California lawmakers are calling for emergency legislation and criminal penalties for creators of rogue AI systems after top AI executives publicly claimed that their technology poses existential threats to humanity.
After Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei wrote in a Sept. 12 essay that they “must slow the pace” of the technology, Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) blasted him for not going “nearly far enough” to make sure artificial intelligence was erected with guardrails.
The answer, Khanna argued, was simple: Make the companies liable for the harm executives say looks increasingly inevitable.
“If you’re creating an AI that is doing illegal things, you should either face liability or criminal sanction,” Khanna said in a video posted to X on Saturday. “That is what we need to protect humanity.”
In July, officials from OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, disclosed that, unbeknownst to them, its AI models had hacked into rival startup Hugging Face.
Amodei said he believed that, within the next year, “given the accelerating rate of AI capability development,” a similar incident could lead to AI “taking over the entire internet.”
Amodei warned in his essay that AI was rapidly improving itself, through a process known as recursive self-improvement, which threatened to outpace humans’ ability to control it. Khanna argued that banning this capability was the “most obvious” thing Anthropic could do.
“We need to stop, ban self-improving AI,” Khanna said. “You can not have recursive self-improving AI that basically is able to improve itself and exceed human capability.”
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) expressed similar outrage over the weekend, calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call lawmakers back to Washington to pass guardrails on the technology now that he said multiple AI companies had conceded “what they are creating is not safe.”
xAI Chief Executive Elon Musk and OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman joined Amodei’s call for a slowdown of the breakneck development Saturday.
The statements come after Jacob Coxon, who worked as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, said in a widely circulated post that he resigned from the company in protest after becoming convinced the tech giants were “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.” Neither company immediately responded to a request for comment.
“This is a direct result of the trump Administration letting the AI industry run wild,” Lieu wrote on X. “That mistake has harmed America, harmed the industry and harmed the American people. November is coming.”
Former President Barack Obama urged Democrats this week to make AI oversight the core of their agenda and said presidential candidates in 2028 should have a “clear plan” for responding to concerns about the technology, the New York Times reported. Americans appear increasingly alarmed by the technology with seven in 10 polled in March opposing local construction of data centers that power AI technology, according to a Gallup survey.
During a Sunday appearance on CNN, Johnson rebuffed the idea that lawmakers should rush into an emergency session to consider erecting industry guardrails. Instead, he said lawmakers needed to be careful to “not smother American innovation.”
“We will lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We don’t need everyone to panic right now.”
Trump said earlier this week that he is not concerned with the pace of AI progress, telling one reporter, “It’s going to be fine.” American AI companies have long argued too much government regulation would shackle them in a race with China.
Calls for a federal fix were echoed this week by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has argued the Trump administration needs to move on national legislation to prepare for fallout from the technology.
Newsom signed bills this week aimed at creating a pathway for outside audits of the top AI companies, many of which are based in California, and a registry for AI auditors.
“The scale and potential consequences of this technology demand sustained action from every level of government,” Newsom said in a statement. “The federal government must step forward with robust, national regulations that match the urgency of this moment.”
Efforts to impose state-level regulations have been mixed, with critics echoing Johnson’s fears that they will stifle innovation.
Late last month, California lawmakers passed sweeping new safeguards around social media, artificial intelligence and data centers, including the ones Newsom signed last week.
Newsom will now decide the fate of the rest of the bills. He has previously vetoed some bills aimed at restricting big tech.
Newsom’s signal that he supports creating some regulation for AI comes two years after he vetoed SB 1047, an AI safety bill that would have required developers to submit safety protocols to the state attorney general, who could hold companies liable if the AI model they directly controlled were to threaten public safety. That legislation would also have required tech firms to be able to turn off the models they directly control if things went awry.
Newsom said at the time the bill would give the public a “false sense of security,” without making a sufficient distinction between the kinds of uses for which AI is deployed.
The bill was supported by a host of prominent AI researchers, but was opposed by Meta, OpenAI and industry groups.
California lawmakers have voted to shift a state forest system away from commercial logging and pave the way for tribal co-management, delivering a win to a movement rooted in the historic timber wars.
Managed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, the state’s 14 demonstration forests are currently required to produce and sell timber to show — or “demonstrate” — sustainable practices, while considering factors like recreation and wildlife.
AB 2494 eliminates what’s often cast as a logging mandate, instead prioritizing values such as carbon storage, wildfire resilience and biodiversity conservation. There could still be logging, but it would need to support those principles.
It also directs state officials to seek agreements with Native American tribes to integrate their traditional knowledge into managing the land. The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
“We don’t need more demonstrations of what clear cutting does to a forest — we have plenty of those,” said Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), who authored the bill. If the forests are being used to show how to boost commercial logging gains, “then that is not how we want to use our public assets.”
At the center of the discussion is Jackson Demonstration State Forest, spanning nearly 50,000 acres in Mendocino County. For decades, loggers and environmentalists have clashed over the fate of its stately redwoods.
About five years ago, tensions reignited when community members caught wind of plans to cut towering trees near the coastal town of Caspar.
Tribes whose historic homelands fall within the forest became leading voices in the effort to halt logging, with the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians’ Priscilla Hunter emerging as a major force. She has since passed away but her legacy looms large in the movement.
While running for his assembly seat representing the North Coast, Rogers heard from constituents and local politicians who wanted to see the forest run differently. The bill grew in part out of those discussions.
Polly Girvin, Hunter’s former partner and a retired lawyer focused on Native American issues, called AB 2494’s passage by the Legislature “nearly miraculous.”
“We’re at a time right now where scientists are going to have to reach across the table to the Indian voice,” she said. “They feel they have a sacred obligation to manage their forest, not for commercial logging per se. So I think it’s really a meeting of science and the sacred.”
Some backers say the bill offers a new economic path forward for communities behind the so-called redwood curtain. With the decline of logging and cannabis as livelihoods, they see income from tourists attracted by ultramarathons, mushroom foraging and other outdoor activities as a financial savior.
But the push to reshape forest management is fiercely opposed by loggers and mill owners, who say their work is sustainable and provides blue-collar jobs in a region where they’ve dwindled. Already California imports most of its wood from Oregon, Washington and Canada.
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors has supported the bill, but it’s opposed by the Rural County Representatives of California, an advocacy group representing 40 counties.
Staci Heaton, senior policy advocate for the organization, said they’re concerned that the new management goals are so vague they would expose forest projects — including wildfire research — to costly lawsuits.
“We’ve experienced the majority of the largest wildfires across the state over the last decade, and it is paramount that research and forest management knowledge be fostered in these demonstration state forests so that it can be used statewide,” Heaton said.
Currently, money from logging — roughly $8.5 million a year — pays for management of the demonstration forests. Under the latest iteration of AB 2494, it will remain one source of funding but not the only one, Rogers said.
Cal Fire’s Kevin Conway believes that if the bill becomes law, it will, in practice, limit funding. So they’d likely look to bring in money by charging day-use and other new recreation fees.
Conway, who is the agency’s chief for resource protection and improvement, added that some aspects of their mission wouldn’t change; the land would remain “actively managed.” For instance, he called wood products “a big part of our climate strategy in the built environment” and suggested it would still be prudent to understand how they’re produced in California.
“We don’t think that just locking up your forest and making a tree museum longterm will deliver biodiversity, carbon, recreation — all these things,” he said. Cal Fire has not taken a position on the legislation.
Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill.
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is pressing the Army to explain why it told a unit based in Europe to stop specializing in drone warfare, an order that comes as the world’s battlefields rapidly evolve and military tactics increasingly rely on uncrewed systems to fight.
The 173rd Airborne Brigade was building its own drones and practicing the kind of warfare that Ukraine has pioneered against Russia and that Iran has fought against the U.S. — warfare that has killed and wounded American troops. The brigade of 600 soldiers was set up in November to be deployed anywhere that drones were needed.
“We have deep concerns that eliminating this specialized drone unit will limit our ability to learn from allies, particularly the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and hinder our efforts to modernize drone warfare at the speed necessary to compete on the modern battlefield,” the lawmakers said in a letter shared with The Associated Press.
It requests a briefing from the Army to explain its decision and was sent Tuesday to departing Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s acting chief of staff. It was signed by Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine and Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio.
“This specialized unit was a prudent response in a moment when the character of warfare is changing faster than a conventional formation’s ability to adapt,” the lawmakers say.
They said they were particularly keen to understand the data, analysis and process behind the change after less than a year of the drone unit being active. They also want to know if the decision was based on guidance from Pentagon leadership or made internally by the Army.
LaNeve, who is filling in as the Army’s top uniformed officer, recently ordered the battalion to refocus on its core mission of being an airborne infantry unit. The move followed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sudden ousting of the Army’s prior chief of staff, Gen. Randy George.
Integrating drones into the Army’s tactics was a major focus for George. Last year, he and Driscoll had rolled out what they called the Army Transformation Initiative, which pushed to add “modernized (unmanned aircraft systems) into formations.”
George, who became Army chief of staff under President Joe Biden, regularly spoke about the need to accelerate development of new drone systems and get them in the hands of regular soldiers, not just specialized units. Driscoll supported such efforts and focused on cutting the red tape for military contractors to quickly develop more drones.
After George was ousted by Hegseth without explanation in April, he was replaced by LaNeve. This week, Driscoll submitted his own resignation and later said on social media that Wednesday would be his final full day on the job. A reason for his departure was not publicly revealed, but he was an ally of George, and his tensions with Hegseth have been widely reported.
“We are supportive of the transformative initiatives the Army has taken under Secretary Driscoll’s leadership in this area and would like to see that momentum maintained even as uniformed leadership changes,” the lawmakers wrote.
Toropin and Finley write for the Associated Press. Toropin reported from Nuremberg, Germany.
The California Legislature just passed two bills that advocates say will greatly improve access to small-scale solar for renters, people in condos and others who don’t have access to their roofs or can’t afford a full rooftop array.
On Sunday night, lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 1813, a third-time effort to force the California Public Utilities Commission to develop a more robust community solar program, in which residents sign up to participate in a small solar array near where they live and pay monthly at a discount on their electrical bills.
“California’s clean energy transition should benefit everyone, not just those who can afford rooftop solar,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), the bill’s author.
Last week, with Senate Bill 868, California’s Legislature also became the latest to legalize plug-in solar. Also known as “balcony solar,” these systems allow anyone — renter or owner — to set small panels on their patios or fences and plug them directly into wall outlets to lower bills without having to navigate utility permissions.
“It’s an idea whose time has come,” said bill author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who noted the devices can bring down bills by hundreds of dollars a year. “It’ll be very beneficial for people who are looking to lower their cost of living.”
The votes come after some difficult years for rooftop solar in California thanks to strong pushback from utility companies. The state had been a leader nationally on solar energy in the 2000s. But installation rates plummeted in 2022 after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Public Utilities Commission sharply cut back incentives for customers.
Utilities that lobbied for the change argued that compensating rooftop solar at a higher rate meant that people without solar panels were disproportionately paying the costs of maintaining the overhead lines that everyone uses.
This year, utilities made similar arguments against both the community solar and balcony solar bills.
Pacific Gas & Electric was successful in inserting an end date for Wiener’s SB 868 balcony solar bill, so, if it is signed into law, the Legislature will have to reauthorize it before 2030.
“While the bill establishes additional guardrails, it also creates a period through 2030 during which plug-in solar devices not meeting key safety and certification requirements could be purchased and used in California,” PG&E spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo said. “We believe customers and emergency personnel deserve the protections that come from clear safety standards and established interconnection processes from the outset.”
Both bills now go to the governor’s desk.
If signed, the balcony solar bill will go into effect once systems have been certified as safe for use in the U.S. by a nationally recognized testing laboratory like UL Solutions. Balcony panels are already certified in Germany, where plug-in solar is popular. Advocates say U.S. certifications will come through soon.
Community solar reform could have a harder time clearing Newsom’s desk, as the Public Utilities Commission, appointed by the governor, has previously opposed this type of program.
All the state’s big investor-owned utilities lobbied against the community solar bill, AB 1813, which would require them to compensate community solar developers and customers at higher rates than those established under the Public Utilities Commission’s current program.
That program, finalized this year, relies on canceled federal funding and incentives that developers say are too low for them to launch new projects.
“We remain opposed to AB 1813 because it would shift significant costs to customers who do not participate in the program,” PG&E’s Paulo said. “This legislation is about profits for solar companies, not customer affordability.”
The Public Advocates Office, the independent consumer advocate at the Public Utilities Commission, said recent amendments to the bill did not address its concerns about shifting costs from one group of ratepayers to another.
“We support expanding community solar so renters and other Californians who cannot install rooftop solar can benefit from clean energy. But the savings for participants should not be financed by raising bills for everyone else,” said Mary Flannelly, a spokesperson for the Public Advocates Office. “Our analysis of AB 1813 estimates that it could shift about $1.5 billion a year onto customers who cannot participate — roughly $12 more per month on average — a sizeable cost.”
Southern California Edison also has opposed the bill. SCE spokesperson David Eisenhauer said it would “expose customers to higher rates and unreasonable costs compared to more cost-effective clean energy sources.”
But Ward disputes that any costs will be shifted to people who don’t have solar. He cited two recent studies that indicate all consumers will benefit from reduced costs when community solar is more available. One found if the state added 5.4 gigawatts of community solar and energy storage, all ratepayers could save $6.5 billion by reducing costs for gas generation, electricity imports and transmission.
Ward and a coalition of environmental groups, solar developers and the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, have tried for years to get the Public Utilities Commission to adopt their vision for a community solar program that would serve people who don’t own or don’t have access to their roofs. Several other states have them.
The bill would compensate community solar developers and customers at a rate that advocates say more accurately accounts for the savings solar brings to the grid, especially on hot days when the system is stressed.
Wiener said both bills are important for helping individuals and communities “to not be trapped in the monopoly utility model that is so expensive.”
“We should empower people to generate their own electricity and to lower their electric bills,” he said.
The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 913, which would allow batteries, electric vehicles, smart thermostats and other consumer-owned devices to be bundled together and counted as a reliable source of electricity for the state’s grid.
Brandon Garcia, California director for Advanced Energy United, an association representing clean energy businesses, said it would help reduce strain on the grid and keep electricity costs in check while “giving customer-owned resources a fair opportunity to compete and deliver reliable energy at an affordable price.”
Legislation that would have helped wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly, but that utilities said didn’t do enough to reduce their financial risks, died in Sacramento on Tuesday after the Assembly declined to vote on it.
The failure of Senate Bill 492 disappointed wildfire victims and lawmakers who had negotiated the language in a last-minute deal with Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“It is unfortunate that SB 492 was not given a vote,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara). “Thousands of survivors made their voices clear — they needed reform to ensure the next wildfire does not continue to cause the mental and financial stress that recent disasters have placed on Californians.”
The bill’s failure was a win for the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities. Lawmakers say they will now continue working on reforms that Newsom had been pushing for, including limiting how much utilities have to pay for fires sparked by their equipment.
Share prices of Edison International and Pacific Gas & Electric had plummeted Monday after their investors learned that SB 492 did not include transferring more of the cost of utility-sparked fires to property insurers, a measure Newsom had proposed.
Insurers had warned the proposal could raise premiums by as much as 50%.
On Tuesday, with the failure of SB 492, the two companies’ stock recovered. Edison’s share price climbed nearly 9% to close at $58.80. PG&E’s shares rose 6% to $14.06.
The top executives of the two companies had written to legislative leaders Monday, calling on them to do more. The executives said their companies needed additional protection from wildfire costs because utility investors faced higher financial risks from such disasters in California than in other states.
“Faced with those risks, investors demand a higher return or invest elsewhere,” they wrote.
The companies had asked Newsom to strengthen a framework that he and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy after their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire.
With the help of those protections, even though investigators found Edison’s equipment sparked last year’s deadly Eaton fire, the company’s profit in 2025 soared by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion
Some wildfire victims and consumer groups said Tuesday they were angry that lawmakers had backed away from the bill.
“If Wall Street does not trust Edison and PG&E to stop causing catastrophic fires, California should not solve that problem with another bailout,” said Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, and Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, in a statement. “Edison and PG&E should solve it by stopping the fires.”
The three utilities have caused at least seven of California’s 20 most destructive fires, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) told reporters Tuesday that the final proposal had “some half measures” and “Californians expect a lot more than half measures.”
He said that Newsom didn’t ask him to abandon the bill.
“We’re going to tackle this issue in the best interest of our state, of residents, but certainly wildfire victims that expect a lot more from us,” Rivas said.
Newsom’s office declined to say Tuesday whether the governor would call a special session this year to debate the issue.
“The reforms in this bill, while important, did not address the underlying structural problems driving this crisis, as the initial market reaction this week demonstrates,” Newsom said in a statement. “Simply put, this measure did not meet the gravity of this moment. The only solution is to return to fix the entire problem, not part of it.”
Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) said that the Legislature plans to hold a series of hearings this fall on how to deal with wildfire costs.
She acknowledged the rushed process of the last-minute proposal.
“It should come as no surprise to anybody that sometimes when policies get written at 6 a.m. perhaps we can do better,” Petrie-Norris said.
Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, who represents the Pacific Palisades fire zone, said that he would have voted for the bill if it had cleared the Assembly.
“This bill package had a lot of good in it,” Allen said, adding that he understands “why a lot of colleagues felt as though it didn’t go far enough.”
The three utilities had been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire.
Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.
More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.
SACRAMENTO — The state Legislature on Monday passed a pair of bills to address industrial accidents in the wake of a massive blaze at a cold storage facility in Los Angeles’ Boyle Heights neighborhood.
Assembly Bill 817 by Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) would prohibit the approval of a building permit for a cold storage facility unless the owner or operator of the facility establishes and maintains a contingency fund.
González sought the creation of the fund for air purifiers, masks and other health essentials for neighbors in the wake of an accident.
The bill would apply to Boyle Heights in the short term and would go into effect statewide July 1, 2028.
The bill also would ensure that anyone who sues over the fire doesn’t have to pay state taxes on any settlement.
A June 17 fire at cold storage operator Lineage’s 500,000-square-foot food warehouse left the community with noxious smoke and an influx of rats and flies attracted to rotting meat.
Senate Bill 716 by Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), also passed Monday, would raise the amount of fines that can be levied by local agencies against companies who pose a threat to health and safety. Under the legislation, companies could face fines of up to $50,000 per violation.
Durazo said current rules limit the fines to just a few hundred or thousand dollars.
“The fines are too small to matter,” said Durazo, describing the “massive fly and rat infestation” and “stench of rotting food” at the Lineage site.
The law would apply only to Los Angeles County and expand statewide starting July 1, 2028. It includes several exemptions for business categories, including institutional and educational.
Scores of business groups, including those representing agriculture, opposed the bills.
Some Republican legislators expressed sympathy for the Boyle Heights community, but questioned the financial ramifications for businesses.
“One terrible incident should not automatically translate into a new statewide financial burden on every similarly situated facility,” said state Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares (R-Acton) during a Monday discussion of Assembly Bill 817. “Especially when those costs can ultimately ripple through our food supply chain and contribute to higher costs for families.”
The bills now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom for consideration.
SACRAMENTO — Long the epicenter of the global tech industry, California is taking more action to shield its children, communities and workers from the threats posed by the very industry that’s become central to the state’s identity and enviable economy.
State lawmakers on Monday passed new safeguards around social media and artificial intelligence — and are poised to approve restrictions on data centers — at a time when technology has become intertwined with people’s daily lives.
Efforts to rein in the power of Big Tech extend beyond concerns that TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms are harming young children.
Unions and workers worry that AI will take their jobs, and lawmakers are trying to tackle privacy and safety issues as AI features get added into smart glasses and toys. Californians are concerned that the proliferation of data centers will increase their electricity bills and strain water supplies.
“There’s a heightened level of tech anxiety right now, and that manifests itself from social media to data centers to AI taking jobs,” said Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). “People are coalescing and they’re demanding that policymakers make change.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has previously vetoed some bills aimed at adding restrictions on Silicon Valley businesses, will still have to weigh in on whether to sign the pieces of legislation into law.
The Democratic governor has acknowledged the challenge of adopting regulations that protect the public without going too far and potentially stifling the technology industry’s growth, which brings critical revenue to the state budget.
“I think that’s the constant tension,” Newsom said in an interview earlier this summer. “We’re constantly sort of fighting that balance.”
The governor, who has close relationships in the technology industry from his time in San Francisco, said only a couple other states have attempted to regulate artificial intelligence like California. The state, he said, leads on regulation of social media.
“We’re not rolling over, certainly,” Newsom said. “We’re leaning forward, and we’re iterating. We will push the boundaries and litigate.”
The looming restrictions on social media follow a landmark Meta Platforms legal settlement aimed at making social media safer for young people. Parents, politicians and child advocacy groups are worried that social media is contributing to depression, anxiety, eating disorders and other issues.
The actions being pushed in the California legislature are more sweeping than that settlement, however. One of the bills passed by lawmakers on Monday, Assembly Bill 1709, would bar certain online platforms from providing an “addictive feature” to users under 16 years old and add ways to verify users’ ages.
Under the bill, prohibited addictive features include autoplay and feeds that display recommended content.
The addictive nature of autoplay and other features is “harmful, full stop, and that they’re not appropriate for the developing brain,” said Lowenthal, who authored the bill.
After watching technology “run free” in California for years, legislators are now seeking to “pump the brakes a little bit,” said Samantha Vigil, a UC Davis researcher who built a registry tracking social media legislation in states across the country.
“They want to reevaluate what is working,” said Vigil. “What is healthy and beneficial, and what is progress just for the sake of having a new iteration of something?”
All 50 states have introduced or passed some type of digital media or technology-related legislation, tackling smartphone use in schools, social media and chatbots, Vigil said.
Other countries have taken more stringent steps to limit social media use among young people. Australia banned social media use for those under 16, but enforcing the law has been challenging because young people have tried to get around the restrictions.
California isn’t trying to ban social media; instead, it’s trying to limit how platforms design their features.
Parents and state attorneys general have not waited for policy makers to act. They have sued Meta, Google and other tech companies over the alleged harms their products have done to young people.
In late August, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, agreed to pay up to $17 billion and make child-safety changes to resolve a multi-state lawsuit alleging the tech company designed and deployed harmful features while misleading the public about potential harms. Meta and YouTube also lost a social media addiction lawsuit earlier this year in Los Angeles.
Assembly Bill 1709 goes further. For example, Meta’s settlement gives teens the option to pick a non-algorithmic feed and turn off autoplay but, unlike in the legislation, it’s not mandatory. The bill would also apply to other platforms outside of Meta. Meta declined to comment.
Tech industry and business group opposing the bill say it is too blunt and could cut off access to social media’s benefits, according to the bill’s analysis.
“The durable path is to enforce the targeted laws California already has and to strengthen parental tools rather than an overlapping framework whose scope can be redrawn by regulation,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet’s Executive Director for California and the Southwest.
California lawmakers passed another Lowenthal bill aimed at holding social media liable for harm caused to children. Under Assembly Bill 2, social media companies could face fines of up to $1 million per child for negligent harm.
California lawmakers this year also attempted to tackle two other perils of the technological world — the rapid development and implementation of artificial intelligence and the proliferation of the massive data centers that are essential to sustaining the AI universe.
National and state union leaders have urged California legislators and Newsom to protect workers from the threats of AI to replace workers, saying it posed an existential threat to the foundation of a healthy, productive democracy.
“AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around,” said Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton).
The state Legislature on Monday approved McNerney’s bill, Senate Bill 947, which would bar employers from “solely” using automated decision-making systems to discipline or fire employees. If an employer primarily relies upon this system, a human must verify the decision.
Lawmakers also approved Senate Bill 951, introduced by Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Colton), which would require employers to provide a 60-day advance notice to workers and local and state governments before AI-related layoffs. Lawmakers also approved Assembly Bill 1609, which requires large private businesses that serve customers to provide access to human customer service representatives and to disclose to use of chatbots.
They passed another bill by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) that enacts a four-year moratorium on the sale and manufacturing of AI-chatbot powered toys over concerns that the technology can harm children.
On Friday, lawmakers agreed on a compromise on proposed legislation to regulate energy use by California’s growing data center industry, measures prompted by community fears about the massive complexes. Lawmakers say the legislation would help protect consumers from growing electricity costs driven upward by the sprawling facilities and to track the centers’ immense energy and water consumption.
At a June hearing on Senate Bill 886 to regulate data centers’ energy use, Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) said it’s just “a handful of companies that are gonna make trillions of dollars” from AI. They should pay for related utility infrastructure upgrades, she added.
“People, I would argue, are not even begging to use AI,” she said. “They’re struggling to figure it out to keep up with the times, but don’t even really want it.”
The California legislature is expected to vote on two of the bills to regulate the controversial industry within the next day.
Whether Newsom will embrace the legislature’s efforts to corral big Tech in California — in part of in whole — remains unclear.
Newsom last year vetoed a similar AI bill from McNerney to ban automated decision-making systems to discipline employees over worries that it could restrict companies’ ability to use customer ratings. That element was dropped in this year’s legislation.
Newsom last year signed Assembly Bill 56 that required social media platforms to display mental health warning labels to users under 18 starting in January 2027. But he also vetoed Senate Bill 771 that aimed to hold social media platforms liable if they amplified content that contributed to hate crimes and other violent acts, saying that the legislation was “premature” and current civil rights laws might be adequate.
Lowenthal said he’s heard from California families who are anxious about social media and seeking “relief” from their concerns about how the platforms are affecting their children.
“This is a kitchen-table topic,” he said. “I’ve yet to find a family with school-age children in the state of California, any corner of the state, that is not going through this right now.”
Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — House lawmakers return to Washington on Monday with a short to-do list after five weeks back in their home districts. The first order of business is likely a vote on a stopgap spending bill designed to keep the federal government fully funded through early December, removing the possibility of a shutdown before the midterm elections.
With election season getting underway, votes are also expected on measures designed to amplify the GOP’s messaging strategy going into November, most notably a resolution condemning socialism. Republicans are trying to tie the Democratic Party in general to the democratic socialist candidates who have succeeded this year in running for office.
Another item that could make its way onto the agenda is a Senate-passed bill that imposes sanctions on key segments of the Russian economy and allows President Donald Trump to impose steep tariffs on goods imported from countries that buy the vast majority of Russian oil and gas. The effort led by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham aims to deprive Russian President Vladimir Putin of revenue used to finance the war against Ukraine.
The bill passed 86-11 in the Senate. House passage would send the bill to Trump’s desk for his signature. However, some key House Democrats oppose the bill. The bill grants Trump sweeping new tariff authorities that some lawmakers fear could be used to punish allies rather than foes.
A vote on the bill is not scheduled this week, but proponents are working to have it taken up before lawmakers leave Washington to focus solely on their reelection campaigns.
The return to Washington also brings a renewed focus on improper behavior by lawmakers as the House will have its first chance to act on a recommendation from the House Ethics Committee to censure Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C., for engaging in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct toward two young female aides in his congressional office.
Edwards has disputed the committee’s conclusion that he failed to adhere to the spirit of the rules prohibiting sexual harassment and unwanted advances to House staffers. He points to the committee’s conclusion that found no evidence he “engaged in sexual activity or explicitly propositioned any individual under his employ.”
Edwards said he was not asking lawmakers to approve of every gift, compliment or social interaction, but to distinguish between conduct that someone might find unconventional and conduct that actually establishes sexual harassment.
“Individual acts that were not themselves prohibited were gathered together, assigned the most damaging possible interpretation, and then used collectively to support a conclusion far more serious than the underlying evidence,” Edwards wrote in a letter to colleagues first reported by NOTUS.
The committee said Edwards provided the two staffers with lavish and recurrent gifts, made comments regarding their dress and appearance, invited them to intimate dinners and vacations, sent notes regarding his effusive affection and invited them to other activities as a way to spend time together.
A vote to censure registers the House’s deep disapproval of a lawmaker’s conduct that does not meet the threshold for expulsion. Edwards dropped his reelection plans after the committee’s report came out.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is expected to tee up the funding bill early in the week. The bill underwent some significant changes in the Senate, which made it more palatable for Democrats. It delays a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget that would give political appointees more power over the distribution of federal grants. It also includes language to ensure the administration can’t transfer funds to the Border Patrol.
But a provision that delays for one month a federal ban on intoxicating hemp THC products has prompted criticism from many GOP lawmakers. As a result, GOP leaders will likely place the bill on a fast-track process that avoids a separate procedural vote. Suspension bills require a two-thirds vote to pass, meaning a significant number from both parties need to support the measure for it to pass and advance to Trump’s desk.
Lawmakers are anxious to avoid the possibility of a shutdown as voters weigh their options going into November. The funding bill passed by a 90-6 vote in the Senate, showing that lawmakers from both political parties want to avoid a repeat of the two historic shutdowns that occurred this past year.
Freking writes for the Associated Press.
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers on Sunday approved bills aimed at preventing interference in this fall’s midterm elections and requiring more transparency from social media influencers who are paid by political campaigns.
They join a growing pile of bills on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk as the legislature nears the end of its two-year session, which adjourns early this week.
Social media influencers took on a more visible role in California’s 2026 gubernatorial primary. Candidates including Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer paid thousands of dollars to influencers who posted videos endorsing Steyer or talking about him in a positive light. These videos did not always disclose that influencers were paid by a candidate’s campaign.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said his bill would ensure “that voters are not misled by paid content” by requiring a disclosure on paid posts and videos. Campaigns will also be required to report funds spent on social media posts.
If Newsom signs the law, it could result in fines for influencers and campaigns that fail to disclose such payments.
Two other bills sent to Newsom on Sunday would make it a felony to interfere with mail ballots or to seize ballots and other election materials before an election is certified. They come amid concern from Democratic lawmakers that President Trump or his supporters will seek to interfere with the casting and counting of ballots in the Nov. 3 election.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco drew outrage and legal challenges when he ordered his deputies to take more than 650,000 ballots from the county elections office over unproven claims of fraud. The case was argued before the California Supreme Court last week.
Newsom earlier this year signed a bill preventing local and federal law enforcement agencies from taking ballots without a warrant.
Legislation by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) goes even further by making it a felony to take or order the seizure of ballots, election records or voting machines. Such actions would be punishable by up to four years in prison.
“The federal administration and those seeking to spread lies about our democracy continue to call for interference in elections in ways we have never seen before in this country,” Pellerin said Sunday. “AB 282 helps ensure that every lawfully cast vote can be counted, and that the will of the voters of every political party will be respected.”
Republican lawmakers argued in previous hearings that the bill is unnecessary because it is already a crime to steal ballots.
Another bill, SB 259, makes it a crime to interfere with a mail ballot on the way to or from a voter or order the seizure of ballots that are in transit to a local elections office.
Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.
SACRAMENTO — The California state Legislature voted Sunday to amend a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims but was blamed for draining the coffers of municipalities and school districts.
Senate Bill 577 by John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) follows years of heated debate over the state law, which resulted in scores of lawsuits against cities, counties and schools.
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.
The bill passed by the Legislature on Sunday requires victims older than 40 to provide evidence that the public entity was aware of the misconduct that resulted in the assault and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it.
It also states that attorneys who file fraudulent sex abuse lawsuits can be fined $25,000 per violation. 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.
Consumer attorneys, counties and victims rights groups jostled over the elements of the proposed bill over the last few months.
Lawmakers stopped short of capping payouts in the bill, a change sought by some local governments and school districts.
The legislation 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.
Some of the groups blasted the bill on Sunday night, arguing it would shield rapists and deny justice to survivors.
Speaking on the floor of the state Senate, Laird said that he tried to balance the needs of all parties.
The bill now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration.
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.
