Newsom

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a pair of bills this week designed to help a San Diego stadium and development project led by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke sidestep environmental review hurdles.

Newsom signed Senate Bill 344 and Senate Bill 958, which were put forward by state Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa) to help the stadium project, known as Midway Rising. The project would replace the decades-old Pechanga Arena and include a new 16,000-seat facility, 4,254 homes, including up to 2,000 affordable units, and commercial and outdoor space. The site is south of Mission Bay.

Newsom cast the bills as part of a package to help speed up the construction of much-needed housing.

“Every Californian deserves a fair shot at a stable home — families shouldn’t have to wait years for housing to be approved and built in their communities,” he said in a written statement.

Senate Bill 344 deems Midway Rising in full compliance with the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act, known was CEQA.

The act, adopted in 1970, has been credited for protecting California’s natural resources and minimizing pollution. It also has been criticized for sometimes being weaponized by opponents of a project, including housing developments.

After the state Legislature’s vote last month, Weber Pierson said the project would provide “much-needed affordable housing, permanent jobs, community spaces, and health resources in a part of our city that is ready for investment.”

Former San Diego Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, a longtime critic of the proposal, called Senate Bill 344 “reckless and rushed” because it was introduced late in the session without public input. Saldaña said the site isn’t suitable for development because of sea-level rise that she said is causing street flooding in the area.

Senate Bill 958 states that a project’s increased building height, and any related noise, shadows, or impact on wildlife shall not be considered significant environmental impacts, if the project meets a host of conditions.

It would apply to any development in the state but was introduced to benefit Midway Rising, according to Weber Pierson.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was among those who voted against both bills.

The developers “don’t want to play by the rules, so they came here to Sacramento asking for a special exemption,” DeMaio said during a discussion on Senate Bill 958 last month.

“We’re talking about the coast. I think a big condo tower on the coast impeding the view is a significant environmental impact, and I think deep down in your heart of hearts, you know that,” DeMaio said.

State lawmakers routinely carve out environmental exemptions for proposed sports stadiums, sometimes in the closing days of the legislative session.

Former Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) led his colleagues in passing a bill in 2013 that helped the Sacramento Kings arena by limiting environmental lawsuits. The new arena for the Golden State Warriors basketball team in San Francisco also benefited from CEQA reforms passed by state lawmakers in 2011.

The San Diego City Council still needs to approve the project.

SACRAMENTO — Days after signing a package of bills to rebuff aspects of federal immigration enforcement in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills from Los Angeles lawmakers that targeted public employment for federal agents.

One of the bills, backed by Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), would have blocked agents and contractors who worked to enforce federal immigration laws from state and local jobs in California, including for law enforcement agencies. It was called the “Get the Feds Out” or “GTFO” Act.

Newsom said the bill goes “a step too far.”

“It is a mistake to discourage empathetic and qualified Americans from working in the federal government, or choosing to leave long-standing employment with the federal government because they find the current administration’s policies and tactics reprehensible,” the governor wrote in a veto letter to the Legislature made public on Wednesday.

The governor added that hiring for public employment already includes personal conduct evaluations. He emphasized the “horrific tactics” used by immigration agents during President Trump’s second term but said it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the administration and individual agents accountable.

Newsom signed a similar bill that prevents federal agents from becoming police in California if their federal badge was revoked for misconduct.

While he expressed disappointment in the veto, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), the author of Assembly Bill 1896, applauded Newsom for signing “a strong package of legislation that will protect Californians and stand up for our immigrant communities.”

“From the beginning, the GTFO Act was about a simple principle: We should never use public dollars to reward conduct that has caused fear, terror, and pain in our communities. I am proud to have stood alongside my brother, Speaker Rivas, in this fight and this fight is not over,” Gonzalez said in a statement to The Times.

A spokesperson for Rivas said while the proposal did not become law, “Californians know Trump’s immigration agenda is failing and doesn’t keep anyone safe. That’s why Assembly Democrats are leading the nation in holding ICE accountable. The Speaker thanks his colleagues for delivering real results this year.”

The outgoing governor also vetoed a proposal from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City), Assembly Bill 1537, that would have prevented sworn law enforcement officers from taking secondary employment or contract jobs for immigration enforcement.

Newsom took issue with the prospect of prohibiting “secondary employment law enforcement officers choose to do in their free time.”

“State and local peace officers already must abide by specific standards and rules, including ones that apply to their personal conduct,” Newsom wrote in the veto letter. “Any officers who violate those standards are held accountable through investigations that may culminate in their peace officer status being suspended or revoked entirely.”

Bryan, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the veto.

Earlier this week, Newsom signed 21 bills aimed at federal immigration enforcement, including bans on electric shock gloves and face coverings for law enforcement. Other laws impose a 25% tax on companies that operate private detention centers, along with additional oversight of the facilities.

“No tax will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make California safe again,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email. “While California sanctuary politicians continue to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto their streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make California safe again.”

California voters will decide whether to establish a $7.5-billion state scientific research arm — similar to the National Institutes of Health — after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that will put the proposal on the March 2028 ballot.

The new state fund would aim to blunt federal research cuts by the Trump administration and ensure state and private institutions — including the University of California and California State University — can continue to produce scientific breakthroughs.

If voters approve the measure, $7.5 billion in bonds would fund California scientific and medical research into diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s and ALS. Other research areas include reducing wildfire risk and fighting pandemics and climate change.

“This is a research and science bond that does the opposite of what Donald Trump is doing that will allow us to double down on what makes this state great — what makes America great,” Newsom said Wednesday during a bill signing atop the Golden Gate Bridge. “We are the tentpole of the U.S. economy because we invest in the future so that we can all do well there.”

The legislation to establish the bond measure, state Senate Bill 895, was authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who in a statement called it a “bold step to protect science, improve lives, and continue California’s global leadership on innovation for many years to come.”

The bill was sponsored by the Union of American Physicians and the University of California, as well as the United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 60,000 UC academic workers.

The bond measure represents a pullback from what Wiener and supporters first proposed.

Originally conceived as a $23-billion bond measure that the Legislature would approve to go before voters in November, it was whittled down to $12 billion. But lawmakers then did not approve it in time for the November ballot.

Wiener said legislative leaders and the governor’s office then worked out a compromise, deciding on a $7.5-billion bond measure for 2028.

The measure also calls for the new state fund to establish regulations that would allow it to recoup part of its investments while not damaging innovation.

“This is a major achievement, made possible by an extraordinary coalition of people who understand the importance of investing in scientific research,” UC President James B. Milliken said in a statement.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill that would give a financial boost to California’s struggling newsrooms.

Assembly Bill 2222 will create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ. It passed through both houses. It marks an innovative yet controversial attempt to slow the decline of local journalism.

The bill, called the Community Newsroom Employment and Workforce Sustainability Act, works by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions will be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist head counts.

Before signing the bill Wednesday morning, Newsom spoke about what he called the “assault on the free press and the First Amendment..coming from Washington D.C. and Donald Trump.”

“It’s journalists that need to report those stories and local journalists that need to uncover and sort of peel back the facade if democracy is going to survive, let alone thrive,” Newsom said.

The bill was supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member and a wide range of other community news boosters. Backers said it could be a lifeline to local news organizations, many of which have struggled to maintain staffing levels over the past two decades.

California has lost more than 12,000 of its local journalists since 2002, according to nonprofit advocacy group Rebuild Local News. And almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, according to an annual report on the state of local news put out by Northwestern University’s Medill journalism school.

To pay for the credits, the bill would amend California’s tax code to align with a little-discussed component of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that expanded taxes on some companies by eliminating a deduction for executive salaries of over $1 million annually.

It is common practice for the state to consider aligning its tax code with the federal structure to make filing taxes easier and administering them more cheaply. But California has not yet sought to adopt this federal tax change, a move which would increase tax revenues to the state.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill because it raises taxes on employers that they argue already face billions of dollars in new taxes.

They contend that the higher costs will be passed along to consumers.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for not including a cap on the tax credits, thus creating “unlimited fiscal liability to the state,” and argued the bill mainly subsidizes existing activity rather than encouraging the creation of new jobs.

While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Newsom acknowledged some of the concerns that have been raised about those who will receive benefits from the bill’s funds, specifically hedge funds and billionaire owners and outlets who he says spread propaganda.

“It does subsidize those that don’t need to be subsidized,” he said. “We have hedge funds in this space. We have billionaires in this space. We have people that are profiteering in this space by gutting the newsrooms and extracting value out of the space that also are the beneficiaries.”

Newsom said he chose not to veto the bill because he believes its benefits outweigh the liabilities. He added that he hopes the legislature and next governor can work to narrow down who benefits most from the legislation.

“We should not be subsidizing hedge funds,” he said. “We should be focused on where the need is the greatest, in my humble opinion, and I do think when you have no cap, the limitlessness of this…to some of the most well-heeled organizations, where now they simply could pull from this bill the benefits that they didn’t even ask for or need, is self-evident.”

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill, said the governor’s signature shows California’s commitment to the free press at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and misinformation is rampant.

“Local journalism is the backbone of an informed democracy, and today California made clear that the people doing this essential work are worth investing in,” Ward said in a statement. “This historic investment will help keep reporters in our communities, strengthen nonprofit and public media, and ensure Californians continue to have access to trusted, fact-based local news.”

In signing the bill, Newsom emphasized the role of journalism in uncovering scandal and wrongdoing.

“The L.A. Times to their credit did a big investigative piece on Bell, and people getting paid a million dollars in some cases, local government officials, a million damn dollars a year. No one would have known had it not been for local journalism. How many more Bells are out there, not just in this state, but all across the country?”

The fraught relationship between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris is the stuff of reality TV.

With their Hollywood looks and unbridled ambition, the two San Francisco-spawned Democrats have spent decades in tacit competition, ascending to the heights of California politics while still managing to avoid direct confrontation.

That could change in 2028, should Newsom and Harris jump their parallel tracks and face each other — and possibly dozens of other candidates — in a bid for their party’s presidential nomination.

California’s departing governor, who has spent the better part of his second and final term auditioning for the White House, recently said he wouldn’t run if Harris chooses to do so. “Mutual assured destruction,” Newsom called a he-she contest between the two Left Coast rivals, and a “waste of everyone’s time.”

Some took that disavowal not as deference but jujitsu, or a form of political psy-ops directed at the governor’s longtime frenemy.

On the one hand …

In the same interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Newsom allowed as how the case against Harris — she’s a two-time loser at the presidential level and has had her shot — is “a pretty good one, actually.”

“That’s objectively true,” Newsom added, driving the knife a little deeper.

But rather than forcing Harris’ hand, Newsom’s professed willingness to stand aside may have simply invited the former vice president to take her sweet time deciding whether or not to run, waiting until the Democratic contest is well underway.

And leaving Newsom in an odd sort of limbo.

The former vice president, lips largely sealed, has done and said just enough to keep the door open to a 2028 run, without firmly committing to the contest. There’s a good chance that Harris — always careful, ever deliberate — doesn’t know what she’ll do. Or, at least, isn’t 100% certain.

She can afford to wait.

Time is on her side

After four years in the White House and her abbreviated 2024 White House bid, Harris has universal name recognition, a nationwide fundraising base and continued support among a significant number of Black women, who just happen to form the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Harris won’t freeze the presidential campaign the way she did the race for California governor. That contest was stalled and the field incomplete until Harris announced, after months of consideration, she’d take a pass. That’s not to say, by any stretch, Harris is the favorite to win the presidential nomination. The criticism Newsom expressed — just a fella jawing away, as he and Tapper cast their fly rods — is a view that is widely held among Democrats.

But the 2028 contest, which unofficially starts the instant the final polls close Nov. 3 — won’t be firmly fixed until it’s clear whether Harris is in or out.

Newsom doesn’t have that luxury of biding time, especially when so many other Democrats are poised to enter the race.

The governor has his own formidable national fundraising base — thanks in good part to his online trolling and anti-Trump hijinks — and a not-small degree of name recognition across the country. But Newsom has yet to fully engage in the see me, feel me aspect of presidential campaigning, which typically requires a candidate’s persistent physical presence and is particularly important in the earliest-voting states.

So his only option is to campaign full bore once he leaves the governor’s office in January, as though he’s running without hesitation or qualification. Then, if Harris jumps into the contest, Newsom can sulk his way back to California, or break his pledge and run against her after saying he wouldn’t.

That, as Newsom suggested to Tapper, would be a gift to the rest of the Democratic field.

Not too long ago, Newsom and Harris were carping over whether he was sufficiently supportive of her hurried-up 2024 presidential bid.

In her account of the campaign, Harris said she reached out to the governor shortly after President Biden announced he was standing aside in favor of his vice president. When she called, Harris wrote, Newsom texted that he was out hiking and would call her back. But, she said, he never did.

Much backing and forthing ensued — Newsom pointing out he didn’t hesitate to endorse Harris once he returned to civilization — with both insisting all the while things are fine between them, really.

Now the two are once more entwined, their fates tied up in mutual ambition and a shared hunger for the White House.

Was Newsom’s CNN interview a feint? Was he just faking respect for Harris as a way to keep in the good graces of Black women voters, all the while hoping against hope she won’t run — and planning to reverse himself if she does?

Will Harris put off her decision, knowing that every day and month that passes deepens the suspense and leaves Newsom twisting?

Will the two finally collide head-on, settling once and for all their intense, if unspoken, competition?

So much drama!

Stay tuned. There’s a reality TV show in there somewhere.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: With bans and taunts, Trump escalates his assault on the media
The deep dive: No electric shock gloves, face coverings: Newsom pushes back on Trump’s ‘Orwellian’ immigration agenda
The L.A. Times Special: War games and draft lawsuits: Democrats work to Trump-proof November election
Question for you: What would you want to ask of California’s two gubernatorial candidates? Fill out our survey!

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a raft of bills designed to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in California, including bans on electric shock gloves and a revamped ban on law enforcement face coverings after a previous law was blocked by a federal judge.

The more than 20 bills approved by the governor Tuesday were crafted to thwart tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including the use of facial coverings and making arrests outside immigration hearings. Other bills are meant to boost state oversight of federal detention centers in the state.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families. California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state,” Newsom said in a statement. “This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities. We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable.”

The governor signed legislation to ban the use of electric shock gloves by any law enforcement in the state, which was hastily written and passed after reports that the Department of Homeland Security planned to spend $20 million to outfit agents with the gloves.

One bill, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for residents to sue federal agents for alleged civil rights violations, such as racial profiling, unlawful searches or interfering with the right to free speech.

Its author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said the law already applies to state and local officials and that his bill, SB 747, closes a loophole that exempts federal officials.

Newsom signed another bill by Wiener that bans ICE agents and other law enforcement from wearing face coverings or masks while on duty. After a federal judge blocked his prior bill, which applied to federal agents but not state police, Wiener passed legislation that applies to both.

Many of the bills Newsom signed Tuesday aim to improve state oversight at immigration detention centers within the state and slowroll the development of new facilities.

Among them is AB 1801, which requires municipalities to wait at least 180 days and hold public hearings before approving any plans to build or convert facilities into immigration detention centers.

Newsom signed a 25% tax on companies that operate immigration detention centers in the state. Most of the detention centers in California are run by the private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic, under contracts with the federal government. AB 1633 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) would raise an estimated $177 million, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.

Another new law requires local agencies to disclose 911 calls made from immigration detention centers. It stems from a CalMatters investigation which found alleged sexual assaults at Otay Mesa, a detention center in San Diego, were being investigated by CoreCivic, the company that operates the facility, rather than local law enforcement.

“Our communities deserve safety, and no person in detention should have to resort to throwing notes over the walls of a detention facility to have their needs met and their voice heard,” Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Legislative Latino Caucus and the bill’s author, said in a statement after lawmakers passed her legislation.

Activists and Democratic lawmakers have raised alarms about the rising number of in-custody deaths and poor conditions inside ICE detention facilities. The federal government has reported 57 in-custody deaths during Trump’s second term, up from the 26 deaths reported during the previous four years.

During reviews of detention centers around the state last year, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office found substandard conditions including overcrowding, delays in medical care and poor quality food and drinking water. At one center, detainees were not given clothing warm enough to protect against extremely low temperatures in the facility, Justice Department staff reported.

Newsom signed legislation indefinitely extending the attorney general’s duty to review private detention centers, which had been set to expire next year.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill that prohibits third-party brokers from advertising, selling or transferring tee-time reservations at publicly owned golf courses without the written consent of the course operator.

The state legislation is a response to a network of brokers that had sprouted up around Los Angeles municipal golf course tee times.

These brokers, many of whom were in the Korean community, would gobble up tee times, then advertise them on social media, particularly the Korean app KakaoTalk. They charged up to $40 as a booking fee.

Getting tee-time reservations at L.A. municipal golf courses had long been difficult. But after golf influencer Dave Fink revealed evidence of the broker network to his viewers, the problem became public.

“This is an issue that affects everybody who pays taxes in the city, and anybody who plays golf as well, so I just felt like it was my duty to say something,” Fink said in an interview with The Times in March 2024.

After Fink’s videos went viral, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks announced an investigation into the practice.

The state has more than 200 municipally owned golf courses, according to Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill.

“Public golf courses belong to the public, and residents shouldn’t have to compete with brokers buying up tee times just to turn around and sell them at inflated prices,” he said in a statement Sunday.

The legislation “puts an end,” he said, “to this unfair practice and helps ensure local residents, seniors, students and families can continue accessing the public courses their communities support.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed legislation that bars public officials from issuing meme coins and restricts cryptocurrency platforms from offering certain tokens linked to politicians to California residents.

Assembly Bill 2409, authored by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, is aimed at preventing

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of bills Saturday that increases protections for LGBTQ people in California, saying the legislation was needed because of recent moves by the Trump administration that threaten that support.

One of the six bills would provide housing, employment and other help to service members discharged from the U.S. military as a result of President Donald Trump’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving.

“I’m grateful to Governor Newsom for signing this legislation and proud that California is standing with the veterans who were unjustly forced out of uniform,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), the author of Assembly Bill 1775.

Other bills Newsom signed create stronger privacy protections by limiting the sharing of sexual orientation and gender identity, while also requiring healthcare providers to notify the California Attorney General when they receive a subpoena regarding healthcare activities the state protects.

Another new law will enhance access to drugs known as PrEP and PEP, which are aimed at preventing HIV.

“The Trump administration has launched an all-out assault on the LGBTQ community, using medical records to target U.S. servicemembers and civilians alike, hurting countless people and betraying hard-won trust,” Newsom’s office said in a press release. “California will not stand for it.”

The bills Newsom signed Saturday were priority bills of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

Since taking office in 2019, Newsom has signed dozens of bills adding protections for LGBTQ people.

The governor’s office noted that this year’s state budget included $66 million to help people get access to gender-affirming care and abortion.

“I’m proud of the work our Caucus has done to advance legislation that meets the real needs of our community, and I thank Governor Newsom for signing these important bills,” said state Senator Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside), who is chair-elect of the LGBTQ Caucus.

“This progress reflects what we can accomplish when we work together to build a California where LGBTQ+ people and their families can live with greater safety, opportunity, and dignity,” Cervantes said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a package of bills that he says are intended to build on California’s record of protecting reproductive rights and expanding access to care.

One of the measures, sponsored by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani (D-San Francisco), increases access to medication abortion by making it available on community college campuses.

Another bill, sponsored by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), focuses on military veterans, aiming to address a gap in their healthcare after the Trump administration largely banned the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs from providing abortion services. The measure enables California veterans to access abortion and contraception services through a state program.

“Freedom means being able to make deeply personal decisions without elected officials inserting themselves in pursuit of a political agenda,” Newsom said. “California is protecting that freedom and showing the nation, particularly under increasingly severe attacks by the Trump administration, what is possible when we put patients and people first — not politics.”

The governor announced the signing of the bills on Sunday, saying they will strengthen reproductive healthcare in the state.

One of the bills, introduced by Stefani, expands the ability of certified nurse-midwives to provide care for pregnant and postpartum patients by specifying that supervision by a physician is not required when providing certain services.

The legislation also included a bill sponsored by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D-San Fernando) that aims to expand access to breast pumps and services for nursing mothers through Medi-Cal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill aimed at deprioritizing commercial logging in a unique state forest system, arguing the measure would jeopardize the ability to test best management practices.

At issue are the state’s 14 demonstration forests — managed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire — which are billed as “living laboratories” for forest management practices. Under existing law, they’re directed to produce as much timber as can be sustained over time, while considering factors like recreation and wildlife.

Assembly Bill 2494 would have eliminated what’s often characterized as a logging mandate in favor of prioritizing values such as carbon storage, wildfire resilience and biodiversity conservation. It also would have directed state officials to seek agreements with Native American tribes to integrate their traditional knowledge into managing the land.

In Newsom’s veto message, he said the forests “produce cutting-edge strategies that inform forest management on public and private lands across California,” which is key for fighting climate change and improving wildfire resilience.

“By narrowing the management of these forests to a limited set of public benefits, this bill risks the state’s ability to fully demonstrate the best science-based practices,” he wrote Friday. “At a time when California is racing to keep pace with a rapidly changing climate, we cannot afford to lose the flexibility needed to safeguard our forests for future generations.”

The move deals a blow to a grassroots coalition that included tribes, environmentalists and mountain bikers, some of whom have fought for decades to rein in logging at Jackson Demonstration State Forest in Mendocino County. In recent years, activists have staged protests and tree sits, harkening back to the “timber wars” of the 1980s and ‘90s.

The bill grew in part out of discussions with constituents who wanted to see the forest run differently, according to its author, Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa).

Rogers, who represents the North Coast, called Newsom’s veto message “nonsensical” and said it didn’t reflect the language of the bill.

“Current law says that the guiding principle for the management of the forests is maximum sustained production of high-quality wood products,” he told The Times. “That’s much more narrow as a directive on how to manage those lands than by expanding it to include biodiversity, carbon sequestration, research, recreation.”

Polly Girvin, who pushed for changes at Jackson along with her late partner and tribal leader Priscilla Hunter, said the fight will continue under California’s next governor. She wants to see Native Americans take an even stronger leadership role going forward, pointing to rights afforded to them by state law.

“Our local tribal voice is not pro-logging; it’s really to keep the world in balance, to honor the cries of the ancestors, to try to save the trees from commercial logging,” said Girvin, a retired attorney focused on Native American law.

Leaders in Mendocino and Humboldt counties backed the measure. Humboldt County Supervisor Steve Madrone saw it as codifying practices that could help rebuild trust in the community, which he said Cal Fire had lost.

“It was not going to restrict it from being able to do all kinds of things,” he said. “Frankly, it was going to be better than just letting them kind of focus on board feet.”

Cal Fire’s Kevin Conway, who oversees the state’s demonstration forests, said he could not comment on the measure.

The bill was opposed by the Rural County Representatives of California, an advocacy group representing 40 counties, along with many in the timber and agriculture industries.

Staci Heaton, senior policy advocate for RCRC, echoed Newsom’s concerns that the legislation would have limited what could be done in the forests to achieve resilience, such as the ability to harvest trees of different sizes and types. She said they also had concerns about the funding structure and what she described as vague definitions in the bill, which could invite litigation.

“We appreciate the governor signaling that we’re going to continue to use sound forest management in California,” Heaton said.

Asked about the disagreement among some counties, she said there tends to be “more of a split in what people think good forest management looks like” when it comes to coastal redwood forests.

“We maintain that a lot of our forests really aren’t healthy in their current condition, and there’s too many straws in the ground, and there does need to be, in some areas, more aggressive management,” she said.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s deal to allow the $111-billion Paramount-Warner Bros. merger to proceed was struck amid political pressure from state leaders and concern from some Democratic attorneys general that concessions from the studio fell short, according to multiple sources familiar with the negotiations.

As recently as this weekend, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and Connecticut Atty. Gen. William Tong — who had signed on to the lawsuit — had said they needed more concessions, according to three knowledgeable sources close to the negotiations.

In an interview with The Times on Tuesday, Tong said Bonta was “doing his very best in very difficult circumstances” to steer the coalition to a favorable outcome, but amid “a lot of political pressure” from others in California that “did not help.”

“I’m not going to sugarcoat it. This is ultimately not what I wanted,” Tong said.

Tong said one of his chief concerns — shared by others in the 12-member coalition of states — was with the merger’s consolidation of CNN and CBS News under Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison, the billionaire media mogul close to President Trump and son of Oracle co-founder and Republican mega-donor Larry Ellison.

Tong raised similar concerns after the announcement of the deal, when he said publicly that his state had “led the fight to the bitter end to protect the editorial independence of CNN and CBS News,” and that he was “deeply disappointed that we could not do more.”

Paramount declined to comment.

With its economy and global reputation heavily intertwined with Hollywood’s allure and ability to survive, California had more at stake in the negotiations.

In exchange for the states lifting their antitrust challenge, Bonta said Monday that the studio had agreed to either produce 30 or more films annually for the first five years of the combined company or divest the Miramax film studio; separately negotiate basic channel agreements for Paramount and Warner Bros. or divest from major cable channels; spend $300 million more each year on film production in the U.S.; maintain its Melrose Avenue and Burbank lots; and establish a board to ensure editorial independence at CNN and CBS News, which also fall under the merger.

Bonta said the deal has “real teeth,” and that he “will hold Paramount accountable” moving forward.

Since then, however, other Democrats have voiced less confidence, and some in the coalition believed they could have held out for better terms as the midterm elections approached.

Some also questioned whether Bonta and other California leaders were swayed by Ellison’s threat to move Paramount out of the state.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Xavier Becerra — the front-runner in the race to succeed Newsom as governor — had all urged Bonta to settle the case. In his initial statement on the deal, Ellison thanked the Democratic attorneys general for working through their differences, but also thanked Newsom for “his support throughout this process.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, said Bonta and the other state attorneys general “took on one of the most powerful media companies in the world, a company backed by the full weight of the White House,” and that Paramount had answered “with what amounted to extortion” by threatening to withdraw from California if the deal was blocked.

Booker claimed the merger remains illegal and questioned the independence of any editorial board picked by and reporting to Ellison — saying it would not stop him from making “sweeping changes at CNN” to please Trump.

“This is what happens when federal enforcers abandon their posts. States are left to carry the fight alone, and even the strongest state enforcers cannot outlast a company willing to say anything and spend anything,” Booker said. “That is not justice. That is a price tag.”

Dissent before the deal

The pace of the negotiations, which had been on-again, off-again for weeks, quickened last week, and Bonta’s office had reached a deal with Paramount by Friday, sources said.

But there was a last-minute hiccup: Some members of the coalition felt the deal fell considerably short of what they had been seeking.

Among other things, James was dismayed that the Writers Guild of America — which had separately sued to block the deal — hadn’t been brought into the negotiations. She pushed to include the WGA and to bolster Paramount’s commitment to the WGA’s health and pension fund.

Over the weekend, Paramount agreed to increase its health fund commitment from $10 million to $17.5 million. Still, the WGA had largely been shut out of the process, and said Monday that it continued to “believe the merger will cause damage to writers and the industry at large.”

One source familiar with the negotiations said the states had four separate votes against settling on Sunday, but the resistance eventually crumbled with word that the WGA was backing out of the fight. Two sources familiar with the matter said some in the coalition were caught off guard by the speed with which Bonta’s “tone” changed and the deal was reached. Some had felt Paramount may be more inclined to grant concessions once it had to start increasing its payout to Warner Bros. investors starting Oct. 1.

On Tuesday, Bonta told The Times that he would not comment on “what specifics led up to” the deal, except to note that all 12 state attorneys general in the coalition signed on to it.

“It was unanimous, and I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

Bonta said there was certainly “a lot of interest” in the case from other elected officials, some of whom made their positions clear, but that “none of it had any influence” on him.

“I need to look at the law and the facts,” he said. “If we’re able to get a solution to our antitrust concerns, we take it.”

Bonta said he could not comment on what effect Ellison’s threats to move Paramount out of California might have had on his decision and that his “focus was on the antitrust concerns” — which he believes the deal substantially addresses.

A source close to the governor’s office said Newsom communicated frequently with Bonta and Ellison, acted as an unofficial mediator and urged them to reach a resolution, but did not try to control the terms of the deal and respects Bonta’s role as the state’s independently elected law enforcement leader. Newsom appointed Bonta as California’s attorney general in 2021 after Becerra, who was serving in that post, accepted a position in President Biden’s cabinet. California voters elected Bonta as attorney general in 2022.

The source said Newsom wanted the two sides to settle the case because he was concerned that the state could face protracted litigation, ultimately lose in court and end up with nothing. Paramount leaving California for Nashville — a destination floated by Ellison — also would have been an economic blow to the state.

Newsom has tried to keep businesses headquartered in the state due to the economic and budgetary impacts of losing companies and their wealthy chief executives to other places, and recently signed legislation to create a new post-production tax credit for studios. Last year, he doubled the state’s existing film and television tax credit in an effort to support the industry.

Mixed reaction

Newsom and many of Bonta’s fellow attorneys general echoed his claims of victory.

James said the deal “will allow the film and television industry to continue to thrive with more movies produced in America and $1.5 billion of new investment in film production.” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said it “keeps real competition in place, ensures that productions will continue, and ensures journalistic independence.” Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes said it would protect businesses, including local movie theaters. Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser said it would protect “moviegoers and producers.”

In a statement, Newsom thanked Bonta for his work to reach the deal, which he called “a practical path forward” that “protects California jobs while putting a safeguard in place to help preserve editorial independence for two of America’s most important news organizations.”

Still, it was clear that others viewed the deal as a partial win at best.

New Mexico Atty. Gen. Raúl Torrez called it a “great first step.” Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Andrea Joy Campbell said the states were “unable to secure every protection we fought for,” and that she “would have liked to see more.” Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison stressed that the deal should not be seen as an endorsement of the merger.

“I believe mergers like this are never done with the best interests of consumers, workers and small businesses in mind and are instead designed to help a select few get richer,” he said.

Some outsiders were even more forthright with their skepticism. Rich Greenfield, a longtime media analyst, called the deal a “slam dunk win” for Paramount because it didn’t require the company to sell off any assets. Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Action group, said the “so-called independence board” to oversee CNN and CBS News “appears to be sorely lacking in independence.”

Bonta said the deal does set out structural divestment remedies if Paramount does not follow its other terms — including by requiring it to sell off Miramax if it doesn’t produce enough films, and to sell off BET, VH1, Comedy Central and other channels if it doesn’t negotiate cable agreements for Paramount and Warner Bros. separately.

He said that if the state had held out and gone to trial on its antitrust arguments, it would not have been able to negotiate any journalistic oversight for CNN and CBS, whereas the “creativity and flexibility of settlement” allowed them to establish the oversight panel.

“Does that transform our information ecosystem broadly, to make sure that there’s no more misinformation or disinformation? No. Does it make sure that all broadcast news and cable channel news organizations are only telling fair, fact-based, independent, objective news? No. Does it even ensure that happens every single time at CBS News or CNN? No,” Bonta said. “Does it improve the likelihood, vastly, significantly, that that outcome will occur? It does.”

SACRAMENTO — California’s growing data center industry will have more oversight after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed seven bills to regulate the industry’s electricity costs and track water consumption.

The new laws come amid growing public concerns about environmental and economic impacts of the massive facilities, and are aimed at protecting consumers from growing electricity costs and tracking the centers’ immense energy and water consumption.

Newsom on Monday criticized President Trump for dismissing calls to curtail or regulate the facilities and heralding them as “money machines,” even as states and communities across the nation take action to ban or regulate the centers.

“While the Trump administration moves toward deregulation, communities are left to deal with the consequences — higher electricity demand, grid constraints, water use, and pollution,” Newsom said in a written statement Monday. “With these laws, we are ensuring that Californians remain in the driver’s seat — and that those profiting from data centers aren’t doing so at our expense.”

Senate Bill 886 by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) and Assembly Bill 2383 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) establish special rules for data centers’ electrical use. The law orders California Public Utilities Commission to create special requirements and rates for data centers’ use of electricity, including the costs for new power and for infrastructure upgrades.

Scores of other states have already passed similar legislation, according to utility groups.

Two bills by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) will require oversight of data center water consumption. One measure will require data center operators, when applying for a business license or permit, to disclose an estimate of their water use and the expected source of water. Another will bar cities and counties from approving a new or expanded data center unless the developer submits a water assessment and a water scarcity plan, and will require developers to cover the cost of any water system upgrade that is necessary.

Newsom vetoed a similar Papan bill last year that would have required new data centers to disclose their expected water use. The governor said he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” on “this critically important digital infrastructure” without understanding the full impact on the businesses.

But over the past year, a wave of data center pushback has swept the nation, including California, where dozens of cities and counties have proposed or adopted moratoriums on the facilities. While California lawmakers have hesitated to pursue outright moratoriums and bans that the public is calling for, the political tide has nevertheless turned against the facilities.

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding because of the rise of artificial intelligence, or AI. The centers help power everything from streaming services to videoconferencing calls.

Data centers in California are typically smaller than the mammoth, 500+-megawatt AI facilities making headlines in other parts of the country. Electricity costs and state regulations on gas-powered generators limit the vast majority of them to under 100 megawatts.

But as proposals increase in number, opposition has been fierce and growing. A Public Policy Institute of California poll from July showed that 73% of residents oppose the construction of data centers in their communities.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation to increase security for the state’s voting systems and protect Californians’ ability to cast ballots in an effort to guard against potential interference in the Nov. 3 election, including by the Trump administration.

Newsom pointed to the Trump administration’s recent effort to restrict mail-in voting through the U.S. Postal Service, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the presence of federal monitors at California polls last year as evidence that Trump “will continue his efforts to interfere with the November election.”

“Donald Trump won’t stop until he can exert dictatorial control over your free vote and disenfranchise millions of people this November. California will stop him at every opportunity,” Newsom said in a statement.”We have no bigger task than fighting to protect the right to vote from interference and meddling — the future of democracy is on the line. These bills today build upon the wall California has built to safeguard our electoral process.”

The governor signed the package of bills at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo, where a year earlier federal agents gathered outside a political rally he was hosting. Then Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, who had been leading the immigration operations in California, was among those outside the event, joined by agents in helmets, camouflage, masks and holding guns. Newsom described their presence as political intimidation.

One bill Newsom signed Saturday cites efforts to “weaponize law enforcement authority for political purposes,” including Republican “Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of ballots in Riverside County,” and the election monitors sent by the U.S. Justice Department to polling sites in five counties during a 2025 special election on redistricting.

Such moves “have given rise to unprecedented concerns about law enforcement interference” in elections and “[demonstrate] that these threats are not merely hypothetical,” the bill by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) reads.

The law, Senate Bill 884, which takes effect immediately, requires counties to open ballot drop-off locations 30 days before an election — two days earlier than usual — and allows counties to ban electioneering, or trying to influence voters’ decisions, within up to 200 feet of polling sites. It also bans police from making arrests near voting locations except for crimes against people, property, or disrupting the voting process.

Bianco, a GOP candidate for governor who placed fourth in the primary, drew swift condemnation and legal challenges this spring after he ordered deputies to seize more than 650,000 ballots from the Riverside County elections office. Voting rights groups and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta challenged the move, which is being decided by the California Supreme Court.

Bianco carted off truckloads of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in February after securing a warrant based on claims that the office allowed fraudulent votes in the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts under Proposition 50 in 2025.

Earlier this year, Newsom signed a bill preventing local and federal law enforcement agencies from taking ballots without a warrant.

On Saturday the Democratic governor signed a bill making it a felony to seize or order the seizure of ballots, election records or voting machines. Future seizures could be punishable by up to four years in prison.

“The federal administration and those seeking to spread lies about our democracy continue to call for interference in elections in ways we have never seen before in this country,” Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), the bill’s author and a former longtime county elections chief, said last month. “AB 282 helps ensure that every lawfully cast vote can be counted, and that the will of the voters of every political party will be respected.”

Republican lawmakers argued in previous hearings that the bill is unnecessary because it is already a crime to steal ballots.

Another bill, Senate Bill 259, makes it a crime to interfere with a mail ballot on the way to or from a voter or order the seizure of ballots that are in transit to a local elections office.

Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1664, which requires elections officials to immediately notify the attorney general and secretary of state immediately upon learning of any warrants, subpoenas or law enforcement investigations involving election records or voting equipment.

Newsom also signed bills to boost protections under the California Voting Rights Act, including an explicit ban on voter suppression and expanded access to election materials in languages other than English.

The governor also signed legislation to require more transparency from social media influencers who are paid by political campaigns. The measure, Assembly Bill 1130, came in the wake of a controversy in the June primary election when social media influencers took on a more visible role in the campaigns.

Candidates including Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer paid thousands of dollars to influencers who posted videos endorsing Steyer or talking about him in a positive light. These videos did not always disclose that influencers were paid by a candidate’s campaign.

In another push to revitalize California’s film and TV industry, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed the state’s first standalone post-production tax incentive.

The new incentive is aimed at bringing back jobs for the industry’s editors, sound mixers, composers and visual effects artists. It will allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses related specifically to post-production work done in California, and unlike the state’s existing film and TV credit, it doesn’t require productions to shoot here.

“This legislation protects the extraordinary people who make this industry possible and makes it unmistakably clear: California is still the future of film and television,” said Gov. Newsom in a statement. “We have the talent. We have the infrastructure.”

The bill, AB 2319, was authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) and introduced earlier this year. It cleared the state Senate 33 to 5 on Aug. 30, and the Assembly approved the final version 72 to 2 the same day. Schultz originally sought $100 million for the program. It is expected to start in January with $10 million, according to the Assemblymember Schulz’s office.

“It’s a historic moment for California’s post-production community. But it’s also just the beginning of what we really need to do to to fight for our industry,” said Marielle Abaunza, president of the California Post Alliance, a group advocating for the bill. She said the group is readying its strategy to get more funding for the program next year.

As Hollywood productions continue chase tax credits to other states and countries, much of the post-production work is going with them. California’s share of U.S. post-production employment has fallen from 53% to 42% over the last 13 years, according to CVL Economics, an economic consulting firm tied to California Post Alliance. The state had about 12,000 post-production jobs last year, per CVL Economics.

Ben Urquhart, 51, spent 18 years as a post-production executive at NBCUniversal. The Culver City resident hasn’t been able to find work in the two and a half years since he was laid off.

“It’s grim and it’s hard. There are jobs, but we have a large amount of extremely qualified people competing for every level of job,” Urquhart said. “When I was a kid, I was a [production assistant] in the 90s, and you could get a job within a couple of weeks. But when I got laid off a couple of years ago, I realized that is certainly not the case at all anymore. It’s been a large-scale transformation.”

Urquhart said the new incentive would help California compete with jurisdictions that already offer these credits and “level the playing field.”

Last year, California expanded its film and TV tax credit program, more than doubling the old $330-million cap to $750 million through June 30, 2030. The existing program already covers post-production, but only if 75% of filming or the overall budget is spent in the state.

Newsom also signed a bill that would strengthen the current tax incentive program overall. In June he revealed a state budget measure that capped how much in tax credits a business can claim each year, a limit industry groups warned would undercut the expanded program. But the new Senate Bill 186 enhances refundability for the industry and exempts independent productions from the credit limits, starting next year.

There’s also been a recent push for a federal film and TV tax incentive. President Trump has previously voiced his support for the effort, and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) and Rep. Brian Jack (R-Ga.) are leading a bipartisan effort to draft one.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday vetoed legislation that would have narrowed exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act for advanced manufacturing facilities amid pushback from business and industry groups.

Senate Bill 954 from state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) would have rolled back parts of last year’s controversial overhaul of CEQA, which fast-tracked approvals for a broad array of housing and infrastructure projects in an effort to ease new construction in the state.

Critics said the overhaul opened up a path for advanced manufacturing facilities such as strip miners, chemical producers, battery recyclers and semiconductor plants to open in communities without any environmental review. Dozens of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and California Environmental Voters urged the governor to sign the legislation into law, arguing that it would have provided essential protections for communities that already experience the worst pollution from industrial facilities.

In his veto message, Newsom said last year’s CEQA reform was a “long overdue overhaul to get California building again.”

“While I appreciate the author’s stated intent to ensure these reforms do not result in unintended adverse impacts on the environment, this bill does not merely clarify or refine the existing exemption. It repeals the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities,” the governor wrote. “Further, the bill’s numerous new siting, operational, and emissions requirements would make the narrower exemption impractical for many of the projects it was intended to support.”

In a statement, Blakespear said she was “disappointed” in the governor’s decision. While some of the new CEQA exemptions are important to stimulate construction, the recent near-miss chemical disaster in Garden Grove — which prompted thousands of evacuations in May —illustrates the danger that can come from siting advanced manufacturing facilities in communities, she said.

“We should not have to wait for another emergency before recognizing that sweeping — and rushed — exemptions from environmental review need reasonable guardrails,” Blakespear said. “Protecting communities and workers is not an impediment to economic growth; it is part of responsible growth. We need guardrails to these CEQA exemptions to safeguard Californians and ensure the environment isn’t damaged.”

Newsom’s veto came amid pushback from industry groups and prominent business organizations including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. The California Department of Finance also was opposed to the bill, which it described in an analysis as “inconsistent with Administration policy.”

Lance Hastings, chief executive of the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn., said in a statement Friday that the governor’s veto protects “the ability of manufacturers to innovate and create here in California.”

Manufacturing generates $382 billion a year for California and supports 1.24 million jobs, he said.

But opponents said Newsom’s decision will ultimately endanger communities and leave more people exposed to industrial hazards.

“Frontline communities across California continue to face consequences from polluting industries that have damaged our air, and water for the sake of corporate profit,” said Asha Sharma, deputy director at the nonprofit Sierra Club California. “SB 954 was developed to ensure those same mistakes do not continue.”

Blakespear said she will continue working on the issue next year.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday ordered the formation of a panel to come up with safety regulations for the state’s artificial intelligence companies, including the development of a possible “kill switch” for AI programs that go rogue.

Newsom issued an executive order to convene “a group of world-leading experts” to provide a “guide” for the state to bolster its laws around AI security, according to statement from the governor’s office.

The panel could put consider proposals for independent third parties to write safety plans or for companies to develop an emergency shutoff.

Newsom, who is considering a 2028 run for president, two years ago vetoed a state bill that would have mandated a kill switch.

Some Democratic and Republican leaders around the country are scrambling to come up with safety proposals after employees at AI companies recently warned that the technology could create catastrophe, including ending humanity.

A researcher for AI company Anthropic said he left the company over concerns that AI companies, including OpenAI, are “gambling with our lives” as they race ahead to improve AI that could surpass human intelligence.

The researcher, Jacob Coxon, said in a social media post: “People building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

State Sen. Chris Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), who chairs the state committee overseeing technology issues, told the Times he’ll hold hearings on artificial intelligence this fall. Those meetings were planned before the recent warnings about AI’s dangers, but will be informed by the events of the last few weeks, he said.

He said the state’s rules around AI don’t go far enough.

“We regulate your barber or your sandwich shop more than we regulate [a company] telling us that they may be ending humanity,” he said.

Any new laws could have a disproportionate effect on the global tech industry because many top AI companies are based in California.

A proposed law in 2024 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would have required tech firms to be able to turn off the AI models they directly control if things go awry.

Newsom, in his veto message at the time, cited concerns about stifling innovation. He also expressed concern that smaller AI models, which would have been exempt from the law, could also be dangerous.

There are many states in America where a governor shares the ticket with his or her running mate. Nevada is not one of them.

That, however, is but a small detail.

Joe Lombardo, Nevada’s Republican governor, is seeking election to his second term. His chief opponent is Aaron Ford, Nevada’s Democratic attorney general.

But to hear Lombardo and his allies tell it, Ford’s guru, his doppelganger, his soulmate and political inspiration — if not his actual running mate — is the Democratic governor living next door. It’s almost as if Lombardo is facing Gavin Newsom in November.

Look, there, along the streets of Las Vegas, you’ll see California’s governor on billboards, grinning alongside Ford.

Stop at the gas pump, wince at the pain and ask yourself why? It’s not President Trump and the muddle-headed war he started over in Iran. Blame Newsom.

Higher taxes and more spending? Only if Newsom, er, Ford, has his way.

“It’s official,” a chirpy announcer says in one pro-Lombardo campaign spot. “Shared vision. Shared values. Aaron Ford: Gavin Newsom’s choice for Nevada.”

Lombardo seemed, for a time, the most politically vulnerable Republican governor in the country. Things have looked up. He’s built a big financial advantage over Ford. But anti-Trump sentiments are keeping the Democrat in contention, which is what happens when an incumbent is running shackled to a ball and chain.

Enter Newsom.

A familiar playbook

It’s not at all surprising he would endorse a member of his own party, especially in Nevada, which is holding one of the first contests of the 2028 presidential race. Newsom, if you haven’t heard, has been positioning himself for a potential White House bid for years. Backing Ford is a way of collecting chits, as they say in gambling and politics.

It’s also not surprising that Lombardo would try to deflect from the unpopular Trump by yoking his opponent to Newsom. Select a polarizing member of the opposite party and suggest your rival is their slavish devotee; it’s a strategy as well-thumbed as a Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas road atlas. (Google it, kids.)

In Nevada, the attack can have added resonance when the offending politician is from California, which has long been viewed, by some at least, as an overpriced, tax-happy, left-wing lunatic asylum.

“There’s a tendency in Nevada to worry about what’s called ‘Californication’ and this has gone on quite a while,” said Michael Green, a historian at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who suggested it’s a particular slice of California, not the moderately conservative Central Valley but rather outré San Francisco, that Lombard is trying to convey.

For the governor, Newsom-bashing is a return to form.

Four years ago, as the sheriff of Clark County — that’s Las Vegas — Lombardo said the Democratic incumbent, Steve Sisolak, cared “more about copying Gavin Newsom than governing in the best interest of Nevadans.”

This time, Lombardo has focused on high fuel prices, a particular torment in a vast state with a lot of long, gas-guzzling stretches of rural highway. In March, he sent an open letter to Newsom blaming California’s environmental policies for running up energy costs. (Nevada relies on California for nearly 90% of its transportation fuels, which mainly flow from Southern California refineries to Las Vegas.)

In April, he explicitly blamed “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies” for “driving higher gas prices for Nevada families” and said Ford refused to push back because “he doesn’t want to risk his relationship with his biggest ally.”

Newsom vs. Lombardo

Turnabout being fair play, the Ford campaign has responded by tying Nevada’s governor to the unpopular president.

“Joe Lombardo is endorsed by Donald Trump and is running on a platform of raising costs and is laser-focused on taking care of Trump’s billionaire friends and padding the pockets of greedy corporations,” said spokesperson Tai Sims, who suggested the governor was relying on a “failed MAGA playbook” because “he’s too busy embracing Trump’s cost-raising agenda to acknowledge the economic pain caused by the Lombardo-Trump economy.”

Newsom and Lombardo have also gone at it.

“Since I took office, Nevada has created more jobs than California,” Lombardo boasted in a July posting on X that, of course, tied Ford to Newsom. “As Governor, I’ll never let Nevada become an extension of California’s failed agenda.”

“FALSE!” Newsom’s press team replied, with a Pinnochio-nosed emoji and a link to Federal Reserve data. “Using the same official jobs measure your office cites, California added about 340,900 jobs from December 2022 through June 2026. Nevada added 100,800.”

Lombardo hasn’t just focused on economics. Playing on old animosities, he told a Jewish Republican audience in Las Vegas last month that a certain California governor “wanted to pass two holidays for the Muslim community, agnostic to the Jewish community.” (Legislation that would add Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the list of state holidays is on Newsom’s desk, for him to sign or veto.)

“That’s not going to happen in the state of Nevada,” Lombardo said to applause, and so much for appealing to the better angels of our nature.

In the end, will the forced marriage of Newsom and Ford matter?

Probably not a whole lot. There are doubtless many things that matter more to your typical Nevadan than whether California’s governor hearts the state’s attorney general.

Wait until 2028. If Newsom is on the ballot, then we’ll find out what Nevada truly thinks of its next-door neighbor.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Questions swirl over Trump’s pledge to give $5,000 payouts if GOP wins
The deep dive: Will the economy motivate voters? This Central Valley swing district could be a test
The L.A. Times Special:California provides tax breaks to Hollywood. Why not struggling news outlets?
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners faced a persistent problem long after the devastating wildfires in January 2025: While their homes were left standing, they had been infiltrated by heavy, toxic smoke and ash, and remained unsafe.

Residents were forced into lengthy battles with their insurance companies to prove contamination and get help paying for the cleanup and additional living expenses.

Backed by wildfire survivors and advocates in Altadena, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday announced he had signed legislation to create new, first-in-the-nation standards to test and remediate homes damaged by wildfire smoke, and to require insurance companies to pay for the associated costs.

“California will not leave survivors to navigate recovery alone,” Newsom said. “These new protections will make insurer obligations clearer and give homeowners more financial flexibility when they need it most. As fire seasons across the West become a year-round reality, California’s commitment to recovery must be just as enduring.”

The January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires were two of the deadliest and most destructive in state history. Together, they burned more than 16,000 structures and killed 31 people.

Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) authored Assembly Bill 1642 after hearing repeatedly from constituents concerned that the fires had left layers of ash contaminated with asbestos, lead and toxic materials in and around their homes.

The now-signed bill directs the state to create scientific standards for what constitutes a safe home and provide guidance on how to properly remediate residences.

Twenty months after Jane Lawton Potelle sat in a friend’s garage — already suffering from a cough and chest pain as her Altadena home stood contaminated with toxic smoke — she stood alongside Newsom as he signed the bill, which was championed by her advocacy group, Eaton Fire Residents United.

“Early days, we were told we were the lucky ones,” said Potelle, who founded EFRU as her neighbors shared concerning test results on Facebook — all while government agencies and insurers offered conflicting guidance and little support.

“To have this bill signed is acknowledgment that just because your home is left standing and looks fine, doesn’t mean that it’s actually safe to return,” she said.

The data EFRU collected in the months after the fire showed the vast majority of homes tested had lead levels beyond what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers acceptable. With no clear guidance, haphazard and improvised efforts by companies to clean these homes left 6 in 10 residences still unsafe.

A companion bill signed by the governor, AB 1795, was born out of a Department of Insurance task force and requires insurers to abide by the AB 1642 standards in the insurance claims process and to do so in a timely manner.

If these laws had been in place when the Eaton fire broke out, “we’d all be home by now,” Potelle said.

Potelle’s home — like many others’ — remains contaminated as disputes with her insurance company drag on. Her Christmas tree, from 2024, is still up.

“Going forward, the question of whether a family can safely return home should be answered by science, not by an insurance company’s guesswork,” Harabedian said in a statement. “Families should not have to fight for the testing they need or be left trying to figure out on their own whether their homes are safe.”

More than 13,000 insurance claims filed after the fires involved homes that were damaged by smoke, not flames, according to an estimate from the Department of Insurance.

Newsom also signed legislation from Harabedian that will allow homeowners in the future to seek up to one year of mortgage forbearance if their home becomes uninhabitable due to the effects of a wildfire or other disaster. Another bill signed into law extends existing mortgage relief for those affected by the Palisades and Eaton fires for another year.

WASHINGTON — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 if Kamala Harris does so, appearing to offer deference to the former vice president ahead of a race that could draw a historically crowded field of candidates.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview posted Monday. “Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. … I wouldn’t do it to you, I wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.”

Newsom appeared to acknowledge a desire to avoid the possibly messy fight for California backers that could ensue if both were to run, saying there would be “pure crossover” between Harris’ supporters and his.

The governor’s effective yield to Harris diminishes the possibility of a showdown between two of California’s most powerful political figures in an election whose stakes are viewed by the Democratic Party as existential. The possibility of Harris making a second attempt at the presidency after her loss to President Trump in 2024 has hung as the biggest question over the potential Democratic field.

Both Newsom and Harris have acknowledged they are considering presidential bids in 2028, but Harris has closely held her intentions. She said last week that she had not decided whether to run, telling former soccer player Megan Rapinoe in a podcast interview that she was focused on working full time to help Democrats win the midterms.

A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment. Representatives for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request Monday afternoon.

Harris has appeared as the party front-runner in multiple polls about 2028, including one in July that showed her beating Newsom by double digits. But questions have continually circulated within the party about whether voters who are scarred from the party’s 2024 loss would be enthusiastic about a Harris run.

Several California donors told The Times in May that they did not plan to support Harris or did not want to discuss a possible bid by her; in a few corners, more enthusiasm came through for Newsom.

The dynamics around the 2028 Democratic primary continue to evolve as party hopefuls jockey for the spotlight, and they shifted notably with the selection of South Carolina as the party’s first primary state. That choice could give Harris a boost if South Carolina’s Black voters move in her favor.

Harris and Newsom came up in politics in the same era and have never before run in an election against each other, operating their political careers largely in parallel rather than in competition. In February, Newsom said on CNN that he had “never gotten in the way of her ambition” and he didn’t “imagine I would in the future,” saying “fate” would determine whether they ran against each other.

Newsom swung through South Carolina this month, the type of move generally interpreted as laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. In the CNN interview, Newsom noted that he did not know whether Harris would run and agreed it was a “pretty good case” to make when Tapper raised the argument that Harris had had her chance at the presidency and Newsom had not yet.

The governor suggested that a fight between him and Harris would split their supporters’ vote in a way that would be “a gift from God for everybody else” in the race, saying “it services no greater good” for both of them to run. He also nodded to their overlapping political circles.

“I know her base of supporters, I know her friends. The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that.”

The interview was filmed in Montana, where Newsom’s in-laws own a ranch, as Newsom and Tapper fly-fished together. The full segment was set to air Tuesday.

Newsom said that in order to decide to run, a candidate needs to be able to “meet the moment.”

“You gotta be honest with yourself,” he said. “Do you represent the zeitgeist of the moment or are you wasting everybody’s time?”

Byron Sher, a Stanford law professor-turned California legislator who wrote some of the state’s most far-reaching environmental laws, died Saturday. He was 98.

Cerebral and soft-spoken, Sher was the antithesis of politicians nowadays. He rarely issued press releases, didn’t convene news conferences, and disliked raising campaign money.

But he left an indelible mark on the environment, authoring legislation offering incentives to recycle, limiting advertisers’ inflated claims about products’ environmental benefits and combating water and air pollution.

He helped lead the effort to preserve ancient redwoods in Headwaters Forest in Humboldt County in 1999, pushing the state and federal government to buy it from Texas financier Charles Hurwitz, who owned Pacific Lumber Co. and was preparing to log it.

A decade earlier, in 1988, Sher authored legislation requiring that California take stock of the sources of greenhouse gases. It was the first time the legislature in California — or any other state — embedded the term “global warming” into a state law, and became the foundation for bills in later decades to combat climate change.

“The heat is on,’’ Sher said presciently, as quoted by the Sacramento Bee on May 5, 1989. “The state can either ignore what science is telling us, or we can respond to this challenge in a responsible way.’’

Because of his legislation, manufacturers today sell more products in spray bottles rather than aerosol cans, people can more easily dispose of televisions and other electronic waste, and underground gasoline storage tanks rarely leak and foul groundwater.

“Byron Sher built the legal and research foundation for California’s climate change regime and by extension helped shape how the world has tried to handle climate change,” said Joe Mathews, a Berggruen Institute fellow who is working on a book about the state’s legislative efforts to confront global warming.

Today, Sher’s 1989 legislation creating state wild and scenic rivers is a barrier to President Trump’s proposal to raise Shasta Dam north of Redding to increase water storage, an idea backed by Central Valley farming interests. His legislation protects the McCloud River, which feeds Shasta Reservoir. Raising the dam would inundate habitat along the McCloud.

That Sher placed such ideas into law reflected his ability to persuade and compromise. Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican, signed the wild rivers legislation, and Sher’s Clean Air Act, which helped shape federal clean air legislation signed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush.

Their partisan differences aside, Deukmejian viewed Sher as having “great personal integrity,” said Steve Merksamer, who was Deukmejian’s chief of staff.

“When Byron Sher wanted to come into the office and had the bill, would he get in? Absolutely. Would the governor listen to him? Yes,” Merksamer said.

Sher did fall short of convincing Deukmejian to sign one of his bills — a whimsical measure inspired by a Camp Fire girls and boys troop to proclaim the banana slug to be the official state mollusk. Deukmejian vetoed the bill, though Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation in 2024 designating the slimy yellow creature as the official state slug.

Sher was born in St. Louis in 1928, graduated from Harvard Law School in 1952, and joined the Stanford Law School faculty in 1957. He served on the Palo Alto City Council in the 1960s, got recalled in 1967 over his opposition to development and won back his seat in the 1970s. Sher was Palo Alto mayor in 1980 when he won an Assembly seat. He remained in the Assembly until 1996 when he was elected to the state Senate, serving until 2004 when term limits forced him to step aside.

Among the students who passed through his Stanford classrooms was Newsom’s father, William Newsom, who became a state court of appeals justice.

Sher and his aide and friend Kip Lipper attended a 2010 banquet in San Francisco at which the California League of Conservation Voters honored Justice Newsom with the Byron Sher Lifetime Achievement Award. In his acceptance speech, Newsom recalled that Sher was the only Sanford professor who gave him a C. When Lipper asked whether the story was true, Sher deadpanned, “He deserved it.”

“There aren’t a lot of tales to tell about Byron Sher,” said Bill Lockyer, who was Senate leader when Sher won a state seat in 1996. “He went home at night and tended not to get into the Capitol gossip.”

In 1996, Lockyer entrusted Sher to serve on a joint Assembly-Senate conference committee that produced landmark legislation that sought to deregulate California’s electricity system.

Sher added provisions expanding requirements that the state use renewable sources of electricity and called the legislation “an extraordinary result” given the issue’s complexity. Lockyer said Sher’s additions, while important, were “the cherry on top of the toxic sundae.”

The legislation was blamed for California’s electricity crisis in 2000 and 2001 when swashbuckling energy traders manipulated the markets, causing prices to spike, resulting in rolling blackouts, and fueling the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis.

Sher was notable for measures he refused to support. With a few other liberal Democrats, nicknamed the Grizzlies, Sher would pick through turgid language of legislation looking for provisions that reflected the undue influence of special interests.

Sher voted against 1986 legislation that purported to open the way for a shrimp processing facility in West Sacramento. The bill turned out to be part of an elaborate FBI sting that resulted in 14 legislators, lobbyists and others being sent to prison.

“He wasn’t a comfortable politician,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Jackie Speier, a former Democratic congresswoman who served in the Legislature with Sher. “He didn’t speak up a lot. So, when he did, people listened.”

He displayed partisan side in 1994 when Republicans took a 41-seat majority in the 80-seat Assembly, and Republican Assemblyman Jim Brulte was in line to be elected speaker. But Democratic Speaker Willie Brown had a Republican supporter, Paul Horcher, who voted to retain Brown as speaker, plunging the two parties into a yearlong fight for control.

To wrest control from Republicans, Brown asked the professorial Sher to challenge one Republican’s right to remain in the Assembly. That Republican, Richard Mountjoy of the San Gabriel Valley, won two elections that November — one to the Assembly and the other in a special state Senate election to fill the seat vacated when the incumbent, Frank Hill, was sentenced to prison in the corruption scandal.

Sher reasoned that Mountjoy had to make up his mind — stay in the Assembly or move to the Senate. Facing term limits in the Assembly, Mountjoy joined the Senate in January 1995. The partisan battle went on all that year.

Brulte, who never did become speaker, was elected to the Senate in 1996, as was Sher. On Sunday, he called Sher “a wonderful man.”

“Everything in politics today is personal. It wasn’t personal,” Brulte said of Sher’s role in the speakership battle. “Somebody may have taken it personally, but I certainly didn’t.”

Sher retired to a pear orchard in the Sierra Nevada foothills and served on Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Sierra Nevada Conservancy.

His wife of 62 years, Linda Bowser Sher, died in 2014. He is survived by three children, five grandchildren and a great-granddaughter.

Morain is a former Los Angeles Times reporter.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom dismissed an escalating federal investigation into his administration, including the donations that paid for his travel, saying it was retribution for his criticism of President Trump and his policies.

Newsom’s response Saturday comes after a report in the San Francisco Standard that subpoenas were issued in early September seeking records from the California State Protocol Foundation. The nonprofit pays for Newsom’s travel expenses and is funded primarily by corporate donations and run by a board Newsom appoints.

The latest legal development comes three months after Newsom accused the Justice Department of launching a baseless, politically motivated investigation of him and his wife, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom. The Democratic governor, who is considering a 2028 run for president, at the time said that federal agents had “knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” and were digging through years of records in a quest to find any kind of wrongdoing by him or his wife.

Newsom’s spokesperson Tara Gallegos called the latest developments part of a “baseless MAGA conspiracy theory.”

“There is just a sick man in the White House weaponizing the federal government to settle personal scores. It’s deeply upsetting to see innocent staff, friends, and family have their names dragged through the mud just because they’re associated with the Governor,” Gallegos said in a statement.

The subpoenas issued stated that the information sought was for an ongoing criminal inquiry and was signed by Assistant U.S. Atty. Michael D. Anderson, according to the Standard. The information requested included communications with Steve Kawa, who has served as head of the foundation and was Newsom’s chief of staff when he was mayor of San Francisco, and Rebecca Prowda, who works for the foundation and is the wife of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, the news report stated.

“We are not able to discuss any investigations at present, but the Protocol Foundation will continue its work, defraying costs from taxpayers while representing all Californians,” said Lily Becker, an attorney who provided a statement on behalf of the foundation.

The protocol foundation was created as a tax-exempt charity during Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration in 2004, and was intended to defray taxpayer costs for the governor’s travel.

When Schwarzenegger left office, his supporters turned the protocol foundation over to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s backers, who in turn handed it over to Newsom’s team. The foundation describes its mission in federal tax filings as “relieving the State of California of its obligations to fund certain expenditures of the Governor’s Office.”

Newsom appoints members to the foundation board, which determines what expenses to cover in the governor’s office.

The foundation covers the cost of Newsom’s international travel and certain domestic trips. His staff’s travel is also covered by the foundation. The foundation paid nearly $4,000 for his trip to Mexico City to attend the inauguration of Mexico’s first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, and paid $15,200 for the governor’s 2023 trip to China, where he visited five cities in seven days.

In 2020, the foundation paid $8,800 for Newsom to travel to Miami for Super Bowl LIV — where he said he was representing the state as the San Francisco 49ers faced the Kansas City Chiefs.

Among the donors to the foundation are healthcare giants Centene and CVS Pharmacy. Others include the clean-energy nonprofit U.S. Energy Foundation, which donated $150,000 for the California delegation to attend COP30 in Belém, Brazil. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation donated $300,000 in a 2023 behested payment earmarked for the California delegation traveling to China for the meetings on climate change. UC Berkeley gave $220,000 for the governor’s office’s trip to the Vatican in 2024.