ban

Israel’s highest court heard a constitutional challenge to legislation banning UNRWA’s operations in Israel. Supporters said the laws are necessary for national security, while rights advocates argued they jeopardise access to aid and basic services for millions of Palestinians.

A new study by Australia’s internet regulator has revealed that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens are continuing to use social media platforms despite the government’s prohibition for children under 16.

The ban came into effect in December last year.

Here is what we know about how it’s going.

What did the latest report find?

Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, said it had found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite being banned from doing so.

The report also found that most of those children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had been before the ban came into force on December 10 last year.

“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month ⁠mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement.

About half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said that their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or ‌that age-checking ⁠systems had incorrectly determined they were older.

Prior to the ban, nearly 86 percent of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81 percent, the eSafety report said.

Around 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily, the report found. Before the ban, the number was roughly 60 percent.

The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events”.

At the time the new rule was introduced, experts warned that enforcing it would be extremely difficult.

Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera in December last year: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”

In December 2025, Australia prohibited children under 16 from using social media platforms, becoming the world’s first country to do so. Video game platforms are not included in the ban.

The government said this was prompted by increasing concerns about the effects of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and self-harm content on the mental and physical health of children and young people.

Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.

Under the law, 10 of the biggest social media platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to block Australian-based users younger than 16. Such steps include using age-verification tools to determine how old users are.

As of January 16, social media companies had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in Australia, according to officials.

“We stared down everybody who said it couldn’t be done, some of the most powerful and rich companies in the world and their supporters,” Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters in January.

However, several months later, it now appears that youngsters have been able to open new accounts with relative ease.

Days after Australia’s ban took effect, Reddit, one of the 10 platforms required to block minors, lodged a challenge to the ban in the High Court, while still complying with it. The case is still ongoing.

How has the Australian government responded to the latest findings?

On Saturday, Andrew Leigh, Australia’s assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, defended the new law, arguing that the social media ban has already reshaped the “national debate” about the use of social media by children.

The ban has been “an important game changer in the conversation among parents”, Leigh said in televised remarks.

“We’ve had millions of accounts shut down,” he said.

“We never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance. We don’t get 100 percent compliance out of minimum drinking age laws, but it’s still appropriate that we have that law on the books.”

While social media has long provided easy access to unregulated and often harmful content, misinformation and hate speech, the recent explosion of AI‑generated material poses new risks to the wellbeing of children and young people, experts say.

The American Psychological Association published an advisory last year warning that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can amplify harmful content such as violent or sexual videos.

It also added that adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy of AI-generated content. “They may also be unaware of the persuasive intent underlying an AI system’s advice or bias,” the advisory stated.

AI can also amplify pre-existing societal prejudices, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.

Children worldwide are also worried about the misuse of AI for online child sexual exploitation and “deepfakes”, according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on children’s perspectives and AI, which it published in October 2025.

Following the introduction of Australia’s landmark law, some other countries are contemplating similar bans.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it also plans to introduce a ban on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram from spring 2027 onward. 

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, educational tools, and e-commerce and music streaming will be excluded.

The government will announce the new regulations by the end of this year.

In November 2025, Denmark’s government said it also plans to prohibit social media platforms for children under 15, saying it had secured majority support in parliament. The ban is due to come into effect later this year.

Around the same time, Malaysia said it would ban social media accounts for people under 16 from this year.

In April, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis formally announced plans to prohibit social media access for children under 15 from January 1, 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.

July 31 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday turned down a request by Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, to block a Minnesota law banning nudification technology.

Minnesota in May became the first state in the nation to pass legislation banning the practice of using AI to digitally remove clothing from a pictured individual.

xAI, which develops the chatbot and image generator Grok, filed the suit over the ban Tuesday.

“The court respectfully denies the request for a temporary restraining order before tomorrow,” U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled on Friday. “xAI filed the motion on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect.

“Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate.”

The federal judge set a hearing on Aug. 19 to evaluate the lawsuit.

“See you in court, creep,” Gov. Tim Walz said in a statement on X, referring to Musk.

In its lawsuit, xAI argues that the Minnesota law “imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification.'”

“xAI accordingly does not contest Minnesota’s interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent,” the company wrote in court documents. “But the statute Minnesota enacted extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions.”

Minnesota’s law would apply fines of $500,000 to websites and apps providing nudification technology.

Musk’s company has faced intense scrutiny since a version of Grok, released in December, began generating thousands of sexualized images, including some that appeared to be of minors.

The company in January changed its policies, but Grok continued to generate sexualized images as late as April.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides with so-called “forever” chemicals from use on California’s farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agriculture community.

Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have phased out the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be lasting and harmful to humans.

Representatives for agricultural groups argued at committee hearings last month that banning the chemicals was an overreach that would result in higher numbers of imports of food from other states and stifle innovation in developing new pesticides.

The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, requires the state to list pesticides with PFAS in its public database.

“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to still push to phase out PFAS chemicals.

The bill marks the latest back-and-forth over PFAS, chemicals that are found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and are known as forever chemicals because some of their components don’t easily break down.

State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations or health risks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.

The governor, in his veto message, cited affordability concerns. At the same time, the state has passed various laws intended to protect people from PFAS, including banning them in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.

The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., released a study in March that found that nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables tested contained PFAS residues, including 90% of peaches and nectarines.

The EWG, one of the bill’s supporters, uses a broader criteria to define PFAS than the state and federal authorities.

A spokesperson for California’s Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at detections of the PFAS, but the state “looks at how the detections compare to federal tolerance levels.”

At a June Senate committee hearing on Schultz’s bill, EWG’s chief science officer, David Andrews, said that PFAS pesticides “fall into a regulatory blind spot.” He also said regulators, including the state, have “been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS.”

A spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.

Taylor Triffo, a representative for a coalition of California agricultural associations, said at a different Senate hearing in June that the bill’s original language to ban new PFAS chemicals “would deny California farmers access to [the] next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates and help address emerging pests and diseases.”

Representatives for agriculture groups said at hearings last month that they don’t object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals in the state database.

Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, called pesticide use a “balance” at the June hearing before voting for the amended version.

“Part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state,” she said. “We’ve got to do everything, I think, we can to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country.”

Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group objected to the original bill because it would have restricted products based on their chemical class rather than on a pesticide’s scientific evaluation of risk.

“We’re confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing reevaluations,” Quinonez said.

Schultz told The Times he hopes to work with the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation on oversight in the coming years. He rejected any premise that there is “absolutely nothing to worry about, nothing off [with PFAS], because that’s just inconsistent with the science.”

Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.

Iran rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that ships damaged by Iran in the Gulf would be compensated from frozen Iranian funds. IRGC spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari warned that any vessel taking such money will be banned from transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

July 25 (UPI) — The Department of Agriculture on Friday lifted a ban on cattle imports from Mexico that had been in place to contain the spread of a parasite threatening U.S. livestock.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said Douglas, Ariz., would be the first port of entry to be open on Aug. 24.

All cattle imports from Mexico were halted by the Biden administration in November 2024, when the first cases of the flesh-eating New World screwworm were detected in the south of the country.

“The closure of the Southern ports of entry for the last year has been a tough but necessary action to control the spread of NWS in Mexico and protect the American livestock industry,” Rollins said in a statement.

But closing the border came at a cost, Rollins said, causing “a significant economic challenge to various sectors of our industries in Texas.”

“There is no doubt that closing the ports last May caused higher prices in beef,” the agriculture secretary told reporters last month. “We’re obviously very focused on affordability, but the president agreed when we briefed him that we had to keep our livestock producers as safe as possible with this outbreak moving through Mexico.”

Despite border closures, there have been multiple cases of New World screwworm detected in the United States.

Paralympic medallist Daphne Schrager insists she has “never cheated” after being given a two-year ban following an “unintentional” positive test for a banned substance.

Schrager, who won a silver medal at Paris 2024, tested positive for the banned substance Ligandrol, which selectively builds muscle and bone mass.

However, the ban has been backdated to start when she was initially suspended on 2 June 2025.

It will end on 1 June 2027, meaning Schrager could still compete at the 2028 Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. However, she has been left out of the England squad for the Commonwealth Games, currently taking place in Glasgow.

The substance was found after the 25-year-old completed an out-of-competition test last year.

UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) said Schrager argued that she had been exposed to environmental contamination with two possible scenarios.

She said she may have been contaminated at a gym that she had attended to receive a massage, or at a shared home address.

However, a UKAD tribunal found that while Schrager had not intentionally used a banned substance, she had not proved that it was an inadvertent environmental contamination.

In a lengthy statement on Instagram, external, Schrager said she had paid for hair and nail analysis as part of her attempts to prove her innocence – but because the exact source of contamination could not be proven, she had been banned.

“In June last year, I received news that turned my world upside down,” she said. “I had tested positive in an anti-doping test for a trace amount of Ligandrol, detected at 0.0006ng, resulting in my suspension from cycling since that time.

“I want to be very clear: I have never cheated, nor have I ever knowingly taken any banned substance. Facing the possibility of a four-year ban unless I could prove that the result was unintentional has been incredibly distressing.”

Schrager said the panel had confirmed she did not intentionally use or ingest Ligandrol, and she had proved that inadvertent environmental contamination from a minute trace of Ligandrol was to blame for the positive test.

She said the trace of Ligandrol would have provided her with no performance advantage. As a result, none of her results have been disqualified.

“In cases like mine, by the time an athlete is informed of their positive test, too much time has passed to identify the exact source of contamination with the certainty that the rules demand,” Schrager added. “That is not a failure of honesty or effort, it is simply too much of a burden to be met in every case.”

“This is one of the most difficult periods of my life. Losing my contract, my team and the structure that had long shaped my purpose and identity left me facing a level of uncertainty I had never known.”

Schrager, who has cerebral palsy, said the impact on her mental health has been “significant and at times overwhelming” – but vowed she would return to action in 2027.

She won Team GB’s first medal of the 2024 Paralympics with silver in the women’s C1-3 3000m individual pursuit.

She went on to win two gold medals at the Para-cycling Road World Cup in May 2025 in the C2 class – before being suspended a month later.

July 22 (UPI) — The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to pass a bill that adds new limits on congressional stock trading, though it does not quite enact a complete ban.

House Republicans also attached a section requiring people to provide photo identification in order to vote, a provision from the controversial SAVE America Act, The Hill reported.

Lawmakers voted 232-198 to pass the bill, which would still need to pass the Senate. Thirteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it.

The bill would restrict active members of Congress, their spouses and any dependent children from buying new stocks of any publicly traded company. It would allow them to keep stocks they already own. Lawmakers would also have to file a public notice with the House clerk at least seven days before they sell a stock.

Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wisc., chairman of the House Administration Committee, led the bill and said it is “critical to restoring public trust in this institution.”

“I believe it is time we just stop allowing members to buy new stock,” he said. “Doing so removes the appearance of impropriety altogether.”

Many Democrats said the bill doesn’t go far enough — it doesn’t apply to the executive branch — and opposed the addition of changes to voting measures.

“House Republicans are pushing (a) voter suppression bill that will upend mail-in voting and throw the elections into chaos, and are trying to trick members into supporting it by linking it to a partial stock trading ban that falls short of the full congressional stock trading ban the American people want,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., told CNN.

Magaziner previously co-led a stalled bipartisan bill to ban stock trading.

If lawmakers violate the new rules, they would have to pay a fee of $2,000 or 10% of the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, and forfeit any profit.

Rangers manager Derek McInnes has been given a four-game touchline ban, with one suspended, for calling the decision to award Celtic a late penalty at Motherwell “disgusting”.

The comments, made at the end of last season when McInnes was in charge of Hearts, related to a stoppage-time spot-kick given for handball that was converted by Kelechi Iheanacho.

Celtic’s 2-1 victory at Fir Park kept them one point behind Hearts, who they beat to the title a few days later in a final-day decider.

Speaking to Sky Sports after a win against Falkirk at Tynecastle, McInnes said: “When you heard Celtic got a 96th minute penalty that was going to VAR and they were checking it, you just assume what’s happened is they get the penalty.

“Having seen it again, it’s disgusting. It is.

“I don’t think it’s a penalty kick.

“But we’re up against it. We’re up against everybody.”

Following the late drama at Fir Park, referee John Beaton’s contact details were posted online, with police keeping his home under surveillance. A teenager was then charged “in connection with a data protection offence”.

SFA head of referees Willie Collum backed the call, citing “clear evidence” with Sam Nicholson’s hand and arm “in an unnatural position” and the resulting contact “a punishable handball”.

Motherwell and their former midfielder Elliott Watt have already been sanctioned over social media posts on the matter.

Watt, who has since joined Turkish club Samsunspor, received a four-match suspension, having described it as “the worst VAR decision in history”.

Motherwell were fined £5,000 for releasing a video with the caption: “As the world of football mocks our game, we simply have to draw a line in the sand and shift the focus.”

The Scottish FA compliance officer issued complaints to all three parties under disciplinary rule 72 stating that: ‘No recognised football body, club, official, team official or other member of team staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the SFA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or micro-blogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the decision(s) and/or performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character.”

The suspended ban for McInnes will be applicable if he is in breach of rule 72 again before the end of the 2026-27 season.

July 21 (UPI) — The French parliament passed a new law to ban children younger than 15 from using social media.

The law was a pet project of President Emmanuel Macron, who is near the end of his term limits. He announced the ban on X immediately after it passed Wednesday.

“I had committed to it, and now it’s been voted on: social media will be banned for those under 15 starting back-to-school. Thanks to the parliamentarians. It’s up to the Constitutional Council to rule, then on to action to make this measure concrete and protect our children online,” Macron said.

The French Senate and National Assembly approved the ban, despite criticism from some on the left, which has said it prevents online anonymity.

The law will be implemented in two stages: Beginning in September, children under 15 can’t open accounts, and age verification will be required for all new accounts; and in January 2027, the age verification rule applies to all existing accounts.

The French privacy regulator would have to approve the age-verification tools used, and everyone in France would have to verify their age on social media. The law doesn’t create penalties against children or parents who don’t comply or for social media providers. Those would likely need to come from the European Union.

In December, Australia was the first country to ban children under 16 from using social media apps, though a June New York Times report showed it is largely failing to keep kids off social media. Britain and Canada are working on implementing similar bans, and Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain have all written laws. The EU is expected to create a bill this fall.

“France wants to push its own legislation to make the EU act, and the EU act fast,” Jessica Galissaire, a senior policy researcher at Interface, a Berlin-based think tank, told The Times. “I see it more as a political announcement.”

Macron, last year, argued for the ban.

“It is clear that before the age of 15 or 16, social media is not a good thing. This is because at that age, we have not yet sufficiently consolidated things on an affective, emotional and cognitive level,” he said.

He likened it to age restrictions on drinking alcohol.

“Sixty years ago, kids were served wine,” he said. “There may still be people who serve beer to infants, but in my opinion, they are not in a majority in the country today.”

SPAIN is set to implement stricter rules when it comes to smoking and vaping – and it will affect all holidaymakers.

The list of smoke-free places that already exists could be expanded to beaches and national parks under new law.

This week, Spain approved a draft law to extend the list of smoke-free places.

It will be forbidden to smoke or vape on the terraces of bars and restaurants as well as on beaches, riverside beaches, national parks and swimming pools.

Health Minister Mónica García said: “Anyone who wants to have a coffee or enjoy their leisure time freely on a terrace should be able to do so without the smoke from nearby tables becoming part of the menu.”

Also affected are outdoor performance spaces, university campuses and work vehicles such as delivery vans.

COAST EFFECTIVE

Best UK family theme & waterparks with cheap stays from just £3pp a night

DIVE IN

Mega waterpark hotels with EVERYTHING you ever wanted & all inclusive from £189pp

It’s not just a ban directly in these areas – Spain is also hoping to introduce ‘enhanced protection zones’

This is where smoking and vaping will be banned within a 15-metre perimeter around them in certain places like museums and children’s parks and playgrounds.

The amount people can be fined could also change.

According to local media, those breaking these rules could be be fined between €200-€600 (£170-£511).

The law will also ban the use of tobacco-related products by those under the age of 18.

Until now, the law only prohibited the sale and supply to under 18s.

For minors who break the ban on consuming tobacco or vapes, fines for minor offences will start at €200 (£170).

Athough this could be replaced by community service.

These rules aren’t in effect yet as the changes will only be made if the bill is approved by Spanish parliament.

It’s not the only rule that could see you fined in Spain – some areas ban sunlounger hogging, with £216 fines.

So we’ve rounded up all of the Spain travel rules you need to know about.

And don’t try and drink at these French beaches either – that’s banned too.

Proposed rules would have US regulator block the entry of swarm-capable drones, mainly from China.

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has moved to prohibit imports of advanced drones, mainly from China, citing mounting national security concerns over military-grade technology.

Under the proposed rules announced on Tuesday, the US regulator will block the entry of drones equipped with swarming capabilities and infrared sensors for high-resolution thermal imaging.

Meanwhile, exemptions for components produced outside China, introduced in December, have been extended until January 2028, suggesting a focus on isolating Chinese manufacturers, such as DJI and Autel Robotics.

The move comes days after US President Donald Trump accused China of interfering in the 2020 US elections. It signals a hardening of Washington’s stance against foreign-made surveillance technology, while attempting to mitigate immediate supply chain shocks for domestic users.

FCC officials said the measures were necessary to “secure the drone supply chain” and prevent sensitive data from being accessed by foreign states.

In 2022, the FCC banned telecommunications and video surveillance equipment from prominent Chinese brands, including Huawei and ZTE, citing an “unacceptable risk to national security”.

US security officials have warned that equipment from Chinese brands such as Huawei could be used to interfere with fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks and collect sensitive information.

One of the largest manufacturers of telecommunications equipment in the world, Huawei has had an embattled relationship with the US and its allies, facing some of the heaviest sanctions ever placed on a single company in the US.

In 2019, Trump signed into law the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, which established criteria to identify communications services Washington deemed could pose a risk to national security.

The FCC’s latest move reflects a bipartisan consensus in Washington to treat foreign drone technology as an “unacceptable risk” to national infrastructure.

ONE destination in France is cracking down on drinking in public spaces – including its pretty beaches.

Anyone seen opening a beer late in the evening after the bars have closed could be in a lot of trouble.

The municipality of Saint-Jean-de-Luz on the Basque coast in France is stopping locals and visitors from drinking in public spaces.

This includes its beaches like Grande Plage, Plage d’Erromardie and Plage de Lafitenia.

Anyone found breaking these rules could be fined up to €150 (£127).

Talking to local media, Sébastien Larroche from the municipal police and parking department said there have been problems with large gatherings during the evening.

COAST EFFECTIVE

Best UK family theme & waterparks with cheap stays from just £3pp a night

DIVE IN

Mega waterpark hotels with EVERYTHING you ever wanted & all inclusive from £189pp

He said: “On the Grande Plage and the beaches in particular, alcohol consumption is prohibited because we had large gatherings of young people in the evening.

“We introduced this to try to counter this phenomenon of gatherings on the beaches and also the alcohol consumption of young people.”

He added that the problems happened mostly at night or after the local bars closed.

The rules do have a little flexibility though. For example those enjoying a glass of rosé with a picnic during the day shouldn’t be penalised.

This will be at the discretion of officials though, as Sébastien Larroche explained, “distinction is made by the agents in the field.”

Other seaside spots across the country have put similar rules in place like La Baule-Escoublac in western France where drinking alcohol on beaches is prohibited.

Other places like La Grande-Motte and Agde have seasonal restrictions – so check local rules before opening a bottle by the sea this summer.

It’s not the first time there have been alcohol bans in France.

Temporary rules were implemented across the country in late June to stop people drinking at certain places during the heatwave.

The ban was at organised events and public spaces to protect locals from the extreme heat.

SACRAMENTO —  Gov. Gavin Newsom will soon leave office without gaining the support of fellow Californians for his most ambitious climate project: the banning of new gas-burning car sales by 2035.

Newsom issued an executive order in 2020 taking new fossil-fueled passenger vehicles off the California market nine years from now.

But roughly two-thirds of Californians think that’s a lousy idea, according to a poll released last week by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

Among likely voters, 65% oppose the termed-out governor’s edict and just 34% support it. The opposition among infrequent or nonvoters is even stronger.

Negative attitudes are especially stiff in inland California — particularly the Central Valley — and among middle-class people with incomes between $40,000 and $100,000, those over age 55 and Republicans.

Opposition to being denied new gas vehicles has grown substantially since 2021, when Californians were evenly divided over the issue.

But the state’s anticipated next governor, moderate Democrat Xavier Becerra, is more in line with Californians’ thinking on gas cars than is Newsom.

Becerra told me during his primary election campaign that Newsom’s 2035 goal is not realistic.

“We can’t make it by ‘35,” he said. “But we can make it.” Sometime in the future.

The fact is lots of people can’t afford electric vehicles because they tend to cost more than cars fueled by gas.

Besides, there’s an inconvenience of having to pull off the road for a 40-minute recharging stop on a long trip — if you can find a vacant recharger.

And “electricity is not cheap. It often depends on the time of day,” notes PPIC Polling Director Mark Baldassare, who owns an electric vehicle and says he likes it.

Newsom has been hawking electric vehicles since he came into office, like some slick TV pitchman — his goal being to greatly reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

The governor and the Legislature recently appropriated $135 million to motivate Californians to buy new or used electric vehicles.

First-time EV buyers will receive $3,500 rebates on vehicles with manufacturer’s suggested retail prices of $50,000 or less. Used car buyers will get $1,750 off if the sale price is $25,000 or less.

Automakers will pay for half the incentive costs — obstensibly, at least, if they don’t just secretly add their tab to the vehicle price.

This smacks of a huge taxpayer giveaway to manufacturers if the state isn’t careful. Is it really the state’s job to sell cars? Shouldn’t it be the automakers’ responsibility to offer competitive prices? Whatever.

Newsom’s plan partially replaces a $7,500 federal tax incentive for new EVs that President Trump and the Republican-led Congress allowed to expire last year.

California already leads the nation in EV ownership, with around 1.3 million vehicles registered. That’s more than five times the No. 2 state, Florida. And it’s not just because California’s population is much larger. We also lead in per capita ownership.

There’s plenty of contradiction and hypocrisy in the divided minds of Californians, as highlighted in the lengthy PPIC survey into their views on environmental policies.

People strongly favor fighting climate change — at least in concept — until it adversely affects them directly. That’s just human nature.

Asked what they consider the most important environmental issue facing California, those surveyed placed wildfires first, followed closely by global warming.

Baldassare says what struck him in the poll was “the disconnect between what people support in policies and what they’re prepared to do.”

“Two things are going on in California now,” the pollster continues. “People have their long-standing concerns about the environment. But they also have immediate concerns about affordability.

“When it comes to what people are willing to do, they’re worried about living costs and particularly the cost of energy. It’s something we’ve noticed even more this year. It affects the political and economic landscape.”

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed support Newsom’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero “as soon as possible, but no later than 2045.”

And there’s overwhelming support for taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce.

Roughly 60% favor requiring all electricity to be generated with renewable energy — such as wind and solar — by 2045, although support for that state edict has dropped by 15 percentage points in the last six years.

Paradoxically, people aren’t willing to pay more for electricity produced by renewable sources. Roughly 60% reject that idea. Ten years ago, almost that many told PPIC pollsters they were willing to pay extra.

And today they’re not nearly ready to surrender their option of buying a new gas-fueled automobile.

For one thing, they’re not convinced there’ll be enough charging stations to handle a lot more EVs. Twice as many people are not confident of that as are confident, the poll found.

The California Energy Commission reported in January that there were more than 200,000 public and private EV charging stations in the state, plus 800,000 chargers in homes. The state is helping to add more along highways.

Becerra has pledged to take a fresh look at several controversial Newsom projects, including the pokey bullet train. There’s much uncertainty about the pending new governor.

But there’s one pretty good bet: In 2035, sales of new gas cars will still be getting a green light.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump escalates election attacks, threatens California over voter data
Bringing back competition: Too many congressional races are over before they start. Here’s a remedy
The L.A. Times Special: Trump’s voter fraud speech was bait. Stop biting

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

California has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, but state lawmakers are concerned that a new technology is allowing criminals to obtain firearms by building them from scratch. By using 3-D printers, they warn, lawbreakers are able to make key components of untraceable “ghost guns” with the press of a button.

Ghost guns, which authorities say make it more difficult to investigate shootings because they lack serial numbers, have been a growing problem for law enforcement nationwide. According to federal data, the number of privately made firearms recovered in crimes surged from more than 1,600 in 2017 to nearly 27,500 in 2023. California leads the nation in recoveries over that period.

In response, legislators are seeking to mandate that all 3-D printers sold in the state come equipped with software that prohibits users from making triggers and other gun parts. A bill passed the Assembly in May and is advancing through the Senate.

But the proposal has drawn opposition from a diverse coalition, which includes civil liberties groups, tech companies and 3-D printing enthusiasts as well as Hollywood effects studios, who argue that “firearm blocking software” will also prohibit legitimate designs and expose makers to government or corporate surveillance.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Inside a San Fernando workshop, Samuel McBride makes movie monsters come to life for the camera. One of his latest creations, an animatronic hand, clutches when he pulls a trigger that he built using a 3-D printer.

McBride says the technology has transformed the work at Legacy Effects, where he is a lab manager, but he’s worried it will soon be off-limits because of a proposed change in California law.

McBride fears the law would interfere with the making of devices like the one that activates his lifelike hand.

“If I just took apart this trigger and put it on a printer, how is anyone, computer or human, going to tell me how I intend to use it?” he asked.

Backers of the proposed law say it has the potential to help save lives.

“As gun violence continues to devastate our communities, we cannot allow 3-D printing technology to become a new pipeline for untraceable weapons,” said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, the bill’s author.

Critics of the proposed California law note that 3-D printed guns represent a small subset of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement at crime scenes. According to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, most “privately made firearms” recovered by police are assembled from mail-order kits or unfinished parts rather than printed at home.

Jorge Perez of Monster City Studios holds a sculpture made with a large, industrial 3-D printer.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

“This fight is not over whether ghost guns are dangerous,” said David Tobin, an independent creator leading the coalition. “It is over whether the state can or should require a consumer tool to surveil a person’s designs before they are allowed to make something.”

Everytown for Gun Safety, a national nonprofit that advocates for gun control and has pushed for the passage of California’s bill, pointed to rising 3-D printed firearm recoveries across 20 major cities and warned that homemade plastic parts can help people bypass background checks or turn handguns into automatic weapons.

Krystal LoPilato, who advocates for policy at Everytown, said the group has successfully guided a similar bill through the New York state Legislature.

A handgun frame made using a 3-D printer is held for display at the office of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

LoPilato said the policy aims to be proactive, rather than allowing more violence to take place before regulating the problem. Opponents counter that California already bars unlawful firearm manufacturing with 3-D printers, and that ghost gun recoveries have declined since the state adopted a series of new laws and enforcement efforts.

A June 1 letter to lawmakers, signed by a group of 3-D printing companies, stagecraft and prop-making studios and industry stakeholders, argued that AB 2047 raises 1st Amendment concerns and would harm businesses. The letter was signed by a wide variety of companies and individuals, including Prusa Research, a prominent 3-D printer manufacturer.

“To an algorithm, a gun barrel and a piece of pipe are the same grooved cylinder,” Jakub Kmošek, head of public affairs at Prusa, said in a statement to The Times. “This bill will only make it harder to build, repair, experiment, and innovate in California.”

Alan Scott, Legacy Effects’ co-founder, said 3-D printing has become central to the company’s survival in an industry where budgets are tighter and deadlines are shorter.

“Everything’s just got to be done faster these days. You don’t get to reduce the quality. We couldn’t stay in business if we weren’t 3-D printing,” Scott said.

To solve this problem, Bauer-Kahan put an entertainment industry exception in the bill, exempting “printers manufactured for and sold exclusively to entertainment industry stagecraft and propmaking studios” from the software requirement.

McBride, Legacy’s 3-D lab manager, said those printers do not really exist.

Legacy uses the same general-purpose machines available to other businesses willing to invest in the equipment, and no printers are marketed exclusively for Hollywood, he said.

1

2

1. A 3-D printed sculpture concept at Monster City, a special effects studio in Santa Clarita. (Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times) 2. 3-D printing advocate David Tobin showcases a robotics kit at Monster City. (Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

Legacy also worries about privacy. Major studios require strict secrecy before a movie or show is released. To accommodate this, the company shares design files through encrypted servers and protected internal systems.

“We’ve invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring all that technology here under the umbrella of our NDAs and our IP protection,” McBride said.

Bauer-Kahan noted at a Senate hearing that she is working to address concerns raised by 3-D printing users and industries that rely on the technology.

Paul Powers, chief executive of Physna, a company whose technology could be used to block gun parts on 3-D printers, said the strongest criticisms of AB 2047 “misunderstand how the software works.”

“Something that vaguely looks like a gun part is not considered to be a match,” he said.

Powers also responded to surveillance concerns by clarifying that his company’s software only blocks the printer from making prohibited parts — it doesn’t flag them to authorities or log users’ intellectual property.

“There’s no communication with anyone; it doesn’t go anywhere,” he said.

But Marleen Vogelaar, chief executive of Thangs3D, a platform for independent creators to share and sell 3-D printable designs, said that answer does not resolve her broader concerns about how AB 2047 would work in practice.

“These databases will always lag behind innovation and can be easily circumvented and generate false positives that block legal designs and wrongly flag everyday makers,” she said at a Senate hearing this month. “The bill also creates serious privacy and security risks by giving third parties access to analyze designer’s files. That threatens intellectual property and adds digital surveillance in a state that values data privacy.”

If the bill passes, the state’s Department of Justice would publish a roster of compliant printers. Printers not on the list would be banned from sale or transfer in California beginning in December 2029.

Aubrey Rodriguez, a legislative advocate with American Civil Liberties Union California Action, an advocacy organization formed by the ACLU’s three affiliates in the state, said the bill would ask ordinary users, schools and businesses to accept a new layer of control based on software they still do not trust.

Rodriguez said the proposal risks creating “a permanent back door into the privacy of our own homes, ripe for exploitation.”

“Once this new infrastructure exists, it is a simple software update away from tracking political dissent or preventing 3-D printing designs deemed inappropriate,” Rodriguez said.

July 13 (UPI) — The European Union plans to implement a social media ban on users younger than 13-years-old, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Monday.

The ban would still allow users younger than 13 to use social media with parental supervision. Von der Leyen presented an expert report on the harms of social media use on children that recommended the ban to limit time spent on the platforms.

“It is very clear that we need age-appropriate restrictions to platforms,” von der Leyen said. “This is not about whether children can access social media. It is about whether and when social media can access our children.”

The report, written by child psychiatrist Jorg Fegert and epidemiologist Dr. Maria Melchior, also recommends that social media use be limited to platforms that have certain features such as limits to infinite scrolling. They also recommend that children under the age of 3 have no screen time.

Von der Leyen is expected to announce a law outright banning children and teens from using some social media sites in the coming months. Monday’s report is the first step toward that law.

The European Union is just one body that has considered banning children and teens from accessing social media in recent years. Australia was the first country to implement a ban, barring children under 16-years-old from using social media last year.

Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, India, Indonesia and Malaysia are either considering similar restrictions or have adopted them.

Along with efforts to restrict access to social media, governments and coalitions across the globe have been encouraging major social media companies to change their policies to make their sites safer for children. Among the features they are pushing for are greater control of the data of children, the elimination of features that encourage compulsory use like infinite scrolling and control over age-inappropriate content.

A POPULAR destination in Europe is cracking down on tourists – with fines dished out to rule-breakers.

The small village of Varenna, near Lake Como, is banning anyone from walking around its historic streets either bare-chested or wearing swimwear.

The new rules come as the village, which is home to only 650 people, is experiencing high levels of tourism each summer.

Tourists heading to the town will still be able to have a bare chest or wear their swimwear if they are at one of the lake’s beaches or if they are enjoying a boat trip on the lake itself.

However, if they are caught in the wrong place in the swimwear or with no shirt on, they could be fined between €50 (£42.74) and €200 (£170).

Varenna isn’t the only Italian spot to ban being shirtless and wearing swimwear in the town centre.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

STAYCAY

Our travel experts’ best-kept-secret UK holiday spots for summer – from £37 a night

It is also banned to walk shirtless, barefoot or in a bikini in the town centres of Sorrento and the Amalfi Coast, with fines ranging from €25 (£21.37) to €500 (£427.48).

Varenna has also introduced a number of other rules impacting tourists.

There’s also a clampdown on crowds, as tour groups are now capped at 25 people.

The aim of this is so that the village’s lanes will not be blocked.

Guides have been banned from using speakers as well.

According to The Guardian, Mauro Manzoni, Varenna’s mayor, said: “Varenna is a wonderful village, and we are proud to welcome hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world every year.

“However, our residents’ quality of life cannot be sacrificed on the altar of mass tourism.”

Ten European and Western countries have barred Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich from entering their territories, according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

The ministry said the ten countries had imposed entry bans on the two far-right ministers, who have faced widespread criticism over statements seen as advocating the extermination of the Palestinian people.

In a statement, the ministry said it was monitoring the diplomatic development and urged the countries to reconsider what it described as their “unjustified” decisions.

The countries that have imposed the bans are the UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand and France.

Ben-Gvir was already banned from entering France and Ireland at the end of May after publishing a video showing detained activists from the Gaza-bound aid flotilla kneeling with their hands tied behind their backs following the interception of their vessel at sea. The activists were later held in southern Israel, prompting international condemnation.

READ: Smotrich announces retaliatory measures against Palestinian Authority after ICC developments

Several countries, including France, Spain and Italy, have called for European sanctions against Ben-Gvir. Judicial authorities in both France and Italy have also opened investigations into allegations that he was responsible for the torture of the activists.

On Tuesday, Ben-Gvir cancelled a planned trip to New York to attend the United Nations Chiefs of Police Summit amid concerns over planned protests by human rights groups, as well as growing calls for his arrest and investigation.

The Hind Rajab Foundation had previously asked the US Department of Justice to launch an urgent criminal investigation into the Israeli National Security Minister and arrest him upon his expected arrival in New York next month.

The legal request was backed by a broad case file prepared by the pro-Palestinian rights organisation, which said it was presenting the case to US judicial authorities as a test of Washington’s commitment to upholding international law.

READ: Ben Gvir attacks Trump-Iran deal: Israel ‘not bound by US agreement’

Edwin Díaz insists he did nothing wrong.

After facing live batters for the first time Sunday since undergoing elbow surgery in April, the Dodgers’ reliever pushed back against allegations linking him to illegal cockfighting in Puerto Rico.

“I’ve been doing that before because, like the story said, that’s legal in Puerto Rico,” Díaz said.

USA Today published a story in May highlighting social media posts advertising cockfighting tournaments that picture Díaz in his Dodgers uniform. The story also referenced a story in El Nuevo Día, the largest circulating newspaper in Puerto Rico, quoting Díaz.

No one from Major League Baseball has reached out to Díaz about a possible suspension, he said.

“They didn’t reach out to me because I wasn’t doing anything illegal,” Díaz said.

In 2019, a federal law banning cockfighting took effect in Puerto Rico. Before the law, the blood sport had been made illegal in all 50 states, but not U.S. territories. Many Puerto Ricans saw the ban as an attack on their culture and vowed to defy the law.

Puerto Rico responded by passing a law saying that it’s legal to host cockfights as long as people don’t export or import the animals or any goods or services related to cockfighting. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 declined to hear a challenge to the federal law brought by a group that argued Congress exceeded its power by applying the ban to Puerto Rico.

Anyone found guilty of taking part in cockfighting faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Spectators could receive a one-year prison sentence.

Still, some Puerto Ricans such as Díaz view the topic as part of the island’s history, initially brought to the Caribbean by 16th-century Spaniards when the island was first colonized.

“It’s a pastime I’ve followed since I was a child,” Díaz told El Nuevo Día in March. “It’s legal in Puerto Rico, thank God. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here.”

Diaz is on track to return to the Dodgers after the All-Star break, although his exact return date remains unclear. His fastball felt good, so locating his slider was the next step toward his return.

Times staff writer Hannah Fry contributed to this report.

U.S. Navy sailor Chase Humes is moving back to his dad’s house in Texas.

Last month, the 25-year-old was notified that his “voluntary separation” from the Navy, which he’d applied for in May 2025, had been approved — he would be released from service. He and his wife must be out of their military housing in San Diego by mid-July.
Humes, a transgender man who’s been taking testosterone for seven years, was among at least 1,000 service members who chose to leave on their own terms rather than face involuntary separation following the military’s February 2025 ban on transgender service members. By choosing a voluntary separation, he’s been approved for an “honorable discharge,” which preserves access to benefits like Veterans Affairs healthcare that others worry they might not have access to.
Humes is one of about 4,200 transgender service members the Department of Defense estimates have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and could be subject to the policy. Advocates say the transgender service member population could exceed 15,000, according to a UCLA study from 2014.
A new California bill, Assembly Bill 1775, is intended to assist people who don’t have the certainty of Humes’s honorable discharge and worry about their future prospects if they were forced out of the military. Proponents say the bill, by San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, could help people who are given less than honorable discharge for hiding their transgender identity by helping them restore access to services.

In the meantime, service members like Humes are scouting their next move. The sailor and his wife have been searching for jobs near his dad’s house outside Houston. They can’t afford to start their life in San Diego, despite having fallen in love with the city’s accepting atmosphere.
“The whole reason I joined was for a better future for myself and my family, and it just got torn away,” Humes said of the separation.

Over a year in limbo

Among the flurry of executive orders President Trump issued at the start of his second term was the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness order.

It rescinded President Biden’s policy permitting transgender people to openly serve in the forces, and asserted that gender dysphoria and using pronouns different than one’s biological sex at birth were inconsistent with the country’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”

What followed the Jan. 27, 2025 order was a series of legal challenges, some of which are still ongoing. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military was likely unconstitutional, allowing a group of 28 plaintiffs from across the country to continue serving while their case proceeds.
Transgender troops were faced last spring with the choice of either voluntarily leaving the military, and in some cases receiving separation pay, or saying nothing and hoping they were not found out and “involuntarily separated” from the forces.

Humes is choosing to voluntarily leave the Navy after the Trump administration announced a policy banning transgender troops.

(Adriana Heldiz / CalMatters)

Kat Koehlmoos, who was in active duty for eight years and is now in an inactive Army Reserve status, said the military chain of command does not know she is transgender.
“Anyone could use my testimony today to report me to the Army Reserves here, and they would be required to take action to involuntarily discharge me from the U.S. military,” she told lawmakers during a hearing on the legislation last month.
Koehlmoos is a board member for SPARTA Pride, which advocates for transgender service members and co-sponsored the legislation. She said the bill came about in part because supporters are concerned the federal government might replicate the actions it took during its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allowed gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to serve if they concealed their sexual orientation. Some 2,000 troops were given less than honorable discharges in connection to the policy, and were shut out of some veterans’ benefits, according to a class-action lawsuit that was settled in 2025.

Koehlmoos said the group anticipates some people who are “involuntarily separated” under the 2025 transgender ban will be punished by the Department of Defense for not complying with the law.

“They may pursue other charges: accusing them of falsifying records or lying on federal documents, and attempt to get them a less than honorable discharge because of that,” she said, although SPARTA Pride does not know of any such cases so far.
If that happened in California, Ward’s bill would help those people qualify for expedited professional licensing in civilian careers like contracting and nursing and prioritize them for discharge upgrades as well as housing and support services.

Ward said he believes the benefits of all service members should be secured, whether they leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

“They have served honorably, and this was a separation that was involuntary, and they would deserve the full benefits that they otherwise would have been due had they been cisgender,” he said.

Unknown number affected

It’s unclear how many people could be affected by the legislation. Ward has repeatedly told fellow lawmakers that 2,900 of the federal government’s estimated 4,200 transgender troops — 69% — are either from California or are currently stationed in California. In an emailed statement in response to a question from CalMatters, Ward said the figures were mistakenly adopted after conversations with veterans’ advocates, and he would no longer use them to describe the number of affected California service members.
The bill would also require the state’s Department of Veterans Affairs to create a new housing and supportive services grant for veterans, which Ward said would fill a gap in existing housing support for veterans experiencing imminent homelessness. But the budget Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Monday does not include funding for that program.
Instead, it directs $2 million toward the state’s existing Veteran’s Military Discharge Upgrade Grant Program, which provides legal assistance for veterans fighting for a discharge upgrade.
As Humes prepares to leave San Diego, Ward’s bill is still pending in Sacramento. The legislation has cleared policy committees in both houses and awaits a hearing in the Senate appropriations committee.
Koehlmoos said the moment is stressful for most transgender troops — those being removed voluntarily, who have few options; the people who haven’t notified the chain of command, who may be living in fear; and the service members who will delay their transition, or never transition, because of the federal government’s ban on transgender troops.

“For me that’s heartbreaking, because that really is putting your life on hold,” she said.

Kate Wolffe writes for CalMatters.

California Democratic senators failed to advance a proposal Tuesday that would have barred registered sex offenders from running for office.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) voted against Assembly Bill 2753, while fellow Sens. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) abstained from a vote that ultimately failed 2-1-2 in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Committee.

The committee’s lone Republican, Steve Choi (R-Irvine), and Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) voted in favor of the bill, which is likely dead because it failed to get support from a majority of the five-member panel.

AB 2753 could be reviewed in a floor session Thursday, but staff from the office of Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria (D-Fresno), who authored the bill, are conceding that’s unlikely.

The defeat comes on the heels of unanimous support, including a 60-0 vote in favor on the Assembly Floor on May 7.

“I am deeply disappointed and disheartened after the Senate Elections Committee has failed to advance AB 2753, a bill that would have prohibited any registered sex offender in the State of California from running for local or state public office,” Soria said in a statement.

The bill’s wording said the legislation would “prohibit a person from being a candidate for, or elected to, any state or local elective office if the person has ever been required to register as a sex offender.”

Inquiries to the offices of Sens. Wiener, Umberg and Allen were not immediately returned.

Sex offenses in California are broken up into three tiers. First-tier offenses call for a minimum of 10 years placement on the sex offender registry. Second-tier offenses call for a minimum of 20 years and third tier crimes could result in a lifetime on the registry.

The types of offenses for each tier vary. Tier 1 offenses range from indecent exposure to misdemeanor child pornography and sexual battery. Tier 2 includes incest and penetration with a foreign object, and Tier 3 includes felony possession of child pornography, rape and pimping and pandering of a minor.

Wiener asked for amendments to the bill during the bill’s review and in the committee meeting, including that the lifetime ban only be applied to Tier 3 members.

He pointed to committee analysis of the bill that could affect so-called “Romeo and Juliet” couples — those close in age, for instance with one partner being 19 and the other being 17. If the younger partner sent sexually explicit digital content to the older partner (a misdemeanor), this law could ban the older partner from public office for life.

There were also concerns listed in the analysis that the registry, which dates back to 1947, could include LGBTQ+ offenders from decades ago who were convicted of offenses that are no longer crimes.

Wiener mentioned in the committee meeting civil rights strategist and fighter Bayard Rustin being placed on the California sex offender’s registry list after being arrested by Pasadena Police for having consensual sex with another man in 1953.

“Without the amendment contained in the analysis, I will be voting ‘no’ on this bill and recommending that the committee vote ‘no,’” Wiener said at the committee hearing.

He added that the sex offender list was “not punishment,” but instead “a tool for law enforcement to monitor who may potentially cause a risk.”

While Soria agreed to one bill amendment, she did not accept other provisions, including the elimination of lifetime bans on Tier 1 or 2 offenses.

“The bottom line is this: I was not willing to make additional amendments to this bill,” she said. “I made a promise to my community that I would do everything in my power to ensure they would never have to go through something like this again. Accepting additional amendments to this bill would have jeopardized that promise.”

Some of the impetus behind her bill revolved around the June 2 Fresno City Council election. Registered sex offender Rene Campos fell short of the necessary votes in his bid to run for Central Valley Council.

He was charged with possession of child pornography in 2018 and hosted his campaign kickoff in front of an elementary school.

Nelson Esparza, Fresno City Council President, spoke at the Senate Elections and Constitutional Committee meeting in favor of AB 2753.

“My office received dozens of calls from our residents asking how this could be allowed,” Esparza said of Campos’ candidacy. “AB 2753 closes this loophole.”

It’s unclear if this bill will be reintroduced next year at least at the Assembly level, as Soria is running for the state senate in November.

California’s effort to restrict sales of handguns that can be converted into fully-automatic machine guns drew an immediate federal challenge Wednesday, with the Trump administration suing the state over its new “Glock ban” law just hours after it took effect.

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a court order to block the controversial state law that limits where most Glock and Glock-style pistols can be sold. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, also aims to invalidate key parts of the state’s handgun roster — a list that dictates the types of firearms that Californians may legally purchase. In a statement Wednesday, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said that both policies “trample” the rights of law-abiding Californians.

“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Blanche said. “California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”

California’s Assembly Bill 1127 does not explicitly name the Glock brand, but instead targets any handgun with a specific mechanism that can easily be converted by a black market device. These simple “Glock switches” convert semiautomatic handguns into a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second with a single squeeze of the trigger.

Advances in 3D printing have made the conversion devices widely available and cheap to produce. Federal authorities reported recovering 11,088 of them from crime scenes between 2019 and 2023. Switches have been used in several mass shootings, including one in Sacramento that resulted in six deaths and 12 injuries in 2022.

The new law does not prohibit the possession of affected handguns already owned by Californians, and includes exemptions for gun dealers, as well as law enforcement and military agencies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in October, and has maintained that firearm laws are responsible for California’s declining crime rates and gun deaths.

“The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California’s commonsense gun safety laws,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Our response is simple — these laws save lives.”

The federal government argues in its complaint that California can’t ban legal semiautomatic handguns simply because they could be illegally altered, adding that state and federal law already prohibit such pistol converters. The U.S. compared California’s approach to banning ordinary shotguns because they can be illegally shortened.

The lawsuit also challenges California’s decades-old handgun roster, which requires new handgun models to pass certain safety tests before they can be approved for retail sale. A federal judge tentatively blocked portions of the roster requirements in a separate 2023 case, which is being appealed before the 9th Circuit. That lawsuit was filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions.

Under those new guidelines, the Trump administration wants a judge to find that California’s gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment, and is seeking an order to bar the state from enforcing them.

The Trump administration is relying on a federal civil rights law typically used against police departments accused of repeated constitutional violations, arguing that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state Justice Department agents qualify as peace officers and therefore violate gun owners’ rights whenever they enforce handgun restrictions.

Bonta, who is named in the suit, has a winning court record over the Trump administration, and has secured at least 12 final court rulings and more than 35 preliminary injunctions or emergency orders.

“We won’t be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit,” said Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s spokesperson. “We’ll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.”