limiting

In a late-night deal with lawmakers, Gov. Gavin Newsom agreed to drop his push for legislation that would have shifted more of the cost of utility-sparked wildfires to property insurers, sharply raising premiums across the state.

After weeks of closed-door negotiations with lawmakers and protests by wildfire survivors, the governor also backed away from a proposal that reduced amounts fire victims could receive and transferred more of the damage costs to local governments.

Wildfire victims and other critics had called the plan a corporate bailout.

According to a 96-page bill, published at 7:26 a.m. Saturday, Newsom and lawmakers agreed on some measures aimed at reducing the costs of future utility-sparked wildfires.

The bill would limit certain fees of attorneys representing insurance companies, while also stopping hedge funds and private equity firms from profiting on wildfire claims.

Last year, hedge funds were offering to buy claims that insurers had against Southern California Edison for the Eaton fire, leading to calls for reform.

The bill would also create a state program to get payments more quickly to wildfire victims.

“This is all real progress for future fire survivors,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Nonetheless, this system needs full structural reform — not a partial one,” he added. “I urge the Legislature to build on this progress next year and finish the work we started to secure the Wildfire Fund’s long-term durability, stabilize electricity rates, and ensure fire victims are never again turned into unsecured creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding.”

The complex legislation — added by gutting and amending a bill known as Senate Bill 492 — was introduced less than three days before the legislative session was to end Monday.

The session must now be extended until Tuesday because of a 2016 voter-approved proposition that requires bills or amendments to be in print at least 72 hours before the state Senate or Assembly can vote on them.

Eaton wildfire survivors and other groups had been calling on Newsom for weeks to unveil the legislation so that they could see the details.

More than 50 Eaton fire survivors showed up to protest in front of the governor’s mansion on Monday night in Sacramento, where Newsom was holding an event for legislators.

“Who should pay?” they chanted. “Shareholders should pay!”

On Saturday, wildfire victims praised lawmakers who had stood up to the governor’s push for legislation benefiting the utilities.

“Survivors from across California came to Sacramento and asked our elected representatives to stand with the people whose homes, communities and lives have been devastated,” Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, said. “They listened. And in the face of extraordinary pressure from some of the most powerful interests in our state, they centered on survivors and California families.”

Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit utilities had been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire caused some investors to flee and the price of their stock to tumble.

Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.

More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.

Utilities asked Newsom to strengthen a framework that he and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy after their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire. The law created a $21-billion wildfire fund, which is now reimbursing Edison for the settlements it is making to victims who agree not to sue.

Last year, also in legislation revealed in the session’s last days, Newsom created a second fund of $18 billion to pay for future fires.

According to a confidential document Newsom’s staff sent to lawmakers, the governor also wanted to cap the amount the fund would reimburse a utility for wildfire damages at $6 billion and require electric customers to pay for costs above that amount. That would have limited utilities’ liability for the fire but increased electric bills.

That measure was not in the legislation published Saturday morning.

Newsom said in his statement Saturday that the bill would strengthen accountability for utilities that spark fires by stopping executives from receiving bonuses after a fire.

The fine print in the bill states that the company must have a plan that prevents top executives from receiving “short-term” bonuses after a fire that results in 500 or more structures damaged.

The governor had touted in 2019 that his legislation had tied utility executive pay to the company’s safety performance. But the language allowed the companies to decide how to do that.

Despite the deadly Eaton fire, bonuses awarded to Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International and other executives soared last year. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation last year, up 20% from 2024.

The new legislation applies only to Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric. Those three for-profit utilities have caused at least seven of California’s 20 most destructive fires, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — A group of university organizations and labor unions filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new government rule that limits the time international students can spend in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the final rule last month, ending the previous “duration of status” policy for international students.

Under that rule, the United States admitted students with F-1 and J-1 visas for the duration of their status: That is, they entered to pursue a course of study and remained until they earned their chosen degree or degrees.

Students needed to maintain a required course load and comply with the general conditions of their immigration status. There are about 1.5 million students with F-1 and J-1 visas in the United States.

Under the changed policy, international students are capped at four-year stays unless they undergo a federal review to be considered for an extension. Such reviews are to include submitting biometric information and undergoing security, identity and fraud screening.

In announcing the final rule, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the duration of status policy “undermined national security” and that the new rule restores the U.S. ability to “properly screen and manage those who remain in our country.”

The group filing the lawsuit Tuesday asked for a preliminary injunction stopping the new rule before it is implemented. The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration (one of the parties to the lawsuit) said the Department of Homeland Security did not adequately justify or assess the rule, address public comments on it or consider better alternatives.

“These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students and exchange visitors and the institutions that support them,” the Alliance said in a statement. “They will also interfere with academic decision-making, disrupt students’ educational and professional plans and undermine the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract and retain global talent.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, also a party to the lawsuit, said the new rule shows that the United States is “once again breaking the law for its own political purposes and, in doing so, is hurting Americans and American enterprise.”

“And it’s using international students — who we’ve welcomed here to help us — as its pawns,” Weingarten said. “American is a leader in cutting-edge research because generations of scientists from every corner of the globe have been free to pursue difficult questions, challenge conventional wisdom, collaborate openly and publish their findings — without political interference.”

The new rule also requires journalists with I visas to renew their status every 240 days. Jon Schleuss — the president of the NewsGuild-CWA, also a party to the lawsuit — said those visas support the important work of international journalists in the United States.

“Our First Amendment makes it clear that the United States is supposed to be a champion of a free press, not an opponent,” Schleuss said. “These rule changes are just another attempt by this administration to chill reporting done by talented journalists.”

Aug. 6 (UPI) — Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has signed landmark legislation that provides what she says are the nation’s strongest protections from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents executing President Donald Trump‘s aggressive immigration crackdown.

At La Colaborativa, a Latina-led nonprofit economic development agency in Chelsea, Mass., Healey signed the PROTECT Act on Wednesday during a press conference while surrounded by immigrants, advocates, members of law enforcement and others.

“This is what makes Massachusetts special: It’s our people. And today, we, the people of Massachusetts, are standing up and fighting back because we know what we need to do,” she said. “We know that what ICE is doing is wrong and it needs to stop.”

The PROTECT Act, which takes immediate effect, is a sweeping bill that limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities while giving individuals additional legal protections and remedies if detained, deported or victimized by ICE agents.

It specifically prohibits warrantless immigration arrests at sensitive locations, such as courthouses, schools, childcare centers and healthcare facilities, including hospitals; prohibits law enforcement agencies from entering formal partnerships with ICE; and prohibits state and municipal participation in federal immigration enforcement, while preserving state and municipal law enforcement agencies’ authority to investigate and prosecute crimes.

It also permits people to bring claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights and bolsters protections for those held at state or county correctional facilities.

Officials argue that the legislation is necessary to maintain public trust in law enforcement at a time when that trust is being threatened by the aggressive tactics being used by federal immigration enforcement officers.

“Strong public safety requires strong partnerships with the communities we serve,” Public Safety and Security Secretary Gina Kwon said in a statement.

“The Protect Act helps preserve the trust that law enforcement, prosecutors and community organizations rely on to protect victims, investigate crimes and keep neighborhoods safe. When people feel safe, our commonwealth is stronger.”

The PROTECT Act, which originated as as H.5158 and was enacted as H.5620, was introduced Jan. 28, four days after Customs and Border Patrol agents fatally shot Alex Pretti and 21 days after an ICE officer fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, both in Minneapolis, Minn., which was the center of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Massachusetts House Speaker Ronald Mariano, a Democrat, referenced the killings of Pretti and Good in announcing that the House had passed the legislation in March, saying their deaths, along with the separation of children from their families, were forcing immigrants in Massachusetts to live in fear.

“That’s why this legislation is so important, as it takes steps to ensure that all residents in Massachusetts are treated equally under state law, and to protect our communities through practical, thoughtful measures,” he said in a statement at the time.

Trump and many Republicans have been highly critical of jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, labeling them “sanctuary jurisdictions.” In April 2025, Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to publish a list of jurisdictions that the administration said obstruct federal immigration enforcement and to pursue legal remedies and other enforcement measures to bring them into compliance.

DHS, which oversees ICE, said in a statement Wednesday that “sanctuary politicians must stop putting politics above public safety.”

“When politicians bar local law enforcement from working with DHS, our law enforcement officers have to have a more visible presence so that we can find and apprehend the criminals let out of jails and back into communities,” it said in a statement to WJAR.

The US Supreme Court has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for all individuals born on US soil, ruling that children born in the country remain entitled to citizenship under the Constitution.