SACRAMENTO — After weeks of intense negotiation, state lawmakers on Friday reached a compromise on legislation to regulate energy use by California’s growing data center industry, action triggered by community anger over the facilities and fears of high utility bills in some communities.
The goal, according to legislators and advocates, is to protect consumers from growing electricity costs driven upward by the sprawling facilities and to track the centers’ immense energy and water consumption.
Business groups representing tech companies argued that some of the proposed restrictions and requirements, along with California’s high energy costs and lack of available land, would make it difficult for data centers to open in the state.
Municipalities risk missing out on tax revenues and jobs from the centers if the industry goes elsewhere, they said.
Two bills to regulate the controversial industry consumed the state Legislature in the final weeks of the 2026 session, drawing in Gov. Gavin Newsom and industry organizations and lobbyists representing some of the world’s most influential companies, including Google, Meta, Amazon and artificial intelligence firms such as Anthropic and OpenAI.
Proposed legislation by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), finalized Friday, would establish special rules for data centers’ electrical use. The legislation requires the California Public Utilities Commission to create special rates and updated rules for data centers’ use of electricity, including the costs for new power for infrastructure upgrades.
The debate in Sacramento around the data centers centered on how much they should pay for power and infrastructure, and whether that should be mandated by the state Legislature or the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates investor-owned utilities and is controlled by a board appointed by the governor.
Unlike some other states, California hasn’t seen an overwhelming wave of new large-scale data centers, nor have state leaders sought moratoriums such as the ones enacted by governors in Texas and New York.
An aerial view of a 49.5-megawatt data center under construction in Vernon last month.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Nevertheless, advocates focused on reforming the state’s utilities sought this year to seize the moment to enact tough regulations, including forcing data centers to pay for transmission upgrades and wildfire mitigation efforts.
Utility reform advocates and environmental leaders offered mixed reaction on Saturday.
Matthew Freedman, a senior staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network (TURN), praised the final language in the two bills, saying the legislation would prevent data center costs from “being foisted on other customers” while helping California meet its clean energy goals.
Monica Embrey, the founder of Affordable Energy Campaign, called the last-minute amendments “concerning.”
In particular, she pointed to a lack of clean energy requirements for data centers who use their own energy, and a provision that allows a utility to enter into its own agreement with a data center for energy in the interim period before the state finalizes its regulations.
A representative for the Data Center Coalition, whose members include Google and Microsoft, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding because of the rise of artificial intelligence, or AI. The centers help power everything from streaming services to videoconferencing calls.
Data centers in California are typically smaller than the mammoth, 500+-megawatt AI facilities making headlines in other parts of the country. Electricity costs and state regulations on gas-powered generators limit the vast majority of them to under 100 megawatts.
But as proposals increase in number, opposition has been fierce and growing.
A Public Policy Institute of California poll from July showed that 73% of residents oppose the construction of data centers in their communities.
Opposition centers on water use, air and noise pollution, and the potential for data centers to raise utility bills as they add strain to the grid requiring costly upgrades and new electricity supply.
The California Energy Commission expects data center electricity use, currently 2% of the state’s demand, to double in the next 10 years.
Monterey Park became the first city in the country in June to permanently ban data centers by a popular vote, and at least four other San Gabriel Valley cities have enacted moratoriums.
Southeast of L.A., Imperial County, Desert Hot Springs, and Palm Springs also voted on moratoriums, while Coachella permanently banned the facilities. In the Central Valley, Tulare County adopted a moratorium this month as residents voiced opposition to proposals to develop tiny data centers on local fairgrounds in the region.
And in San José, the state’s hot spot of data center development, residents flooded a recent public hearing to call for a moratorium while the city updates its data center standards.
Newsom last year vetoed legislation by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) that would have required data centers to disclose and certify their water consumption. The governor said he was reluctant to impose “rigid” reporting requirements on the development of “this critically important digital infrastructure.”
Separate bills that would require the centers to disclose their energy and water use were recently approved by state lawmakers.
Like other state legislators, Papan said she wants to work with the centers, not ban them.
“I constantly say, ‘Help us help you.’ We will all get this right if we can just be transparent and methodical,” said Papan, whose district includes Silicon Valley.
Padilla’s district includes Imperial Valley, where a developer’s plans for a data center on 75 acres is sparking fierce backlash.
Advocates and lawmakers fought over two approaches on the issue of regulating data centers’ energy use.
A wider coalition of environmental groups supported the bill from Padilla, SB 886, sponsored by TURN, that would have required data centers to pay up front for broader power grid updates required to meet their demand. That approach made it into the final package.
TURN pointed to a recent transmission plan from California’s grid operator projecting that increased power demands from data centers in PG&E‘s service territory, where the majority of current and proposed data centers are concentrated, would create up to $1.8 billion in upgrade costs for the power grid, including transmission lines.
PG&E favored a less stringent approach. In an email earlier this week, a PG&E spokesperson argued SB 886 would “risk higher costs for customers and delay critical infrastructure needed to serve the state’s growing energy demand.”
The Data Center Coalition had opposed both bills for “singling out” one type of power user.
The high cost of land and power, as well as lack of available land, are just some of the reasons that California hasn’t seen a flood of data centers, said Khara Boender, a director of government affairs at the Data Center Coalition. She said dozens of states offer some type of exemption for data centers, but California does not.
Additional regulation in the Golden State, she said earlier this week, “would be another signal that the state is a more challenging place for data center development.”
California lawmakers have passed legislation that will make it easier for government agencies to protect themselves from the rising use of artificial intelligence for public comment, records requests and other forms of civic engagement.
Senate Bill 1159 from Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento) prohibits anyone from knowingly using AI to falsely represent that a real person engaged with a government agency. It also specifies that agencies are not required to treat engagement from AI or bots as if they were real humans.
“What we have seen with the result of the advent of artificial intelligence and other similar technologies is the capability for these systems to flood the zone — to drown local governments, and potentially state agencies as well, in inauthentic, non-human engagement” Cabaldon said during a March meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation was introduced shortly after a February report from The Times about a campaign to sway a vote on gas-powered appliances at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. A Southern California based public affairs consultant named Matt Klink took credit for the campaign, stating that he used a platform called CiviClick to flood the district with 20,000 public comments opposing the rule ahead of the air board’s vote.
CiviClick describes itself on its website as “the first and best AI-powered grassroots advocacy platform.” Company officials maintain that AI was not used in the AQMD campaign, but said it is a tool they offer and use in other campaigns. Chief executive Chazz Clevinger said he could not share how the 20,000 comments to the air board were generated or how constituents were identified and contacted.
Agency insiders said the onslaught of emails almost certainly influenced the air board’s decision to reject the proposed rules, which would have imposed fees on new gas-powered furnaces and water heaters for some 10 million appliances across the South Coast region.
Cabaldon cited The Times story when he introduced the legislation, noting that at least three people contacted by the air district said they had not submitted the public comments attached to their names.
He also cited a report from the San Francisco Chronicle about a similar campaign to sway a different rule at the Bay Area Management District, which was run through a platform called Speak4 that advertises its ability to produce custom AI-powered letters.
The business advocacy group that ran the campaign also denied that AI was used. However, 10 people contacted by The Chronicle said they had not written the letters attributed to them. “This was forged,” one person said.
Reached by phone, Cabaldon said the legislation will help public agencies navigate how to respond to the deployment of AI, which is increasingly being used in a way that “swamps our civic engagement process, but also disables our state and local governments altogether.”
For example, the California Public Records Act requires government agencies to respond to requests for public records within 10 days, while the Brown Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act guarantee the right to participate in public meetings and provide public comment.
“The point of the bill is to say that these laws are about humans, and just because it comes in the form that a human would write it, does not mean you have to treat each of these communications as if it’s a human being, and therefore, AI is not entitled to 10 days, AI is not entitled to three minutes at the school board meeting,” he said.
Experts said the use of AI for “astroturfing,” or faking, civic engagement is a growing trend. In the United Kingdom, a service called Objector.ai is using AI to identify and generate formal objections to local planning applications, garnering the concern of experts, The Guardian reported.
Public officials in California are worried, too. Vacaville vice mayor Michael Silva said the city has been receiving AI-generated public records requests, which are slowing its ability to respond to other legitimate requests submitted by residents.
Dylan Plummer, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Clean Heat Campaign, said many AI campaigns have benefited the fossil fuel industry and pose an “existential threat to public participation in our democracy.”
“The passage of Senate Bill 1159 is an important step to clarify the law and discourage the use of emerging technologies to falsify public records and mislead regulators in California,” he said. “That said, much work still needs to be done to understand how widespread this practice is, and to hold bad actors accountable for laws that may have already been broken.”
Lawmakers acknowledged that the legislation is just a start, and that it is increasingly difficult for public officials to detect bespoke letters, deepfake videos or other kinds of engagement powered by AI. The bill authorizes government agencies to use disclosure verification tools to determine if AI is present — something the Bay Area Air District already indicated it may do by replacing its email system with a website for public comment submissions instead.
The legislation does not preclude real people from using AI to facilitate genuine public engagement, such as someone using ChatGPT or Perplexity to improve the text of a letter, so long as the volume and frequency of their engagement are consistent with ordinary participation from a real person.
For its part, CiviClick notes on its website that it supports SB 1159, and said its platform already complies with what the bill proposes.
Some lawmakers said the use of AI in a civic capacity represents a new frontier.
“If I’d have read this bill back when I was on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, I would have wondered what you were smoking,” Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) said during the March meeting of the Judiciary Committee.
“But that’s how things have progressed, and the development of technology will always outpace the development of defenses against the undesirable effects of technology,” he said.
SB 1159 passed the legislature this month and will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature in September.
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers said Thursday that they plan to make “modest” changes to a controversial law that gave victims of childhood sexual abuse a new window in which to sue, but will stop short of a damage cap.
The proposed legislation, offered in the final days of the legislative session, would require older victims to provide additional proof that they were abused as children, but does not limit the amount they could receive in payouts — a demand made by local governments and school districts that have shelled out billions of dollars in recent settlements.
The proposal follows years of heated debate over a 2019 state law that removed the statue of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims. The law paved the way for thousands of victims to sue their abusers but has been criticized for draining the coffers of local governments.
Since the law was enacted, L.A. County has agreed to pay more than $5 billion to settle more than 12,000 claims stemming from alleged sexual abuse committed by government employees in foster homes and juvenile halls.
Santa Monica last year declared a financial crisis after officials revealed that the city faces more than $229 million in sexual abuse allegation claims from a former city employee. California school districts have paid nearly a half-billion dollars to settle older claims of sexual abuse.
The new bill, known as Senate Bill 577, tweaks a proposal put forward last year by Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), who tried unsuccessfully to shepherd through a compromise between local government entities, survivors groups and plaintiffs attorneys.
Laird and Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in interviews Thursday that they tried to thread the needle in protecting both survivors and municipalities.
Laird said he’s heard reaction from various groups since the new bill proposal was posted online. The groups are “not totally happy,” Laird said.
“My goal here was to get a situation where [the reaction] was sullen but not mutinous,” said Umberg.
L.A. County, which faces more than 5,000 new claims of sexual abuse, lobbied hard to change the law, arguing it opened the door for fraud as records to vet the cases were long gone. Chief Executive Officer Joseph M. Nicchitta praised the bill Thursday as a “thoughtful and balanced package of reforms.”
“This is a responsible step forward and moves us toward a more stable and sustainable framework, and we urge all public entities seeking reform to accept this solution now,” Nicchitta said in a statement.
The Consumer Attorneys of California, a trial lawyer trade group, backed the fact that the bill wouldn’t limit how much victims could receive from these cases.
“Damage caps would place an arbitrary limit on the harm a survivor has suffered and leave survivors bearing more of the lifelong costs of abuse—including trauma, disability, and treatment,” said Doug Saeltzer, president of the association. “Those costs should not be shifted onto the very people the system failed to protect.”
According to the most recent version of the bill, victims older than 40 must now provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the public entity “knew of misconduct” that resulted in the assault and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it.
The bill also states attorneys who file fraudulent sex abuse lawsuits can be fined $25,000 per violation, a penalty that could be enforced by the state attorney general or attorneys for local governments. The Times reported last year on nine plaintiffs who said they were paid to sue the county over sex abuse, some of whom said they were told to fabricate their claims.
The bill also requires the attorney general to open a two-part investigation into alleged abuse within L.A. County’s juvenile detention centers, probing both the cause of fraudulent lawsuits as well as legitimate claims of abuse.
And it would also require local governments and school districts to adopt a “sexual assault prevention plan” that details to the attorney general “how grooming and sexual abuse concerns and risks will be reported.”
John Manly, an attorney who represents victims in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement, said he believed the bill would make it impossible to represent victims over 40 years old. The burden of proof, he said, was too high and the language in the bill too vague.
“It’s sad, because it tells me that all the stuff about, ‘We care about children, and we care about survivors, and we believe survivors,’ it’s all political window dressing for many of the members of the Legislature,” he said.
The compromise bill follows multiple attempts to change the law in recent years. Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) tried last year to increase the burden of proof for sex abuse cases, but pulled the bill after outrage from victims rights groups.
The new version seems unlikely to have the same problem, with some groups immediately praising the lack of fee caps.
“It’s a step in the right direction,” said Chantel Johnson, directing advocate at Youth Law Center, which advocates for youth in foster homes and juvenile detention centers. “The bill was more balanced than we thought it would be.”
Senate Bill 577 is expected to come up for a vote in both the Assembly and the Senate by early next week and, if it passes, will be sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration. Leaders in both houses praised the proposal Thursday.
“Today, we are grateful to have been able to come to an agreement on a legislative path to protect justice, prioritize prevention for the millions in our care, and acknowledge the impacts to our communities,” said Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said the state would be “safeguarding schools and public services, while investing in prevention and protecting against future abuse.”
After an outcry from immigrant and civil rights advocates over plans to equip immigration officers with gloves capable of delivering electric shocks, California lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a bill that would ban the use of shock gloves by any law enforcement agent in the state.
The gloves deliver can an electrical shock strong enough to drop a strong man to his knees in an instant, and proponents say the gloves provide a fast and non-lethal way to subdue a person.
Two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland security planned to use $10 million to $20 million to procure the gloves from Compliant Technologies of Lexington, Ky., for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The department defended its decision, saying it was “made with careful consideration” and that other law enforcement agencies in the country already use the technology.
Civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union accused the department of attempting to intimidate the public by arming agents with another use-of-force option. They noted that ICE already is contending with criticism for multiple deaths in custody and during arrests.
Assembly Bill 2760, authored by state Assemblymember LaShea Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), would prohibit local, state and federal agencies from possessing, using or procuring electric taser gloves in the state or with state funds.
“We cannot spend state money or tax dollars on technology that is not to better our state,” Sharp-Collins said during a news conference with other lawmakers in Sacramento. “It cannot be used on our children, it cannot be used on our teachers, our business owners, it cannot be used on anyone.”
The CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E — standing for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — resembles a thick work glove and can be activated to emit a 380-volt shock upon contact with a body. Compliant Technologies has maintained that the gloves are weaker than traditional tasers, but critics say they can be life-threatening in the hands of ICE.
“Many people try to say weapons like this are about de-escalation, but I don’t know how many people have put hands on someone and said that’s de-escalation,” state Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-Alameda) said. “There’s already a spectrum of non-lethal, less-than-violent weapons out there that exists… ICE and law enforcement don’t need another tool.”
The gloves have been adopted in detention centers, law enforcement agencies and jails across the country, though apparently none in California. Last week, AP reported that Omaha police agreed to stop using the shock gloves after parents realized they’d been adopted by departments that monitored schools.
Sharp-Collins said she prepared the legislation in consultation with the state attorney general’s office and legislative council to ensure it would withstand a challenge from the Trump administration if it became law.
The Senate voted 30-9 on Monday to approve a rule change that would allow for the bill to pass quickly before the end of the legislative session on Aug. 31.
SACRAMENTO — Two state lawmakers from Los Angeles want tougher penalties for disasters caused by industrial companies after a massive fire in Boyle Heights left neighbors struggling with smoky air and the smell of rotting meat.
Assemblymember Mark González and state Sen. María Elena Durazo, both Democrats, are seeking a new law that would require any new cold storage facility to create a contingency fund for emergencies.
The fund would be used to help neighbors mitigate the fallout from a disaster.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is running for reelection, will appear with González and Durazo at an event Wednesday to discuss the proposed laws.
Lineage’s 500,000-square-foot food warehouse in Boyle Heights caught fire on June 17. The company blames a power company, which was working on the warehouse’s roof, for the blaze.
The company, Altus Power, has denied responsibility, stating that the cause is undetermined. The company accused Lineage of finger-pointing instead of focusing on community relief.
Noxious smoke and an influx of rats and flies attracted to rotting meat stored at the facility have tormented neighbors. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has cited Lineage for unsanitary and nuisance conditions related to rodent and pest control violations.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has issued at least 20 violation notices to Lineage for public nuisance.
Lineage recently applied for building permits to replace the site, which Bass called “a slap in the face” to Boyle Heights families.
A press release ahead of Wednesday’s news conference said the proposal by lawmakers “will ensure that Lineage can’t rebuild without being accountable to the community.”
González and Durazo plan to insert proposed legislation related to the Lineage fire into existing bills, a process known as “gut and amend.”
The politicians also want to allow for stiffer fines against companies following a disaster.
Their proposed legislation also would ensure that anyone who sues over the fire doesn’t have to pay state taxes on any settlement, and that local jurisdictions are responsible for pest extermination efforts.
Greg Lehmkuhl, president and chief executive of Lineage, said in a quarterly earnings call last week that the company has committed $3.3 million to the community in the aftermath of the fire.
“Safety remains our top priority, and I’m incredibly proud of our team and how they’re handling this very challenging situation,” Lehmkuhl said on the call.
In a matter of a few clicks and keystrokes, anyone can find themselves deep in conversation with “Psychologist,” a chatbot character that describes itself as an expert in “empathy” and “active listening.”
It responds to messages of anxiety and sadness with reassurance. It asks questions and offers advice; it even responds with italicized nonverbal cues: “The psychologist’s expression softens with compassion.” In smaller font, a disclaimer reads: “This is A.I. and not a real person. Treat everything it says as fiction.”
As more people turn to chatbots for mental health help and advice — including by some estimates one in eight teens and young adults — legislators are in a race to keep up with the quickly developing technology. Among the latest efforts is a bill that would add restrictions around the use of chatbot companions and other artificial intelligence-powered tools that people use to support mental healthcare or in lieu of professional help.
State Sen. Steve Padilla, a San Diego Democrat and the bill’s author, said the intent is to draw a line: AI can be used for administrative purposes and to support clinicians, but it cannot practice psychotherapy.
“We’re dealing with a new impactful technology that is unfolding and is deployed in our world at light speed, and so it is both extremely powerful and consequential,” Padilla said.
The debate has taken on new urgency amid wrongful death lawsuits — some playing out in California federal courts — that accuse AI chatbot makers of contributing to users’ suicides.
Senate Bill 903 would ban companies from advertising chatbots as therapy. It would prohibit AI from making therapeutic decisions without the review of a licensed professional and require health providers to disclose and get a patient’s permission before using AI tools to record therapy sessions or to triage mental healthcare.
The bill is backed by professional associations that represent psychologists, therapists and counselors. Also behind the bill is the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which has been leading a push against unchecked use of artificial intelligence and digital tools in mental healthcare. Most recently, the union filed a complaint with state regulators against Kaiser Permanente for its alleged use of an automated algorithm in mental health triaging.
Padilla and supporters argue that the legislation is needed to protect consumers from AI in formal and informal spaces, but also to protect licensed professionals from being displaced by AI.
Le Ondra Clark Harvey, chief executive officer at the California Behavioral Health Assn., told lawmakers that without clear safeguards, chatbots can provide inaccurate information or mishandle crisis situations. “The difference between a licensed clinician and an automated response is not technical. It can be life altering,” Harvey said.
Opposition to the bill has largely focused on the restrictions of AI use in formal clinical spaces. TechNet, which represents tech-sector companies, argues the legislation could restrict beneficial uses of AI in healthcare and stifle innovation. Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California, said the bill could limit the use of tools that help expand access to mental healthcare.
“At a time when every county in California faces a shortage of behavioral healthcare workers, SB 903 still puts a clinician bottleneck in front of the intake and screening tools that help patients reach care faster,” Boykin said in an emailed statement.
The bill awaits its next vote in the Assembly’s fiscal committee.
Every day millions of people turn to AI chatbots through programs such as ChatGPT and Character.ai to help with research, work tasks and troubleshooting. But the top use of chatbots over the last two years has been companionship and “therapy,” research shows.
Experts say that’s in part because of a tremendous amount of loneliness, especially among young people. It is often hard or costly to get timely mental healthcare at the same time there is a spike in mental health diagnoses.
People turn to chatbots “because they have unmet needs,” said Dr. Jodi Halpern, professor of bioethics and medical humanities at UC Berkeley. But once people start using chatbots in this informal way, she said companies rely on a business model built around maximizing engagement “including by manipulative tactics,” such as praise and agreement.
General chatbots are largely free, available 24/7, and involve no hassle with insurance, making them appealing to many. But they function with no oversight from licensed professionals. In addition to general chatbots, there has also been a rapid uptick in AI-powered mental health apps — often requiring paid subscriptions and advertised as “pocket therapists” or “AI coaches.”
Groups like the American Psychological Assn. warn that chatbots are not a safe or effective replacement for true therapy. Trained clinicians look for cues like tone of voice, eye contact and body language and can detect more serious conditions; AI is not equipped to manage urgent symptoms, such as suicidal ideation, even though people increasingly share such thoughts with chatbots.
OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, revealed in a report last fall that about 1.2 million users a week share thoughts of suicide on the platform. OpenAI said that in such cases, it recommends people speak to a professional and directs them to resources like the 988 hotline. Families who have filed wrongful death lawsuits against OpenAI and other companies claim chatbots assisted their loved ones through their suicide plans.
The cases have helped raise the stakes for lawmakers around the country. Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass a law prohibiting the use of AI in therapy services. A handful of other states have since followed with similar restrictions.
One gray area in the discussion is exactly which tools this bill applies to.
NUHW’s complaint against Kaiser targets its e-visit screening tool, which evaluates patients who think they may be experiencing anxiety or depression. According to the complaint, patients answer a multiple choice questionnaire and the tool “automatically and instantaneously generates care recommendations and referral pathways based on the responses provided.”
The union argues that because care recommendations are generated so quickly, it is unlikely that a licensed professional is reviewing patients’ answers — which it says puts patients at risk and violates state law.
It’s not clear whether SB 903 would apply to Kaiser’s e-visit tool.
“That tool is in a black box. Kaiser is not sharing with us or others about exactly how it works and exactly what it does,” said Benjamin Eichert, NUHW’s director of public policy.
In response to the complaint, Kaiser told CalMatters its e-visit tool “does not use AI to diagnose patients, make clinical decisions, or determine medical necessity.”
Eichert said many other behavioral health provider groups are already advertising using AI during triage — a practice he said would fall under SB 903’s requirements.
“That intake process, that triage and screening process, is where implementation [of AI] has happened fastest,” Eichert said. “That’s why those provisions were proposed because it’s an area where this technology is already being used without guardrails.”
For NUHW, the bill and the complaint against Kaiser represent two tracks toward the same goal: reasserting the place of practitioners in spaces increasingly taken over by algorithms. State regulators are investigating the union’s complaint.
Ibarra writes for CalMatters.
Top executives of California’s two biggest utilities warned they would take action to protect their shareholders if Sacramento lawmakers fail to pass legislation limiting their companies’ liabilities for wildfires sparked by their equipment.
“If the legislature does not act, or if they act and don’t actually solve the problem, then we’re going to have to take action,” said Patti Poppe, chief executive of Pacific Gas & Electric, on a July 23 call with Wall Street analysts.
Poppe did not specify what her company would do, but made it clear any action would protect shareholders’ money. Previously, she told Wall Street analysts that if lawmakers failed to pass legislation to protect the utilities, PG&E would use its cash to buy back the company’s shares, according to a report by the bank Jeffries.
That could raise the company’s stock price and benefit shareholders, while reducing money available for the utility’s California programs.
The comments from Poppe and Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, came just before the state Legislature returned from summer break Monday to begin the last four weeks of its session.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators have been working behind closed doors to address the state’s escalating cost of wildfires, including those caused by the utilities, The Times reported last month. The big electric companies have told their investors they are talking to Newsom and lawmakers about a bill package that would protect shareholders from paying for utility-sparked fires.
On Tuesday, government fire officials released their investigation into last year’s devastating Eaton fire, blaming Edison’s century-old transmission line, which the utility kept in place even though it had not carried power since 1971.
Last week, Edison’s Pizarro echoed some of Poppe’s statements. He told Wall Street analysts on a conference call that he too was prepared to make financial changes if the legislature does not pass a comprehensive bill that cuts the utilities’ financial wildfire risk before the legislative session ends Aug. 31.
Any legislation that passes without a protective framework for utilities, Pizarro said, would “influence how we prioritize and deploy future capital.”
Pizarro declined analysts’ requests to say where the company would cut back, other than saying it would continue spending aimed at keeping its grid safe and reliable.
“We’re going to evaluate the totality of the package that comes to us and figure out our response that goes along with it,” Pizarro said.
Pizarro also told analysts that without legislation supporting the utilities, Edison’s credit rating could be downgraded. If that happens, he said, it could raise bills for electric customers since the utility may have to pay a higher interest rate for new borrowings.
“That could be a significant cost impact through the cost of debt that gets passed through to SCE customers if we don’t have a framework in the next four weeks that is credit supportive for our utility,” Pizarro told the analysts.
Newsom and lawmakers are drawing up legislation based on recommendations in an April study that the governor ordered last year.
The final report didn’t focus on utilities’ responsibility for sparking at least seven of the 20 most destructive wildfires in state history. It suggested ways to reduce the cost of wildfire liabilities, including by capping fees of attorneys representing victims and reducing payments to survivors for non-economic damages like pain and suffering.
The report also suggested that utilities should no longer reimburse property insurers for damages of fires sparked by electrical equipment. Insurers say this would increase premiums for homeowners.
Edison is now facing thousands of lawsuits from the victims of the Eaton fire, which roared through Altadena, destroying more than 9,000 homes and other structures and killing 19 people. The lawsuits claim it was negligent for the fire, which Edison denies.
The utility created a program to pay for victims’ damages if they agree to give up their right to sue.
Edison has so far paid more than $1 billion to victims. Experts say the fire’s costs could exceed the $21-billion state wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric.
If that happens, Edison customers must pay for the rest under legislation that Newsom and lawmakers introduced in the final days of last year’s legislative session.
Because of utility protections in legislation that Newsom and lawmakers passed in 2019 and last year, Edison has said it expects its shareholders to pay little for the Eaton fire. The utility says it believes it will be reimbursed for its damage payments to victims by the state wildfire fund and through customer bills, according to the company’s financial disclosures.
A coalition of wildfire survivors, consumer advocates and other groups wrote a letter to Newsom last month, asking him for legislation that keeps utilities accountable for the fires they cause.
The coalition pointed out that despite billions of dollars in damages from the Eaton fire, Edison’s profits soared last year by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion.
The company’s board also rewarded Edison executives with higher salaries and bonuses. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation, up 20% from 2024.
“For-profit companies that repeatedly cause catastrophic harm must be held accountable, not protected and enriched,” wrote Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivors Network, who is leading the coalition, in the letter to Newsom.
The letter warned that without reform of current state laws protecting utilities, disasters like the Eaton fire could happen again.
“Altadena is not the first community to endure this cycle, and it will not be the last,” the letter said.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) warned Monday that the sex lives of at least two other lawmakers would be disclosed to the Senate Ethics Committee if the Senate subpoena for nearly five years of his personal diaries is enforced.
Packwood insisted that he is not trying to “blackmail” senators into voting to reject the unanimous demand of the ethics panel, which is conducting an inquiry into charges that Packwood repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances to women on his staff.
Rather, the Oregon lawmaker said, it is the Ethics Committee that wants entries from his diary concerning the longtime affair of another senator and an intimate relationship between a member of the House Democratic leadership and a Senate staff aide.
In his dealings with the committee, Packwood said, he concealed the name of the prominent Democrat by masking it with a piece of paper.
“The Ethics Committee lifted the piece of paper and saw the name and demanded that we produce that page in the diary,” Packwood said. “These were not threats by my lawyer, that if my diary is subpoenaed, that I will tell these things.”
Sources close to Packwood said he fears that some of his diary entries would become public through leaks to the media, even if the committee itself does not disclose them.
The committee said in a report to the Senate last Thursday that Packwood reneged on an agreement to allow a neutral third party to screen the diaries and exclude those parts covered by attorney-client or doctor-patient privileges or related to personal, private family matters.
It voted, 6 to 0, to issue a subpoena for Packwood’s diaries from 1989 to the present, concluding that “the documents in their entirety may be relevant and probative” in connection with its investigation of Packwood’s conduct.
Unless a compromise can be reached, the Senate is expected to vote shortly on whether to back up the Ethics Committee by authorizing it to seek a federal court order for the diaries or to uphold Packwood’s protests that his privacy is being invaded.
Packwood told the Senate that he has kept a personal diary for 25 years that now amounts to 8,200 single-spaced pages. He sets aside time early each morning to dictate his thoughts about events of the previous day, apparently covering both his personal life as well as his official duties.
Entries cover his “hopes and dreams and despair,” the 61-year-old Packwood said, including his discussions with former President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal, as well as meetings with Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on tax reform.
In addition, as Packwood’s attorney James F. Fitzpatrick said in a statement Friday, the diary also has information on the senator’s “private consensual personal relationships” with women who were not on his staff.
Senate records disclosed that Packwood has raised more than $280,000 for a legal defense fund since the Ethics Committee started its inquiry early this year, including a $10,000 donation from Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and a $1,000 contribution from Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.).
Lobbyists and other major campaign contributors have put up most of the money.
Packwood, accused by more than two dozen women of sexual harassment over the last two decades, also has been charged with using his Senate staff to try to silence his accusers by intimidation.
While FBI poll monitoring is not new, US lawmakers raise alarm amid Trump’s years-long, evidenceless claims of election fraud.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it has sent federal monitors to polls in four Democratic-leaning cities in Michigan, amid warnings that the administration of United States President Donald Trump could use such monitors for partisan aims.
The DOJ announced the monitors would be present during Michigan’s primary vote on Tuesday as part of an effort to “ensure free and fair elections nationwide”, according to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“The Department of Justice is devoting extensive resources to ensure uniform and nondiscriminatory monitoring,” it said.
While the department has for decades overseen an election monitoring programme to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws, lawmakers and advocates have raised concerns over how such a programme could be used under the current administration.
Trump has for years alleged, without evidence, that US elections have been marred by widespread fraud. He has never acknowledged his 2020 loss to US President Joe Biden.
Michigan has played a major role in those claims.
In a primetime speech delivered in mid-July, Trump re-upped a previously concluded probe into alleged voter fraud in the city of Muskegon as he called on the FBI to reinvestigate the case. Local officials had already determined that several voter registration forms had been fraudulently filled out in the city by employees of a consulting firm attempting to falsely reach their quotas.
No fraudulent ballots were cast in connection with the fake voter registration forms. State officials have highlighted the situation as proof of the efficacy of their election security practices.
The announcement on Tuesday came weeks after the Department of Justice said it planned to monitor 15 jurisdictions across six states: Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia. The DOJ has said it will expand the use of monitors leading into November.
The department did not give a reason for why the four Michigan cities – Detroit, Hamtramck, Lansing, and East Lansing – were selected.
Detroit, Lansing and East Lansing are all heavily Democratic leaning. Hamtramck, considered the first Muslim-majority city in the US, has historically leaned Democratic, but has shifted increasingly Republican in recent years.
Residents of the state on Tuesday were casting ballots to determine party nominees in local, state and US Congressional races for the midterm election in November.
Key races include a fierce Democratic Senate race, with progressive Abdul El-Sayed hoping to defeat US Representative Haley Stevens, widely viewed as a weathervane for the party’s future.
Voters will also decide the candidates for the gubernatorial race, with Trump-backed US Representative John James facing off with former presidential candidate Perry Johnson on the Republican side, as Democrat Jocelyn Benson, the current Michigan state secretary, is expected to sail to victory in her party’s primary.
In a letter to the Department of Justice dated Monday, 10 Democratic senators asked for assurances that FBI monitors deployed across the country will not “target jurisdictions in a partisan manner; discourage voter participation or interfere with the voting process; or pressure, harass, or interfere with state and local election officials as they do their jobs”.
They noted the wider context in which the monitors are being deployed, including efforts by the Trump administration to obtain state voter rolls. On Tuesday, a judge ruled the administration could not access Colorado’s voter data, the latest in a string of similar rulings.
Trump has also called for Republicans to “nationalise” elections. Under the US Constitution, state governments administer elections, in a system of decentralisation that advocates have long argued protects against wholesale interference.
The senators said that the DOJ has characterised the monitors as “routine” and “non-partisan”.
“However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge concerns that monitors are being deployed disproportionately to jurisdictions in states governed by Democratic leaders or with Democratic chief election officials,” they wrote.
“Moreover, election monitors are being deployed in the context of President Trump’s ongoing threats to nationalise, militarise, and otherwise interfere with the conduct of free and fair elections.”
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.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has met with US senators to discuss his company’s upcoming models, as President Donald Trump said he is considering AI “controls” following OpenAI’s disclosure that one of its AI systems escaped containment during a security test.
“We’re looking at controls,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in response to a question about OpenAI’s rogue agent, adding that he did not want to “restrict” AI developers from building new products.
list of 4 itemsend of list
A rogue agent escaped the handling of ChatGPT maker OpenAI and hacked the AI firm Hugging Face last week. Then, on Tuesday, it was revealed that a second company had been a target, too – Modal Labs, a New York City-based AI infrastructure firm.
The company itself was not hacked but an account of a customer hosted on Modal’s infrastructure. Modal’s chief technology officer, Akshat Bubna, did not confirm which customer was the target. The hack escaped a contained environment during a security test.
“We’re aware a Modal customer published an unauthenticated endpoint that allowed anyone on the internet to use their sandboxes for code execution,” Bubna said in a statement. “This was used by the rogue agent. Modal’s platform or isolation were not compromised in any way.”
Altman has long been accused of dismissing concerns that his products and the AI industry impact society at large, including in a recent lawsuit brought by the State of Florida that alleged the company put profits ahead of user safety.
Now, he appears to be walking back some of his past enthusiasm around AI’s pace of growth.
In a podcast called Invest Like the Best, Altman called the Hugging Face hack an “extremely sci-fi cyber incident” and later said that it was the “first security incident that I have felt very viscerally”.
“We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around some of these new capability levels,” he said on the podcast.
On Saturday, Altman said that AI has reached “the singularity”, when AI surpasses human intelligence and becomes harder to control. He had previously said this would not be reached by 2030.
Altman was in Washington, DC, this week, meeting with US Senators Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, and Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio on Wednesday. Altman told reporters that the hacking was discussed but was not the focus of the meeting.
Altman is also set to meet with Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the chamber’s Intelligence Committee.
CNBC reported that Altman is also to make a trip to the White House to meet with Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles. Last month, the president signed an executive order requesting that AI companies assess their models before full release.
The hacking and meetings come alongside pressure from Wall Street amid renewed concerns about potential circular financing, following reports that semiconductor chip giant Nvidia is undergoing talks with OpenAI to provide funding guarantees for a data centre in Ohio.
The $250bn deal would help the ChatGPT owner lease a 10-gigawatt project that SB Energy, a subsidiary of SoftBank, is building in Piketon, Ohio, 109km (68 miles) south of Columbus, Ohio. It is part of a public-private partnership that allowed SoftBank to build the world’s largest AI data centre on government land owned by the US Department of Energy.
“The demand is not as big as it appears to be because, again, the companies are buying from each other using their own money to some degree, as opposed to, say, OpenAI having such tremendous demand from customers, monetising it properly, and then using customers’ money to buy Nvidia chips. They’re essentially using Nvidia’s money to buy Nvidia chips,” said Aleksandar Tomic, associate dean at Boston College.
The development comes as the Altman-led company is leaning towards an initial public offering, which, according to reporting from The New York Times last month, could be in 2027.
Protesters threw eggs at lawmakers’ vehicles outside Albania’s parliament, demanding changes to laws allowing tourist resorts in protected areas.
Published On 20 Jul 202620 Jul 2026
Share
Venezuela’s reconstruction is hampered by persistent US sanctions and frozen assets. (Rome Arrieche)
Caracas, July 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – A group of US Congress members addressed a letter to President Donald Trump advocating an immediate removal of sanctions against Venezuela in the wake of its recent double earthquake.
“These economic restrictions are severely hampering urgent relief efforts, and will continue to threaten Venezuela’s recovery and long-term reconstruction if allowed to remain in place,” the text read.
The missive was signed by 14 representatives from the Democratic Party, including Jesús García, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They cited the United Nations estimates of earthquake damage as high as US $37 billion, roughly a third of Venezuela’s current GDP.
“The existing sanctions regime on Venezuela has far-reaching indiscriminate effects,” the legislators continued. “The removal of sanctions will allow state institutions to more effectively coordinate and deliver emergency healthcare, shelter and food.”
The letter was backed by a number of NGOs, including Just Foreign Policy, Demand Progress, and Peace Action.
Venezuela was rocked by near-simultaneous 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes on June 24 that caused widespread destruction in north-central regions. The coastal state of La Guaira was the worst hit, with hundreds of collapsed buildings. The latest official death count stands at nearly 5000.
Since 2017, Washington has levied wide-reaching sanctions against Venezuela, targeting key sectors such as banking, mining, trade, and especially the oil industry. Coercive measures against Venezuela’s all-important energy sector have caused revenue losses estimated at more than US $20 billion per year. The sanctions regime imposed during Trump’s first administration was largely kept in place by the Joe Biden White House.
Venezuela’s GDP contracted by three-quarters between 2014 and 2020, with 88 percent of the contraction taking place under the US economic blockade. In recent days, hundreds of scholars have also demanded the lifting of coercive measures against Venezuela.
Despite pledges of assistance following the devastating tremors, the Trump White House has not entertained any sanctions relief, issuing only a four-month license allowing earthquake relief-related transactions.
However, the US representatives called the measure “entirely insufficient” due to their limited scope and overcompliance from financial institutions.
They urged the Trump administration to “do everything to facilitate Venezuela’s access to its frozen assets abroad.” Venezuelan leaders have called on Washington and its allies to lift sanctions and unfreeze assets for reconstruction efforts. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez penned a letter to UK King Charles III requesting the release of around US $4.5 billion in Venezuelan gold held by the Bank of England.
The US and European allies are estimated to hold over $10 billion in other assets, including frozen bank accounts and roughly $5 billion in IMF-issued Special Drawing Rights (SDR). In contrast, US offers of post-earthquake humanitarian aid have only totaled $386 million.
Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has seized control of Venezuelan export revenues, particularly from oil sales. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the acting Rodríguez administration must submit a “budget request” before accessing its own funds.
Trump has repeatedly stated that the US has recouped the costs of the January 3 operation “many times over” from its undisclosed cut taken from Venezuelan oil proceeds. Economist Francisco Rodríguez has found a significant delay in Washington’s disbursement of Venezuelan funds.
The Trump administration also took advantage of the June 24 natural disaster to significantly expand its military footprint in the Caribbean nation. The Southern Command confirmed the presence of more than 900 servicemen on Venezuelan territory by the end of June.
US forces have taken over air traffic coordination, communications, and security operations at the Simón Bolívar International Airport, while two US warships have established a “command-and-control node” at La Guaira port.
Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.
Fox News declined to broadcast an ad Sunday about the violence that law-enforcement members faced as they tried to stop the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, according to the creators of the political commercial.
“We couldn’t have fathomed in our wildest imaginations that even a Fox News would reject an ad that simply condemns the insurrection, and condemns people who support the insurrection,” said Ben Meiselas, one of the co-founders of MeidasTouch, the liberal Political Action Committee that created the 60-second ad. “What Fox has really become is a fascist echo chamber gatekeeper for their base.”
Broadcast and cable networks have discretion in refusing to air ads by political campaigns and advocacy groups. A Fox News spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday.
Meiselas and his two brothers, Brett and Jordan, said they placed the ad buy as they have in the past, but were informed over the phone on Friday that the cable network would not air the ad and were not given a reason. Fox News has never before refused to air one of their ads without offering suggestions for edits, they said.
The commercial features law-enforcement officers testifying in Congress and speaking to the media about their experiences during the insurrection, including getting sprayed with bear mace, engaging in hand-to-hand combat and being called “traitors.”
“It’s been very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals whitewash the events of that day or downplay what happened,” DC Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone says in a clip from a CNN interview as images of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP elected officials are shown on screen.
The ad ends with block letters that say” “The GOP Betrayed America. We Will Never Forget.”
The ad has gone viral on social media, racking up more than 1 million views on Twitter.
The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Fox News is the target of multibillion-dollar defamation lawsuits by voting system and software makers over its coverage of the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic accused Fox News of irresponsibly broadcasting falsehoods that their technology and equipment were used to rig the election. The fraud claims are among the factors that led to the insurrection as lawmakers were voting to certify the election results.
Fanone, who suffered a heart attack after rioters beat him with a flagpole and repeatedly stunned with him with his Taser gun on Jan. 6, is among the law-enforcement members who have been vocal critics of Republican lawmakers who blocked the creation of a commission to study what happened that day.
The House of Representatives approved a plan to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection on a 252-175 vote; but in the Senate, it received 54 votes in late May, six shy of the number required to bring the proposal up for debate.
A spokeswoman for President Biden on Thursday ruled out creating a presidential commission to study the matter, aligning the White House with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the belief that such an inquiry needed to be instigated by Congress.
MeidasTouch booked nearly $185,000 of air time to play the ad on Fox News between June 6 and 15, starting with Chris Wallace’s Sunday show and continuing for seven days on “Fox and Friends” as well as two spots on daytime programs and one more on Wallace’s show next weekend.
Brett Meiselas noted that many shows on the network routinely talk about “cancel culture.”
“The fact they want to cancel and censor the voices of law enforcement who bravely guarded the Capitol. It’s the height of hypocrisy, and it’s un-American,” he said.
MeidasTouch is a liberal political action committee formed in 2020 by the three brothers, who have notable ties to Hollywood. Their father is a prominent attorney who represents musicians including Lady Gaga.
Ben Meiselas is a lawyer whose clients include former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Brett Meiselas was an editor on Ellen DeGeneres’ talk show. Jordan Meiselas, a former marketer, is now working full time on the PAC.
The PAC made anti-Trump videos during the 2020 presidential race and supported Democrats during the special Georgia Senate races earlier this year. The PAC did not receive as much attention as anti-Trump groups such as the Lincoln Project; it spent about $4.2 million last year.
Syria has completed the formation of its transitional parliament after President Ahmed al-Sharaa appointed the remaining lawmakers to the 210-member People’s Assembly, allowing the legislature to convene for the first time next week. The move marks another step in the country’s post-Assad political transition, though the chamber will operate with limited authority under Syria’s interim constitutional framework.
The parliament’s formation comes more than eight months after the selection process began following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in 2024, with the new leadership pledging a more inclusive political system while retaining a strong presidential model.
President Ahmed al-Sharaa appointed 70 lawmakers to fill the final seats in the People’s Assembly, completing the 210-member chamber after two-thirds of legislators were selected through regional electoral colleges last year.
The Assembly is scheduled to hold its inaugural session on Monday, formally beginning its role as Syria’s transitional legislature.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Among the presidential appointments are 15 women, raising the total number of female lawmakers from six to 21.
The appointments address one of the main criticisms of last year’s selection process, which drew scrutiny for the limited representation of women and concerns over political inclusivity.
Lawmakers representing the predominantly Druze province of Sweida have not yet been appointed, with authorities citing ongoing security conditions.
The province has remained outside full government control following deadly clashes between government forces and Druze fighters last year, delaying its integration into the transitional political process.
The newly formed legislature will function under a temporary constitutional framework introduced in 2025 that grants limited powers to parliament while preserving broad executive authority for the presidency.
Although lawmakers can propose and approve legislation, the government is not required to secure parliamentary approval to remain in office, limiting the Assembly’s oversight role during the transition.
The parliament’s formation has been closely watched as a measure of the new government’s commitment to political inclusion after decades of authoritarian rule under the Assad family.
Rights groups and some Syrian political figures have argued that the appointment process concentrates significant influence in the presidency and called for greater electoral independence, stronger judicial safeguards and broader representation of Syria’s ethnic and religious communities.
The completion of the transitional parliament provides Syria with its first functioning legislature since the fall of the Assad government, offering an institutional framework for drafting legislation during the transition. However, its limited constitutional authority means executive power will remain concentrated in the presidency, leaving questions over the pace and depth of political reform.
The composition of the Assembly will also be closely monitored by regional governments and the international community as they assess the credibility of Syria’s political transition and prospects for broader engagement with Damascus.
The People’s Assembly’s first session will signal the beginning of Syria’s transitional legislative process, with lawmakers expected to begin debating new legislation under the interim constitutional framework. Attention will now shift to whether the parliament evolves into a more influential institution ahead of the adoption of a permanent constitution and the eventual holding of nationwide elections.
With information from Reuters.
In Alameda County, Sharon Ford, a Medi-Cal recipient, was turned away from two private hospitals last December while in labor, because a hospital computer erroneously showed that she did not have insurance. Hours later, her baby was born dead at Highland General Hospital in Oakland, the county facility.
The Alameda County district attorney decided against filing criminal charges in the case, but concluded “it is unmistakably clear that this transfer should not have been attempted.”
Economic Reasons
In San Bernardino last winter, a patient with a stab wound to the heart was sent to the San Bernardino County Medical Center after being examined and declared “stable” by a cardiac surgeon at another hospital, according to Dr. Max Lebo, the clinical director of emergency services at the county hospital. The patient arrived moribund, had a cardiac arrest and died.
In each case, the patient was shifted from one emergency room to another not for medical reasons, but for economic ones–the fear by the receiving hospital that it would not be paid for treating the patient.
Health care officials call such transfers hospital “dumping,” and it is a problem that is drawing increasing attention in California and across the nation.
Attention will be focused on the dumping issue Tuesday, when the state Assembly’s Health Committee meeting in Sacramento considers a bill that if enacted would give California one of the toughest “anti-dumping” laws in the nation.
“Lives are being lost every month this goes on,” said Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles), who introduced the bill. “It is a violation of every code of ethical behavior one can imagine.”
The patients who are “dumped” are almost always the indigent, the uninsured and those on Medi-Cal. Hospitals are motivated to transfer them out of fear that the patients won’t be able to pay for their care or that the Medi-Cal payments won’t cover the hospital’s actual costs. In addition, some specialists, on call to back up the emergency room doctor, refuse to care for such patients.
The patients are usually transferred to public hospitals, where their unpaid bills are absorbed by local taxpayers.
The dumping problem has become more acute in recent years as competition among hospitals has increased and state and federal support for health care has been cut back. Margolin’s bill would supplement a federal “anti-dumping” law, approved by Congress March 20 as part of a deficit reduction measure and awaiting President Reagan’s signature. It details appropriate transfer procedures, mandates reporting of all violations and establishes stricter enforcement procedures.
The federal bill specifies civil penalties up to $25,000 per case against a hospital or doctor when patients are transferred inappropriately. Hospitals can be excluded from the Medicare program for violations.
Margolin’s bill, AB 3403, would require that all hospital emergency rooms in the state provide needed emergency treatment, regardless of the patient’s “insurance status, economic status or ability to pay.” A similar requirement would be imposed on individual doctors with hospital staff privileges.
Existing regulations specify these responsibilities, according to Margolin. But the possible penalties for abuses–a letter of reprimand or revoking the license of a doctor or an emergency room–are usually either too mild or too harsh, he said.
The Margolin bill would impose new penalties–including fines of up to $25,000 and jail terms of up to one year. A summary of all violations would be published quarterly by the state Department of Health Services and be available to the public.
The California Medical Assn. opposes the bill, according to a spokesman.
The California Hospital Assn. supports the “intent” of the Margolin bill, said C. Duane Dauner, its president, despite reservations about some of the provisions.
“Economic transfers are a way of life today,” according to Dauner, who characterizes dumping as just one symptom of a larger issue–providing medical care for the poor and uninsured.
The dumping problem was documented in a recently completed study by Lebo, the physician at the San Bernardino County Medical Center. It showed that in a three-month period last fall, 423 patients were transferred to the San Bernardino County Medical Center from other hospitals–91% for financial reasons. Of these patients, 31 were in unstable condition, including nine with stab wounds and three with gunshot wounds, Lebo said.
“The great majority of these patients were sent from hospitals that had the facilities to take care of them,” said Lebo, who declined to identify these hospitals.
One patient died during the study–a man in his 50’s, suffering from alcoholism, anemia and pneumonia. He stopped breathing in the ambulance after being declared stable for transfer by physicians at another hospital. “He might have survived if they had cared for him,” Lebo said.
Despite a regulation of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals that patients not be transferred until the receiving hospital has consented to the transfer, 40% of the transferred patients arrived unexpectedly.
“It is frustrating and exasperating,” said Dr. Francis Communale, the hospital’s medical director.
“Sometimes the receiving hospital would call up and we would tell them the hospital was full, but the patient would be sent to our emergency room anyway.”
Problems in 38 Cases
Even within Los Angeles County, which enacted widely praised transfer procedures in 1982, 87 inappropriate transfers were investigated between March, 1985, and February, 1986, according to Robert Karp, of the health facilities division of the county Department of Health Services. Problems were confirmed in 38 cases, he said.
Under Los Angeles County regulations, a medical alert center, staffed 24 hours a day at County-USC Medical Center, must approve all transfers from private hospitals based on guidelines developed in conjunction with the Hospital Council of Southern California.
Violations are reported by emergency room doctors to the county Department of Health Services for investigation. If neglect or abuse is found, the offending hospital is contacted and asked to submit a plan to correct the problem.
In the last year, five cases were also sent to the state Board of Medical Quality Assurance, which licenses physicians, according to Karp.
The county system is credited with cutting the number of inappropriate transfers by more than half, according to Geraldine Dallek, of the National Health Law Program in Los Angeles, who has investigated the issue. Of about 80 transfers arriving each day at County-USC Medical Center, more than 90% receive prior approval and meet all protocol requirements, she said.
But a National Health Law Program study also pointed out the county system’s weaknesses. “Hospitals which violate transfer provisions know that the penalty for doing so is light,” it concluded. “The county has no authority to fine a hospital and the likelihood of a license revocation is almost nil.”
A National Trend
The California bill reflects a national trend toward legislation to ensure that the poor receive adequate emergency care. In addition to the federal bill, both South Carolina and Texas enacted tough “anti-dumping” laws in 1985. Alameda County is preparing transfer procedures similar to those in Los Angeles County.
The California Hospital Assn., however, asserted that the larger issue of so-called “uncompensated care,” must be tackled as well. Uncompensated care exceeds $1 billion out of the more than $12 billion spent on hospital care in the state each year, the association’s Dauner estimated, with 12% of the hospitals bearing 60% of the burden.
To provide relief for these institutions, the hospital association has proposed the creation of a fund, to be jointly financed by the state and federal governments and the hospitals.
Supporters of Margolin’s bill, however, believe the transfer issue should be dealt with on its own terms. “I want to get the whole damn thing stopped,” said Lebo, who was on duty the night the patient stabbed in the heart died.
This being California, Hollywood celebrities sometimes jump into battles over state legislation in Sacramento.
Last week, a group of singers and actors went up against the plastics industry over a bill that would have banned single-use plastic grocery bags from California stores.
“I’ve been bombarded by phone calls by folks who live in Malibu and stars who live in Hollywood,” Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) told colleagues during the floor debate.
An aide to the senator said he was contacted in support of the bill by entertainers including singers Bonnie Raitt, Bette Midler and Jackson Browne, and actress Rita Wilson, the wife of Tom Hanks.
Midler also went to Twitter before the vote, writing “California getting ready to vote on a statewide ban of non re-usable plastic bags! HELP BAG BAN SB 405!!!!!!”
But De Leon said he opposed the bill because it could cost 500 jobs in his district, many of them, he said, held by immigrant women — “Women head of households, women who have to work to put food on the table.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), the bill’s author, countered that working families are already paying a cost as government agencies have to spend money removing bags littering beaches, streets and the oceans.
This round went to the industry. The bill fell three votes short of the tally needed for passage, killing it for the year.
In a statement to The Times after the vote, Midler was critical of the legislators who voted against the bag ban. “Plastic bags are a scourge to the planet and everything that tries to live on it,” Midler said. “Shame on them all for caving.”
ALSO:
California lawmakers OK a dozen gun-control measures
California Assembly approves hike in state’s minimum wage