legislation

California’s tech companies, the epicenter of the state’s economy, sent politicians a loud message this year: Back down from restrictive artificial intelligence regulation or they’ll leave.

The tactic appeared to have worked, activists said, because some politicians weakened or scrapped guardrails to mitigate AI’s biggest risks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill aimed at making companion chatbots safer for children after the tech industry fought it. In his veto message, the governor raised concerns about placing broad limits on AI, which has sparked a massive investment spree and created new billionaires overnight around the San Francisco Bay Area.

Assembly Bill 1064 would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors unless the chatbots weren’t “foreseeably capable” of certain conduct, including encouraging a child to engage in self-harm. Newsom said he supported the goal, but feared it would unintentionally bar minors from using AI tools and learning how to use technology safely.

“We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether,” he wrote in his veto message.

The bill’s veto was a blow to child safety advocates who had pushed it through the state Legislature and a win for tech industry groups that fought it. In social media ads, groups such as TechNet had urged the public to tell the governor to veto the bill because it would harm innovation and lead to students falling behind in school.

Organizations trying to rein in the world’s largest tech companies as they advance the powerful technology say the tech industry has become more empowered at the national and state levels.

Meta, Google, OpenAI, Apple and other major tech companies have strengthened their relationships with the Trump administration. Companies are funding new organizations and political action committees to push back against state AI policy while pouring money into lobbying.

In Sacramento, AI companies have lobbied behind the scenes for more freedom. California’s massive pool of engineering talent, tech investors and companies make it an attractive place for the tech industry, but companies are letting policymakers know that other states are also interested in attracting those investments and jobs. Big Tech is particularly sensitive to regulations in the Golden State because so many companies are headquartered there and must abide by its rules.

“We believe California can strike a better balance between protecting consumers and enabling responsible technological growth,” Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, said in a statement.

Common Sense Media founder and Chief Executive Jim Steyer said tech lobbyists put tremendous pressure on Newsom to veto AB 1064. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that rates and reviews technology and entertainment for families, sponsored the bill.

“They threaten to hurt the economy of California,” he said. “That’s the basic message from the tech companies.”

Advertising is among the tactics tech companies with deep pockets use to convince politicians to kill or weaken legislation. Even if the governor signs a bill, companies have at times sued to block new laws from taking effect.

“If you’re really trying to do something bold with tech policy, you have to jump over a lot of hurdles,” said David Evan Harris, senior policy advisor at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which supported AB 1064. The group focuses on finding state-level solutions to threats that AI, disinformation and emerging technologies pose to democracy.

Tech companies have threatened to move their headquarters and jobs to other states or countries, a risk looming over politicians and regulators.

The California Chamber of Commerce, a broad-based business advocacy group that includes tech giants, launched a campaign this year that warned over-regulation could stifle innovation and hinder California.

“Making competition harder could cause California companies to expand elsewhere, costing the state’s economy billions,” the group said on its website.

From January to September, the California Chamber of Commerce spent $11.48 million lobbying California lawmakers and regulators on a variety of bills, filings to the California secretary of state show. During that period, Meta spent $4.13 million. A lobbying disclosure report shows that Meta paid the California Chamber of Commerce $3.1 million, making up the bulk of their spending. Google, which also paid TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce, spent $2.39 million.

Amazon, Uber, DoorDash and other tech companies spent more than $1 million each. TechNet spent around $800,000.

The threat that California companies could move away has caught the attention of some politicians.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who has investigated tech companies over child safety concerns, indicated that despite initial concern, his office wouldn’t oppose ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s restructuring plans. The new structure gives OpenAI’s nonprofit parent a stake in its for-profit public benefit corporation and clears the way for OpenAI to list its shares.

Bonta blessed the restructuring partly because of OpenAI’s pledge to stay in the state.

“Safety will be prioritized, as well as a commitment that OpenAI will remain right here in California,” he said in a statement last week. The AG’s office, which supervises charitable trusts and ensures these assets are used for public benefit, had been investigating OpenAI’s restructuring plan over the last year and a half.

OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said he’s glad to stay in California.

“California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other companies do and threaten to leave if sued,” he posted on X.

Critics — which included some tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Meta and former OpenAI executives as well as nonprofits and foundations — have raised concerns about OpenAI’s restructuring plan. Some warned it would allow startups to exploit charitable tax exemptions and let OpenAI prioritize financial gain over public good.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups say it’s been a mixed year for tech regulation. The governor signed Assembly Bill 56, which requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another piece of signed legislation, Senate Bill 53, aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.

The governor also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content. But advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, removed their support for Senate Bill 243 because they said the tech industry pushed for changes that weakened its protections.

Newsom vetoed other legislation that the tech industry opposed, including Senate Bill 7, which requires employers to notify workers before deploying an “automated decision system” in hiring, promotions and other employment decisions.

Called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” the legislation didn’t clear the governor, who thought it was too broad.

“A lot of nuance was demonstrated in the lawmaking process about the balance between ensuring meaningful protections while also encouraging innovation,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.

The battle over AI safety is far from over. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said she plans to revive the legislation.

Child safety is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans are examining after parents sued AI companies such as OpenAI and Character.AI for allegedly contributing to their children’s suicides.

“The harm that these chatbots are causing feels so fast and furious, public and real that I thought we would have a different outcome,” Bauer-Kahan said. “It’s always fascinating to me when the outcome of policy feels to be disconnected from what I believe the public wants.”

Steyer from Common Sense Media said a new ballot initiative includes the AI safety protections that Newsom vetoed.

“That was a setback, but not an overall defeat,” he said about the veto of AB 1064. “This is a David and Goliath situation, and we are David.”

SACRAMENTO — Though hailed by some for signing new laws to combat antisemitism in California schools, Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed enough reservations about the bills to urge state lawmakers to make some changes.

Supporters of the legislation, Senate Bill 48 and Assembly Bill 715, said it was needed to protect Jewish students on campus, while opponents argued it was broadly written and would stifle free speech and classroom discussions about current events in the Middle East, including the Israel-Hamas war.

Newsom, when he signed the bills, directed legislators to work quickly on a follow-up measure to address “urgent concerns about unintended consequences.”

The governor made similar requests for nearly a dozen other major bills he signed into law this year, including measures providing safeguards on artificial intelligence, protections for children online and banning law enforcement officers donning masks — a direct response to federal agents hiding their identities during immigration raids across the state.

Newsom’s addendums provide a glimpse into the sometimes flawed or incomplete process of crafting new laws, at times hastily at the end of legislative session, requiring flaws or unresolved conflicts to be remedied later.

San Jose State University professor emeritus and political analyst Larry Gerston said governors sometimes go this route when, despite having concerns, they feel the legislation is too urgent to veto.

“I think you are looking at a situation where he thought the issue was sufficiently important and needed to go ahead and get it moving,” he said.

Gerston, however, noted those with a cynical view of politics could argue governors use this tactic as a way to undo or water down legislation that — for various political reasons — they wanted to pass in the moment.

“Depending upon your attitude toward the governor, politics and legislation, [that viewpoint] could be right or wrong,” he said.

One of the authors of the antisemitism bills, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), said he will put forth another measure next year and continue working with educational organizations and the California Legislative Jewish Caucus to ensure the right balance is struck.

“The assertions that the bill is intended to prevent instruction about controversial topics, including topics related to Israel, is just not accurate,” said Zbur, who introduced AB 715. “We will be making sure that it’s clear that instruction on complicated issues, on controversial issues, that critical education can continue to take place.”

Zbur said he will reexamine a provision requiring the “factual accuracy” of instructional materials.

“One of the things that we’ve agreed to do was focus on making sure that the bill continues to meet its goal, but revisit that factually accurate language to make sure that, for example, you can continue to teach [works of] fiction in the classroom,” he said.

Another new law flagged by Newsom bans local and federal agents from wearing masks or facial coverings during operations.

The governor approved Senate Bill 627 — carried by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) — last month as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in unmarked cars. Newsom said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets.

“This bill establishes important transparency and public accountability measures to protect public safety, but it requires follow-up legislation,” Newsom wrote in his signing statement. “Given the importance of the issue, the legislature must craft a bill that prevents unnecessary masking without compromising law enforcement operations.”

Newsom said clarifications about safety gear and additional exemptions for legitimate law enforcement activities were needed.

“I read this bill as permitting the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed or used for the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity, but the follow-up legislation must also remove any uncertainty or ambiguities,” he wrote.

Wiener agreed to revisit the measure.

“I’m committed to working with the Governor’s office to further refine SB 627 early next year to ensure it is as workable as possible for many law enforcement officers working in good faith,” he said.

California is the first state to ban masking for federal law enforcement and the law will likely be challenged in court. The move drew ire from U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who called the legislation “despicable” and said forcing officers to reveal their faces increases their risk of being targeted by criminals.

Newsom is also urging legislators to adjust two new tech-related laws from Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).

Assembly Bill 853, dubbed the California AI Transparency Act, is intended to help people identify content created by artificial intelligence. It requires large online platforms, such as social media sites, to provide accessible provenance data on uploaded content starting in 2027. Provenance data is information about the origin and modification history of online content.

In his signing statement, Newsom called the legislation a “critical step” but said it could interfere with privacy.

“Some stakeholders remain concerned that provisions of the bill, while well-intentioned, present implementation challenges that could lead to unintended consequences, including impairment of user privacy,” he wrote. “I encourage the legislature to enact follow up legislation in 2026, before the law takes effect, to address these technical feasibility issues.”

Assembly Bill 1043 aims to help prevent children from viewing inappropriate content online. It directs operating system providers to allow parents to input their children’s ages when setting up equipment such as laptops or smartphones, and then requires users to be grouped in different age brackets. It gained approval from tech companies including Meta and Google while others raised concerns.

“Streaming services and video game developers contend that this bill’s framework, while well-suited to traditional software applications, does not fit their respective products,” Newsom wrote in his signing statement. “Many of these companies have existing age verification systems in place, addressing complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”

The governor urged lawmakers to address those concerns before the law is set to take effect in 2027.

Wicks was unavailable for comment.

Standing behind a lectern emblazoned with the words “Cutting Utility Bills,” Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law last month a package of energy bills that he said “reduces the burden on ratepayers.”

Tucked into one of those bills: a paragraph that could allow Southern California Edison to shift billions of dollars of Eaton fire damage costs to its customers.

Among other things, the bill allows Edison to start charging customers for any Eaton fire costs exceeding the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“I was shocked to see that,” said April Maurath Sommer, executive director of the Wild Tree Foundation, which tracks state government actions on utility-sparked fires. “It’s effectively a bailout.”

Other amendments in the 231-page bill known as SB 254 helped not just Edison, but all three of the state’s biggest for-profit utilities, further limiting the costs that they and their shareholders would face if the companies’ equipment ignited a catastrophic wildfire.

Previous legislation championed by Newsom, a 2019 bill known as AB 1054, already had sharply limited the utilities’ liabilities for wildfires they cause.

Staff in the governor’s office declined a request for an interview. In a statement, Daniel Villasenor, a spokesman for Newsom, called SB 254 “smart public policy, not a giveaway.”

Newsom’s staff noted that the state Public Utilities Commission would later review Eaton fire costs, determining if they were “just and reasonable.” If some costs billed to customers were rejected in that review, Edison shareholders would have to reimburse them for those amounts, the governor’s office said.

According to the legislation, that review of costs isn’t required until all Eaton claims are settled, leaving the possibility that customers would have to cover even costs found to be unreasonable for years.

“That will be expensive news to a lot of people,” said Michael Boccadoro, executive director of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Assn. “It is unfortunately what happens when major policies are done in the final hours of the Legislature with little transparency.”

Damages for the Eaton fire have been estimated to be as high as $45 billion — which could greatly exceed the $21-billion fund.

Homes in Altadena lay in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Sheri Scott, an actuary at Milliman, told state officials in July that insured losses alone range from $13.7 billion to $22.8 billion. That estimate doesn’t include payments to families who were uninsured or underinsured, or compensation for pain and suffering.

The bill allows Edison to issue bonds secured by new payments from its electric customers for Eaton fire costs that can’t be covered by the $21-billion fund.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company supported the bill’s language because the bonds secured by customer payments provide a lower cost of borrowing than if the company used traditional financing. “Every dollar counts for our customers,” Dunleavy said.

“There are a lot of variables here,” Dunleavy added. “The investigation is ongoing and there is not an estimate of the total cost of the Eaton fire.”

Newsom’s office noted that under the amendments the utilities won’t get to earn a profit on $6 billion of wildfire prevention expenditures. Customers will still have to pay for the costs, but they won’t be charged extra for shareholders’ profit.

Since early this year, Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric had been lobbying Newsom and state legislative leaders, urging them to bolster the $21-billion fund because of concerns it could be exhausted by the Eaton fire’s extraordinary cost.

Videos captured the Jan. 7 inferno igniting under a century-old transmission line that Edison had not used for 50 years. The wildfire swept through Altadena, destroying 9,400 homes and other structures and killing at least 19 people.

Edison now faces hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims. The suits accuse Edison of negligence, claiming it failed to safely maintain its equipment and left in place the unused transmission line, which lawyers say Edison knew posed a fire risk.

“We’ll respond to the allegations in the litigation,” Dunleavy said, adding that the company inspects and maintains idle lines in the same way as its energized lines.

Even though the government’s investigation into the cause has not been released, Edison announced in July that it was starting a program to directly pay victims for damages.

The company has also begun settling with insurance companies that paid out claims for properties they insured in Altadena that were destroyed or damaged.

Limiting Edison’s liability for Eaton fire

The utility is expecting to be reimbursed for most or all of the settlements and the costs of the fire by the $21-billion wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created through the 2019 legislation, according to a July update Edison gave to its investors.

The first $1 billion of damages is covered by an insurance policy paid by its customers.

After state officials warned that the Eaton fire could deplete the state fund, Newsom said in July he was working on a plan to create an additional fund of $18 billion.

Two days before the Legislature was scheduled to recess for the year, three lawmakers added complex language to SB 254 to create what Newsom called the new $18-billion wildfire “continuation account.” Before the bill was amended, consumer groups had been supporting it because it aimed to save electric customers money.

The late amendments required the Legislature to extend its session by a day to meet a state constitutional rule that says proposed legislation must be public for 72 hours before a final vote.

“It’s impossible to believe that legislators could have understood all of this in 72 hours,” Maurath Sommer said. She noted that Newsom’s 2019 law, AB 1054, was introduced and quickly passed in a similar manner. “And it is clear now how poorly that effort fared in achieving the claimed objective of protecting public safety.”

Boccadoro said he believed the amendments were added to a bill favored by consumer groups to give it “some political cover.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), one of bill’s authors, said she believed utilities needed protection from wildfire liabilities because of a legal doctrine in California known as inverse condemnation, which makes them responsible for damages even if they weren’t negligent in starting it.

“This is the best possible deal for ratepayers as we navigate the truly devastating impacts of the climate crisis,” Petrie-Norris said of the legislation. The other two authors — state Sens. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) — did not respond to requests for interviews.

After the bill passed, both Edison and PG&E praised its provisions in presentations for investors.

Edison called the bill “a key action” that demonstrated lawmakers’ support of its “financial stability.”

The amendments added to the protections that utilities gained in 2019 through Newsom’s AB 1054. At that time, PG&E was in bankruptcy proceedings. It had filed for protection after its transmission line was found to have ignited the 2018 Camp fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E explained in a September presentation that before Newsom and lawmakers changed the law in 2019, utilities that wanted to pass fire damage costs to customers “bore the burden of proving” that their conduct related to the blaze was reasonable and prudent.

Newsom’s 2019 law changed that standard, PG&E said, so that the utility’s conduct was automatically deemed reasonable if state regulators had granted the company what the law called a safety certificate.

Since 2019, the state has regularly issued the companies these certificates — even when regulators find maintenance and safety problems.

Edison received a safety certificate less than a month before the Eaton fire, even though it had thousands of open work orders, including some on the transmission lines in the canyon where the fire started.

To get a certificate, the utilities must submit a plan to state regulators for preventing their equipment from sparking fires. They also must tie executive pay to the company’s safety performance, with bonuses expected to take a hit when more fires are sparked or people are killed.

Even though Edison failed at key safety measures last year, The Times found that cash bonuses for four of its top five executives rose. The company said that was because of their performance on responsibilities beyond safety.

With a safety certificate in hand, Edison told investors in July that the maximum it would pay for the Eaton fire under the law’s limit was $3.9 billion, a fraction of the expected costs. The utility said the wildfire fund would reimburse it for all the costs, unless an outside party can raise “serious doubt” that it had not acted reasonably before the fire.

The SB 254 amendments also clarified key language in the 2019 law — clarifications that Edison told investors in September were “constructive for potential Eaton fire losses.”

That language allows utilities that cause repeated major wildfires within a period of three years to reduce what they must pay back to the fund for a second fire if they are found to have acted imprudently.

“This certainly does not seem to encourage utilities to stop causing fires,” Maurath Sommer said of the provision.

Edison’s Dunleavy dismissed concern about the provision. “Safety remains our top priority,” she said.

Campaign contributions to Newsom

The three utilities have long been generous political donors to both Democrats and Republicans in California, including to Newsom and current legislative leaders in Sacramento.

Edison, for example, gave $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign last year to pass the mental health initiative known as Proposition 1.

This summer Edison gave $190,000 to the state Democratic Party, which is helping Newsom campaign for Proposition 50, which would redraw congressional districts.

Newsom’s staff didn’t respond to questions about the contributions.

Dunleavy said that the company’s political donations are not charged to customers. She said Edison gives contributions to politicians who share its commitment to “safely serve our customers.”

Newsom said in 2019 that the bill capping utilities’ fire liabilities would “move our state toward a safer, affordable and reliable energy future.”

He and lawmakers said the law would make the public safer by requiring the utilities to do more to prevent fires, including aggressive tree trimming and the installation of more insulated wires.

Even though the utilities have raised electric rates to charge customers for billions of dollars of fire prevention work, their electrical equipment continues to spark blazes.

According to Cal Fire statistics, if the Eaton fire is confirmed to have been ignited by Edison’s transmission line, at least seven of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires would have been caused by the three utilities’ power lines. Two of those utility-sparked fires happened after the 2019 law passed.

Edison’s lines ignited 178 fires last year — 45% more compared with 2019. The company attributed last year’s increase to weather conditions that created more dry vegetation.

The governor’s staff said they disagreed with claims that the legislation reduced utilities’ accountability. They pointed to a measure in the 2019 law that requires a utility to reimburse the wildfire fund for all damages from a fire if its actions are found to constitute “conscious or willful disregard of the rights and safety of others.”

Advocates for utility customers have repeatedly said they believe that standard is too high to keep California utilities from causing more fires.

“Instances of utility mismanagement could easily fall short of the ‘conscious or willful disregard’ standard yet nonetheless cause a series of catastrophic wildfire events,” wrote the commission’s Public Advocates Office in a filing soon after the 2019 law passed.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is scheduled to speak with Russia’s Vladimir Putin Thursday as he considers Ukraine’s push for long-range missiles, according to a White House official who was not authorized to comment on the private call and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The call comes ahead of Trump’s meeting on Friday at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian leader has been pressing Trump to sell Kyiv Tomahawk missiles which would allow Ukrainian forces to strike deeper into Russian territory.

Zelensky has argued such strikes would help compel Putin to take Trump’s calls for direct negotiations between the Russia and Ukraine to end the war more seriously.

With a fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage deal holding, Trump has said he’s now turning his attention to bringing Russia’s war on Ukraine to an end and is weighing providing Kyiv long-range weaponry as he looks to prod Moscow to the negotiating table.

Ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza was central to Trump’s 2024 reelection pitch, in which he persistently pilloried President Joe Biden for his handling of the conflicts. Yet, like his predecessor, Trump also has been stymied by Putin as he’s unsuccessfully pressed the Russian leader to hold direct talks with Zelensky to end the war that is nearing its fourth year.

But fresh off the Gaza ceasefire, Trump is showing new confidence that he can finally make headway on ending the Russian invasion. He’s also signaling that he’s ready to step up pressure on Putin if he doesn’t come to the table soon.

“Interestingly we made progress today, because of what’s happened in the Middle East,” Trump said of the Russia-Ukraine war on Wednesday evening as he welcomed supporters of his White House ballroom project to a glitzy dinner.

Earlier this week in Jerusalem, in a speech to the Knesset, Trump predicted the truce in Gaza would lay the groundwork for the U.S. to help Israel and many of its Middle East neighbors normalize relations. But Trump also made clear his top foreign policy priority now is ending the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II.

“First we have to get Russia done,” Trump said, turning to his special envoy Steve Witkoff, who has also served as his administration’s chief interlocutor with Putin. “We gotta get that one done. If you don’t mind, Steve, let’s focus on Russia first. All right?”

Trump weighs Tomahawks for Ukraine

Trump is set to host Zelensky for talks Friday, their fourth face-to-face meeting this year.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump has said he’s weighing selling Kyiv long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory — if Putin doesn’t settle the war soon. Zelensky, who has long sought the weapons system, said it would help Ukraine put the sort of pressure on Russia needed to get Putin to engage in peace talks.

Putin has made clear that providing Ukraine with Tomahawks would cross a red line and further damage relations between Moscow and Washington.

But Trump has been undeterred.

“He’d like to have Tomahawks,” Trump said of Zelensky on Tuesday. “We have a lot of Tomahawks.”

Agreeing to sell Ukraine Tomahawks would be a splashy move, said Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. But it could take years to supply and train Kyiv on the Tomahawk system.

Montgomery said Ukraine could be better served in the near term with a surge of Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) missiles and Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS. The U.S. already approved the sale of up to 3,350 ERAMs to Kyiv earlier this year.

The Tomahawk, with a range of about 995 miles (1,600 kilometers), would allow Ukraine to strike far deeper in Russian territory than either the ERAM (about 285 miles, or 460 km) or ATACMS (about 186 miles, or 300 kilometers).

“To provide Tomahawks is as much a political decision as it is a military decision,” Montgomery said. “The ERAM is shorter range, but this can help them put pressure on Russia operationally, on their logistics, the command and control, and its force disbursement within several hundred kilometers of the front line. It can be very effective.”

Signs of White House interest in new Russia sanctions

Zelensky is expected to reiterate his plea to Trump to hit Russia’s economy with further sanctions, something the Republican, to date, has appeared reluctant to do.

Congress has weighed legislation that would lead to tougher sanctions on Moscow, but Trump has largely focused his attention on pressuring NATO members and other allies to cut off their purchases of Russian oil, the engine fueling Moscow’s war machine. To that end, Trump said Wednesday that India, which became one of Russia’s biggest crude buyers after the Ukraine invasion, had agreed to stop buying oil from Moscow.

Waiting for Trump’s blessing is legislation in the Senate that would impose steep tariffs on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports in an attempt to cripple Moscow economically.

Though the president hasn’t formally endorsed it — and Republican leaders do not plan to move forward without his support — the White House has shown, behind the scenes, more interest in the bill in recent weeks.

Administration officials have gone through the legislation in depth, offering line edits and requesting technical changes, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussions between the White House and the Senate. That has been interpreted on Capitol Hill as a sign that Trump is getting more serious about the legislation, sponsored by close ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

A White House official said the administration is working with lawmakers to make sure that “introduced bills advance the president’s foreign policy objectives and authorities.” The official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said any sanctions package needs to give the president “complete flexibility.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday the administration is waiting for greater buy-in from Europe, which he noted faces a bigger threat from Russian aggression than the U.S. does.

“So all I hear from the Europeans is that Putin is coming to Warsaw,” Bessent said. “There are very few things in life I’m sure about. I’m sure he’s not coming to Boston. So, we will respond … if our European partners will join us.”

Madhani and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein, Chris Megerian and Didi Tang contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have phased out a range of popular consumer products, including nonstick pots and pans, that contain synthetic chemicals with potential links to cancer.

“I appreciate the efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “I believe we must carefully consider the consequences that may result from a dramatic shift of products on our shelves.”

The legislation would have prohibited the selling or distributing of cookware with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, by 2030. It phased out PFAS in products for infants and children, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging and cleaning products starting in 2028. Previously used items would have been exempt.

Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the legislation, Senate Bill 682, said he will continue to work on the issue moving forward.

“We are obviously disappointed,” he said. “We know there are safer alternatives — [but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.”

Allen previously explained he introduced the bill to help protect the state’s water supply from contamination.

A study released in 2023 by the U.S. Geological Survey found tap water in urban areas of Southern and Central California is more likely to contain PFAS than the drinking water in most of the nation’s other regions.

“The water agencies, sanitation agencies and local governments are faced with increasingly impossible-to-meet standards just to keep the water supply for our constituents clean,” Allen said during a Senate committee meeting in April. “They’re facing the costs while the producers who keep pushing these products out on the market are not being held accountable.”

PFAS are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their well-established longevity. They are linked to adverse health effects, including liver enzyme changes and kidney and testicular cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The chemicals have been used for decades to prevent food from sticking to pans or packaging, or to make materials more resistant to stains. California has taken steps in recent years to ban their use in certain items, like cosmetics and menstrual products.

Dozens of organizations weighed-in on Allen’s bill, with the Sierra Club, California Health Coalition Advocacy and the League of California Cities supporting the legislation.

The Chemical Industry Council of California and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance were among those opposed.

Steve Burns, president of the sustainability alliance, was especially concerned by the provision barring the distribution of the banned products.

“California is the entry point for nonstick cookware and other products that come into the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Oakland, and then get distributed throughout the country,” he told The Times. “They go to warehouses, distribution centers and get loaded up on rail or usually trucks — so there’s a lot of jobs in the California economy that depend on products that have Teflon.”

Burns said science hasn’t shown that all PFAS are harmful and argued California should have studied the issue further. He pointed to Illinois, which recently passed similar legislation but ultimately nixed the line banning nonstick cookware. An amendment instead directs the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess scientific data on fluoropolymers, the type of PFAS used in nonstick pots and pans.

Several states have recently moved toward restricting items with PFAS. Last January, Minnesota became the first state to ban PFAS in cookware. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance filed a lawsuit arguing the law discriminated against out-of-state commerce. A judge dismissed the suit in August.

The sustainability alliance has shared letters of opposition on its website from several prominent chefs and culinary personalities, including cook and television host Rachael Ray and Mark Dommen, the chef at Hestan, a new restaurant in Napa slated to open later this year.

Dommen explained the legislation would have placed an unfair burden on restaurants and food service providers.

“Non-stick cookware is essential to our daily operations and eliminating these products without a viable alternative would drive up costs, disrupt our supply chain, and put California restaurants at a competitive disadvantage,” Dommen wrote.

Ray, who has a cookware line, argued easy-clean cookware helps families eat healthier by making it easier to prepare meals without extra oils or fats.

Her letter drew a gentle rebuke from actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who implored Ray on social media to reconsider her stance and said her advocacy on behalf of the cookware industry was putting the bill in jeopardy.

“Some of us have so much PFAS in our blood that we face a far greater risk of developing cancer,” he wrote in a recent letter shared on X. “Let’s work together to get PFAS out of the everyday products we bring into our home.”

Scientific studies about the health effects of PFAS will continue, according to the CDC.

“Ongoing research has identified associations between PFAS exposure and several health impacts,” the agency’s website states. “There are many factors that can influence the risk of these effects, such as exposure, individual factors and other health determinants. Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity.”

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to study inequalities in youth sports, a move likely to draw ire from Republicans who believe the measure is intended to support transgender athletes.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 749, creates a commission to examine whether a new state board or department is needed to improve access to sports regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, income or geographic location.

In an open letter last month to the governor, Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) zeroed in on the term “gender identity.”

“The author and supporters of [this legislation] know if they were upfront and put forth a straightforward bill allowing biological males to compete against young women and girls, it would be easily defeated,” Jones wrote on Sept. 26. “So instead they are trying to establish a stacked commission to indirectly rig the issue in their favor.”

Jones urged Newsom to veto the bill and referenced the governor’s previous remarks about transgender athletes. During the first episode of his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom,” the governor — a longtime ally of the LGBTQ+ community — acknowledged the struggle faced by transgender people but called transgender women’s participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” and warned it was hurting Democrats at the polls.

Assemblymember Tina S. McKinnor, who introduced the bill, said Jones should keep his focus on Washington.

“Senator Brian Jones’ time would be better spent writing to the Republican controlled Congress to end the Trump Shutdown and reopen the federal government, rather than attacking trans students,” McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) wrote in an email to The Times.

Legislation referencing gender identity tends to be a lightning rod for controversy nationwide, with opinion polls suggesting Americans hold complex views on transgender issues.

A survey conducted this year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 66% of U.S. adults favor laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. At the same time, 56% of adults supported policies protecting transgender people from discrimination in jobs and public spaces.

During legislative committee hearings on the bill, McKinnor focused on the legislation’s potential racial impact. She said last year’s Play Equity Report found 59% of white youth participated in structured sports programs, compared with 47% of Black youth and 45% of Latino youth.

“Participation in youth sports remains unequal despite the well-documented physical, mental and academic benefits,” McKinnor told the Senate Health Committee in July. “These disparities stem from systemic barriers such as financial limitations, uneven program quality, outdated physical education standards and the lack of a coordinated statewide strategy.”

More than two dozen organizations endorsed the bill, including the Los Angeles Rams, city of San Diego, USC Schwarzenegger Institute, YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles and the Boys and Girls Clubs of West San Gabriel Valley and Eastside.

The legislation directs the state public health officer to convene the commission, which will be composed of 10 members appointed by the governor and three appointed by each the speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The health officer will also sit on the panel, or appoint their own designee.

Newsom did not issue a statement when his office announced a slate of bills he signed on Monday.

In March, Newsom infuriated the progressive wing of his party when, while hosting conservatives commentator Charlie Kirk on the governor’s podcast, he broke away from many Democrats on the issue of transgender athletes. Newsom, an outspoken champion of LGBTQ+ rights since he was mayor of San Francisco, publicly criticized the “unfairness” of transgender athletes participating in women’s sports.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill that sets up a state Office for Civil Rights to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in California schools.

Assembly Bill 715 was among the most hotly contested education-related measures, spawning from dissatisfaction, largely among a coalition of Jewish groups, to the way ethnic studies has been taught in some California classrooms.

The critics said in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that lessons reflected bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include lessons about the conflict in their syllabus.

The law creates a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state antidiscrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — expanded beyond an initial focus on antisemitism. This revision was a response to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms,” Newsom said in a statement. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: Our schools must be places of learning, not hate.”

Bill co-author and state Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) called the legislation “a historic first … that centers on the well-being of children across our state, many of whom bravely shared horrific stories about their experiences in our schools.”

The bill drew strong opposition from teacher unions, faculty groups, Muslim organizations and liberal groups who worried about the suppression of discussion about current events in the Middle East.

A surge of antisemitism

Antisemitic incidents increased in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war that began with a Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200. The war continues with Israel’s campaign to eradicate Hamas, leading to a Palestinian death toll estimated at more than 67,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

At a recent news conference in support of the bill, a Jewish student told of her experience at a public middle school in the Bay Area.

“After Oct. 7, everything changed,” said Ella, who was identified only by her first name. “People who I thought were my friends turned on me. They called me the Jew. They told me that my family is living on stolen land, and yelled at me that I was a murderer and a terrorist. They even started to chase me, and I had to run away for my own safety just because I’m Jewish and I speak Hebrew. I didn’t deserve any of this.”

Ella said some staff members, instead of providing support, expressed biased views.

No matter what a student believes or who they are, “every student deserves to be safe, valued and respected,” said bill co-author and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles).

The final — and much amended — version of the bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature. The vote in the state Assembly was 71 yes, 0 no with 9 abstentions; the vote in the state Senate was 35 yes, 0 no, 5 abstentions.

But this outcome belied an extended, hard-fought debate.

The original legislation targeted ethnic studies — or certain versions of how it was being taught. AB 715 evolved, however, to take on antisemitism more broadly.

A contentious debate

The legislation drew resistance from organizations including ACLU California Action and the California Teachers Assn. Leading voices among the critics also included pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups, a large faction of ethnic studies teachers and some Jewish groups that are strongly critical of the Israeli government.

ACLU California Action warned of a “chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech by educators and students.”

“We abhor and condemn antisemitism in any form,” the California Teachers Assn., wrote in a July letter to the state Senate Education Committee. But “at a time when there are those that seek to weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm some ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so.”

The bill coincided with Trump administration actions to combat antisemitism — and to suppress pro-Palestinian activism — as part of his wide-ranging ideological push. Those actions and AB 715 became inevitably associated in the public discourse.

Leading bill supporters, including state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), strongly objected to any linkage with the Trump administration.

“There’s a false and extremely dangerous narrative being peddled,” Wiener said in an August news conference. “It is an effort to basically say that if you are claiming antisemitism by anyone other than right-wing extremists, you’re somehow aligning yourself with Donald Trump. That is deeply, deeply offensive, and it is a lie.”

The ethnic studies connection

Although the bill evolved, it retained a mechanism to raise issues related to how ethnic studies is taught.

The bill speaks of ensuring antidiscriminatory course and teacher-training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Some critics of AB 715 acknowledged that the bill was revised to address their concerns but they still opposed it. They continue to worry that the new law will chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic studies and elsewhere — and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

There also was criticism on the right from Will Swaim of the California Policy Center — which said the bill that emerged was too watered down. It had become a “do-nothing law that promises to do everything,” Swaim wrote, while creating a new state bureaucracy in the process.

Slovak lawmakers have passed a constitutional amendment that further restricts LGBTQIA+ rights.⁠

⁠On 26 September, the amendment, proposed by Prime Minister Robert Fico’s populist-nationalist government, moved forward after it narrowly secured a three-fifths majority vote (90) in the 150-seat National Council.

The recent development comes nearly five months after the lawmakers proposed the changes to parliament. 

Under the amended constitution, same sex couples have been effectively banned from adopting children, with only married heterosexual couples permitted to adopt.

It asserts that only two genders – male and female – will be recognised, excluding trans, intersex and non-binary identities.

Lastly, the draconian amendment bans surrogacy and gives national law precedence over European Union (EU) law, declaring that “the Slovak Republic maintains sovereignty above all in issues of national identity, culture and ethics.”

According to the BBC, Fico embraced the vote, exclaiming that he would have a shot of liquor to celebrate.

“This isn’t a little dam, or just a regular dam – this is a great dam against progressivism,” the conservative PM added.

Since the news was announced, a range of human rights groups have slammed the Slovak parliament for passing the archaic amendment, including Amnesty International Slovakia.

“This is devastating news. Instead of taking concrete steps to protect the rights of LGBTI people, children, and women, the Slovakian parliament voted to pass these amendments, which put the constitution in direct contradiction with international law,” the group said in a statement.

“Today is another dark day for Slovakia, which is already facing a series of cascading attacks on human rights and the rule of law. The situation of marginalised groups in Slovakia – including LGBTI people – is already dire. These amendments rub salt into the wound.

“Today, the Slovak government chose to follow the lead of countries, such as Hungary, whose policies have led to an erosion of human rights. The only way to stop this decline is to comply with international and European law and introduce proposals to protect human rights for all, while rejecting those that jeopardise these efforts.” 

The editor-in-chief of the Slovak daily SME, Beata Balagova, echoed similar sentiments in a statement to the BBC.

“The Slovak constitution has fallen victim to Robert Fico’s plan to dismantle the opposition and divert attention from the real problems of society, as well as the austerity measures he had to pass,” she said.

“Fico does not genuinely care about gender issues, the ban on surrogate motherhood or even adoptions by LGBTQ people.

The president of Slovakia, Peter Pellegrini, is expected to sign the anti-LGBTQIA+ amendment into law.

In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

“We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

“We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

“If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

“That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

“Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

California electric customers would pay $9 billion more to shore up the state’s wildfire fund under a last-minute deal reached behind closed doors that was introduced as legislation on Wednesday.

Southern California Edison, and the state’s two other large for-profit electric companies, had been lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, urging them to pass legislation to replenish the state’s $21-billion fund that pays for damages of utility-caused fires.

State officials have warned the fund could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed a large swath of Altadena on Jan. 7.

Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing $10.5 billion to the original fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bills.

If approved, the bill amendments made on Wednesday would have customers pay $9 billion more by extending that surcharge by 10 years beyond 2035, when it was set to expire.

Under the deal, the three electric companies’ shareholders would also pay an additional $9 billion into the fund. That means the fund would increase by $18 billion if the legislation, known as SB 254, passes.

Consumer advocates and environmentalists tracking the bill said they were still trying to understand all the provisions of the 229-page bill, which had been debated in hearings in recent months, but was then significantly amended without public input. The new draft of the bill was published at 9:12 a.m. on Wednesday.

“It’s a complete gut and amend,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group. “It’s an end run around the normal legislative process.”

The complex proposal was introduced just days before the state legislature’s session ends, which means it may receive little public debate.

The session was scheduled to end on Friday, but any amendments must be public for 72 hours, which would push a vote to Saturday morning.

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said he was disappointed that ratepayers — who are already paying the country’s second highest electric rates — would have to pay more. But he pointed to some measures that could help reduce the upward pressure on bills.

For example, utilities would be required to finance some expensive transmission projects through a lower-cost method of public financing that legislators said could save ratepayers $3 billion.

Toney said after reviewing the bill’s language his group planned to support it even though it “falls short of addressing the growing affordability crisis.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the bill’s co-author, defended the last minute amendments, saying the legislature needed to move quickly to bolster the fund as the wildfire season begins in California.

She said many of the provisions added to SB 254, including the public financing of transmission lines, had been included in other bills that had been repeatedly been debated in public hearings.

Petrie-Norris, who is chair of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, defended the process and said that she believed electric customers were getting “a good deal” since half the $18 billion addition into the fund would come from utility shareholders.

Also, under the plan, she said, the three utilities must spend billions of dollars more on wildfire prevention costs, which they can’t earn a profit on.

The share prices of Edison International, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric all rose Wednesday on the news.

Newsom and lawmakers created the state wildfire fund in 2019 through a bill known as AB 1054 to protect the three utilities from bankruptcy in the event their electric lines sparked a catastrophic wildfire.

Under the law’s protective measures, Edison could pay nothing or just a fraction of the damages for the Eaton fire if its equipment is found to have sparked the fire.

A representative for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The investigation into the fire is ongoing. Edison has said a leading theory is that a century-old transmission line, not used since the 1970s, somehow re-energized and sparked the blaze.

The insured property losses alone could be as much as $15.2 billion, according to an estimate released in July by state officials. That amount does not include uninsured losses or damages beyond those to property, such as wrongful death claims. A study by UCLA estimated losses at $24 billion to $45 billion.

Damages from the Palisades fire, which also ignited on Jan. 7, are not covered by the state wildfire fund. The city of Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power, a municipal utility, services the area of Pacific Palisades destroyed by that fire.

Only customers of Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric pay to support the wildfire fund. And only those three utilities are covered by its protections.

WASHINGTON — After months of campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump sent a sharply different message Friday when he signed an executive order aimed at rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

Trump said the switch was intended to signal to the world that the United States was a force to be reckoned with, and he complained that the Department of Defense’s name, established in the aftermath of World War II, was “woke.”

“I think it sends a message of victory. I think it sends, really, a message of strength,” Trump said of the change as he authorized the Department of War as a secondary title for the Pentagon.

Congress has to formally authorize a new name, and several of Trump’s closest supporters on Capitol Hill proposed legislation earlier Friday to codify the new name into law.

But already there were cosmetic shifts. The Pentagon’s website went from “defense.gov” to “war.gov.” Signs were swapped around Hegseth’s office while more than a dozen employees watched. Trump said there would be new stationery, too.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom Trump has begun referring to as the “secretary of war,” said during the signing ceremony that “we’re going to go on offense, not just on defense,” using “maximum lethality” that won’t be “politically correct.”

The attempted rebranding was another rhetorical salvo in Trump’s efforts to reshape the U.S. military and uproot what he has described as progressive ideology. Bases have been renamed, transgender soldiers have been banned and military websites have been scrubbed of posts honoring contributions by women and minorities.

The Republican president contended that his tough talk didn’t contradict his fixation on being recognized for diplomatic efforts, saying peace must be made from a position of strength. Trump has claimed credit for resolving conflicts between India and Pakistan; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Armenia and Azerbaijan, among others, though some leaders and others have disputed the significance of the U.S. role. (He’s also expressed frustration that he hasn’t brought the war between Russia and Ukraine to a conclusion as fast as he said he would.)

“I think I’ve gotten peace because of the fact that we’re strong,” Trump said, echoing the “peace through strength” motto associated with President Reagan.

When Trump finished his remarks on the military, he dismissed Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the room.

“I’m going to let these people go back to the Department of War and figure out how to maintain peace,” Trump said.

Rep. Gregory W. Steube (R-Fla.) proposed legislation in the House to formally change the name of the department.

“From 1789 until the end of World War II, the United States military fought under the banner of the Department of War,” Steube, an Army veteran, said in a statement. “It is only fitting that we pay tribute to their eternal example and renowned commitment to lethality by restoring the name of the ‘Department of War’ to our Armed Forces.”

Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

The Department of War was created in 1789, then renamed and reorganized through legislation signed by President Truman in 1947, two years after the end of World War II. The Department of Defense incorporated the Department of War, which oversaw the Army, plus the Department of the Navy and the newly created independent Air Force.

Hegseth complained that “we haven’t won a major war since” the name was changed. Trump said, “We never fought to win.”

Trump and Hegseth have long talked about restoring the Department of War name.

In August, Trump told reporters that “everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was Department of War. Then we changed it to Department of Defense.”

When confronted with the possibility that making the name change would require an act of Congress, Trump told reporters that “we’re just going to do it.”

“I’m sure Congress will go along,” he said, “if we need that.”

Trump and Hegseth have been on a name-changing spree at the Pentagon, sometimes sidestepping legal requirements.

For example, they wanted to restore the names of nine military bases that once honored Confederate leaders, which were changed in 2023 following a congressionally mandated review.

Because the original names were no longer allowed under law, Hegseth ordered the bases to be named after new people with similar names. For example, Ft. Bragg now honors Army Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper and Silver Star recipient from Maine, instead of Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg.

In the case of Fort A.P. Hill, named for Confederate Lt. Gen. Ambrose Powell Hill, the Trump administration was forced to choose three soldiers to make the renaming work.

The base now honors Union soldiers Pvt. Bruce Anderson and 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn, who contributes the two initials, and Lt. Col. Edward Hill, whose last name completes the second half of the base name.

The move irked Republicans in Congress who, in July, moved to ban restoring any Confederate names in this year’s defense authorization bill.

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a Republican who co-sponsored the earlier amendment to remove the Confederate names, said that “what this administration is doing, particularly this secretary of Defense, is sticking his finger in the eye of Congress by going back and changing the names to the old names.”

Megerian, Kim and Toropin write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Responding to the Trump administration’s aggressive and unceasing immigration raids in Southern California, state lawmakers this week began strengthening protections for immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

The Democratic-led California Legislature is considering nearly a dozen bills aimed at shielding immigrants who are in the country illegally, including helping children of families being ripped apart in the enforcement actions.

“Californians want smart, sensible solutions and we want safe communities,” said Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego). “They do not want peaceful neighbors ripped out of schools, ripped out of hospitals, ripped out of their workplaces.”

Earlier this week, lawmakers passed two bills focused on protecting schoolchildren.

Senate Bill 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Peréz (D-Alhambra), would require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

Legislation introduced by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), AB 49, would bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school unless they had a judicial warrant or court order. It also would bar school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

A separate bill by Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), SB 81, would bar healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace, or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics, to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

All three bills now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration. If signed into law, the legislation would take effect immediately.

The school-related bills, said L.A. school board member Rocio Rivas, provide “critical protections for students, parents and families, helping ensure schools remain safe spaces where every student can learn and thrive without fear.”

Federal immigration agents have recently detained several 18-year-old high school students, including Benjamin Marcelo Guerrero-Cruz, who was picked up last month while walking his dog a few days before he started his senior year at Reseda Charter High School.

Most Republican legislators voted against the bills, but Peréz’s measure received support from two Republican lawmakers, Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) and state Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa). Muratsuchi’s had support from six Republicans.

“No person should be able to go into a school and take possession of another person’s child without properly identifying themselves,” Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) said before voting to support the bill.

The healthcare bill follows a surge in cancellations for health appointments as immigrants stay home, fearing that if they go to a doctor or to a clinic, they could be swept up in an immigration raid.

California Nurses Assn. President Sandy Reding said that federal agents’ recent raids have disregarded “traditional safe havens” such as clinics and hospitals, and that Newsom’s approval would ensure that people who need medical treatment can “safely receive care without fear or intimidation.”

Some Republicans pushed back against the package of bills, including outspoken conservative Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who said that the raids that Democrats are “making such hay over” were triggered by the state’s “sanctuary” law passed in 2018.

The state law DeMaio attacked, SB 54, bars local law enforcement from helping enforce federal immigration laws, including arresting someone solely for having a deportation order, and from holding someone in jail for extra time so immigration agents can pick them up.

The law, criticized by President Trump and Republicans nationwide, does not prevent police from informing federal agents that someone who is in the country illegally is about to be released from custody.

“If you wanted a more orderly process for the enforcement of federal immigration rules, you’d back down from your utter failure of SB54,” DeMaio said.

Chino Valley Unified School Board President Sonja Shaw, a Trump supporter who is running for state superintendent of public instruction, said that the bills about school safety were “political theater that create fear where none is needed.”

“Schools already require proper judicial orders before allowing immigration enforcement on campus, so these bills don’t change anything,” Shaw said. “They are gaslighting families into believing that schools are unsafe, when in reality the system already protects students.”

But Muratsuchi, who is also running for superintendent, said the goal of the legislation is to ensure that districts everywhere, “including in more conservative areas,” protect their students against immigration enforcement.

A half-dozen other immigration bills are still pending in the Legislature. Lawmakers have until next Friday to send bills to Newsom’s desk before the 2025 session is adjourned.

Those include AB 495 by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D-San Fernando), which would make it easier for parents to designate caregivers who are not blood relatives — including godparents and teachers — as short-term guardians for their children. An increasing number of immigrant parents have made emergency arrangements in the event they are deported.

The bill would allow nonrelatives to make decisions such as enrolling a child in school and consenting to some medical care.

Conservatives have criticized the bill as an attack on parental rights and have said that the law could be misused by estranged family members or even sexual predators — and that current guidelines for establishing family emergency plans are adequate.

Also still pending is AB 1261, by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), which would establish a right to legal representation for unaccompanied children in federal immigration court proceedings; and SB 841 by Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which would restrict access for immigration authorities at shelters for homeless people and survivors of rape, domestic violence and human trafficking.

Frank McCourt will have to pursue his proposed Dodger Stadium gondola without legislation that would have limited potential legal challenges to the project.

After The Times reported on the legislation, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council publicly opposed it, asking a state Assembly committee to strip the language that would have benefited the gondola project or kill the bill entirely.

On Friday, the committee stripped the language and moved ahead with the remainder of the bill, which is designed to expedite transit projects in California. Under the now-removed language, future legal challenges to certain Los Angeles transit projects would have been limited to 12 months.

The language of the bill did not cite any specific project, but a staff report called the gondola proposal “one project that would benefit.”

A court fight over Metro’s approval of the environmental impact report for the project is at 17 months and counting.

In a letter to state legislators in which she shared the council resolution opposing the language in question, City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez said the language would amount to “carve outs” from a worthy bill in order to ease challenges to “a billionaire’s private project.”

McCourt, the former Dodgers owner, first proposed a gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium in 2018. The project requires approvals from four public agencies, including the City Council, which is expected to consider the gondola after the completion of a city-commissioned Dodger Stadium traffic study next year.

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump’s tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump’s signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net.

Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so.

Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts.

“Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. “American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.”

Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls.

As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Ukraine’s Parliament has voted to restore the independence of two key anti-corruption agencies, reversing a controversial law signed by President Zelenskyy. The move follows mass protests and EU pressure over concerns it could block investigations into political allies.

WASHINGTON — “Mr. President, this is the gavel used to enact the ‘big, beautiful bill,’” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a White House signing ceremony on the Fourth of July.

“I want you to have it,” he said.

Handing over the gavel delighted President Trump who, seated behind a desk outdoors, immediately tested it out with a few quick thumps.

The moment left a memorable mark on a historic day. The gesture reflected a traditional nod of honor, from one leader to another, a milestone of the Republican Party’s priority legislation becoming law. But the imagery also underscored a symbolic transfer of political power, from Capitol Hill to the White House as a compliant Congress is ceding more and more of its prerogative to the presidency.

Congress gives Trump what he wants

Since Trump’s return to the White House in January, and particularly in the past few weeks, Republicans in control of the House and Senate have shown an unusual willingness to give the president of their party what he wants, regardless of the potential risk to themselves, their constituents and Congress itself.

Republicans raced to put the big package of tax breaks and spending cuts on Trump’s desk by his Independence Day deadline. Senators had quickly confirmed almost all of Trump’s outsider Cabinet nominees despite grave reservations over Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary, Pete Hegseth as the Pentagon chief and others. House Republicans pursued Trump’s interest in investigating his perceived foes, including investigating Democratic President Biden’s use of the autopen.

But at the same time, Congress hit the brakes on one of its own priorities, legislation imposing steep sanctions on Russia over its war on Ukraine, after Trump announced he was allowing President Vladimir Putin an additional 50 days to negotiate a peace deal, dashing hopes for a swifter end to the conflict.

This past week, Congress was tested anew, delivering on Trump’s request to rescind some $9 billion that lawmakers had approved but that the administration wanted to eliminate, including money for public broadcasting and overseas aid. It was a rare presidential request, a challenge to the legislative branch’s power of the purse, that has not been used in decades.

The pressure on Republicans is taking its toll

“We’re lawmakers. We should be legislating,” said a defiant Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, as she refused to support the White House’s demand to rescind money for National Public Radio and others.

“What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, ‘This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We’ll be back with you with another round,’” she said. “I don’t accept that.”

Congress, the branch of government the Founding Fathers placed first in the Constitution, is at a familiar crossroads. During the first Trump administration, Republicans frightened by Trump’s angry tweets of disapproval would keep their criticisms private. Those who did speak up — Liz Cheney of Wyoming in the House and Mitt Romney of Utah in the Senate, among others — are gone from Capitol Hill.

One former GOP senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, who announced in 2017 during Trump’s first term that he would not seek reelection the next year, is imploring Republicans to find a better way.

“The fever still hasn’t broken,” he wrote recently in The New York Times. “In today’s Republican Party, voting your conscience is essentially disqualifying.”

Seeking a ‘normal’ Congress

But this time, the halls of Congress are filled with many Republicans who came of political age with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement and owe their ascent to the president himself. Many are emulating his brand and style as they shape their own.

A new generation of GOP leaders, Johnson in the House and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have pulled closer to Trump. They are utilizing the power of the presidency in ways large and small — to broker deals, encourage wayward lawmakers to fall in line, even to set schedules.

Johnson, R-La., has openly pined for what he calls a “normal Congress.” But short of that, the speaker relies on Trump to help stay on track. When Republicans hit an impasse on cryptocurrency legislation, a Trump priority, it was the president who met with holdouts in the Oval Office late Tuesday night as Johnson called in by phone.

The result is a perceptible imbalance of power as the executive exerts greater authority while the legislative branch dims. The judicial branch has been left to do the heavy lift of checks and balances with the courts processing hundreds of lawsuits over the administration’s actions.

“The genius of our Constitution is the separation of power,” said Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former speaker, in an interview on SiriusXM’s “Mornings with Zerlina.”

“That the Republicans in Congress would be so ignoring of the institution that they represent, and that have just melted the power of the incredibly shrinking speakership” and Senate leadership positions, “to do all of these things, to cater to the executive branch,” she said.

Confronting Trump comes with costs

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., endured Trump’s criticism over his opposition to the tax and spending cuts bill. The senator raised concerns about steep cuts to hospitals, but the president threatened to campaign against him. Tillis announced he would not seek reelection in 2026.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against that bill and the rescissions package despite Trump’s threat to campaign against any dissenters.

One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, appears to be pressing on, unphased. He recently proposed legislation to force the administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, something the president had been reluctant to do.

“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if the president wants something, you must do it,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in a Senate speech. “We don’t have to do this. We don’t have to operate under the assumption that this man is uniquely so powerful.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Republicans muscled President Trump’s tax and spending cut bill through the House on Thursday, the final step necessary to get the bill to his desk by the GOP’s self-imposed deadline of July 4th.

At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations.

Democrats united against the legislation, but were powerless to stop it as long as Republicans stayed united. The Senate passed the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The House passed an earlier iteration of the bill in May with just one vote to spare. It passed the final version 218-214.

Here’s what’s in the bill:

Tax cuts are the priority

Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump’s first term expire. The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill, solidifying the tax cuts approved in Trump’s first term.

It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip, overtime and auto loans. There’s also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to his pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits.

It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit.

A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It’s a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years.

There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research. Proponents say this will boost economic growth.

The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, and the bill would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House’s version.

Money for deportations, a border wall and the Golden Dome

The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump’s border and national security agenda, including for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.

Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year.

To help pay for it, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections.

For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security.

How to pay for it? Cuts to Medicaid and other programs

To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back on Medicaid and food assistance for people below the poverty line .

Republicans argue they are trying to right-size the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse.

The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program’s work requirements.

There’s also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services.

More than 71 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.

Republicans are looking to have states pick up some of the cost for SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government funds all benefit costs. Under the bill, states beginning in 2028 will be required to contribute a set percentage of those costs if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments.

But the Senate bill temporarily delays the start date of that cost-sharing for states with the highest SNAP error rates. Alaska has the highest error rate in the nation at nearly 25%, according to Department of Agriculture data. Sen. Lisa Murkowsk (R-Alaska) had fought for the exception. She was a decisive vote in getting the bill through the Senate.

A ‘death sentence’ for clean energy?

Republicans are proposing to dramatically roll back tax breaks designed to boost clean energy projects fueled by renewable sources such as energy and wind. The tax breaks were a central component of President Biden’s 2022 landmark bill focused on addressing climate change and lowering health care costs.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) went so far as to call the GOP provisions a “death sentence for America’s wind and solar industries and an inevitable hike in utility bills.”

A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles would expire on Sept. 30 of this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.

Meanwhile, a tax credit for the production of critical materials will be expanded to include metallurgical coal used in steelmaking.

Trump savings accounts and so, so much more

A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities.

The bill creates a new children’s savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury.

The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump’s long-sought “National Garden of American Heroes.”

There’s a new excise tax on university endowments and a new tax on remittances, or transfers of money that people in the U.S. send abroad. The tax is equal to 1% of the transfer.

A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated.

One provision bars for one year Medicaid payments to family planning providers that provide abortions, namely Planned Parenthood.

Another section expands the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a hard-fought provision from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for those impacted by nuclear development and testing.

Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for the exploration of Mars, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee.

Additionally, a provision would increase the nation’s debt limit, by $5 trillion, to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills.

Last-minute changes

The Senate overwhelmingly revolted against a proposal meant to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence. Republican governors across the country asked for the moratorium to be removed and the Senate voted to do so with a resounding 99-1 vote.

A provision was thrown in at the final hours that will provide $10 billion annually to rural hospitals for five years, or $50 billion in total. The Senate bill had originally provided $25 billion for the program, but that number was upped to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that reduced Medicaid provider taxes would hurt rural hospitals.

The amended bill also stripped out a new tax on wind and solar projects that use a certain percentage of components from China.

What’s the final cost?

Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034.

Or not, depending on how one does the math.

Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already “current policy.” Republican senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach.

Under the alternative Senate GOP view, the bill would reduce deficits by almost half a trillion dollars over the coming decade, the CBO said.

Democrats say this is “magic math” that obscures the true costs of the tax breaks. Some nonpartisan groups worried about the country’s fiscal trajectory are siding with Democrats in that regard. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Senate Republicans were employing an “accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Confident that passage of President Trump’s signature legislation was all but assured, West Wing aides summoned holdouts in the House Republican caucus Wednesday to deliver a blunt message: Follow the president’s orders and get it done by Friday.

It was a call to action after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) directed his caucus to return to Washington from home districts around the country, braving flight delays due to storms in the capital to be back in time for a vote before the Fourth of July.

But the vote was in doubt, and signs emerged of cracks in a coalition otherwise firmly under Trump’s control.

“The president of the United States didn’t give us an assignment,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a Republican from Wisconsin, told reporters, using an expletive to suggest Trump was treating lawmakers like his minions. “I’m a member of Congress. I represent almost 800,000 Wisconsinites. Is that clear?”

Frustration within the Republican Party was coming from two disparate camps of a broad-tent coalition that have their own sets of grievances: fiscal hawks who believe the bill adds too much to the national debt, and lawmakers representing districts that heavily rely on Medicaid.

One GOP lawmaker who attended the White House meeting Wednesday, Rep. David Valadao of California, represents a Central Valley district with one of the highest percentages of Medicaid enrollment in the nation.

The president’s megabill, which he calls the “Big Beautiful Bill,” levies historic cuts to the healthcare program that could result in up to 12 million Americans losing health coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, gutting $1 trillion in funding and introducing a work requirement for enrollees of 80 hours per month until they turn 65 years old.

The legislation would also restrict state taxes on healthcare providers, known as the “provider tax,” an essential tool for many states in their efforts to supplement Medicaid funding. Several Republican lawmakers fear that provision could have devastating effects on rural hospitals.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, appearing Wednesday with other Democrats on the Capitol steps, denounces President Trump’s tax and spending bill.

(Bloomberg via Getty Images)

A handful of Republican lawmakers from North Carolina have bristled at the president’s pressure campaign, with Rep. Chuck Edwards telling Punchbowl News that the White House meeting “didn’t sway my opinion.” North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis was one of three Republicans who voted against the bill Tuesday, warning it would devastate his state. It still passed with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance.

The vote was shaping up to be narrow in the House as well, where Johnson can afford to lose only three votes in order to pass the omnibus legislation.

A daylong debate on the House floor allowed for private negotiations to continue, ahead of a crucial procedural vote on rules that would be the last step before a final vote. But it was unclear whether the expressions of frustration and doubt Wednesday amounted to performance art in anticipation of the bill’s inevitable passage, or signaled a genuine threat to the bill.

Earlier Wednesday, after taking meetings at the White House, members of the House Freedom Caucus, a bloc founded to promote fiscal responsibility, also met with Johnson. The speaker emerged with a message of tempered optimism and later said he was hoping to secure a final vote Wednesday night.

“I feel very positive about the progress, we’ve had lots of great conversations,” Johnson told reporters, “but we can’t make everyone 100% happy. It’s impossible.”

“This is a deliberative body. It’s a legislative process by definition — all of us have to give up on personal preferences,” he said. “I’m never going to ask anyone to compromise core principles, but preferences must be yielded for the greater good. And that’s what I think people are recognizing and coming to grips with.”

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the Freedom Caucus, had been highly critical of the Senate legislation. But he signaled an openness Wednesday afternoon to vote in favor of the bill, an indication that passage could be imminent.

Democrats are out of power across Washington and have no ability to stop the legislation. But many believe it could backfire on Republicans in the midterm elections next year.

“Every single Senate Republican is going to have to answer for these cruel and unpopular cuts this election,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said after the bill passed the Senate. “This is putting their majority at serious risk.”

Trump says the legislation encompasses his entire domestic agenda, extending tax cuts passed during his first term in 2017 and beefing up funding for border security, mass deportations and the Defense Department.

Cuts to Medicaid, as well as to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP, are intended to offset a fraction of the costs. But the CBO still estimates the legislation will add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, and hundreds of billions to the deficit, with other nonprofit budget trackers forecasting even higher figures.

WASHINGTON — Building the border wall. Increasing detention capacity. Hiring thousands of immigration agents.

The budget bill narrowly approved by the Senate on Tuesday includes massive funding infusions — roughly $150 billion — toward immigration and border enforcement. If passed, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” will cement Trump’s hard-line legacy on immigration.

The budget bill would make Immigration and Customs Enforcement the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the federal government, exceeding its current yearly $3.4-billion detention budget many times over. It also would impose fees on immigration services that were once free or less expensive and make it easier for local law enforcement to work with federal authorities on immigration.

The 940-page Senate bill will now head back to the House, which passed its version in May, also by one vote, 215-214. The two chambers must now reconcile the two versions of the bill.

Though the legislation is still evolving, the immigration provisions in the House and Senate versions are similar and not subject to the intense debates on other issues, such as Medicaid or taxes.

Many of the funds would be available for four years, though some have longer or shorter timelines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that, if enacted, the bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Here are key elements concerning immigration:

Border wall

• $46.5 billion toward fortifying the U.S.-Mexico border wall and interdicting migrant smugglers at sea.

This includes construction and installation of barrier sections, building access roads, and barrier-related technology, such as cameras, lights and sensors. The legislation doesn’t reference specific locations.

Trump, in his first term, repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for the wall. It didn’t.

Staffing

• $32 billion for immigration enforcement, including staffing of ICE and expanding so-called 287(g) agreements, in which state and local law enforcement agencies partner with federal authorities to deport immigrants.
• $7 billion for hiring Border Patrol agents, customs officers at ports of entry, air and marine agents and field support staff; retention bonuses; and vehicles.
• $3.3 billion to hire immigration judges and support staff, among other provisions.

Trump has said he wants to hire 10,000 ICE agents, as well as 3,000 Border Patrol agents.

Detention

• $45 billion to build and operate immigrant detention facilities and to transport those being deported.
• $5 billion for new Customs and Border Protection facilities and improvements to existing facilities and checkpoints. It’s unclear how this could affect California or the well-known Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Onofre.

The bill allows for families pending a removal decision to be detained indefinitely. Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, called that a blatant violation of the so-called Flores settlement agreement, which has been in place since 1977 and limits the amount of time children can legally be detained to 20 days.

Local assistance

• $13.5 billion to reimburse states and local governments for immigration-related costs. These are divided into two pots of funding: $10 billion for the “state border security reinforcement fund” and the “Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide” or BIDEN fund. Both would fund the arrest of immigrants by local law enforcement who unlawfully entered the U.S. and committed any crime.

Altman said: “You can think of it like a gift for [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott.”

Immigration fees

• A fee of at least $100 for those seeking asylum, down from a $1,000 fee outlined in the House bill. Applicants also would pay $100 every year the application remains pending. This is unprecedented — a fee has never before been imposed on migrants fleeing persecution.
• At least $550 ($275 on renewal) to apply for employment authorization for those with asylum applications, humanitarian parole and temporary protected status. Currently there is no fee for asylum seekers and a $470 fee for others.
• At least $500 for temporary protected status, up from $80 including biometrics.

The stated fees are minimums — the bill allows for annual increases and, for many, prohibits waivers based on financial need.

“The paradox of a fee for an employment authorization document is that you’re not allowed to work, but you need to pay for the fee,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Altman noted that imposing a yearly fee on asylum seekers for their pending applications punishes people for the U.S. government’s own backlogged system, which is out of the applicant’s control.

Other sections exclude lawfully present immigrants, such as refugees and those granted asylum, from benefits including Medicare, Medicaid and the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). Another provision excludes children from the Child Tax Credit if their parent lacks a Social Security number.

Praise and scorn

Altman, whose organization has closely tracked the immigration aspects of the funding bill, said people can look at the bill two ways: big picture — as a $150-billion infusion to supercharge what the Trump administration has already started — or surgically, as a series of policy changes that will not be easy to undo “and make an already corrupt system subject to even fewer safeguards and really go after people’s most basic needs.”

Bush-Joseph had a different view. She said the funding reinforces an outdated and inflexible immigration system without fundamentally changing it.

“That’s why there’s all this money going to the border even though there aren’t a lot of people coming now,” she said.

Money alone won’t change things overnight, said Bush-Joseph. It takes time to hire people and to open detention facilities. Immigration judges will still have a massive backlog of cases. And getting foreign countries to agree to accept more deportees is tricky.

“Arresting and detaining people with private contractors doesn’t get you to an agreement from El Salvador to take five more planes per week,” she said.

During a White House event June 26, Trump urged Congress to pass the bill quickly, saying it “will be the single most important piece of border legislation to ever come across the floor of Congress.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of three senators who voted against the bill Tuesday, had called it “reckless spending,” writing on X: “I’m all for hiring new people to help secure our borders, but we don’t need it to the extent that’s in this bill, especially when our border is largely contained.”

Across the political aisle, Democrats including California Sen. Alex Padilla have slammed the bill, saying the immigration-related funding increases amount to a substantial policy change.

“You would think that maybe just for a moment, Republicans would take this reconciliation process as an opportunity to do what they said before they wanted to do and modernize our nation’s immigration system,” Padilla said last month. “But they’re not.”