affect

You’re ready for a change of pace — not just leaving the workforce, but moving to another state or country in order to start fresh. While exciting, you’re probably also prepared for some challenges, like learning your way around your new neighborhood and coming up with a new retirement budget.

Though you might not expect it, you could also face Social Security challenges that affect your benefit delivery or how far your checks go. Fortunately, you can minimize the difficulty these issues pose by planning for them well in advance.

Image source: Getty Images.

Moving to another state

Moving to another state won’t change the monthly Social Security check you’re entitled to, whether you’re receiving a retirement or spousal benefit. But it could affect how far your checks go. For example, if you move from a city with a high cost of living to a rural area where living expenses are cheaper, you might find that your checks go further than they would in your current city. On the other hand, if you move to a pricier area, you may have to pay for more of your expenses out of your own pocket.

Moving could also put you at risk of or help you avoid state Social Security benefit taxes. Only nine states still have these, and each has its own rules that determine who owes these taxes. It’s possible to live in a state with a Social Security benefit tax and not pay any state taxes on your checks. But it’s worth reaching out to your new state’s department of taxation or an accountant in that state to learn how it could affect your tax bill.

You could also find yourself owing federal Social Security benefit taxes wherever you go. These depend on your provisional income — your adjusted gross income (AGI), plus any nontaxable interest you have from municipal bonds and half your annual Social Security benefit. If you’re forced to spend more due to a higher cost of living in your new home, this could increase your AGI and your provisional income, potentially forcing you to pay more in federal income taxes.

Moving to another country

If you decide to move to another country, you sidestep the issue of state Social Security benefit taxes. Depending on where you go, you might also be able to secure a lower cost of living to help your benefits go further.

You will still be responsible for paying federal Social Security benefit taxes if your provisional income is high enough. And you could also run into an accessibility issue if you retire in certain countries.

The Social Security Administration can pay you via direct deposit or a prepaid debit card in most parts of the world. However, if you retire in the following countries, you may not be able to receive your benefit payments:

• Azerbaijan
• Belarus
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan
• Uzbekistan

You may be able to petition the Social Security Administration to make an exception for you if you agree to certain restricted payment terms.

This isn’t an option for those who choose to retire in Cuba or North Korea, however. There, you cannot get Social Security benefits at all.

If you retire in a country where the U.S. government won’t send Social Security checks, you may still be able to receive all your back payments if you later move from that country to a place where the Social Security Administration can send benefits again.

It’s best to contact the Social Security Administration directly if you have any questions about how your move could affect your Social Security checks. This way, you’ll be able to get a personalized answer and then you can adjust your budget accordingly.

One bill aims to raise lagging reading skills among California children by mandating how schools teach this critical subject. Another seeks to overhaul cafeteria meals by eliminating highly processed foods. A third aims to protect students from being derailed by discrimination.

These bills and others passed by the Legislature in the session’s final busy days will directly affect the classroom experience of some 5.8 million California public schools students. Broadly speaking, these bills target students’ minds, health and emotional well-being — and the results were not without controversy.

The measures now land on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to approve or reject them.

Assembly Bill 715: Anti-discrimination

Among the most hotly contested education-related measures, Assembly Bill 715 was spawned from dissatisfaction — largely among a coalition of Jewish groups — to the way ethnic studies is being taught in some California classrooms. Critics say that in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and that they reflect bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include the conflict in their syllabus.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — would expand the focus beyond antisemitism, a revision that responds to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California has taken a historic stand against antisemitism in our schools,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. “For far too long, Jewish students have endured slurs, bullying, and open hostility in their classrooms with nowhere to turn. AB 715 is a promise to those students — and to all children in California — that they are not invisible, that their safety and dignity matter.”

The legislation that finally emerged would create 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 anti-discrimination 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.

Issues related to ethnic studies would include ensuring anti-discriminatory 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.

Critics of AB 715 — which include the California Teachers Assn. — acknowledge that bill was revised to address their concerns but still oppose it. They say it could chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic students and elsewhere and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

AB 1454: Science of Reading

A sweeping bill would overhaul how reading is taught in California classrooms — mandating phonics-based lessons and culminating decades of debate on how best to teach children this foundational skill. The bill is unusual in a state that generally emphasizes local control over instruction.

AB 1454 would require school districts to adopt instructional materials grounded in what supporters call the “science of reading,” which is based on research about how young children learn to read.

The now-favored approach leans heavily on decoding and sounding out words based on the letter sounds, while laying out five pillars for more effective instruction: phonemic awareness (the sounds that letters make), phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The hope is that this teaching style will boost persistently disappointing test scores.

A 2022 study of 300 school districts in California found that fewer than 2% of districts were using curricula that proponents viewed as sufficiently strong in science-of-reading practices.

These advocates have long been critical of alternative “whole language” approaches that rely heavily on the concept that children are more engaged when they learn to read with less emphasis on decoding words. Teachers focus instead on surrounding children with books to foster a love of reading, directing children to figure out unknown words based on context, pictures and other clues.

“Transforming California’s education system requires a coordinated approach rooted in proven solutions,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an education advocacy nonprofit that has championed the change.

Many California teachers, however, remain committed to different methods and chafe at a state-mandated approach, especially one that runs counter to their classroom experience and previous training. Advocates for students learning English have voiced especially strong opposition to the science-of-reading philosophy.

AB 1264: Ultra-processed foods

Chicken nuggets, corn dogs, packaged frozen pizza, chips, canned fruits and sugary cereals are the types of ultra-processed foods in school meals targeted in Assembly Bill 1264, which would require healthier cafeteria options in the years ahead.

Heavily processed foods often include reconstituted meat along with chemical additives such as preservatives, emulsifiers, coloring and other ingredients absent from scratch cooking — not to mention added sugars, fats and salt — that together can harm students “physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” according to bill author Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino).

The bill was opposed by manufacturers who considered it too constraining and too subject to non-scientific whims.

The final version eased some concerns by setting up a review process rather than simply listing foods and chemicals to ban. There also is a gradual phase-in over several years.

The expectation is that processed foods that remain on the menu will be healthier and also that there will be an acceleration of efforts to prepare foods within school kitchens, relying as much as possible on local and fresh ingredients.

AB 564: Cannabis tax and child care

The Legislature also voted to claw back an increase to the cannabis excise tax, which took effect in July and raised the state tax rate paid by consumers to 19%. The goal is to bolster the struggling legal-cannabis industry. A chunk of child-care funding is among the casualties of the lower tax revenue.

Assembly Bill 564 would mean an estimated $180-million annual reduction for law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup. Of the total, about $81 million would have funded subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families. Overall, the state budget to assist with child care is $7 billion, a figure that advocates view as short of what’s needed, especially with further potential cuts looming.

Other notable measures

Assembly Bill 461 would end the treatment of truancy as a crime under state law. Existing law can subject the parent or guardian of a student who is chronically absent or late to school with a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Prosecutions are rare and the potential penalties are typically viewed as deterrents. But the pendulum in California has shifted away from tough-on-truancy measures to alternatives such as counseling and family assistance.

The Legislature also has passed bills in support of immigrant families, that will frequently have a carryover effect on how schools operate, such as a bill that bars immigration officers from campus unless they have a valid judicial warrant.

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

An independent commission of inquiry investigating violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory has warned it cannot continue its work.

Severe funding shortages are derailing the body established by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in 2021.

The United States withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council earlier this year. Still, it continues to owe about $1.5bn in outstanding fees to the UN.

What, then, is the impact on this commission in the face of rapidly increasing Israeli settler violence and the illegal expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank?

Presenter:

James Bays

Guests:

Andrew Gilmour – Former UN assistant secretary-general for human rights

Sari Bashi – Human rights lawyer and founder of Gisha, an Israeli human rights organisation

William Schabas – Professor of international law at Middlesex University and a former chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of up to 300 percent on semiconductor imports, with exemptions for foreign companies that commit to manufacturing in the US.

Trump has cast the proposed tariff as a way to drive investment to the US, but experts say it could also disrupt global supply chains and even penalise companies already making chips in the US.

What are the details of Trump’s plan?

Few details have been released since Trump announced plans for a 100 percent tariff at a White House event on August 7.

The US president said exemptions would be given to companies that build research or manufacturing facilities in the US, but tariffs could be applied retroactively if they failed to follow through on their planned investments.

“If, for some reason, you say you’re building, and you don’t build, then we go back, and we add it up, it accumulates, and we charge you at a later date, you have to pay, and that’s a guarantee,” Trump told reporters.

On Friday, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that more details would be announced soon and that the tariff could be much higher than previously suggested.

“I’ll be setting tariffs next week and the week after, on steel and on, I would say chips – chips and semiconductors, we’ll be setting sometime next week, week after,” Trump said en route to Alaska to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I’m going to have a rate that is going to be 200 percent, 300 percent,” he added.

Why does Trump want to impose tariffs on chip imports?

Trump wants to impose a tariff on chips for several reasons, but the main one is to re-shore investment and manufacturing to the US, said G Dan Hutcheson, the vice chair of Canada’s TechInsights.

“The primary goal is to reverse the cost disadvantage of manufacturing in the US and turn it into an advantage. It’s mainly focused on companies that are not investing in the US,” Hutcheson told Al Jazeera.

“Exclusions are negotiable for entities that align with his goal of bringing manufacturing back to the US.”

More broadly, the tariff is also intended to address the US dependence on imported semiconductors and buttress Washington’s position in its ongoing rivalry with China, another chip-making powerhouse.

Both issues are bipartisan concerns in the US.

The Trump administration earlier this year launched a Section 301 investigation into alleged unfair trade practices in China’s semiconductor industry, and a Section 232 investigation into the national security implications of US reliance on chip imports and finished products that use foreign chips.

Who will be impacted by the tariff?

Foreign tech giants that have already invested in the US, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung, would likely not be affected by the tariff.

It is less clear how the measure could affect other companies, including chip makers in China, where companies face barriers to US investment from both US and Chinese regulators.

Yongwook Ryu, an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, said the tariff could be used as leverage by the US as it negotiates the rate of its so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on China.

The US has imposed blanket tariffs of 10-40 percent on most trade partners since August 7, but negotiators are still hammering out a comprehensive trade deal with Beijing.

“My view is that while the reciprocal tariffs are generally aimed more at addressing the US trade deficit problem and re-shoring manufacturing back to the US, product-specific or sectoral tariffs [like semiconductors] are aimed at serving the strategic goal of strengthening US technological hegemony and containing China,” Ryu told Al Jazeera.

What is the value of US chip imports each year?

The US imported about $40bn in chips in 2024, according to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, citing United Nations trade data.

Imports mainly came from Taiwan, Malaysia, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico and China, but experts say this data does not capture the full picture of chip flows in and out of the US.

Chips can cross borders multiple times as they are manufactured, packaged, or added to finished goods.

Chris Miller, the author of Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology, estimates that another $50bn worth of chips entered the US in 2024 via products like smartphones, auto parts and home appliances from countries like China and Vietnam.

Miller also estimates that a “substantial portion” of US chip imports are manufactured in the US before being sent overseas for packaging – a labour-intensive process – and then re-imported.

“Many of the chips imported from key trading partners like Mexico, Malaysia and Costa Rica are likely actually manufactured by US firms like Texas Instruments and Intel, which have manufacturing in the US but often have their test and assembly facilities abroad,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

Why is the tariff a concern for the global chip industry?

Trump’s tariff plans have injected further uncertainty into an industry already grappling with his administration’s sweeping efforts to reorder global trade.

“It’s unclear whether the US government has the capacity to effectively enforce this and… there’s not really any guidance in terms of what these tariffs are actually going to look like,” Nick Marro, the lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told Al Jazeera.

The White House has yet to provide details on whether the tariff will apply to chips originally made in the US and chips contained in finished products.

If the latter were included in the tariff plans, the fallout would extend to industries like electronics, home appliances, automobiles and auto parts. 

Miller said that it would be consumers in the US and elsewhere who would be among those most affected by the tariff. 

“Initially, it appears that most costs would be paid by companies via lower profit margins, though in the long run, consumers will pay the majority of the cost,” he said.

California is in a standoff with Texas over redistricting that could decide the balance of power in Congress for the end of Donald Trump’s presidency — a high-stakes gambit with risks for both sides. But if the courts have their say, Texas, facing accusations of racial discrimination, may find itself at a distinct legal disadvantage.

Partisanship unleashed

Both efforts by Texas Republicans and California Democrats are blatantly partisan, proposing a mid-decade redrawing of district lines for the express purpose of benefiting their party in the 2026 midterm elections.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is working with a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature on “trigger” legislation that would schedule a ballot initiative this fall for the new maps. It was a direct response to a Texas plan, supported by Trump and currently in motion in the Austin statehouse, to potentially flip five seats in the upcoming election from blue to red.

The Supreme Court has ruled that judges are powerless to review partisan gerrymandering, even if, as it wrote in 2019, the practice is “incompatible with democratic principles.”

The court ruled in Rucho vs. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering “is incompatible with the 1st Amendment, that the government shouldn’t do this, and that legislatures and people who undertake this aren’t complying with the letter of the Constitution,” said Chad Dunn, a professor and legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project who has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court. “But it concluded that doesn’t mean the U.S. Supreme Court is the solution to it.”

What courts can still do, however, is enforce the core provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from redistricting that “packs” or “cracks” minority groups in ways that dilute their voting power.

“Texas doesn’t need to have a good reason or a legitimate reason to engage in mid-decade redistricting — even if it’s clear that Texas is doing this for pure partisan reasons, nothing in federal law at the moment, at least, would preclude that,” said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University. “But Texas cannot redistrict in a way that would violate the Voting Rights Act.”

Vestiges of a landmark law

In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the current makeup of the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

Today, Texas’ proposed maps may face a similar challenge, amid accusations that they are “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said. Already, the state’s 2021 congressional maps are under legal scrutiny over discrimination concerns.

“The Supreme Court affirmed two years ago that the Voting Rights Act works the way we all thought it worked,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. “That’s part of the reason for current litigation in Texas, and will undoubtedly be a part of continuing litigation if Texas redraws their lines and goes ahead with it.”

The groundwork for the current Texas plan appears to have been laid with a letter from Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional. Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority.

The resulting maps proposed by Texas redraw all three.

J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas’ 2021 redistricting effort, said the politics of race in Texas specifically, and the South generally, make its redistricting challenges plain to see but harder to solve.

How do you distinguish between partisanship, which is allowed, and racism, which is not, in states where partisanship falls so neatly down racial lines?

That dilemma may become Texas’ greatest legal problem, as well as its saving grace in court, Kousser said.

“In Texas, as in most Southern states, the connection between race and party is so close that it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between them,” he said. “That seems to give a get-out-of-jail free card, essentially, to anybody who can claim this is partisan, rather than racial.”

Today, nine states face ongoing litigation concerning potential violations of the Voting Rights Act, a law that turned 60 years old this week. Seven are in the South — states that had for decades been subject to a pre-clearance requirement at the Justice Department before being allowed to change state voting laws.

The Supreme Court struck down the requirement, in the case of Shelby County vs. Holder, in 2013.

California moves forward

Newsom has been vocal in his stance that California should position itself to be the national bulwark against the Texas plan.

Last week, the Democratic caucuses of the state Legislature heard a presentation by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on how California might legally gerrymander its own maps for the 2026 midterms.

Matt Barreto, the co-founder of the project and a professor of political science and Chicana/o and Central American studies, said his organization’s position is that gerrymandering “should not be allowed by any state,” he said.

But “if other states are playing the game, the governor is saying he wants to play the game too,” Barreto added.

He said that although five seats have been discussed to match what Texas is doing, he sees a pathway for California to create seven seats that would be safely Democratic.

That includes potential redraws in Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire and the northern part of the state. Barreto said there are many districts that currently skew as much as 80% Democratic, and by pulling some of those blue voters into nearby red districts, they could be flipped without risk to the current incumbents, though some new districts may have odd shapes.

For example, districts in the north could become elongated to reach into blue Sacramento or the Bay Area, “using the exact same standards that Texas does,” he said.

Legislators seemed receptive to the idea.

“We’ve taken basic American rights for granted for too long,and I think we’re ill equipped to protect them,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who attended the meeting.

“To me, this is much bigger than Texas,” she said.

State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who has worked on redistricting in the past, echoed that support for Newsom, saying he was not “comfortable” with the idea of gerrymandering but felt “compelled” in the current circumstances.

“In order to respond to what’s going on in Texas in particular,” Umberg said, “we should behave in a like manner.”

Barreto, the UCLA professor, warned that if any redistricting happens in California, “no matter what, there’s going to be a lawsuit.”

Dunn said that it’s possible voters could sue under the Voting Rights Act in California, claiming the new districts violate their right to fair representation — even white voters, who have more traditionally been on the other side of such legal actions.

The 1965 law is “for everybody, of every race and ethnicity,” Dunn said. A lawsuit “could be on behalf of the places where the white community is in the minority.”

The prospect of that litigation and the chaos it could cause gives pause to some voting rights experts who see the current situation as a race to the bottom that could ultimately harm democracy by undermining voters’ trust in the system.

“It’s mutual destruction,” said Mindy Romero, a voting expert and professor at USC, of the Texas-California standoff.

The best outcome of the current situation, she said, would be for Congress to take action to prohibit partisan gerrymandering nationwide. This week, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who represents a district north of Sacramento that would be vulnerable in redistricting, introduced legislation that would bar mid-decade redistricting. So far, it has gained little support.

“Just like lots of other things, Congress is dropping the ball by not addressing this national problem,” said Richard Hasen, a UCLA professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project.

“When it comes to congressional redistricting, fairness should be evaluated on a national basis, since the decisions made in California or Texas affect the whole country,” he said.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Tired of waiting for the city, Angelenos paint their own crosswalks. Some become permanent
The what happened: Federal agents use Penske rental truck as ‘Trojan Horse’ to raid Los Angeles Home Depot
The L.A. Times special: Inside the high-stakes clandestine poker world that led to a Hollywood Hills murder

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nearly half the global population has also been exposed to dust levels exceeding WHO safety thresholds.

A new report by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has found that sand and dust storms are leading to “premature deaths” due to climate change, with more than 330 million people in 150 countries affected.

On Saturday, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) marked the International Day of Combating Sand and Dust Storms and its designation of 2025 – 2034 as the UN Decade on Combating Sand and Dust Storms.

The storms “are fast becoming one of the most overlooked yet far-reaching global challenges of our time”, said Assembly President Philemon Yang. “They are driven by climate change, land degradation and unsustainable practices.”

The secretary-general of WMO, Celeste Saulo, said on Thursday that sand and dust storms do not just mean “dirty windows and hazy skies. They harm the health and quality of life of millions of people and cost many millions of dollars through disruption to air and ground transport, on agriculture and on solar energy production.”

Airborne particles from these storms contribute to 7 million premature deaths annually, said Yang, adding that they trigger respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and reduce crop yields by up to 25%, causing hunger and migration.

“About 2 billion tonnes of dust are emitted yearly, equivalent to 300 Great Pyramids of Giza” in Egypt, Laura Paterson, the WMO’s UN representative, told the UNGA.

More than 80% of the world’s dust comes from the deserts in North Africa and the Middle East, added Paterson, but it has a global effect because the particles can travel hundreds and even thousands of kilometres across continents and oceans.

Undersecretary-General Rola Dashti, head of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, told the assembly the storms’ economic costs are “staggering”.

In the Middle East and North Africa, it costs $150bn, roughly 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), annually to deal with dust and sand storms, she said.

“This spring alone, the Arab region experienced acute disruption,” Dashti said, citing severe storms in Iraq that overwhelmed hospitals with respiratory cases and storms in Kuwait and Iran that forced school and office closures.

Dust from the Sahara Desert in Africa has travelled as far as the Caribbean and Florida, she said. For the United States, dust and wind erosion caused $154bn in damage in 2017, a quadrupling of the amount since 1995, according to a study in the scientific journal Nature.

The WMO and World Health Organization also warned that the health burden is rising sharply, with 3.8 billion people – nearly half the global population – exposed to dust levels exceeding WHO safety thresholds between 2018 and 2022, up from 2.9 billion people affected between 2003 and 2007.

This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom touched one of the third rails of California politics. He hopes the result sends a shock through the state’s homebuilding industry.

Newsom strong armed the state Legislature into passing what experts believe are the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since the law was signed in 1970.

The changes waive CEQA for just about any proposed low- or mid-rise development in urban neighborhoods zoned for multifamily housing. No more thousand-page studies of soils, the shadows the buildings may cast and traffic they may bring. No more risk of CEQA lawsuits from angry neighbors.

Wiping away these rules shows that no matter how challenging the politics, the state will remove the barriers it has built over decades that have ended up stifling housing construction and suffocating Californians’ ability to live affordably, the governor said when signing the legislation Monday evening.

“The world we invented has been competing against us,” Newsom said. “We have got to perform.”

Californians won’t have to wait long for the effects of the reforms. They took effect with the stroke of the governor’s pen.

At least in the short term, the result may be less of an immediate impact on construction and more of a revolution in how development in California cities gets done. Numerous hurdles both within and outside of the control of local and state governments — interest rates, availability of labor, zoning, material prices and tariffs among them — still will determine if housing is built. What’s changed is that the key point of leverage outside groups have wielded, for good and for ill, over housing construction in California communities is gone.

It can be hard to understand how CEQA became, in the words of one critic, “the law that swallowed California.”

At base, all CEQA says is that proponents of a project must disclose and, if possible, lessen its environmental effects before being approved. Yet the process CEQA kicks off can take years as developers and local governments complete reams of studies, opponents sue them as inadequate and judges send everyone back to start all over again.

Time is money, and project opponents soon realized that they could use this uncertainty to their advantage. Sometimes, if their complaints fell on deaf ears at City Hall, threatening a CEQA challenge was the only way to get themselves heard and avoid harmful outcomes. But in other circumstances, the law became a powerful cudgel wielded to influence concerns that at best had a tangential relationship to the environment.

Examples are legion. The owner of a gas station in San Jose sued a nearby rival gas station that wanted to add a few more pumps. Pro-life advocates sued a proposed Planned Parenthood clinic in South San Francisco. Homeowners in Berkeley sued the University of California over its plans to increase enrollment at the state’s flagship university and the traffic and noise that might result.

Over time, CEQA negotiations became embedded in California’s development regime, known and used by all the major players. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass once recalled that as a community organizer in South L.A. in the 1990s she used CEQA to try to stop liquor stores from opening. A company owned by billionaire developer Rick Caruso, Bass’ opponent in the most recent mayoral election and normally a CEQA critic, this year filed a CEQA lawsuit challenging a major redevelopment of a television studio near a Caruso shopping mall.

For housing, the primary interest group invested in CEQA at the state level has been labor organizations representing construction workers. Their leaders have argued that if legislators grant CEQA relief to developers, which boosts their bottom lines, then workers should share in the spoils through better pay and benefits.

This union opposition was enough in 2016 to prevent a proposal from then-Gov. Jerry Brown to limit CEQA challenges to urban housing development from even getting a vote in a legislative committee. A year later, a version of Brown’s bill passed but only because developers who wanted to take advantage were required to pay union-level wages to workers.

Just about every year since, lawmakers have engaged in this dance with labor groups. In 2022, the California Conference of Carpenters defected from the State Building and Construction Trades Council and supported a less-strict version of labor standards, which lawmakers ushered into multiple bills.

But housing construction hasn’t followed. The number of projects that have been issued permits are millions less than what Newsom promised to build on the campaign trail in 2018. Californians continue to pay record prices to house themselves, and those fleeing the state often cite the cost of living as the reason. Newsom and legislators decided they needed to do more.

“We don’t want to sit here and ram our head against the wall on the politics and then have nothing to show for it,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) at Monday’s signing ceremony.

Wicks authored legislation this year that waived CEQA rules for urban housing development without any labor requirements and was working it through the regular process. In May, Newsom grabbed Wicks’ bill and additional CEQA reform legislation and said he wanted them to pass as part of the budget. Doing so would fast-track the bills into law without the normal whittling down that happens in committee hearings.

As budget negotiations heated up, Newsom doubled down. In a rare move, he insisted on tying the approval of the state’s entire spending plan for this year to the passage of CEQA reforms. That meant legislators who otherwise would be opposed could only vote no if they were willing to torpedo the budget.

What emerged was a clean CEQA exemption for homebuilders in urban multifamily areas. Union-level wages for construction workers only are required for high-rise or low-income buildings, both of which often are paid now because of specialized labor required for taller buildings and other state and local rules for affordable construction.

CEQA doesn’t typically affect single-family home construction in established communities.

How much this is going to matter immediately for homebuilding isn’t clear. Studies are mixed on CEQA’s effects. One by UC Berkeley law professors found that fewer than 3% of housing projects in many big cities across the state over a three-year period faced any CEQA litigation. Another found tens of thousands of housing units challenged under CEQA in just one year. Still, more advocates of reform argue that it’s impossible to quantify the chilling effect that the threat of CEQA lawsuits have on development in California and how much the law has dominated the debate.

“This signals a seismic shift in Democratic politics in California from NIMBYism to abundance,” said Mott Smith, board chair of the Council of Infill Builders, a real estate trade group that advocates for urban housing. “You can touch this mythical third rail and live to see another day.”

Those who live across the street from a proposed five-story apartment building and oppose the housing will have to find a way other than a 55-year-old environmental law to stop it.