california

RICHMOND, Calif. — New bumper stickers reading “Jesse Jackson/Dan Boatwright” appeared recently in this heavily black and economically struggling industrial city across the bay from San Francisco.

“Can you believe that?” state Senate candidate Sunne McPeak grumbled. “It makes it appear that Jesse Jackson has endorsed Dan Boatwright. He hasn’t. And Boatwright hasn’t endorsed Jackson. It’s misleading.”

McPeak, for 10 years a Contra Costa County supervisor, is challenging Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright, a white, 16-year veteran of the Legislature, in the hottest state Senate contest in the June 7 primary election.

On the same day the Jackson/Boatwright bumper stickers showed up, McPeak, who also is white, trumpeted the endorsement of her candidacy by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley as she walked black precincts in the 7th Senate District, which includes most of Contra Costa County.

Boatwright, widely regarded as a conservative Democrat who said he has not endorsed any candidate for President but will support the party’s nominee, denies that the bumper stickers are misleading. He asserts, while denying any contradiction, that they merely are intended “to get Jesse Jackson and me elected.”

In a tight election, the black vote–which Boatwright said makes up 15% of the Democratic registration–could be pivotal.

McPeak and Boatwright seem to share the same conservative political philosophy on many issues. Both fiercely oppose export of additional water from Northern to Southern California without ironclad guarantees that water supplies in their home base of Contra Costa County will not be degraded or diminished.

McPeak gained statewide attention in 1982 when she spearheaded a successful referendum that overturned a law that would have built the controversial Peripheral Canal, a project strongly supported by Southern California water interests and opposed by Northerners.

McPeak, 39, a former health care consultant, is the mother of two school-age children. An attorney, Boatwright, 58, is the father of three grown sons.

The Democratic winner in June will face Republican William Pollacek, a Martinez city councilman who is unopposed in the GOP primary. Although declining in numbers, Democrats still hold a big registration advantage in the district, 53.7% to 35.1% over Republicans. So the Democratic primary winner is a heavy favorite to emerge victorious in November.

The fast-growing region is a bedroom for San Francisco and includes some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the Bay Area, as well as some of the poorest. Ethnically diverse, Anglos account for roughly 71% of the district’s population, blacks 10%, Latinos 9%, Asians 5% and others 5%. But since blacks register heavily in the Democratic Party, they represent a much larger voter bloc in Democratic primaries than they do in general elections.

Boatwright’s casual manner masks an explosive temper and the tenacity of a pit bull. He delights in characterizing himself as “tough as a cob” and still speaks in a slight drawl that lingers from his boyhood in Arkansas

In legislative skirmishes, he has been known to invoke his experience as a combat infantryman in Korea and once told a reporter: “I’ve never seen anybody around that I couldn’t lick. And if I can’t do it with my fist, I’ll still do it.”

But the tough-talking Boatwright also writes poetry. In a sentimental poem printed in a campaign brochure, Boatwright talks of soaring “like a magic machine” with Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Boatwright unabashedly boasts of his fondness for dipping into the “pork barrel” of public projects and delivering them to his constituents, including the expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park and authorization for a new state university campus at Concord.

“See that ridge up there?” he said, pointing to an undeveloped saddle of land as he wheeled his sedan through a scenic valley en route to a meeting with constituents to discuss creating a new bay-side park. “We saved that for open space.”

Last year, Boatwright carried a major bill for his district that proposed massive rehabilitation of deteriorating levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. But he got into a feud with fellow Democratic Sen. Ruben S. Ayala of Chino, chairman of the Senate Water Committee, and Ayala sent the bill back to his committee, never to re-emerge.

This left Boatwright open to political attack that he had failed his constituents. But pressure continued for a levee repair bill and in December, environmentalists, farmers, Southern California water interests, Deukmejian Adminstration water officials, Ayala and Boatwright agreed to a virtually identical measure.

Boatwright’s name was attached to the new bill as its author and it became law in March.

“Boatwright needed a substantial bill to run with in his district,” observed a Senate Democratic staff source.

McPeak, still active in water affairs, contends that the compromise would never have occurred without “pressure” from herself and others.

Now, Boatwright has proposed drought-spawned legislation that would require the installation of water meters in Sacramento, one of the few major population centers in California where water rates are not tied to water usage. Boatwright maintains that 25% of water used in Sacramento is wasted and if metering forced water conservation, his downstream district would benefit. Similar measures have failed in the past.

In her quest to unseat Boatwright, who concedes that this reelection race is his toughest, McPeak goes from door to door telling voters that “the incumbent has been in the Legislature for 16 years. I think it’s time for a change. Don’t you?”

For Boatwright, it is the first time since his election to the Senate in 1980 that he is spending his Saturdays walking precincts and knocking on doors in search of votes. His support includes Senate staff employees from Sacramento who “volunteer” to walk.

McPeak decided to take on Boatwright against the advice of the Democratic Establishment, including Senate leader David A. Roberti of Los Angeles, who last year perceived Boatwright as conspiring to topple him as president pro tem of the Senate.

As a result, Roberti fired Boatwright as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, one of the Senate’s most prestigious posts. Later, Roberti softened the punishment and appointed Boatwright as a member of the committee.

Lukewarm to Candidacy

Some Senate sources have suggested that Roberti is privately only lukewarm to Boatwright’s candidacy. But in keeping with Senate’s clubby tradition of standing by their own, Roberti has publicly pledged to provide “whatever is necessary” in campaign contributions to secure Boatwright’s renomination. Although he may be a rebel at times, Boatwright still is a member of the Senate Democratic fraternity.

Boatwright, who coasted to victory in previous reelection campaigns, estimated his primary election budget at $500,000, a substantial sum for an established incumbent. McPeak estimated her spending at $300,000, with most contributions coming from residents and organizations within the county, many of them developers.

McPeak, endorsed by some labor unions who had been urged by Roberti to remain neutral in the primary, portrays herself as an outsider, striking out against the “power brokers, the bosses, the political dictators” in Sacramento who counseled her not to run.

However, delegates to a recent convention of the California Democratic Party endorsed her over Boatwright, who became the only incumbent Democrat to not receive the endorsement of his party.

Although Boatwright did not seek the endorsement, giving it to McPeak rankled him. “I resent the state Democratic Party injecting itself into my race,” he said. “They don’t know how I vote in the Senate, and they shouldn’t be telling people in my district how they should vote.”

Stirs Controversy

Virtually from his first election to the Assembly in 1972, Boatwright has stirred controversy. He has been the subject of investigations by a local district attorney, state attorney general, Fair Political Practices Commission and the FBI. In each case, no charges were filed.

Additionally, he was sued by a citizen watchdog organization for allegedly failing to accurately disclose the value of two shares of stock he owned in a Walnut Creek shopping center. He purchased them for $24,000 in 1973 but the lawsuit charged their actual value exceeded $300,000. Boatwright won in court.

Later, the Internal Revenue Service claimed that Boatwright and his former wife owed $112,800 in back taxes and penalties on income from that stock allegedly not reported in 1976. Boatwright sued the IRS and the agency dropped the action, a Boatwright aide said.

McPeak said she does not intend to hit Boatwright about the investigations but will concentrate on his legislative record.

“We won’t get into that,” she said. “We are focusing on issues that affect the future. We are talking about his voting record. . . . We think that is sufficient.”

But Boatwright is skeptical. “She can’t get me on my record,” he asserted. “She is going to have to start attacking me personally. She is going to get down and dirty. She has to.”

At a recent meeting of California’s high school sports governing board, two seniors from Arroyo Grande High School spoke out against a transgender peer competing on their track and field team and allegedly “watching” them in the girls’ locker room.

One of the Central Coast students said she is “more comfortable” changing in her car now. The other cited a Bible verse about God creating men and women separately, and accused the California Interscholastic Federation of subjecting girls to “exploitative and intrusive behavior that is disguised through transgender ideology.”

“Our privacy is being compromised and our sports are being taken over,” she said.

During the same meeting, Trevor Norcross, the father of 17-year-old transgender junior Lily Norcross, offered a starkly different perspective.

“Bathrooms and locker rooms are the most dangerous place for trans students, and when they are at their most vulnerable,” he said. “Our daughter goes to extreme lengths to avoid them. Unfortunately, sometimes you can’t.”

Lily Norcross with her parents, Trevor and Hilary Norcross.

(Owen Main / For The Times)

Norcross said Lily’s teammates had for months been misrepresenting a single moment from the year prior, when Lily had to use the restroom after a full day of avoiding it, chose to use the one in the locker room because it is monitored by an adult and safer for her than others, and briefly stopped to chat with a friend on her way out.

“There’s always more to the story,” he said.

The conflicting testimony reflected an increasingly charged debate over transgender athletes participating in youth sports nationwide. Churches, anti-LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, cisgender athletes and their conservative families are organizing to topple trans-inclusive policies, while liberal state officials, queer advocacy groups, transgender kids and their families are trying to preserve policies that allow transgender kids to compete.

The battle has been particularly pitched in California, which has some of the nation’s most progressive statewide athletic policies and liberal leaders willing to defend them — including from the Trump administration, which has attacked transgender rights and is suing the California Department of Education and the CIF, alleging their trans-inclusive sports policies violate the civil rights of cisgender athletes.

Along with a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on the legality of policies banning transgender athletes from competing in states such as Idaho and West Virginia, the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California could have sweeping implications for transgender athletes — with a state loss potentially contributing to their being sidelined not just in conservative states, but nationwide.

For the handful of transgender California teens caught in the middle of the fight, it has all been deeply unnerving — if strangely motivating.

“I have to keep doing it, because if I stop doing sports, they won,” Lily Norcross said. “They got what they wanted.”

A coordinated effort

The movement to overturn California’s trans-inclusive policies is being coordinated at the local, state and national levels, and has gained serious momentum since several of its leaders joined the Trump administration.

At the local level, cisgender athletes, their families and other conservative and religious allies have expressed anger over transgender athletes using girls’ facilities and resentment over their allegedly stealing victories and the spotlight from cisgender girls.

In 2024, two girls at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside filed a lawsuit challenging the participation of their transgender track and field teammate Abigail Jones, arguing her participation limited their own in violation of Title IX protections for female athletes. A judge found insufficient evidence of that, and recently dismissed the case.

Last year, Jurupa Valley High School track star AB Hernandez won several medals at the CIF State Track and Field Championships despite President Trump personally demanding she be barred from competing. Critics argued Hernandez’s wins were unfair, despite CIF having changed its rules so that her cisgender competitors received the medals they would have received had she not competed.

AB Hernandez competed for Jurupa Valley High School in the long jump at the 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

The challenges to Abigail, AB and Lily competing have all been driven in part by a network of conservative organizations working across California and beyond to oust transgender girls from sports, including by coordinating with evangelical churches, pushing social media campaigns, lining up speakers for school board meetings and working with cisgender athletes to hone their messages of opposition.

Shannon Kessler, a former PTA president and church leader who is now running for state Assembly, has worked within the wider network. In March 2025, Kessler founded the group Save Girls’ Sports Central Coast, and the next month distributed fliers at Harvest Church in Arroyo Grande that called on parishioners to challenge Lily’s participation on the track and field team.

Kessler said the two seniors on Lily’s team, who did not respond to a request for comment, had initially asked if she would “speak on their behalf,” so she did, but she has since let the girls “take the lead.”

“They took the initiative to speak and wrote their own speeches,” Kessler said, of their remarks at the recent CIF meeting.

Norcross said the effort to sideline his daughter has clearly been coordinated by outsiders from the start. He blames Kessler, Harvest Church and the state’s wider network of conservative activists for stirring up baseless fears about transgender athletes, exposing his family to danger and leaving them no choice but to defend themselves publicly.

“It’s not a fair position to be in,” he said.

Tied up in court

Within months of Trump issuing his February 2025 executive order calling for transgender athletes to be barred from competition nationwide, two leaders within the California conservative network turned Trump administration officials — Harmeet Dhillon, who is now assistant attorney general for civil rights, and former state Assemblyman Bill Essayli, who is now in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles — quickly moved to bring the state to heel.

They launched an investigation into California’s trans-inclusive sports policies, ordered its school districts to comply with Trump’s order in defiance of state law, and then sued the Department of Education and the CIF when they refused — alleging the state’s policies illegally discriminate against cisgender girls under Title IX by ignoring “undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous ‘gender identity.’”

Neither Dhillon nor the Justice Department responded to a request for comment. Essayli’s office declined to comment.

Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon arrives for a news conference at the Justice Department in September.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Department of Education and the CIF have called for the lawsuit to be dismissed, arguing that Title IX regulations “do not require the exclusion of transgender girls” and that the Justice Department had provided no evidence that the state’s policies left cisgender girls unable to compete.

The CIF said in a statement that it “provides students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete in education-based experiences in compliance with California law,” but it and the Department of Education said they do not comment on pending litigation. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office has slammed the Trump administration’s efforts, and filed its own lawsuit to block them.

Separate from the California litigation, there is a major case on transgender youth athletes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

After athletes successfully challenged West Virginia and Idaho bans on transgender competition in lower federal courts, the states appealed. During arguments last month, the high court’s conservative majority sounded ready to uphold the state bans — but not necessarily in a way that would topple liberal state laws allowing such athletes to compete.

Pressure and resolve

Lily, AB and Abigail — all of whom are referenced anonymously in the federal lawsuit against California — agreed, with their parents, to be identified by The Times in order to share how it has felt to be targeted.

Abigail, 17, graduated early and is preparing to start college but hasn’t stopped being an advocate for transgender high school athletes, continuing to show up to CIF and school board meetings to support their right to compete.

“This is a part of my life now, whether I like it or not,” she said.

Speaking can be intimidating, Abigail said, but it has also become familiar — as has the cast of anti-transgender activists who routinely show up to speak as well. “It’s always the same people,” she said.

Abigail Jones participates in a protest against President Trump and his attacks on transgender people in April in Riverside.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

AB, also 17, said last year — when everyone, including Trump, seemed to be talking about her — was “just so much — too much.”

She felt she had to constantly “maintain an image,” including among her peers, that she was “not bothered by anything and just confident,” which was exhausting, she said. “There were a lot of times I just didn’t go to school, because I felt like I couldn’t keep up that image and I didn’t want them to see me down.”

It still can be overwhelming if she looks at all the vitriol aimed her way online, she said, but “off the internet, it’s a completely different story.”

AB was nervous headed into last year’s championships, but a couple of other competitors reached out with their support and the meet ended up being “a blast,” she said. At track practice this year, she’s surrounded by friends — one of her favorite things about being on the team.

For Lily, the last year has been “different and interesting, in not really a good way.”

She has had slurs lobbed at her and been physically threatened. She sometimes waits all day to use the toilet, nearly bursting by the time she gets home. When she has to use a school restroom, she times herself to be in and out in under three minutes. She took P.E. courses over the summer in part because she felt there would be fewer students around, but faced harassment anyway. Like AB, she feels as though she’s under a constant spotlight.

And yet, Lily said she is also “a lot happier with who I am” than she ever was before transitioning a couple of years ago. She said she’s enjoying her classes and her school’s Gender and Sexuality Alliance, where LGBTQ+ kids gather at lunch to swap stories, and is optimistic about the future — even if things aren’t great right now.

Her dad said watching her come out and transition has been gratifying, because “the smile came back, the light in her eyes came back.” Watching her navigate the current campaign against her, he said, has been “really hard,” because “she has been forced to grow up too quickly — she has been forced to defend herself in a way that most kids don’t.”

Mostly, though, he’s just proud of his kid.

“We had our fears as parents, as any parent would, that, OK, this is a different path than we thought our kid was going to be on, and we are worried about her safety and her future in this world,” he said. “But she is amazingly strong — amazingly courageous.”

SAN FRANCISCO — It was speed dating: Eight suitors with less than four minutes each, pitching the woo to thousands of Democratic Party faithful.

The race for California governor has been a low-boil, late-developing affair, noteworthy mostly for its lack of a whole lot that has been noteworthy.

That changed a bit on a sunny Saturday in San Francisco, the contest assuming a smidgen of campaign heat — chanting crowds, sign-waving supporters, call-and-response from the audience — as the state party held its annual convention in this bluest of cities.

Delegates had the chance to officially endorse a party favorite, providing a major lift in a contest with the distinct lack of any obvious front-runner. But with an overstuffed field of nine major Democratic contenders — San José Mayor Matt Mahan was said to have entered the contest too late for consideration — the vote proved to be a mere formality.

No candidate came remotely close to winning the required 60% support.

That left the contestants, sans Mahan, to offer their best distillation of the whys and wherefore of their campaigns, before one of the most important and influential audiences they will face between now and the June 2 primary.

There was, unsurprisingly, a great deal of Trump-bashing and much talk of affordability, or rather, the excruciating lack of it in this priciest of states.

The candidates vied to establish their relatability, that most valuable of campaign currencies, by describing their own hardscrabble experiences.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — the first speaker, as drawn by lot — spoke of his upbringing in a home riven by alcoholism and domestic violence. State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond described his childhood subsistence on food stamps, free school lunches and surplus government cheese.

Former state Controller Betty Yee told how she shared a bedroom with four siblings. Katie Porter, the single mom of three kids, said she knows what it’s like to push a grocery cart and fuel her minivan and watch helplessly as prices “go up and up” while dollars don’t stretch far enough.

Michele Reed of Los Angeles cheers at the state Democratic Party convention.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

When it came to lambasting Trump, the competition was equally fierce.

“His attacks on our schools, our healthcare and his politics of fear and bullying has to stop now,” Villaraigosa said.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) called him “the worst president ever” and boasted of the anti-Trump battles he’s fought in Congress and the courts. Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general, spoke of his success suing the Trump administration.

Porter may have outdone them all, at least in the use of profanity and props, by holding up one of her famous whiteboards and urging the crowd to join her in a chant of its inscription: “F—- Trump.”

“Together,” the former Orange County congresswoman declared, “we’re going to kick Trump’s ass in November.”

Porter was also the most extravagant in her promises, pledging to deliver universal healthcare to California — a years-old Democratic ambition — free childcare, zero tuition at the state’s public universities and elimination of the state income tax for those earning less than $100,000.

Unstated was how, precisely, the cash-strapped state would pay for such a bounty.

Former Assemblyman Ian Calderon offered a more modest promise to provide free child care to families earning less than $100,000 annually and to break up PG&E, California’s largest utility, “and literally take California’s power back.” (Another improbability.)

Becerra, in short order, said he was “not running on inflated promises” but rather his record as a congressman, former attorney general and health secretary in President Biden’s cabinet.

Rachel Pickering, right, vice chair of the San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party, stands with others wearing pins supporting Democratic causes at the party’s state convention.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

It was one of several jabs that could be heard if one listened closely enough. (No candidate called out any other by name.) “You’re not going to vote for a Democrat who voted for the border wall, are you?” Thurmond demanded, a jab at Porter who supported a major funding bill that included money for Trump’s pet project.

“You’re not going to vote for a Democrat who praises ICE, are you?” Thurmond asked, a poke at Swalwell, who thanked the department for its work last year in a case of domestic terrorism.

“You’re not going to vote for a Democrat who made money off ICE detention centers,” Thurmond went on, targeting Tom Steyer and his former investment firm, which had holdings in the private prison industry.

Yee seemed to take aim at Mahan and his rich Silicon Valley backers, suggesting grassroots Democrats “will not be pushed aside by the billionaire boys club that wants to rule California.”

The barb was part of a full-on assault on the state’s monied class, which includes Steyer, who made his fortune as a hedge fund manager.

In a bit of billionaire jujitsu, he sought to turn the attack around by saying his vast wealth — which has allowed him to richly fund his political endeavors — made him immune to the blandishments of plutocrats and corporate interests.

“Here’s the thing about big donors,” Steyer said. “If you take their money, you have to take their calls. And I don’t owe them a thing. In a world where politicians serve special interests, I can’t be bought.”

There were no breakout moments Saturday. Nothing was said or done in the roughly 35 minutes the candidates devoted to themselves that seemed likely to change the dynamic or trajectory of a race that remains stubbornly ill-defined and, to an unprecedented degree in modern times, wide open.

And there was certainly no sign any of the gubernatorial candidates plan to give up, bowing to concerns their large number could divide the Democratic vote and allow a pair of Republicans to slip through and emerge from California’s top-two primary.

But for at least a little while, within the confines of San Francisco’s Moscone Center, there was a glimmer of a life in a contest that has seemed largely inert. That seemed a portent of more to come as the June primary inches ever closer.

SAN DIEGO — Light rain slicked the pavement in San Diego’s East Village neighborhood on a recent morning, forcing some homeless people to scatter while others huddled under tents or slept through the drizzle.

I was on foot with Dr. Aaron Meyer, a psychiatrist frustrated by California’s most visible crisis: The failure to provide help for many of the people who need it most, despite all the programs rolled out over the years, and all the billions of dollars spent.

We see them in parks, on sidewalks and in other public spaces in obvious distress, and we’ve heard the never-ending conversations and political promises of better days. The problem goes well beyond homelessness: Thousands of severely ill people live with exasperated family members who wear themselves out trying to get help for loved ones.

“We have a history of services that have ended up prioritizing less severe people rather than the most severe,” said Meyer, a UC San Diego associate clinical professor of psychiatry who was speaking on his own behalf, as a university rep.

In searching for answers, Meyer teamed with lawyer Ann Marie Council, a former San Diego deputy city attorney who once worked in drug court. She was struck by the number of clients spun through the system countless times without getting treatment for addiction or mental illness.

“I was really sick and tired of watching people go to jail when they weren’t getting the help they needed,” said Council, who retired from public service and started Quarter Turn Strategies, a nonprofit focused on practical solutions to fractured public services.

It turns out the doctor and the lawyer make a pretty good team. In their research, they came upon a tool that could address chronic severe mental illness and addiction, and it was hiding in plain sight: in a book of California statutes, namely Section 5200 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code.

The state law governing involuntary commitments and conservatorships for people with severe mental illness is known as the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, and it includes the commonly used Section 5150 for those deemed “gravely disabled.” The process begins with a 72-hour hold that can lead to a longer commitment, but often does not.

Section 5200 outlines a far more thorough evaluation and care plan than 5150. The 5200 process can be initiated by anybody concerned about someone who is gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others (with misdemeanor penalties for abuse of the reporting privilege).

Dr. Susan Partovi, who has practiced street medicine in Los Angeles for many years, has a term for the 72-hour hold under 5150:

“We call it the 72-second hold,” she said.

I’ve written previously about Partovi’s moral outrage over the number of severely ill people who either are not deemed “gravely disabled” or who spin repeatedly through three-day holds and return to the same self-destructive routines. I’ve also heard her talk about who among her clients is likely to die next.

Partovi is a member of Grave Disability Workgroup of California, which has endorsed a research paper on 5200, “The Lost Legal Pathway to Mental Health Care,” co-written by Meyer and Council and released a few weeks ago by Quarter Turn. It detailed the frustrations of families, outreach workers and first responders and concluded that 5200 could help break down some of the bureaucratic barriers to life-changing mental health care.

In San Diego, as Meyer and I passed a woman trying to erect a tent in the rain and a person asleep on a littered patch of weeds, I asked him to explain the difference between 5150 and 5200.

Under a 5150 commitment, he said, a person is often brought to an emergency room for an assessment by someone who is not necessarily a behavioral health specialist. A decision is then made about whether the person meets the legal criteria for an involuntary hold.

“If they don’t, then they’re released, and there’s no requirement for any care coordination,” Meyer said. Under 5200, a full medical evaluation is required with a multidisciplinary team, “and it also requires a coordinated care plan on discharge,” raising “the hope of leading to something substantive.”

In their research, Meyer and Council found that 5200 is not known to be in use in any of the state’s 58 counties, with public officials either unaware of it or under the impression that it’s an unnecessary tool given other initiatives over the decades, and cost of implementation could be a problem.

Meyer argues that the state spends billions without addressing glaring needs, and 5200 could cost less than roller-coastering people through hospitals, courts, jails and prisons without putting them on a healthier track.

Meyer said he’s gotten pushback from civil libertarians and disability rights groups, both of which have long opposed coerced treatment and argued instead for a host of greater resources in housing and preventive healthcare, and for more outreach that can lead to voluntary treatment.

I understand the pitfalls of forced treatment, having been on a 20-year journey with someone who initially resisted help and objected to medication. It’s true that forced treatment doesn’t always get the desired outcome, and can backfire if it makes the person more resistant to treatment.

But some people can become too sick to make a decision in their own best interest, which is why we’ve seen so many of them at death’s door, living in squalor and desperation, tortured by psychosis or chewed up by killer drugs.

Care Courts, which were meant to help address this, have not yet had the anticipated impact, and some families have felt let down. Meyer and Council say that although those courts can implement 5200, that isn’t happening yet.

The fact that 5200 is little known and never used “is another example of systems failure,” said former state senator and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg.

Steinberg said although 5200 isn’t a one-step answer to homelessness or untreated severe mental and addiction illness, it’s worth implementing given the existing “set of systems that are not responsive to people who are the sickest of the sick.”

Jon Sherin, former head of L.A. County’s mental health department, called 5200 “one of the most powerful tools” available and said he tried to implement it several years ago but faced some of the same resistance described by Meyer.

“If you used it thoughtfully and had capacity, you could actually have a massive impact,” said Sherin, who urged those running for governor to “bring 5200 into the limelight and guarantee resources to counties.”

The same can be said about the race for Los Angeles mayor. Despite some progress, homelessness is still a public catastrophe, and gravely ill people are a haunting representation of policy failures.

Supporters of 5200 include Bay Area resident Teresa Pasquini, a mental health reform advocate whose brother and son have both dealt with severe mental illness. Pasquini, whose causes include “Moms on a Mission” and “Housing that Heals,” told me her son, now in his 40s, has been through the 5150 turnstile 40 times.

Pasquini said people in her circumstances have been accused of wanting to shed their troubles by having their kids locked away. All she really wants, she said, is for him to be housed and safe and given proper care.

“We need all the tools we can get … and we need 5200,” Pasquini said. “I’ve watched my son walk out the front door in handcuffs over 40 times. Treatment is not a bad word.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.

“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”

Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.

A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.

The state did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.

With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.

The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.

Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.

Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.

Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, comprising two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.

A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.

Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.

Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.

My friend Andrea and I had hiked about 3½ miles before we perched ourselves atop boulders near the Brown Mountain Dam waterfall. We eagerly pulled out our sandwiches, jalapeño pimento cheese, and chips and queso we’d carried in our backpacks.

Nearby, a small group of hikers glowered at us, eating jerky and protein bars, commenting on the resplendent meal before us (which we’d purchased from local deli Maciel’s). It seemed they were rethinking their food choices. 💅

I love spending time in nature, regardless of whether I’m lounging on a blanket with a friend at a park or hauling my body up a steep fire road to summit a local peak. But the uniting factor of many of the best experiences I’ve had outdoors is great food.

Below you’ll find three hikes that will lead you to great picnic spots around L.A. You’ll see that I’m defining “picnic spots” as a place that offers enough open space to take a seat, including on park benches, picnic tables and flat ground.

Before we dive in, I’d like to remind you of something I frequently scream on trails: Orange peels are trash! Please don’t leave any food out in nature that you bring with you.

“There is a common misconception that ‘natural trash’ such as orange peels, banana peels, apple cores, and shells from nuts and seeds are OK to leave behind on the trail, in campgrounds, or in other outdoor spaces,” Leave No Trace’s Erin Collier and Brice Esplin wrote in this article. “While these things are natural, they are not natural to the places they are being left. These types of trash attract wildlife to areas with human activity, affecting their health and habits.”

Now that you’ve vowed to pack out what you pack in, let’s dive into this week’s hikes.

Oak woodlands and riparian habitats are among several plant communities in the mountains around L.A., including along the Gabrielino Trail near Pasadena.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

1. Gabrielino Trail to Gould Mesa campground

Distance: 3.6 miles out and back
Elevation gained: About 300 feet
Difficulty: Moderate
Dogs allowed? Yes
Accessible alternative: The first mile of this trail is paved!

The Gabrielino National Recreation Trail is a 28.8-mile long journey from Chantry Flat Recreation Area north of Sierra Madre all the way to Ventura Street & Windsor Avenue trailhead near the Hahamongna Watershed Park in La Cañada Flintridge. It is a multi-use trail for hikers, mountain bikers and horse riders.

The trail has several beautiful sections, including from its western entrance in Hahamongna to the Gould Mesa Trail Camp.

To begin your hike, you’ll park at a large free dirt lot near the backside of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. If hiking in a wheelchair or seeking a paved path, I recommend parking at this smaller paved lot.

You can either take the paved trail or an unofficial dirt trail that follows the Arroyo Seco before leading you to the official trail. Either way, it’s a fairly easy stroll along the Arroyo Seco, shaded by coast live oaks, bay laurels and sycamore trees. After hiking about two miles, you’ll reach the Gould Mesa Trail Camp, where you can set up your picnic at one of the campground’s tables, or nearby along the creek.

And if you’d like to go a bit farther, you can continue onward to the Paul Little Picnic Site or the Brown Mountain Dam waterfall that I mentioned above. Regardless of where you stop, I promise you’ll be treated to a stunning landscape and likely hear the chirp and squawk of scrub jays, California quail and more.

Hikers make their way up a trail to the Griffith Observatory.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

2. Griffith Observatory via Fern Dell/Four Loops (Griffith Park Explorer Segment 6)

Distance: 4.1 miles
Elevation gained: 750 feet
Difficulty: Moderate
Dogs allowed? Yes
Accessible alternative: Griffith Park Explorer Segment 4 — Anza, Autry and Main

How often do you act like a tourist in your own city? Well, now’s the time!

The Fern Dell/Four Loops trail is a 4.1-mile figure-eight-shaped looping path through Griffith Park’s southern end. Although it doesn’t officially include a stop at the Griffith Observatory, that’s what I’d recommend, as it is such a serene place to share a meal with family and friends.

To begin, you’ll park in an O-shaped lot north of the Trails Cafe, where you could grab a meal to-go before heading out. You’ll head north from the lot, following the West Trail in a loop back south to the aptly named Loop Trail. After completing the Loop Trail’s loop, you’ll head south before taking the Observatory Trail on your next loop. If following the Griffith Park Explorer map, you’ll want to take note of when to turn to head to the Griffith Observatory.

If the Observatory area is busy, consider going just a little farther north to the Berlin Forest to have your picnic. Just make sure to link back up with the Fern Dell/Four Loops trail so you can not only enjoy the lush greenery in the Fern Dell area, but also make it back to where you parked.

One of many benches on the way to Mt. Thom and Tongva Peak in Verdugo Mountains.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

3. Mt. Thom and Tongva Peak via Brand Park

Distance: About 3 miles
Elevation gained: 1,950 feet
Difficulty: Hard
Dogs allowed? Yes
Accessible alternative: Crescenta Valley Community Regional Park loop

If you’ve ever looked out your plane’s window as you flew out of Hollywood Burbank Airport, and thought, “My, that trail looks hard,” you would have been correct.

The trail from Brand Park in Glendale to Mt. Thom is a grueling dirt trail, but its payoff includes stunning views of the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys and San Gabriel Mountains. And along the way, you’ll find benches and other lookout spots that would make for epic picnic spots. (Plus, if you do it, you could brag from your plane window, “I hiked up there and had these great tacos from that very peak!”)

To begin your hike, you’ll park near the Miss American Green Cross statue before heading northeast up the trail. Please note that there isn’t any water access on the trail, and it has limited shade outside of its lookout points with benches, which you’ll reach just under a mile in.

You’ll reach Mt. Thom about half a mile farther, but it will be a steep half mile. Keep going for about three-quarters of a mile, and you will find a quick offshoot that’ll take you to Tongva Peak. This is a fabulous place to relax, take in the views and, most importantly, eat.

If you’d like to skip the steep section, I’d recommend parking near the Sunshine Preserve, a critical wildlife passageway managed by the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy. From here, you’ll take Sunshine Drive up to Las Flores Motorway, which offers an easier incline to reach Mt. Thom and Tongva Peak.

Either way, you should spot some benches and flat areas to take a seat or lay out a blanket and enjoy the expansive views of Glendale, Burbank and the cities beyond there. I promise: Your meal will taste even better after the climb to Mt. Thom — especially since it won’t be just jerky or a protein bar!

3 things to do

Runners participate in a previous 4 Mile Hill Challenge run.

(Aztlan Athletics LLC)

1. Frolic for feathered friends in L.A.
Athletes from beginner to elite have until Friday to sign up for Saturday’s 4 Mile Hill Challenge, a trail run and walk in Ernest E. Debs Regional Park. Proceeds from the race benefit the Audubon Center at Debs Park. Race onlookers can partake in bird-themed activities as they cheer on their athletes. Register at 4milehillchallenge.com.

2. Get moving in Montebello
Montebello Outdoor Adventures will host a hiking trip from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday in the Puente Hills Preserve. Guests will meet at the Cathy Hensel Youth Center (236 S. Taylor Ave. in Montebello) before being taken by free transportation on the day trip. Registration is required. Register at montebellorecreation.com via the Trips and Tours page.

3. Foster the forest in Sunland-Tujunga
The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter will host a volunteer workday from 8 to 10 a.m. Saturday in Sunland-Tujunga. Volunteers will water and mulch four or more trees, helping them stave off disease or death, especially in hotter months. Participants should bring gloves and sun protection. Tools provided. Location released upon registration. Register at act.sierraclub.org.

The must-read

A motion-sensor camera captures an adult female mountain lion in the Verdugo Mountains in 2016.

(U.S. National Park Service via Associated Press)

I continue to be amazed by the ongoing legacy of P-22, L.A.’s dearly departed lion king. On Thursday, the California Fish and Game Commission unanimously voted to list six specific mountain lion populations — more than 1,400 pumas — in Southern California and the Central Coast as threatened under state law. “Hemmed in by freeways and housing, cougar clans in the Santa Monica and Santa Ana mountains — both included in the listing — have a 16% to 28% chance of extinction in 50 years if they aren’t able to reach lions to mate with in other areas, providing genetic diversity,” wrote Times staff writer Lila Seidman. It’s hard to imagine this happening without the advocacy for mountain lions stimulated by P-22, whose memorial in 2023 lasted more than three hours and drew thousands of guests.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

Do you have a story of love on the hiking trail? Did someone break up with you atop a mountain? Or perhaps it was a marriage proposal on a peak! On April 3, The Times will host L.A. Affairs Live, a competition show featuring real dating stories from people living in the Greater Los Angeles area. The event is a spin-off of our popular dating and romance column of the same name. Seven to 10 storytellers will be selected to perform 5- to 7-minute relationship stories related to the theme of “Starting Fresh.” A live audience will choose the winner. The winner will get a written version of their story published as an L.A. Affairs column and receive a $400 payment. So, do any of our Wild readers have a lowercase-wild story to tell? Learn more about how to audition here. The deadline to submit is midnight Sunday!

For more insider tips on Southern California’s beaches, trails and parks, check out past editions of The Wild. And to view this newsletter in your browser, click here.

There are two, seemingly irreconcilable, stories of how the Palisades fire became a deadly and destructive behemoth dominating post-fire discourse. One is told by the residents who lived through it, and the other by the government officials who responded to it.

Government officials have routinely argued they had little agency to change the outcome of a colossal fire fanned by intense winds. Palisadians point to a string of government missteps they say clearly led to and exacerbated the disaster.

Officials’ unwillingness to acknowledge any mistakes has only sharpened residents’ focus on them, functionally bringing to a grinding halt any discourse around how the two groups can work to prevent the next disaster.

Instead, residents have been left feeling gaslighted by their own government, while fire officials struggle to navigate the backlash to new fire safety measures.

When officials and residents do talk solutions, the former tend to emphasize personal responsibility — most prominently, Zone Zero, which will require residents to remove flammable materials and plants near their homes — while the latter often push for greater government responsibility: a bolstered fire service and a beefed-up water system.

The residents’ account goes like this:

The Fire Department failed to put out the Lachman fire a week prior. Mayor Karen Bass then left the country during dangerous weather while the deputy mayor for public safety position was vacant after Brian K. Williams, who formerly held the role, was put on leave after allegedly making a bomb threat against City Hall. L.A.’s city Fire Department officials failed to deploy 1,000 firefighters in advance of the fire and did not call for firefighters to work extended hours, while dozens of fire engines were out of commission at the time, waiting for repairs.

An aircraft drops fire retardant on the Palisades fire on Jan. 8, 2025.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile the L.A. Department of Water and Power left a water reservoir designed for firefighting empty and the city failed to analyze how it would evacuate the community.

However, when government officials — be it the mayor, the fire chief or the governor — describe the fire, they tell a different story:

The day after the fire erupted, Bass placed some of the blame on climate change, which some scientists argue has exacerbated fires in the area by increasing the frequency and intensity of hot, dry and windy conditions. Fire officials stressed that the winds during the first few days of the fires were so strong that there was little even the best-equipped fire service could do and that the fire grew so large that there wasn’t a single fire hydrant system in the world that could handle the demand.

Many residents don’t deny that, under such extreme conditions and after the fire reached a certain scale and ferocity, the destruction became inevitable — and there are many who would just like to move on from January 2025.

However, others remain frustrated that these official versions of the story do not acknowledge the government’s failure to prepare for such conditions and its failure to stop the fire before it passed the threshold of inevitability. Indeed, at times, officials have shied away from these uncomfortable discussions to shield themselves from potential liability.

One telling example: On the one-year anniversary of the fire, residents gathered to voice these frustrations at a protest in the heart of the neighborhood. But when Bass was asked to comment on the event, she dismissed it as an unfit way to commemorate the anniversary and accused organizers of profiting off the disaster.

Survivors gathered in Palisades Village to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire on Jan. 7, 2026.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

This sort of dismissal has essentially forestalled any constructive discussions of climate change, the limits of the fire service and water systems and proposals like Zone Zero, since so many Palisadians now feel like any of that is just a fig leaf for the government’s agency and responsibility, and not a good faith discussion of how to solve the wildfire problem.

The reality is, how climate change is influencing wildfires in Southern California is still a subject of debate among scientists. That doesn’t mean that local leaders need to sit on their hands and wait for consensus. Experts can easily point to a litany of steps that can be taken to better protect residents, regardless of how profound the impact is of global warming on fire risk in the region.

Fire scientists and fire service veterans (who have the pleasure of speaking freely in retirement) argue both personal responsibility and government responsibility play key roles in preventing disasters:

Home hardening and defensible space slow down the dangerous chain reaction in which a wildfire jumps into an urban area and spreads from house to house. It is then the responsibility of a prepared and capable fire service to use that extra time to stop the destruction in its tracks.

The bottom line is that neither the government’s story nor the residents’ story of the Palisades fire is fundamentally wrong. And neither is fully complete.

The conversations around fire preparedness that need to happen next will require both homeowners and government officials to acknowledge they both have real agency and responsibility to shape the outcome of the next fire.

More recent wildfire news

Mayor Karen Bass personally directed the watering down of the city Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire in an attempt to limit the city’s legal liability, my colleague Alene Tchekmedyian reports. The revelations come after Bass repeatedly denied any involvement in the editing of the report to downplay failures.

Last Thursday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office had opened a civil rights investigation into the fire preparations and response for the Eaton fire, looking for any potential disparities in the historically Black west Altadena, my colleague Grace Toohey reports. West Altadena received late evacuation alerts, and officials allocated limited firefighting resources to the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the federal government is hard at work attempting to unify federal firefighting resources within the Department of the Interior — including from the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service — into one U.S. Wildland Fire Service by the end of the year. The effort does not yet include the federal government’s largest firefighting team in the U.S. Forest Service. Because it is housed under the Department of Agriculture, not the Department of the Interior, merging it into the U.S. Wildland Fire Service would probably require congressional approval.

A few last things in climate news

An investigation from my colleague Hayley Smith found that, as Southern California’s top air pollution authority weighed a proposal to phase out gas-powered appliances, it was inundated with at least 20,000 AI-generated emails opposing the measure. When staff reached out to a subset of people listed as submitters of the comments, only five responded, with three saying they had no knowledge of the letters. The authority ultimately scrapped the proposal.

The National Science Foundation announced last week that a supercomputer in Wyoming used by thousands of scientists to simulate and research the climate would be transferred from a federally funded research institute to an unnamed “third-party operator.” It left scientists shocked and concerned.

The Department of Energy has made new nuclear energy a priority; however, no new commercial-scale nuclear facilities are currently under construction, and it’s unclear how the U.S., which imports most of the uranium used by its current reactors, would fuel any new nuclear power plants. These sorts of technical challenges have vexed nuclear advocates who are fighting against a decades-long stagnation in nuclear development, triggered primarily by safety concerns.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Populist Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday formally kicked off the campaign to place a billionaires tax on the November ballot, framing the proposal as something larger than a debate about economic and tax policy as he appeared at a storied Los Angeles venue.

“The billionaire class no longer sees itself as part of American society. They see themselves as something separate and apart, like the oligarchs,” he told about 2,000 people at the Wiltern. The independent senator from Vermont compared them to kings, queens and czars of yore who believed they had a divine right to rule.

These billionaires “have created huge businesses with revolutionary technologies like AI and robotics that are literally transforming the face of the Earth,” he said, “and they are saying to you and to everybody in America, who the hell do you think you are telling us what we — the ruling elite, the millionaires, the billionaires, the richest people on Earth — who do you think you are telling us what we can do or not?”

California voters can show the billionaires “that we are still living in a democratic society where the people have some power,” Sanders said.

The senator is promoting a labor union’s proposal to impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California billionaires and trusts to backfill federal healthcare funding cuts by the Trump administration. Supporters of the contentious effort began gathering voter signatures to place the measure on the November ballot earlier this year. Sanders previously endorsed the proposal on social media and in public statements, and said he would seek to create a national version of the wealth tax.

But Wednesday’s event, a rally that lasted more than two hours and featured a lengthy performance by Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, was framed as the formal launch of the campaign.

“Some people are free to choose between five-star restaurants, while others choose which dumpster will provide their next meal,” Morello said. “Some are free to choose between penthouse suites, while others are free to choose in which gutter to lay their heads.”

The guitarist’s comments came amid a set that included Rage’s protest song “Killing in the Name” and Bruce Springsteen’s social justice ballad “The Ghost of Tom Joad.”

“The people who’ve changed the world in progressive, radical or even revolutionary ways,” Morello said, “did not have any more money, power, courage, intelligence or creativity than anyone here tonight.”

Milling about outside the Wiltern, a historic Art Deco venue, were workers being paid $10 per signature they gathered to help qualify the proposal for the November ballot. Inside, attendees heard from labor leaders, healthcare workers and others whose lives are being affected by federal funding cuts to healthcare.

Lisandro Preza said he was speaking not only only as a leader of Unite Here Local 11, which represents more than 32,000 hospitality workers, but also as someone who has AIDS and recently lost his medical coverage.

“For me, this fight is very personal. Without my health coverage, the thought of going to the emergency room is terrifying,” he said. “That injection I rely on costs nearly $10,000 a month. That shot keeps my disease under control. Without it, my health, my life, are at risk, and I’m not alone. Millions of Americans are facing the same after massive federal healthcare cuts are putting our hospitals on the brink of collapse.”

Sanders, who punctuated his remarks with historic statistics about wealth in the United States and anecdotes about billionaires’ purchases of multiple yachts and planes, tied the impending healthcare cuts to broader problems of growing income and wealth inequality; the consolidation of corporate ownership, including over media outlets; the decline in workers’ wages despite increased productivity; and the threats to the job market of artificial intelligence and automation. He said all these issues were grounded in the greed of the nation’s wealthiest residents.

“For these people, enough is never enough,” he said. “They are dedicated to accumulating more and more wealth and power … no matter how many low-income and working-class people will die because they no longer have health insurance.”

“Shame! Shame!” the audience screamed.

In addition to the wealth tax event, Sanders also plans to use his time in California to meet with tech leaders and speak on Friday at Stanford University about the effects of artificial intelligence and automation on American workers alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont).

Millions of California voters deeply support the Vermont senator, who won the state’s 2020 Democratic presidential primary over Joe Biden by eight points, and narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton.

Sanders were the first presidential candidate Elle Parker, 30, ever cast a ballot for in a presidential election.

“He’s inspired me,” said the podcaster, who lives in East Hollywood. “I just love the way he uses his words to inspire us all.”

Supporters proposed the wealth tax to make up for the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that Trump signed last year. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter, and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

But the tax proposal is controversial, creating a notable schism among the state’s Democrats because of concerns that it will prompt an exodus of the state’s wealthy, who are the major source of revenue that buttresses California’s volatile budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the Democrats who oppose it, as is San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who is among the dozen candidates running to replace the termed-out governor.

Mahan argued that the proposal had already hurt the state’s finances by driving economic investment and tax revenue out of California to tax-friendly environs.

“We need ideas that are sound, not just political proposals that sound good,” he said. “The answer is to close the federal tax loopholes the ultra-wealthy use to escape paying their fair share and invest those funds in paying down our debt, rebuilding our infrastructure, and protecting our most vulnerable families from skyrocketing healthcare premiums. The only winners in this proposal are the workers and taxpayers of Florida and Texas, who will take our jobs and benefit from the capital and tax revenue California is losing.”

A group affiliated with the governor plans to run digital ads opposing the proposal featuring Newsom along with other politicians on both sides of the aisle, as first reported by the New York Times.

The proposal has received more expected and unified backlash from the state’s conservatives and business leaders, who have launched ballot measures that could nullify part if not all of the proposed wealth tax. This is dependent on which, if any, of the measures qualify for the ballot — the number of votes each receives in November compared to the labor effort.

Silicon Valley billionaires, notably PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalist David Sacks — both major Trump supporters — announced they had already decamped California because of the effort.

Rob Lapsley, president of California Business Round Table, added that if the wealth tax is approved, it would destroy the state’s innovation economy, destabilize tax revenue and ultimately result in all Californians paying higher taxes.

“Let’s be clear — this $100-billion tax increase isn’t just a swipe at California’s most successful entrepreneurs; it’s a tax no one can afford because it weakens the entire economic ecosystem that supports jobs, investment, wages, and public services for everyday Californians,” he said. “When high earners leave, the cost doesn’t vanish — it lands on everyone through fewer jobs, less investment, and a weaker tax base — a recipe for new and higher taxes for everyone.”

California may be losing two of the state’s most famed residents and generous political donors.

Filmmaker Steven Spielberg recently moved to New York and Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is eyeing purchasing a new property in Florida, stirring speculation about whether their decisions are tied to a proposed new tax on California billionaires to fund healthcare for the state’s most vulnerable residents.

Although a handful of prominent conservatives who bolted out of California noisily blamed their departure on the controversial wealth tax measure, as well as the state’s liberal ways and what they describe as cumbersome business regulations, neither Zuckerberg nor Spielberg has given any indication that the tax proposal is the reason for their moves.

A spokesperson for Spielberg, who has owned homes on both the East and West coasts since at least the mid-1990s, said the sole motivation for Spielberg and his wife, actor Kate Capshaw, decamping to Manhattan was to be near family.

“Steven’s move to the East Coast is both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw’s desire to be closer to their New York based children and grandchildren,” said Terry Press, a spokesperson for the prodigious filmmaker. She declined to answer questions about his position on the proposed ballot measure.

Director Steven Spielberg presents president Bill Clinton with the Ambassadors Humanity award at the 5th Annual Ambassadors for Humanity Dinner Honoring former President Bill Clinton to support the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation held at the Amblin theatre Universal Studios on February 17, 2005 in Los Angeles, California.

(Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)

On Jan. 1, Spielberg and Capshaw officially became residents of New York City, settling in the historic San Remo co-op in Central Park West. The storied building is among the most exclusive in Manhattan, having been home to Bono, Mick Jagger, Warren Beatty, Tiger Woods and many other celebrities. On the same day, Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment opened an office in New York City.

Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, are considering buying a $200-million waterfront mansion in South Florida, the Wall Street Journal first reported this month. The property is located in Miami’s Indian Creek, a gated barrier island that is an alcove of the wealthy and the influential, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner.

Representatives for Zuckerberg declined to comment.

The billionaires’ moves raised eyebrows because they take place as supporters of the proposed 5% one-time tax on the assets of California billionaires and trusts are gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. Led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, they must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

If approved, the tax would raise roughly $100 billion that would largely pay for healthcare services, as well as some education programs. Critics say it would drive the wealthy and their companies out of the state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel publicized that his firm had opened a new office in Miami.

The proposed ballot measure, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, would apply to Californians who are residents of the state as of 2026. But residency requirements are murky. Among the factors considered by the state’s Franchise Tax Board are where someone is registered to vote, the location of their principle residence, how much time they spend in California, where their driver’s license was issued and their cars registered, where their spouse and children live, the location of their doctors, dentists, accountants and attorneys, and their “social ties,” such as the site of their house of worship or county club.

It’s unclear whether the proposal will qualify for the November ballot, and if it does, whether voters will approve it. However, a mass exodus of a number of the state’s billionaires — more than 200 people — would have a notable effect on state revenue, regardless. The state’s budget volatility is caused by its heavy reliance on taxes paid by the state’s wealthiest residents, including from levies on capital gains and stock-based compensation.

“The highest-income Californians pay the largest share of the state’s personal income tax,” according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2026-27 budget summary that was published in January. “The significant share of personal income taxes — by far the state’s largest General Fund revenue source — paid by a small percentage of taxpayers increases the difficulty of forecasting personal income tax revenue.”

This reliance on wealthy Californians is among the reasons the proposed billionaires tax has created a schism among Democrats and is a source of discord in the 2026 governor’s race to replace Newsom, who cannot seek another term and is weighing a presidential bid. He opposes the proposal; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.) campaigned for it Wednesday evening at the Wiltern in Los Angeles.

“I am not only supportive of what they’re trying to do in California, but we’re going to introduce a wealth tax for the whole country. We have got to deal with the greed, the extraordinary greed, of the billionaire class,” Sanders told reporters Feb. 11.

Zuckerberg and Spielberg are both prolific political donors, though it is difficult to fully account for their contributions to candidates, campaigns and other entities because of how they or their affiliates donate to them as well as the intricacies of campaign finance reporting.

Spielberg, 79, a Hollywood legend, is worth more than $7 billion, according to Forbes. He and his wife have donated almost universally to Democratic candidates and causes, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tracker of federal campaign contributions, and the California secretary of state’s office.

The prolific filmmaker, who won acclaim for movies such as “Schindler’s List,” “Jaws,” “Jurassic Park” and the “Indiana Jones” trilogy, was born in Ohio and lived with his family in several states before moving to California. He attended Cal State Long Beach but dropped out after Universal Studios gave him a contract to direct television shows.

Zuckerberg, 41, launched Facebook while in college and is worth more than $219 billion, making him among the world’s richest people, according to Forbes.

His largest personal federal political donation appears to be $1 million to FWD.us, a group focused on criminal justice and immigration reform nationwide, according to Open Secrets.

Zuckerberg, who is currently a registered Democrat in Santa Clara County, has donated to politicians across the partisan spectrum, including Democrats such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to Republicans such as President Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he ran for the White House and Chris Christie during his New Jersey gubernatorial campaign.

Both men’s personal donations don’t include their other effects on campaign finances — Spielberg has helped countless Democratic politicians raise money in Hollywood; Zuckerberg’s company has made other contributions. Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee in December 2024. Zuckerberg later attended the president’s swearing in at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.

Zuckerberg, born in White Plains, N.Y., created an early prototype of Facebook while at Harvard University and dropped out to move to Silicon Valley to complete the social media platform, as depicted in the award-winning film “The Social Network.”

He still owns multiple properties in California and elsewhere, including a controversial, massive compound on Kauai that includes two mansions, dozens of bedrooms, multiple other buildings and recreational spaces — and an underground bunker that features a metal door filled with concrete, according to a 2023 investigation by Wired. The cost of land acquisition and construction reportedly has topped $300 million.

Meta is based in Menlo Park, Calif., though it has been incorporated in Delaware since Facebook’s founding in 2004.

Times staff writer Queenie Wong contributed to this report.