bonta

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.

“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”

Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.

“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”

In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.

“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.

Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.

On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.

In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”

Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.

The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”

Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.

“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.

Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”

“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.

Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.

He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”

The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch nationwide, and Angelica Salas said it’s putting her employees at risk.

Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experiences harassment and death threats.

“They ask themselves, what if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live, will my family be safe?” Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.”People begin to self-censor; they step away from their work and some leave the field entirely.”

Salas was speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2624, which would provide privacy protections for those facing harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that offer legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants. The bill would create an address confidentiality program, like the one already offered to reproductive healthcare workers, and prohibit people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about the protected individuals on the internet.

The measure has drawn ire from Republicans, who argue it could have a chilling effect on free speech and the media. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigrant-related investigations in California.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who authored the legislation, said the proposed law would help keep people safe — but several 1st Amendment experts this week told The Times the bill could have unintended consequences.

“There could be grounds for concern,” said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. “It reflects a legitimate and important state interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this bill punishes the publication of information.”

The legislation defines “personal information” as anything that identifies, describes or relates to the protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver’s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers and places of employment.

Shepard said the potential new law could be applied unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

Given the polarized political environment, Shepard said the legislation also could prompt other groups to request similar protections, as those working in a range of professions are facing increasingly heated rhetoric or attacks.

“This is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; this really could apply to anybody engaged in public debate today,” he said.

Carolyn Iodice, the policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has noted an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for those in certain professions.

She pointed to a statute enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. The law was used in 2023 to block an editor with New Brunswick Today from publishing an article about the police chief living two hours outside of the city.

“It was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to wield the law against this journalist, and that is the kind of thing we are worried about,” Iodice said. “When you think about handing what could be a huge number of people the ability to just block anything from being posted about them online — it could easily be abused.”

David Loy, the legal director for the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would censor the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers.

“Someone might have a legitimate dispute with them and wants to refer to it online,” he said. “But they could then basically silence [that person] from referring to them on a Yelp review or Facebook posts that has nothing to do with threatening them — and that is going way beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.”

Loy said the coalition reached out to Bonta’s office and hopes to help tweak the bill.

Meanwhile, the legislation continues to face scrutiny from Republicans.

“We exposed CA Democrats for the ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act that silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,” DiMaio wrote this week on social media.

Shirley released a viral video last year alleging fraud in Somali-run immigrant daycare centers in Minneapolis. He recently shared videos of himself in Sacramento confronting Democrats who support Bonta’s bill.

“The enemy is truly within,” Shirley wrote on Instagram. “When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors.”

Bonta dismissed the assertion that the bill is intended to deter journalists, stating in a news release that “right-wing agitators” and “ineffective legislators” were intentionally spreading misinformation.

Bonta spokesperson Daniel McGreevy said the bill has a straightforward goal of protecting immigrant service providers. He said the office is working to refine the legislation to address concerns and welcomes good-faith dialogue.

The bill is progressing through the state Legislature and most recently was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has enlisted new allies in his legal battle to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s takeover of rival television station group Tegna Inc.

Late Thursday, Bonta announced that five additional states have joined his coalition that is suing to block the $6.2-billion merger. With the additional plaintiffs, the group of top state law enforcement officers has grown to 13 — and the campaign now is a bipartisan effort.

“Antitrust enforcement is not political — it’s about protecting working families and helping ensure the benefits of a vibrant economy are for everyone, not just well-connected corporations,” Bonta said in a statement. “We welcome our sister states into the fray and look forward to fighting alongside them.”

The new states are Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont. They have joined existing the plaintiffs that represent the people of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley two weeks ago granted a request by the attorneys general to issue a preliminary injunction halting the merger as the legal case proceeds. The proposed merger — which Nexstar rushed to complete despite opposition from the states — would create the nation’s largest broadcast station group with 265 television stations, up from 164 that Nexstar currently controls.

In dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple major TV network affiliates. That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.

“State attorneys general nationwide understand just how important robust antitrust enforcement is to American life — and what a rotten deal this is for consumers, for workers, for affordability, and for our local news,” Bonta said.

El Segundo-based DirecTV separately filed a lawsuit to block the deal, saying the Nexstar-Tegna consolidation would harm their business by forcing DirecTV to pay significantly higher fees for the rights to carry their stations as part of its programming lineup.

A Nexstar representative was not immediately available for comment.

Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.

Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna would give the Irving, Texas-based Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population.

The federal judge ruled there was sufficient merit in the antitrust arguments brought by Bonta and the others to pause Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna until a trial can be held to decide whether the merger is illegal.

“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order on April 17. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”