new law

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.

New laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom aim to make the artificial intelligence and social media landscape in California safer, especially for minors.

Senate Bill 243, sponsored by state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) will require AI companies to incorporate guardrails that prevent so-called “companion” chatbots from talking to users of any age about suicide or self-harm. It also requires that all AI systems alert minors using the chatbots that they are not human every three hours. The systems also are barred from promoting any sexually explicit conduct to users who are minors.

The law, to be enacted on Jan. 1, follows several lawsuits filed against developers in which families allege their children committed suicide after being influenced by an AI chatbot companion.

In the same vein, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 316, which removes a civil legal defense that some AI developers have been using to make the case that they are not responsible for any harm caused by their products. They have argued that their AI products act autonomously — and so there is no legal case to blame the developers.

In a bill analysis meant for legislators, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) wrote that this change will force developers to vet their product better and ensure that they can be held to account if their product does cause harm to its users.

Another bill, AB 621, increases civil penalties for AI developers who knowingly create nonconsensual “deepfake” AI pornography. The maximum penalties go from $30,000 to $50,000, and from $150,000 to $250,000 in cases where the courts determine that the actions were done with malice.

The author of the bill, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), has pointed out how this technology has been used to harm minors. “In one recent instance,” she noted in an analysis supporting the proposed legislation, “five students were expelled from a Beverly Hills Middle School after creating and sharing AI generated nude photos of their classmates.”

Another AI bill, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) SB 53, was signed into law by Newsom in late September. It will require large AI companies to publicly disclose certain safety and security protocols and report to the state on critical safety incidents. It also creates a public AI computing cluster — CalCompute — that will provide resources to startups and researchers developing large AI systems.

Bauer-Kahan also was the author of AB 56, which will require social media companies to place a warning label on their platforms for minors starting in 2027. The warning label must tell children and teens that social media is associated with mental health issues and may not be safe.

“People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with Big Tech’s failure to protect children who interact with its products. Today, California makes clear that we will not sit and wait for companies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who sponsored the bill, said in a news release. “By adding warning labels to social media platforms, AB 56 gives California a new tool to protect our children.”

Other bills recently approved by Newsom look to challenge the Internet’s grip on young people and their mental health.

AB 1043, for example, will require app stores and device manufacturers to take age data from users in order to ensure that they are complying with age verification requirements. Many tech companies, including Google and Meta, approved of the bill, which was written by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).

AB 772 will require grade K-12 schools in the state to develop a policy by mid-2027 on handling bullying and cyberbullying that happens off campus. “After-school bullying follows the pupil back to school and into the classroom, creating a hostile environment at school,” author and Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) wrote in a bill analysis.

Proponents at the Los Angeles County Office of Education wrote in an earlier analysis that because students these days are constantly connected to the internet, bullying does not stop when school lets out. In addition, social media and texting can broadcast instances of bullying to larger audiences than ever before, according to the analysis.

The California School Boards Assn. opposed AB 772, saying that it wasn’t appropriate for school officials to take responsibility for student actions outside of school. Newsom signed the bill last weekend and included it in a larger package of bills meant to protect children from the effects of social media.

“Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect — but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead and endanger our kids. We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability,” Newsom said in a news release Monday. “We can continue to lead in AI and technology, but we must do it responsibly — protecting our children every step of the way. Our children’s safety is not for sale.”

Brooke Knowles knew she wanted the black puppy posted on the Facebook page of a self-described home breeder of Coton De Tulears. He looked like he’d have an outgoing personality.

She put down a nonrefundable deposit and drove to Temecula to pick him up. She paid about $2,000 and named him Ted.

Before she even left for home, Ted vomited and had diarrhea on the grass outside. He was lethargic, his chest soaked with drool.

A closer look later at the paperwork provided by the seller revealed something else unsettling: Ted wasn’t bred in California. He had been imported from a kennel in Utah.

“I thought that I was getting a dog that had been bred at his home,” Knowles said in a series of interviews with The Times. “This poor puppy, he was so traumatized.”

On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of animal welfare bills into state law that will restrict puppy sales and strengthen protections for buyers like Knowles. The bills were introduced as a result of a Times investigation last year that detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people saying they were small, local operators.

The three bills Newsom signed into law are:

• Assembly Bill 519 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) bans online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That includes major national pet retailers, including PuppySpot, as well as California-based operations that resell puppies bred elsewhere. The law applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old. It does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
• AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) voids pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The law also makes the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose breeder details and medical history.
• Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) requires pet sellers to share health certificates with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which would then make them available without redactions to the public.

The bills were supported by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said they are “an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers.”

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and it’s time to shine a light on puppy mills,” Newsom said in a statement. “Greater transparency in pet purchases will bring to light abusive practices that take advantage of pets in order to exploit hopeful pet owners. Today’s legislation protects both animals and Californians by addressing fraudulent pet breeding and selling practices.”

Lawmakers said new laws close loopholes that emerged after California in 2019 banned the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores. That retail ban did not apply to online sales, which surged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Times’ investigation found that in the years after the retail ban took effect, a network of resellers stepped in to replace pet stores, often posing as local breeders and masking where puppies were actually bred. Some buyers later discovered they had purchased dogs from sellers using fake names or disposable phone numbers after their pets became ill or died.

Times reporters analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs coming into California since 2019 by requesting certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.

The Times obtained the records by requesting the documents from every other state. In the days following the story’s publication, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the deceptive practices by purging the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but released them with significant redactions.

In one instance, the state redacted the name and address of a person with numerous shipments of puppies from Ohio. The Times obtained the same travel certificates without redactions from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. The address listed on the records is for a Home Depot in Milpitas. The phone number on some of those travel certificates belongs to Randy Kadee Vo.

The Times’ reporting last year found Vo’s name and various Bay Area addresses, including a warehouse, were listed as the destination for 1,900 dogs imported into California since 2019. At the time, he disputed that number but declined to say how many he had imported. People who bought puppies from Vo told The Times that they were told they were buying puppies that were locally bred.

Shortly after The Times questioned Vo about the imports, a different name, along with the Home Depot address, began appearing on health certificates with his phone number. Vo did not respond to a request for comment.

The Times identified hundreds of records detailing other sellers with names that appear to be fake or addresses that go to unaffiliated businesses, shopping centers and commercial mailbox offices.

While the new laws were championed by animal welfare groups, some have questioned how adequately the laws will be enforced by state officials — particularly when it comes to policing out-of-state facilities selling online and then shipping puppies directly California buyers.

“Enforcement will now fall on nonprofits like ours to monitor and report issues that we see, in hopes that the agencies act,” said Mindi Callison, head of the Iowa-based anti-puppy-mill nonprofit Bailing Out Benji.

Callison said lawmakers should next turn their focus to requiring California breeders to be licensed, similar to standards in Iowa, Missouri and other states. California does not have a statewide licensing program, instead relying on local jurisdictions for oversight. While some cities and counties require breeders to be licensed and inspected, little information is available online to help consumers vet them.

“There is a higher risk of dogs being kept in inhumane conditions in states where there are no regulations to follow and have no eyes on them,” Callison said.

Opponents of the legislation argued that California’s previous attempts to cut off the supply from puppy mills by banning pet store sales only fueled an unregulated marketplace — and warned banning brokers will do the same.

“Eliminating these brokers will not reduce demand for pets; it will simply force more Californians into unregulated, riskier marketplaces,” said Alyssa Miller-Hurley of the Pet Advocacy Network, which represents breeders, retailers and pet owners, in a letter opposing the legislation.

For consumers like Knowles, the lack of transparency when buying her puppy Ted has been long-lasting and costly. More than a year after Knowles took the puppy to her home in Long Beach, he developed stomach issues that got so bad he wound up in the emergency room. She also had doubts that her puppy was a purebred Coton De Tulear as advertised.

She said a pet DNA test confirmed those suspicions and connected her with other people whose dogs were purchased from the same seller. The test results said one of the dogs share the same amount of DNA as people do with their full siblings – and that they’re mutts.

“We call him the most expensive rescue dog we’ve ever had,” Knowles said of Ted, who is now on a restrictive diet. “Our group started to call our dogs ‘Fauxtons,’ since they weren’t Cotons.”

Knowles sued the seller, Tweed Fox of Carlsbad Cotons, over the test results showing Ted was not a purebred puppy, but said she lost.

“Really the core issue is … masquerading to be something you’re not,” she said.

Fox told The Times that he began sourcing from a Utah company during the Covid pandemic, when the demand for puppies spiked beyond the number he was able to breed at home.

He thought the Utah puppies were purebreds because they came with the proper registration paperwork, but said that “turned out not to be the case.” He said he did not mislead customers because he was in fact a home breeder, and only advertised the out-of-state puppies as Coton de Tulears, “which is what I thought I was purchasing.”

“You only can breed so many in a home,” he said. “I thought I was providing equal quality puppies at the time, and apparently, I wasn’t at that point, except for my own home bred.”

Fox said he has since moved to Dallas, where he breeds and sells Cotons. While the California broker law won’t impact him now that he’s left the state, he said he refuses to buy anyone else’s puppies for resale.

“I only sell my own,” he said. “I’m not in the business to cheat people out of anything.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law Thursday that will make it illegal to declaw a cat in California, a practice that lawmakers and animal advocates argued is outdated and inhumane.

Assembly Bill 867 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José) bars veterinarians from performing the procedure, which involves amputating the first bone in each of a cat’s toes or severing its tendons so that it can’t extend its claws. California law previously required the procedure to be performed by veterinarians, but will now limit it to cases of medical necessity.

“Many countries have already outlawed this inhumane practice,” said Lee, who called declawing a “barbaric” mutilation to make life more convenient for pet owners.

While most owners do not declaw their cats, the practice has been used by some to prevent the animal from scratching people, furniture or other pets. Various polling has found that roughly a quarter of cats are declawed, but it has fallen out of favor among veterinarians and pet owners in recent years. The nation’s largest veterinary provider, Mars Veterinary Health, said it does not support elective declawing.

“Feline scratching and nail sharpening are normal behaviors and the removal of nails has been shown to lead to chronic pain and, in some cases, to cause long-term behavioral issues,” the company said in a statement on its website.

The California Veterinary Medical Assn., which represents veterinarians, opposed the bill, saying it sets a dangerous precedent to limit the scope of one profession.

“When our veterinarians are telling us that they’re performing the procedure, it’s usually because the elderly patient is usually on chemotherapy, on a blood thinner … and they can’t risk being scratched,” Grant Miller, director of regulatory affairs at CVMA, said during a legislative hearing.

Miller said surveys of their members found 80% of veterinarians no longer declaw cats, evidence he argued shows they’ve adequately policed themselves. He said AB 867 limits instances that should be considered legitimate reasons for declawing.

“If the owner is coming in and saying we can’t keep our cat because it keeps scratching us, can you do something, we believe that that’s qualification to consider the procedure, but only after all other alternatives have been exhausted,” he added.

The bill includes an exemption for cats that need the procedure out of medical necessity, including to address a recurring infection or a condition that jeopardizes the animal’s health. But, it does not include procedures to make a cat easier to handle, to avoid scratching people or furniture or for any other cosmetic reason.

West Hollywood became the first jurisdiction in the country in 2003 to pass a ban on declawing cats. Other cities have since passed similar restrictions, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Burbank, Culver City, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, according to an analysis of the bill.

New York was the first state to ban declawing in 2019, while dozens of other countries have made the practice illegal.

Lee, the bill’s author, said his hope is that the number of cats declawed in California will shrink to zero.

“You can trim the nails just like our nails,” he said. “You can do many different things.”

The most extreme, he added, is declawing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will allow police oversight officials investigating misconduct to access confidential law enforcement personnel records, a change that watchdogs have argued will increase accountability for officers who break the rules.

Los Angeles County advocates and members of the county’s Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission pushed for months in support of AB 847. The legislation comes in response to what proponents have described as efforts by the sheriff’s departments in L.A. and other counties to stymie access to sensitive records.

When it takes effect on Jan. 1, the new law will “grant access to the confidential personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers … to civilian law enforcement oversight boards or commissions during investigations” into officers’ conduct, according to the bill’s legislative summary.

Hans Johnson, the chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission, said it’s a much-needed change.

“I’m pleased because this has been a long road,” he said in a phone call Monday night. “Tonight is a moment of vindication.”

The Sheriff’s Department wrote in a statement that “the passage of AB 847 provides clarity to a long-standing legal issue that has been the subject of contention between the Department and its Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) since its inception.” It added that the “Department will work with County Counsel, labor representatives, and the COC on the implementation of this new law.”

Some law enforcement unions and advocacy groups criticized the law.

Lt. Steve Johnson, president of the L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said in an email that his organization “fully understand[s] the intent to enhance civilian oversight,” but when “access to confidential records isn’t safeguarded with precision and responsibility, it opens the door to real dangers. Transparency must never come at the cost of personal safety or public trust.”

Newsom’s office did not immediately provide a comment Monday.

Johnson said the bill’s signing is an especially meaningful victory for the families of people such as Joseph Perez and Emmett Brock, who were beaten by L.A. County sheriff’s deputies in 2020 and 2023, respectively. He also cited the case of Andres Guardado, who was shot to death by deputies in 2023, “and others who were the subjects of efforts by our commission to get records disclosed to us under subpoena about sheriff deputies’ encounters and beatings.”

In a phone call Monday night, Vanessa Perez, Joseph’s mother, called the law’s signing a “big victory not just for Joseph, but for all families impacted by the Sheriff’s Department.”

Perez said she expects the new law will allow the Civilian Oversight Commission to review previously off-limits records about the deputies who beat her son and redacted portions of other documents.

She and other members of the general public will not be able to access the records, as the law requires “oversight boards to maintain the confidentiality of those records, and would authorize them to conduct closed sessions, as specified, to review confidential records,” according to its legislative summary.

Still, Perez is hopeful her son’s case will benefit from the additional disclosure now allowable under AB 847.

Robert Bonner, a former federal judge and former chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission who has said he was abruptly removed from that post earlier this year, praised the bill’s signing in an email Tuesday.

The law “will be essential to holding accountable those who use excessive force against members of the public,” Bonner wrote. “This is a big deal. This is a quantum leap forward for civilian oversight commissions.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will create new transparency measures for large AI companies, including public disclosure of security protocols and reports of critical safety incidents.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said Senate Bill 53 will create “commonsense guardrails” to ensure groundbreaking innovations don’t sacrifice safety and transparency amid the rapid growth of AI technologies. Newsom said the bill strikes the right balance of working with the artificial intellegence companies, while not “submitting to industry.”

“AI is the new frontier in innovation, and California is not only here for it – but stands strong as a national leader by enacting the first-in-the-national frontier AI safety legislation that builds public trust as this emerging technology rapidly evolves,” Newsom said in a statement.

The bill was introduced this year after Newsom vetoed a broader bill last year, which was also authored by Wiener. That bill, SB 1047, was supported by Elon Musk and prominent AI researchers, but opposed by Meta and OpenAI.

In his lengthy veto message last year, Newsom called SB 1047 “well-intentioned” but added that it was not the “best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” In punting the measure last year, Newsom announced that his administration would convene a working group of AI leaders and experts to develop more workable protections that became the basis for SB 53.

The new law will require companies to disclose their safety and security protocols and risk evaluations. It mandates reporting of critical incidents — such as cyberattacks or unsafe behavior by autonomous AI systems — to the state’s Office of Emergency Services.

Cal OES would begin publishing annual reports in 2027 that anonymize and aggregate critical safety incidents it receives. SB 53 also strengthens whistleblower protections for employees who report violations.

The Attorney General in California will be able to bring civil penalties of up to $1 million against companies who violate the new law.

“With a technology as transformative as AI, we have a responsibility to support that innovation while putting in place commonsense guardrails to understand and reduce risk,” Wiener said in a statement.

The bill was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association.

“This exhaustive approach compels developers to allocate significant time and resources toward preparing for hypothetical risks rather than addressing actual, demonstrable harms,” wrote the Chamber of Progress.

WASHINGTON — Debate over President Trump’s sweeping budget-and-policy package is over on Capitol Hill. Now the argument goes national.

From the Central Valley of California to Midwestern battlegrounds and suburban districts of the northeast, the new law already is shaping the 2026 midterm battle for control of the House of Representatives. The outcome will set the tone for Trump’s final two years in the Oval Office.

Democrats need a net gain of three House seats to break the GOP’s chokehold on Washington and reestablish a power center to counter Trump. There’s added pressure to flip the House because midterm Senate contests are concentrated in Republican-leaning states, making it harder for Democrats to reclaim that chamber.

As Republicans see it, they’ve now delivered broad tax cuts, an unprecedented investment in immigration enforcement and new restraints on social safety net programs. Democrats see a law that rolls back health insurance access and raises costs for middle-class Americans while cutting taxes mostly for the rich, curtailing green energy initiatives and restricting some workers’ organizing rights.

“It represents the broken promise they made to the American people,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who chairs the party’s House campaign arm. “We’re going to continue to hold Republicans accountable for this vote.”

Parties gear up for a fight

Whether voters see it that way will be determined on a district-by-district level, but the battle will be more intense in some places than others. Among the 435 House districts, only 69 contests were decided by less than 10 percentage points in the 2024 general election.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified 26 Democratic-held seats it must defend vigorously, along with 35 GOP-held seats it believes could be ripe to flip. Republicans’ campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, has listed 18 GOP incumbents as priorities, plus two districts opened by retirements.

There are a historically low number of so-called crossover districts: Only 13 Democrats represent districts that Trump carried in 2024, while just three Republicans serve districts that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried.

Both committees are busy recruiting challengers and open-seat candidates, and more retirements could come, so the competitive map will evolve. Still, there are clusters of districts guaranteed to influence the national result.

California, despite its clear lean to Democrats statewide, has at least nine House districts expected to be up for grabs: three in the Central Valley and six in Southern California. Six are held by Democrats, three by the GOP.

Pennsylvania features four districts that have been among the closest U.S. House races for several consecutive cycles. They include a suburban Philadelphia seat represented by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, one of just two House Republicans to vote against Trump’s bill and one of the three GOP lawmakers from a district Harris won. Fitzpatrick cited the Medicaid cuts.

Vice President JD Vance plans on Wednesday to be in Republican Rep. Robert Bresnahan’s northwest Pennsylvania district to tout the GOP package. Bresnahan’s seat is a top Democratic target.

Iowa and Wisconsin, meanwhile, feature four contiguous GOP-held districts in farm-heavy regions where voters could be swayed by fallout from Trump’s tariffs.

Democrats fight to define the GOP

Beyond bumper-sticker labels — Trump’s preferred “Big Beautiful Bill” versus Democrats’ “Big Ugly Bill” retort — the 900-page law is, in fact, an array of policies with varying effects.

Democrats hammer Medicaid and food assistance cuts, some timed to take full effect only after the 2026 midterms, along with Republicans’ refusal to extend tax credits to some people who obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

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

“Folks will die here in Louisiana and in other parts of the country,” House Minority Leader Jeffries warned last week during a town hall in Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s home state of Louisiana.

Jeffries singled out vulnerable Republicans such as California Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, who represents a heavily agricultural Central Valley district where more than half of the population is eligible for the joint state-federal insurance program. California allows immigrants with legal status and those who are undocumented to qualify for Medicaid, so not all Medicaid recipients are voters. But the program helps finance the overall healthcare system, including nursing homes and hospitals.

Republicans highlight the law’s tightened work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. They argue that it’s a popular provision that will strengthen the program.

“I voted for this bill because it does preserve the Medicaid program for its intended recipients — children, pregnant women, the disabled, and elderly,” Valadao said. “I know how important the program is for my constituents.”

Republicans hope voters see lower taxes

The law includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. It makes permanent existing rates and brackets approved during Trump’s first term. Republicans and their allies have hammered vulnerable Democrats for “raising costs” on American households by opposing the bill.

GOP campaign aides point to the popularity of individual provisions: boosting the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 (some families at lower income levels would not get the full credit), new deductions on tip and overtime income and auto loans; and a new deduction for older adults earning less than $75,000 a year.

“Everyone will have more take-home pay. They’ll have more jobs and opportunity,” Johnson said in a Fox News Sunday interview. “The economy will be doing better and we’ll be able to point to that as the obvious result of what we did.”

Democrats note that the biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s tax code are wealthy Americans and corporations. Pairing that with safety net cuts, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz concluded, “The cruelty is the point.”

Immigration, meanwhile, was Trump’s strongest issue in 2024. NRCC aides say that will continue with the new law’s investments in immigration enforcement. Democrats believe that the Trump administration has overplayed its hand with its push for mass deportation.

Playing the Trump card

The president is a titanic variable.

Democrats point to 2018, when they notched a 40-seat net gain in House seats to take control away from the GOP. This year, Democrats have enjoyed a double-digit swing in special elections around the country when compared with 2024 presidential results. Similar trends emerged in 2017 after Trump’s 2016 victory. Democrats say that reflects voter discontent with Trump once he’s actually in charge.

Republicans answer that Trump’s job approval remains higher at this point than in 2017. But the GOP’s effort is further complicated by ongoing realignments: Since Trump’s emergence, Democrats have gained affluent white voters — like those in suburban swing districts — while Trump has drawn more working-class voters across racial and ethnic groups. But Republicans face a stiffer challenge of replicating Trump’s coalition in a midterm election without him on the ballot.

Democrats, meanwhile, must corral voters who are not a threat to vote for Republicans but could stay home.

Jeffries said he’s determined not to let that happen: “We’re going to do everything we can until we end this national nightmare.”

Barrow, Cooper and Brook write for the Associated Press. Cooper reported from Phoenix and Brook reported from New Orleans. AP reporters Michael Blood in Los Angeles and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.

DES MOINES — Iowa became the first state to remove gender identity from its civil rights code under a law that took effect Tuesday, meaning transgender and nonbinary residents are no longer protected from discrimination in their job, housing and other aspects of life.

The law also explicitly defines female and male based on reproductive organs at birth and removes the ability for people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate.

An unprecedented take-back of legal rights after nearly two decades in Iowa code leaves transgender, nonbinary and potentially even intersex Iowans more vulnerable now than they were before. It’s a governing doctrine now widely adopted by President Trump and Republican-led states despite the mainstream medical view that sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum than as an either-or definition.

When Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Iowa’s new law, she said the state’s previous civil rights code “blurred the biological line between the sexes.”

“It’s common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it’s necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls,” she said in a video statement.

Also taking effect Tuesday are provisions in the state’s health and human services budget that say Medicaid recipients are no longer covered for gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy.

A national movement

Iowa’s state Capitol filled with protesters as the law went through the Republican-controlled Legislature and to Reynolds’ desk in just one week in February. Iowa Republicans said laws passed in recent years to restrict transgender students’ use of bathrooms and locker rooms, and their participation on sports teams, could not coexist with a civil rights code that includes gender identity protections.

About two dozen other states and the Trump administration have advanced restrictions on transgender people. Republicans say such laws and executive actions protect spaces for women, rejecting the idea that people can transition to another gender. Many face court challenges.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that whether a person is a man or woman is determined by biological characteristics at birth, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May found. But there’s less consensus on policies that target transgender and nonbinary people.

Transgender people say those kinds of policies deny their existence and capitalize on prejudice for political gain.

In a major setback for transgender rights nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors. The court’s conservative majority said it doesn’t violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.

Not every state includes gender identity in their civil rights code, but Iowa was the first to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.

Incidents of discrimination in Iowa, before and after July 1

Iowans will still have time to file a complaint with the state Office of Civil Rights about discrimination based on gender identity that occurred before the law took effect.

State law requires a complaint to be submitted within 300 days after the most recent incident of alleged discrimination. That means people have until April 27 to file a complaint about discrimination based on gender identity, according to Kristen Stiffler, the office’s executive director.

Sixty-five such complaints were filed and accepted for investigation from July 2023 through the end of June 2024, according to Stiffler. Forty-three were filed and accepted from July 1, 2024, through June 19 of this year.

Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, a Democrat and the state’s first openly transgender lawmaker, fears the law will lead to an increase in discrimination for transgender Iowans.

“Anytime someone has to check your ID and they see that the gender marker doesn’t match the appearance, then that opens up hostility, discrimination as possibilities,” Wichtendahl said, naming examples such as applying for a job, going through the airport, buying beer or getting pulled over in a traffic stop. “That instantly outs you. That instantly puts you on the spot.”

About half of U.S. states include gender identity in their civil rights code to protect against discrimination in housing and public places, such as stores or restaurants, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Some additional states do not explicitly protect against such discrimination, but it is included in legal interpretations of statutes.

Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ+ people are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. But Iowa’s Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity.

Changing Iowa birth certificates before the law took effect

The months between when the bill was signed into law and when it took effect gave transgender Iowans time to pursue amended birth certificates before that option was eliminated.

Keenan Crow, with LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Iowa, said the group has long co-sponsored legal clinics to assist with that process.

“The last one that we had was by far the biggest,” Crow said.

Iowa’s Department of Transportation still has a process by which people can change the gender designation on their license or identification card, but has proposed administrative rules to eliminate that option.

Wichtendahl also said she has talked to some families who are looking to move out of state as a result of the new law.

“It’s heartbreaking because this is people’s lives we’re talking about,” Wichtendahl added. “These are families that have trans loved ones and it’s keeping their loved ones away, it’s putting their loved ones into uncertain future, putting their health and safety at risk.”

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.