his latest move reaffirms the effort.

Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 into law Friday. The historic bill, which looks to add density to transit hubs across California, is one of the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory.

“All Californians deserve an affordable place to live — close to jobs, schools, and opportunity. Housing near transit means shorter commutes, lower costs, and more time with family. When we invest in housing, we’re investing in people — their chance to build a future, raise a family, and be part of a community,” Newsom said in a statement.

The sweeping bill — which takes effect July 1, 2026 — upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near transit hubs such as subway stops, light rail stops and bus stops with dedicated lanes.

Developers will be permitted to build up to nine-story residential buildings adjacent to subway stops, seven stories within a quarter-mile of them and six stories within a half-mile. The bill will also allow residential buildings that reach five to eight stories near light rail and dedicated bus lanes, depending on how close a piece of property is to a particular station or bus stop.

It’s the second major housing reform Newsom has greenlighted this year. In June, he signed a landmark bill that streamlines housing construction and cuts through the regulatory red tape brought by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Newsom’s decision caps months of debate and weeks of pleas from residents, advocacy groups and cities imploring him to either sign or veto.

It’s a huge win for YIMBY groups and developers, who claim the quickest way to address California’s housing crisis is to build housing — especially near transit stops to encourage public transportation and cut down on car pollution.

“With his signature on SB 79, Governor Newsom cements his legacy as one of the most transformative pro-housing leaders in California history,” California YIMBY Chief Executive Brian Hanlon said in a statement. “Now we begin the work of making sure its provisions are fully and fairly implemented.”

It’s a blow for some cities, including Los Angeles, which claim that the bill brings a one-size-fits-all approach to a problem that needs local control. Mayor Karen Bass asked Newsom to veto the bill, and the L.A. City Council passed a motion opposing it.

Now, the chaotic scramble begins as cities, developers and residents try to figure out who is affected by the bill — and who is exempted.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced the legislation in January, emphasizing the need for immediate action to address the housing crisis. But as the bill wound its way through the Legislature, a host of amendments, exemptions and carve-outs were added in order to secure enough votes to pass through the Assembly and Senate.

What was left was a wordy, at-times confusing bill. Wiener’s spokesperson Erik Mebust acknowledged that it’s “incredibly challenging to visualize.”

First, the bill’s scope was narrowed from all of California to only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations, leaving only eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sacramento.

The biggest impact will probably be felt in Los Angeles, which has an estimated 150 transit stops covered by the bill, according to the city’s preliminary assessment.

Transit hubs are being targeted for taller, denser housing

Senate Bill 79 would override local zoning laws, allowing buildings of five to nine stories in areas close to many public transit stops in Los Angeles, according to the city’s preliminary analysis. Still, some properties would be eligible for exemptions or a multi-year delay.

Distance from transit hub

Los Angeles Dept. of City Planning

Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES

Next, lawmakers added several deferral options, allowing cities to postpone implementation in selected areas until approximately 2030 — one year after they must submit their latest plan for spurring new housing construction and accommodating growth.

For the next five years, cities can exempt properties in high-risk fire areas, historic preservation zones and low-resource areas — an attempt to mitigate the bill’s effect on gentrification in low-income neighborhoods.

Transit stops and fire zones

Under Senate Bill 79, cities can seek a delay in upzoning for areas located in very high fire hazard severity zones. In northeast Los Angeles, these zones overlap with transit stops in multiple places.

Distance from transit hub

Los Angeles Dept. of City Planning, California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection

Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES

In addition, to eke out votes from lawmakers representing smaller cities, SB 79 zones shrank to a quarter-mile in cities with fewer than 35,000 residents, compared with a half-mile everywhere else.

Known as the “Beverly Hills carve-out,” the amendment shrinks the upzoning responsibility for certain small, affluent cities around Southern California including Beverly Hills and South Pasadena. As a result, the eligibility map gets weird.

For example, the law will only affect a quarter-mile area surrounding South Pasadena’s Metro A Line station, but a half-mile in its adjacent communities — Pasadena and L.A.’s Highland Park neighborhood. In L.A.’s Beverly Grove neighborhood, the law covers properties within a half-mile of the Metro D Line subway, but in Beverly Hills right next door, it only affects areas within a quarter-mile.

Before Newsom signed it into law, Los Angeles City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky called it unfair.

“Beverly Hills gets off the hook, and Los Angeles is left holding the bag,” she said in a statement.

Other oddities abound. For example, a city can exempt a particular property that is half a mile from a transit station as the crow flies but has physical barriers — railroad tracks, freeways — that make it more than a mile away on foot.

Several online maps attempted to show which areas would be upzoned under SB 79, but no one has produced a parcel-specific overview. L.A. planning officials recently published a draft map showing the places that they believe would be upzoned under SB 79. But they cautioned that the online tool is for “exploratory purposes only” — and that a binding eligibility map will eventually be published by the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

Cities, developers and homeowners will have to wait for clarity until that map is published. In the meantime, YIMBY groups are hoping the bill spurs multi-family development in L.A., which has waned in recent years due to unprofitable economics and regulatory uncertainty.

“A lot of people don’t want California to change, but California is changing whether they want it to or not,” said Matt Lewis, spokesperson for California YIMBY, one of the bill’s sponsors. “The question is whether we allow those changes to be sustainable and affordable, or chaotic and costly.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law Thursday that will make it illegal to declaw a cat in California, a practice that lawmakers and animal advocates argued is outdated and inhumane.

Assembly Bill 867 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José) bars veterinarians from performing the procedure, which involves amputating the first bone in each of a cat’s toes or severing its tendons so that it can’t extend its claws. California law previously required the procedure to be performed by veterinarians, but will now limit it to cases of medical necessity.

“Many countries have already outlawed this inhumane practice,” said Lee, who called declawing a “barbaric” mutilation to make life more convenient for pet owners.

While most owners do not declaw their cats, the practice has been used by some to prevent the animal from scratching people, furniture or other pets. Various polling has found that roughly a quarter of cats are declawed, but it has fallen out of favor among veterinarians and pet owners in recent years. The nation’s largest veterinary provider, Mars Veterinary Health, said it does not support elective declawing.

“Feline scratching and nail sharpening are normal behaviors and the removal of nails has been shown to lead to chronic pain and, in some cases, to cause long-term behavioral issues,” the company said in a statement on its website.

The California Veterinary Medical Assn., which represents veterinarians, opposed the bill, saying it sets a dangerous precedent to limit the scope of one profession.

“When our veterinarians are telling us that they’re performing the procedure, it’s usually because the elderly patient is usually on chemotherapy, on a blood thinner … and they can’t risk being scratched,” Grant Miller, director of regulatory affairs at CVMA, said during a legislative hearing.

Miller said surveys of their members found 80% of veterinarians no longer declaw cats, evidence he argued shows they’ve adequately policed themselves. He said AB 867 limits instances that should be considered legitimate reasons for declawing.

“If the owner is coming in and saying we can’t keep our cat because it keeps scratching us, can you do something, we believe that that’s qualification to consider the procedure, but only after all other alternatives have been exhausted,” he added.

The bill includes an exemption for cats that need the procedure out of medical necessity, including to address a recurring infection or a condition that jeopardizes the animal’s health. But, it does not include procedures to make a cat easier to handle, to avoid scratching people or furniture or for any other cosmetic reason.

West Hollywood became the first jurisdiction in the country in 2003 to pass a ban on declawing cats. Other cities have since passed similar restrictions, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Burbank, Culver City, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, according to an analysis of the bill.

New York was the first state to ban declawing in 2019, while dozens of other countries have made the practice illegal.

Lee, the bill’s author, said his hope is that the number of cats declawed in California will shrink to zero.

“You can trim the nails just like our nails,” he said. “You can do many different things.”

The most extreme, he added, is declawing.

Carlson Turner, seven, suffered the nasty injury backflipping into a swimming pool on holiday in Antalya, Turkey, and needed urgent treatment at Konakli Medical Centre

A mum was forced to fork out £1,500 when her son split his head open backflipping into a pool on holiday – as the hospital didn’t accept her Asda insurance.

Rhiannon Dunn, 32, was left “panicking and I was crying” when little Carlson was rushed to a medical centre to treat the 1.5cm gash on the back of his scalp following the accident. The seven-year-old lad had four stitches put in his head under local anaesthetics and an X-ray on his skull to make sure there were no fractures.

Rhiannon had secured insurance with Asda before the trip to Antalya, Turkey at the start of September, but the hospital would not accept the cover. The mum of four had to cough up £1,532.27 for the treatment before Carlson could be discharged from Konakli Medical Centre.

After Asda was approached by journalists, it said it has paid Rhiannon in full and “surprised and disappointed” the medical centre would not accept the £40 Superior Asda travel insurance.

READ MORE: M&S cafes: Marks and Spencer closing 11 restaurants as part of huge shakeupREAD MORE: British dad breaks spine and hip after horror fall from Ayia Napa hotel balcony

The accident happened on the first day of the trip, which Rhiannon had booked as a birthday present for Carlson. The youngster hit his head with such force it split open, causing severe bleeding.

Rhiannon, a full-time carer, said: “His cut was so wide open and deep, he needed stitches and to go to hospital. The wound was very deep and black and because he’s a red head it stood out.

“Everything was fine but then they shut us in a room and told us we had to pay the last bill. I told the hospital we had travel insurance from Asda. It was a premium travel insurance with unlimited access as I know kids can be clumsy.

“I was more worried about my son. He was looking at me and he was scared and frightened. I was more upset as you buy travel insurance for a reason and they wouldn’t accept it.

“In the end I had to borrow money from a friend. I don’t know what would have happened if I didn’t pay. Asda were shocked that they [the hospital] wouldn’t accept it.

“Asda spoke to the Turkish hospital and the hospital still point blank refused to accept the travel insurance. We were [put] in an office box room until we paid up. Asda were very distressed with the hospital and said they tried everything they could. I was panicking and I was crying.”

READ MORE: Brit who cracked his skull in horror holiday accident trapped overseas as ‘flying could kill him’

Konakli Medical Centre has apologised the mum felt “distressed” but said treatment is prioritised and “never delayed” over insurance matters. The hospital confirmed that ‘not all policies or insurers are accepted for direct cashless billing’, and in those instances patients are expected to pay the bill.

Rhiannon, who is from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, is now speaking out about her experience to warn holidaymakers to check their travel insurance is accepted at hospitals near to where they stay.

“It’s annoying because you buy travel insurance for a reason… He told me he’d hit his head, [then I spotted the blood] and started panicking,” Rhiannon, a mum of four, continued.

“I just want to warn other parents to check your insurance and what hospitals it covers. The hospital said they don’t work with Asda travel insurance but Asda said they hadn’t been notified that they didn’t work with them.

“It’s affected me financially as you pay for holiday insurance for a reason and expect to pay the excess [if you need to claim], but I’ve never known to have to cough up the whole amount.

“I want to raise awareness to other families to make sure they do thorough checks and to make sure the local hospital near to where you are staying is covered through your insurance.”

A spokesperson for Konakli Medical Centre said: “Firstly, we take all patient feedback seriously, and we are sorry to hear that Ms Dunn felt distressed during her visit.

“We work with many travel insurance providers; however, not all policies or insurers are accepted for direct cashless billing, particularly when there is no prior agreement or contract in place.

“In such cases, patients are generally required to pay for treatment and seek reimbursement from their insurer. This is standard procedure at many private healthcare facilities internationally.

“Our medical centre always prioritises the urgent care and well-being of the patient. Treatment is never delayed due to insurance matters.

“Once the patient is stable and treatment is complete, administrative steps regarding payment or insurance are handled. No patient is ever held against their will at our facility. Payment is processed in a separate administrative area from the patient registration desk.

“Additionally, before any treatment is carried out, the full medical process and associated costs are clearly explained to the patient (or guardian), and informed consent is obtained prior to proceeding.”

After being contacted by journalists, Asda said they were ‘surprised and disappointed’ that the hospital didn’t accept the insurance details but said they had now processed Rhiannon’s claim.

An Asda Travel Insurance spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that Ms Dunn had this experience on her holiday, and we wish her son a speedy recovery.

“Ms Dunn’s insurance claim has now been accepted and paid in full. We were surprised and disappointed that the hospital did not accept her insurance details, which was the cause of this problem and, had the hospital followed normal process, the challenges experienced could have been avoided.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill that sets up a state Office for Civil Rights to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in California schools.

Assembly Bill 715 was among the most hotly contested education-related measures, spawning from dissatisfaction, largely among a coalition of Jewish groups, to the way ethnic studies has been taught in some California classrooms.

The critics said in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that lessons reflected bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include lessons about the conflict in their syllabus.

The law creates a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state antidiscrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — expanded beyond an initial focus on antisemitism. This revision was a response to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms,” Newsom said in a statement. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: Our schools must be places of learning, not hate.”

Bill co-author and state Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) called the legislation “a historic first … that centers on the well-being of children across our state, many of whom bravely shared horrific stories about their experiences in our schools.”

The bill drew strong opposition from teacher unions, faculty groups, Muslim organizations and liberal groups who worried about the suppression of discussion about current events in the Middle East.

A surge of antisemitism

Antisemitic incidents increased in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war that began with a Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200. The war continues with Israel’s campaign to eradicate Hamas, leading to a Palestinian death toll estimated at more than 67,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

At a recent news conference in support of the bill, a Jewish student told of her experience at a public middle school in the Bay Area.

“After Oct. 7, everything changed,” said Ella, who was identified only by her first name. “People who I thought were my friends turned on me. They called me the Jew. They told me that my family is living on stolen land, and yelled at me that I was a murderer and a terrorist. They even started to chase me, and I had to run away for my own safety just because I’m Jewish and I speak Hebrew. I didn’t deserve any of this.”

Ella said some staff members, instead of providing support, expressed biased views.

No matter what a student believes or who they are, “every student deserves to be safe, valued and respected,” said bill co-author and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles).

The final — and much amended — version of the bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature. The vote in the state Assembly was 71 yes, 0 no with 9 abstentions; the vote in the state Senate was 35 yes, 0 no, 5 abstentions.

But this outcome belied an extended, hard-fought debate.

The original legislation targeted ethnic studies — or certain versions of how it was being taught. AB 715 evolved, however, to take on antisemitism more broadly.

A contentious debate

The legislation drew resistance from organizations including ACLU California Action and the California Teachers Assn. Leading voices among the critics also included pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups, a large faction of ethnic studies teachers and some Jewish groups that are strongly critical of the Israeli government.

ACLU California Action warned of a “chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech by educators and students.”

“We abhor and condemn antisemitism in any form,” the California Teachers Assn., wrote in a July letter to the state Senate Education Committee. But “at a time when there are those that seek to weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm some ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so.”

The bill coincided with Trump administration actions to combat antisemitism — and to suppress pro-Palestinian activism — as part of his wide-ranging ideological push. Those actions and AB 715 became inevitably associated in the public discourse.

Leading bill supporters, including state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), strongly objected to any linkage with the Trump administration.

“There’s a false and extremely dangerous narrative being peddled,” Wiener said in an August news conference. “It is an effort to basically say that if you are claiming antisemitism by anyone other than right-wing extremists, you’re somehow aligning yourself with Donald Trump. That is deeply, deeply offensive, and it is a lie.”

The ethnic studies connection

Although the bill evolved, it retained a mechanism to raise issues related to how ethnic studies is taught.

The bill speaks of ensuring antidiscriminatory course and teacher-training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Some critics of AB 715 acknowledged that the bill was revised to address their concerns but they still opposed it. They continue to worry that the new law will chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic studies and elsewhere — and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

There also was criticism on the right from Will Swaim of the California Policy Center — which said the bill that emerged was too watered down. It had become a “do-nothing law that promises to do everything,” Swaim wrote, while creating a new state bureaucracy in the process.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will allow police oversight officials investigating misconduct to access confidential law enforcement personnel records, a change that watchdogs have argued will increase accountability for officers who break the rules.

Los Angeles County advocates and members of the county’s Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission pushed for months in support of AB 847. The legislation comes in response to what proponents have described as efforts by the sheriff’s departments in L.A. and other counties to stymie access to sensitive records.

When it takes effect on Jan. 1, the new law will “grant access to the confidential personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers … to civilian law enforcement oversight boards or commissions during investigations” into officers’ conduct, according to the bill’s legislative summary.

Hans Johnson, the chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission, said it’s a much-needed change.

“I’m pleased because this has been a long road,” he said in a phone call Monday night. “Tonight is a moment of vindication.”

The Sheriff’s Department wrote in a statement that “the passage of AB 847 provides clarity to a long-standing legal issue that has been the subject of contention between the Department and its Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) since its inception.” It added that the “Department will work with County Counsel, labor representatives, and the COC on the implementation of this new law.”

Some law enforcement unions and advocacy groups criticized the law.

Lt. Steve Johnson, president of the L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said in an email that his organization “fully understand[s] the intent to enhance civilian oversight,” but when “access to confidential records isn’t safeguarded with precision and responsibility, it opens the door to real dangers. Transparency must never come at the cost of personal safety or public trust.”

Newsom’s office did not immediately provide a comment Monday.

Johnson said the bill’s signing is an especially meaningful victory for the families of people such as Joseph Perez and Emmett Brock, who were beaten by L.A. County sheriff’s deputies in 2020 and 2023, respectively. He also cited the case of Andres Guardado, who was shot to death by deputies in 2023, “and others who were the subjects of efforts by our commission to get records disclosed to us under subpoena about sheriff deputies’ encounters and beatings.”

In a phone call Monday night, Vanessa Perez, Joseph’s mother, called the law’s signing a “big victory not just for Joseph, but for all families impacted by the Sheriff’s Department.”

Perez said she expects the new law will allow the Civilian Oversight Commission to review previously off-limits records about the deputies who beat her son and redacted portions of other documents.

She and other members of the general public will not be able to access the records, as the law requires “oversight boards to maintain the confidentiality of those records, and would authorize them to conduct closed sessions, as specified, to review confidential records,” according to its legislative summary.

Still, Perez is hopeful her son’s case will benefit from the additional disclosure now allowable under AB 847.

Robert Bonner, a former federal judge and former chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission who has said he was abruptly removed from that post earlier this year, praised the bill’s signing in an email Tuesday.

The law “will be essential to holding accountable those who use excessive force against members of the public,” Bonner wrote. “This is a big deal. This is a quantum leap forward for civilian oversight commissions.”

THOUSANDS of pensioners will be able to apply for a winter cash boost worth up to £300 in just days.

More than nine million people are set to get the Winter Fuel Payment to help with their energy bills over the colder months.

1

Most people who are eligible will get the payment automatically, and will receive letters in the post from the DWP in October and November telling them how much cash they will receive.

However, certain pensioners will need to apply to get the benefit.

You can apply either by post or over the phone, and the DWP phone lines to make a claim open on October 13.

Postal applications opened earlier on September 15.

Pensioners have until March 31 2026 to make a claim.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has said that anyone claiming the following benefits does not need to make a claim:

• State Pension
• Pension Credit
• Universal Credit
• Attendance Allowance
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• Carer’s Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
• Income Support
• income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
• income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
• awards from the War Pensions Scheme
• Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
• Incapacity Benefit
• Industrial Death Benefit

If you don’t receive any of these benefits, you’ll need to claim manually if you’ve not got the Winter Fuel Payment before, or if you’ve deferred your State Pension since your last Winter Fuel Payment.

While the highest amount of free support is £300, the total will depend on when you were born and your circumstances on the qualifying week, which is between September 15 and 21 of this year.

Pensioners born before September 22, 1959, with an income of £35,000 or below will be eligible for between £100 and £300 to help towards heating bills.

Those hoping to receive the cash must be 66 by the end of the qualifying week.

You won’t be eligible for the payment if you earn more than £35,000 a year, and HMRC will claw back the automatic payment made to you through your tax code or tax return.

Your income can come from a range of factors including, your private pension and state benefits.

Other people who won’t be eligible include those who:

• live outside England and Wales
• were in hospital getting free treatment for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025 and the year before that
• need permission to enter the UK and your granted leave says that you cannot claim public funds
• were in prison for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025

The Winter Fuel Payment was axed for 10million pensioners last year, with only those on certain benefits qualifying.

But the government was forced to perform a U-turn after a huge public outcry, with the funding now being reinstated for millions.

The gov.uk website provides further guidance on the scheme and how to make a claim.

Pensioners are also being warned to be wary of text messages from scammers posing as the DWP, who try to get you to click on a fake link to make a claim.

These are not official DWP messages and should be deleted, the government has said.

The Winter Fuel Payment is separate from the Warm Home Discount, which offers struggling households £150 off their electricity bill.

The money is not paid to you, and households that are eligible will have the discount applied to their bill by their energy provider.

What energy bill help is available?

There’s a number of different ways to get help paying your energy bills if you’re struggling to get by.

If you fall into debt, you can always approach your supplier to see if they can put you on a repayment plan before putting you on a prepayment meter.

This involves paying off what you owe in instalments over a set period.

If your supplier offers you a repayment plan you don’t think you can afford, speak to them again to see if you can negotiate a better deal.

Several energy firms have schemes available to customers struggling to cover their bills.

But eligibility criteria vary depending on the supplier and the amount you can get depends on your financial circumstances.

For example, British Gas or Scottish Gas customers struggling to pay their energy bills can get grants worth up to £2,000.

British Gas also offers help via its British Gas Energy Trust and Individuals Family Fund.

You don’t need to be a British Gas customer to apply for the second fund.

EDF, E.ON, Octopus Energy and Scottish Power all offer grants to struggling customers too.

Thousands of vulnerable households are missing out on extra help and protections by not signing up to the Priority Services Register (PSR).

The service helps support vulnerable households, such as those who are elderly or ill.

Some of the perks include being given advance warning of blackouts, free gas safety checks and extra support if you’re struggling.

Get in touch with your energy firm to see if you can apply.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

The votes of Californians who drop their ballots in mailboxes on Nov. 4 may not be counted because of U.S. Postal Service processing delays, state officials warned Thursday.

In many parts of the state, a ballot dropped in the mail is now collected the next day, said Atty. General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber at a news event Thursday.

The change affects voters who live 50 miles or more from six regional mail processing facilities in Los Angeles, Bell Gardens, San Diego, Santa Clarita, Richmond and West Sacramento, according to Bonta’s office.

Ballots that aren’t postmarked on or before Election Day are not counted.

The large swaths of the state affected by the Postal Service changes include both rural and urban areas such as Bakersfield, the Central Valley, the Central Coast, Palm Springs and more.

The warning by state officials to drop off ballots earlier than Election Day marks a dramatic shift in California, where mail-in voting has become accessible and popular. All registered voters in California receive a vote-by-mail ballot.

“If you want your vote to count, which I assume you do, because you’re putting it in the mail, don’t put it in the mail on Election Day if you’re 50 miles from these voting centers,” Bonta said.

In the Nov. 4 special election, California voters will decide on Proposition 50, championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to try to boost their party’s numbers in Congress by redrawing district boundaries.

The proposal came in response to a redistricting measure in Texas that seeks to increase the number of congressional Republicans at the behest of President Trump.

Postal Service representative Natashi Garvins said in an email that same-day postmarking has never been guaranteed. Garvins said that customers who want a manual postmark should visit a Postal Service location and request one at the counter.

At Thursday’s news event, state officials unveiled a large map with six circles around the mail facilities. Communities located outside the circles are affected by the postmarking change. The Secretary of State’s office wasn’t able to provide a figure for how many registered voters are affected.

Elections expert Paul Mitchell examined the map at The Times’ request.

“This is going to be a significant change for any voters who are outside of these circles that have recently voted by mail on election days,” said Mitchell, who drew the proposed congressional districts that will be before voters on Nov. 4.

Some municipalities have elections on the Nov. 4 ballot in addition to Proposition 50, Mitchell noted.

A news release from the U.S. Postal Service in February outlined some of policy changes, which appear to be part of a 10-year plan rolled out several years ago.

The Postal Service isn’t funded by the government but does receive some money from Congress for certain services.

Bonta on Thursday defended his decision to not immediately inform voters about the changes, arguing that the announcement would have gotten lost in the news cycle.

“Now is a perfect time to tell people about this,” said Bonta. “This is the voting window. This is when people are thinking about voting.”

Weber said her office was only informed “a couple of weeks ago” about the changes.

Ballots will go out to California registered voters starting Oct. 6. Voters can mail ballots, drop them off at a ballot box or take them to a vote center.

Weber on Thursday also responded to questions about faulty voter guides mailed to some voters, which mislabeled a congressional district represented by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) as District 22 rather than District 27.

Weber blamed the Legislative Analyst’s Office for the error and said her office caught the mistake. About 8 million people will receive postcards informing them of the error, she said, at a cost to taxpayers of about $3 million to $4 million.

Meanwhile, Newsom on Thursday signed a pair of bills that he said will protect elections from undue influence.

Senate Bill 398 by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) makes it a crime to offer voters financial payments or the chance to win a prize in exchange for casting a ballot or registering to vote.

The new law exempts transportation incentives, such as rides to voting locations, or compensation provided by a government agency to vote.

The bill was introduced in response to Elon Musk’s America PAC announcing in 2024 that it would hold a lottery in swing states for $1 million for those who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.

The plan was widely criticized as an effort to drive voter registration in favor of then-candidate Donald Trump.

SB 42, also by Umberg, places a measure on the November 2026 ballot asking voters whether the state should repeal its statewide ban on public financing of campaigns.

If voters approve, California could begin considering systems where taxpayer dollars help fund candidates for public office, which supporters say diminishes the power of wealthy donors to sway the outcome of races. Charter cities are already permitted to have public financing programs, with Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Francisco among those that have chosen to do so.

Newsom said the bills are part of a broader push in California to safeguard democracy.

“Right now, our founding ideals and values are being shredded before our eyes in Washington D.C., and California will not sit idle,” Newsom said. “These new laws further protect Californians’ voices and civic participation in what makes our state and our country great.”

Responding to the Trump administration‘s hampering of federal regulators, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a bill greatly expanding California’s power over workplace disputes and union elections.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 288, gives the state authority to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other disputes between private employers and workers in the event the National Labor Relations Board fails to respond.

As Newsom signed the worker rights bill, his office drew a sharp contrast with the gridlock in Washington, D.C., where a government shutdown looms.

“With the federal government not only asleep at the wheel, but driving into incoming traffic, it is more important than ever that states stand up to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is a proud labor state — and we will continue standing up for the workers that keep our state running and our economy booming.”

The NLRB, which is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions, has been functionally paralyzed since it lost quorum in January, when Trump fired one of its board members.

The Trump administration has also proposed sweeping cuts to the agency’s staff and canceled leases for regional offices in many states, while Amazon, SpaceX and other companies brought lodged challenges to the 90-year-old federal agency’s constitutionality in court.

With this law in place, workers unable to get a timely response at the federal level can petition the California Public Employment Relations Board to enforce their rights.

The law creates a Public Employee Relations Board Enforcement Fund, financed by civil penalties paid by employers cited for labor violations to help pay for the added responsibilities for the state labor board.

“This is the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “California workers will no longer be forced to rely on a failing federal agency when they join together to unionize.”

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is hampered in other ways.

The law could draw legal challenges over whether the bill infringes on federal law.

It was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, which warned that the bill improperly attempts to give California’s labor board authority even as the federal agency’s regional offices continuing to process elections as well as charges filed by workers and employers.

The chamber argued that “courts have repeatedly held that states are prohibited from regulating this space.”

Catherine Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law counters, however, that in the first few decades of the NLRB’s functioning, state labor agencies had much more leeway to enforce federal labor rights.

She said the law “simply proposes going back to the system that existed for three decades.”

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) said the bill will ensure California workers can continue to unionize and bargain.

“The current President is attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees’ fundamental right to join a union,”McKinnor said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and frankly, un-American. California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize.”

WASHINGTON — With a government shutdown looming, Democrats and Republicans angrily blamed each other and refused to budge from their positions Tuesday, unable to find agreement or even negotiate as hundreds of thousands of federal workers stood to be furloughed or laid off.

The partisan standoff over healthcare and spending threatened to trigger the first U.S. government shutdown in almost seven years at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. To avoid it, the Senate would have had to pass a House measure that would extend federal funding for seven weeks while lawmakers finish their work on annual spending bills.

A vote on the bill, along with a Democratic alternative, was scheduled for early evening. But a resolution appeared far off as tempers flared, increasing the odds of a shutdown by the hour.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are trying to “bully” Democrats by refusing to negotiate on an extension of healthcare benefits and other priorities.

“It’s only the president who can do this. We know he runs the show here,” Schumer said Tuesday morning, after a bipartisan White House meeting the day before yielded little progress.

“Republicans have until midnight tonight to get serious with us,” Schumer said.

President Trump and his fellow Republicans say they won’t entertain any changes to the legislation, arguing that it’s a stripped-down, “clean” bill that should be noncontroversial.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Republicans “are not going to be held hostage” by the Democrats’ demands. The GOP-led House was on a weeklong recess, unavailable for immediate votes even if the Senate did find bipartisan agreement. And far from entering into negotiations, Trump instead posted a fake, mocking video of Democrats on Monday evening after the White House meeting.

On Tuesday, Trump threatened retribution, saying a shutdown could include “cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like.”

It was still unclear if either side would blink before the deadline.

Blame game escalates

Although partisan stalemates over government spending are a frequent occurrence in Washington, the current impasse comes as Democrats see a rare opportunity to use their leverage to achieve policy goals and as their base voters are spoiling for a fight with Trump. Republicans who hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate would probably need at least eight votes from Democrats to end a filibuster and pass the bill with 60 votes, since Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is expected to vote against it.

Still, Schumer said Trump and Republicans would be to blame if the government shuts down.

A handful of Democrats said they were still deciding how to vote, holding out for a last-minute compromise. Thune said he is “hoping there are Democrats out there who are reasonable and understand what’s at stake here.”

The last shutdown was in Trump’s first term, from December 2018 to January 2019, when he demanded that Congress give him money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump retreated after 35 days — the longest shutdown ever — amid intensifying airport delays and missed paydays for federal workers.

Democrats’ healthcare asks

Millions of people could face higher insurance premiums if the healthcare subsidies expire at the end of the year. Congress first put them in place in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats say they want the subsidies immediately extended. They have also demanded that Republicans reverse the Medicaid cuts that were enacted as a part of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” this summer and for the White House to promise it will not move to rescind spending passed by Congress.

“We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.

Thune has pressed Democrats to vote for the funding bill and take up the debate on tax credits later. Some Republicans are open to extending the tax credits, but many are strongly opposed to it.

In rare, pointed back-and-forth with Schumer on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, Thune said Republicans “are happy to fix the ACA issue” and have offered to negotiate with Democrats — if they will vote to keep the government open until Nov. 21.

No agreement at the White House

The bipartisan meeting at the White House on Monday was Trump’s first with all four leaders in Congress since retaking the White House for his second term. Schumer said the group “had candid, frank discussions” about health care and the potential for health insurance costs to skyrocket once expanded Affordable Care Act tax credits expire Dec. 31.

But Trump did not appear to be ready for serious talks. Hours later, he posted a fake video of Schumer and Jeffries taken from footage of their real news conference outside the White House after the meeting. In the altered video, a voiceover that sounds like Schumer’s voice makes fun of Democrats and Jeffries stands beside him with a cartoon sombrero and mustache. Mexican music plays in the background.

At a news conference on the Capitol steps Tuesday morning, Jeffries said it was a “racist and fake AI video.”

Schumer said that “we have less than a day to figure this out” and Trump is trolling on the internet “like a 10-year-old.”

A crucial, and unusual, vote for Democrats

Democrats are in an uncomfortable position for a party that has long denounced shutdowns as pointless and destructive, and it’s unclear how or when it would end. But party activists and voters have argued that Democrats need to do something to stand up to Trump.

Some groups called for Schumer’s resignation in March after he and nine other Democrats voted to break a filibuster and allow a Republican-led funding bill to advance to a final vote.

Schumer said then that he voted to keep the government open because a shutdown would have made things worse as Trump’s administration was slashing government jobs. He says now that he believes things have changed, including the passage this summer of the massive GOP tax cut bill that reduced Medicaid.

Shutdown preparations begin

The stakes are huge for federal workers across the country as the White House told agencies last week that they should consider “a reduction in force” for many federal programs if the government shuts down. That means that workers who are not deemed essential could be fired instead of just furloughed.

Either way, most would not be paid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in a letter to Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Tuesday that around 750,000 federal workers could be furloughed each day once a shutdown begins.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, said some of the many federal workers in his state support a shutdown.

“What I hear from federal workers is they’ve been on a slow, shutdown firing since the beginning of this administration,” Warner said. “They want us to push back.”

Federal agencies were already preparing. On the home page of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a large pop-up ad reads: “The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people.”

Jalonick, Mascaro and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Kevin Freking, Matthew Brown, Darlene Superville and Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will create new transparency measures for large AI companies, including public disclosure of security protocols and reports of critical safety incidents.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said Senate Bill 53 will create “commonsense guardrails” to ensure groundbreaking innovations don’t sacrifice safety and transparency amid the rapid growth of AI technologies. Newsom said the bill strikes the right balance of working with the artificial intellegence companies, while not “submitting to industry.”

“AI is the new frontier in innovation, and California is not only here for it – but stands strong as a national leader by enacting the first-in-the-national frontier AI safety legislation that builds public trust as this emerging technology rapidly evolves,” Newsom said in a statement.

The bill was introduced this year after Newsom vetoed a broader bill last year, which was also authored by Wiener. That bill, SB 1047, was supported by Elon Musk and prominent AI researchers, but opposed by Meta and OpenAI.

In his lengthy veto message last year, Newsom called SB 1047 “well-intentioned” but added that it was not the “best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” In punting the measure last year, Newsom announced that his administration would convene a working group of AI leaders and experts to develop more workable protections that became the basis for SB 53.

The new law will require companies to disclose their safety and security protocols and risk evaluations. It mandates reporting of critical incidents — such as cyberattacks or unsafe behavior by autonomous AI systems — to the state’s Office of Emergency Services.

Cal OES would begin publishing annual reports in 2027 that anonymize and aggregate critical safety incidents it receives. SB 53 also strengthens whistleblower protections for employees who report violations.

The Attorney General in California will be able to bring civil penalties of up to $1 million against companies who violate the new law.

“With a technology as transformative as AI, we have a responsibility to support that innovation while putting in place commonsense guardrails to understand and reduce risk,” Wiener said in a statement.

The bill was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association.

“This exhaustive approach compels developers to allocate significant time and resources toward preparing for hypothetical risks rather than addressing actual, demonstrable harms,” wrote the Chamber of Progress.