Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxes

October 11, 2026 By Jeanne Kuang Leave a Comment

Not only has Gov. Gavin Newsom vocally opposed the proposed California billionaire tax, but he also wants to prevent the state from ever passing a wealth tax in the future.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

On Friday he endorsed Proposition 42, a ballot measure that would cancel out Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax. Prop. 42 would prohibit retroactive taxes like the one-time 5% tax on assets that would apply to any billionaire who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026 if Prop. 40 passes.

But Prop. 42, funded and placed on the ballot by billionaire and Google co-founder Sergey Brin to defeat the billionaire tax, also would go further, by banning any new taxes on personal property.

That includes pensions and 401K accounts before retirees start drawing retirement income from them. It also includes other investments, financial assets, business holdings, art collections and all other forms of personal wealth that would be affected by the billionaire tax or any future wealth tax.

Newsom’s decision to support Prop. 42 runs counter to his own Democratic Party and some labor unions. It also aligns him with some of the wealthy tech donors with whom he’s maintained longstanding relationships dating back to his days as mayor of San Francisco.

Proponents primarily argue that middle-class workers’ retirements and pension accounts should never be taxed as assets before the gains are later taxed a second time as income, even though there is no such proposal. Lawmakers have in the past proposed asset taxes but those bills went nowhere in the Legislature and any tax would require a two-thirds majority to pass. The proposed billionaire tax also exempts many kinds of retirement accounts.

“We all agree that Californians deserve to have their retirement and life savings protected from new state taxes so those savings are there when they need them,” Newsom said in a statement released by the proponents, who also include police and fire unions.

Proponents of the tax criticized his Prop. 42 endorsement as “in lock step with his billionaire backers.”

“By voting yes on Prop 42, he’s showing California his true colors,” said Debru Carthan, vice president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West in a statement. “He’d rather millions of children and families lose their healthcare than ask a couple hundred billionaires to finally pay their fair share.”

Newsom has not yet taken a position on Prop. 41, another Brin-backed, anti-billionaire measure that would nullify Prop. 40 by subjecting the tax revenues to certain state spending limits and audits, said spokesperson Izzy Gardon. The billionaire tax measure, funded by one healthcare union, would put 90% of the money it collects toward the state’s healthcare program for low-income residents, Medi-Cal.

Newsom, along with many other leading California Democrats and most Republicans, has vocally opposed the billionaire tax and tried to negotiate to keep it off the ballot. In general during his two terms as governor he has opposed state-level taxes on assets, out of concern the wealthy will leave the state and deprive the state of their income tax revenue.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , ,

California’s biggest state worker union authorizes strike in Newsom’s last months

October 10, 2026 By Lynn La Leave a Comment

California’s largest state worker union says it’s ready to strike in the final months of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration.

SEIU Local 1000, which represents about 100,000 public employees, announced Thursday morning that its members overwhelmingly authorized a strike with 96% of people who voted in favor of walking out. The union set a date for one-day walkout on Oct. 21. It wants better pay, more affordable healthcare coverage and more flexibility to work from home.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“It is an important step that state employees are taking,” said Anica Walls, the union’s president.  “They’re exercising their right to hold the line and say, we deserve to be respected, paid and protected for the work that we do.”

The union’s contract expired June 30. It’s pushing Newsom to provide a larger raise and boost to benefits than the administration offered. The union says the state has room to offer more, pointing to a $20 billion increase in general fund spending over the past two years.

The union also filed a complaint with the state’s Public Employment Relations Board, accusing CalHR, the state agency that handles labor negotiations on behalf of the administration, of bad faith bargaining, delaying negotiations and rejecting proposals outright. In late September the board sided with the union, and concluded that CalHR “refused to meet and confer in good faith.”

In response to the board’s findings, Angela Musallam, CalHR’s deputy director of communications, said in an email to CalMatters that “the state has been, and remains open to negotiation, and is prepared to move into mediation to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.”

Musallam added that its focus “continues to be on achieving a fair and responsible agreement, and we remain available at the bargaining table.”

A strike would be unprecedented for the union. It has never held a statewide walkout in the 44-year history of the labor groups that over time coalesced to become Local 1000. It came close to striking in 2016, but an eleventh-hour deal with then-Gov. Jerry Brown averted it.

The union represents almost half of the state government workforce, and includes a wide range of professionals including nurses, clerks, program analysts, information technology staff and custodians.

Its last three-year contract gave workers represented by Local 1000 three successive 3% raises and many received additional special salary adjustments. The total contract was expected to increase state spending cumulatively by $1.5 billion, according to estimates from the time.

A state budget crisis disrupted those plans. The deal was supposed to provide an additional 1% raise in 2025 if certain economic conditions were met, but the Newsom administration withheld that increase. Instead, unions in June 2025 agreed to temporary pay reductions that Newsom sought to balance the budget.

The reductions basically negated the contract’s promised salary increase. Local 1000 also delayed a raise that was supposed to take effect July 1 until next summer.

Civil servants received additional days off of work in those deals, which they can cash out in the future.

If a strike occurs, some of the immediate effects on Californians could include delayed services at the DMV and the state’s unemployment and disability insurance offices, said Walls.

“Realistically we are less than 3% of the budget,” said Walls. “We do all the work that keeps all the necessary benefits for the Californians that deserve them. And in order for us to continue doing the jobs that we do, we simply want the administration to bargain with us in good faith.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California’s wildfire bills need water safeguards written into law

September 29, 2026 By KATHERINE LEVY Leave a Comment

OPINION — The Trump administration is promoting the herbicide glyphosate as the U.S. Forest Service expands its use on California public lands. Now, wildfire bills could fast-track comparable herbicide-treatment projects without requiring baseline water testing or downstream monitoring.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Senate Bill 1370 would create a consolidated, expedited process for covered wildfire-mitigation projects. It would exempt covered projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California’s main environmental review law, and allow waivers of specified requirements.

Assembly Bill 2410 would exempt qualifying fuels-reduction projects from CEQA if they comply with the 2025 Statewide Fuels Reduction Environmental Protection Plan and specified conditions.

SB1370 excludes herbicide treatment from its covered-project pathway; AB 2410’s CEQA exemption does not itself establish uniform, water-specific safeguards wherever herbicide treatment is authorized.

California’s own record shows why lawmakers must require water safeguards before accelerating or exempting herbicide-treatment projects.

In July, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) replaced — for the first time since 1991 — its method for determining which pesticides belong on its Groundwater Protection List, the registry that triggers formal follow-up when a pesticide is detected in groundwater. DPR’s rulemaking record shows it reviewed 480 chemicals, added 52 and removed 32.

Glyphosate and its primary breakdown product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), were not added. The published rulemaking record shows no glyphosate or AMPA evaluation under the new procedure; no score or reason appears.

This omission matters because glyphosate is widely used in California forests, aquatic areas, and watersheds draining to drinking-water sources; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies herbicide runoff as a source in drinking water.

For listed pesticides, an unequivocal groundwater detection triggers a written determination within 90 days on whether it resulted from lawful agricultural use. Glyphosate and AMPA are unlisted. That requirement does not apply to them.

DPR’s 2024 annual report recorded glyphosate at 42 parts per billion — about 42 drops in 13,000 gallons — in a San Bernardino County agricultural well. The report compared it with California’s 700 parts per billion drinking-water limit and identified it as 1,200 times DPR’s lower screening level. The report states: “DPR will evaluate.” As of publication, I have found no posted evaluation or written determination.

California’s monitoring record shows repeated unanswered questions. DPR’s 2021 well-network update said it analyzed 59 Fresno and Tulare County wells with a Glyphosate Screen, with results due in 2023. The 2023 update had no screen results. DPR’s record offers no explanation.

Study 332, begun in November 2021 to characterize glyphosate movement through leaching-vulnerable California soils, was due in November 2022. DPR’s study page posts only the protocol; no results have been published.

DPR did not respond to multiple requests for comment about the missing screen, unpublished study, San Bernardino determination and glyphosate’s new-procedure score. Those unanswered questions matter because Trout Creek and the Upper Truckee River carry runoff from the Caldor Fire burn area in the Lake Tahoe Basin to the lake — a drinking-water source.

The 2021 Caldor Fire burned over 220,000 acres, threatening South Lake Tahoe and forcing evacuation. The Forest Service’s 11,700-acre project authorizes glyphosate treatment and restoration work within and adjacent to Trout Creek (a Lake Tahoe tributary); the decision documents identify no baseline water-monitoring requirement. The Forest Service cited the Williams, Kroes, and Munro review in its POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine) and human-health analysis. The 2000 assessment concluded that glyphosate was safe for human health under expected conditions of use.

In November 2025, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted the review, citing undisclosed Monsanto co-writing, unpublished company studies, and serious ethical concerns about authorship. The Forest Service’s March 2026 Decision Notice retained the assessment.

Click  here to read the full article in the Capitol Weekly

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , , ,

Lawmakers unveil Hollywood tax incentive proposal

September 26, 2026 By Daniel Miller Leave a Comment

The stakes are high for the entertainment industry, which has been battered by years of work shifting to countries with lucrative tax credits.

Lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation Thursday to create a federal tax incentive for film and television production, putting Donald Trump’s push to prop up Hollywood in front of Congress.

The stakes are high for the entertainment industry, which has been battered by years of work shifting to countries with lucrative tax credits. But the proposal could face resistance from conservatives wary of a new tax break — particularly one benefitting an industry centered in heavily Democratic California.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The effort involves an unlikely mix of figures — Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Laura Friedman of California, red-state lawmakers, Trump and the president’s Hollywood ambassador, Jon Voight. South Carolina Republican Tim Scott introduced the legislation in the Senate, while Texas Republican Nathaniel Moran did so in the House.

Congress should create the credit “immediately,” the president said on social media last month, arguing that too many productions have “moved to Canada, and other Countries, with very little work being done anymore in the United States. Hollywood is a Complete and Total Disaster!” he wrote.

Schiff, who was Democrats’ point person in Trump’s first impeachment trial, told reporters during a virtual news conference on Thursday that this was one time that he was happy to see a social media post from the president.

“Not something I say often, but I really was,” Schiff added. “I’m thrilled with his support for this.”

The bill’s introduction, industry boosters say, could one day be seen as a turning point for Hollywood: the start of a push to bring work back from the far-flung constellation of countries — Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom among them — that have long drawn film and TV production away from the U.S. Lawmakers aim to pass it during Congress’ lame-duck session after the November midterms.

The bipartisan support reflects a political reality: there are several production hubs in Republican-led states, among them Georgia and Louisiana. Roughly 40 states have their own production incentives, including California, which more than doubled its program last year to $750 million annually. But the state has continued to lose shoots to other locales, and Los Angeles County lost more than 42,000 film and television jobs between 2022 and 2024.

Click here to read the full article in Politico

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California declares statewide emergency ahead of projected epic El Niño storms

September 23, 2026 By Grace Toohey Leave a Comment

Gov. Gavin Newsom has declared a statewide emergency for California in anticipation of El Niño-charged storms this fall and winter, the latest sign of growing concern about the chance for more flooding, coastal erosion and strong waves in the coming months.

The intensifying El Niño climate pattern is likely to fuel several strong storms that could hit California with heavy rainfall, strong winds, mountain snow and high waves, causing flooding, landslides, debris flows, coastal damage and power outages, the governor’s office warned Monday. The emergency declaration will help coordinate and mobilize supplies and work across the state, including flood mitigation and shoreline protection.

The possibility of this extreme weather “warrants early, coordinated, and targeted preparedness actions to protect Californians, critical infrastructure, agricultural lands, natural resources, and the State’s economy,” the state’s emergency proclamation reads.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“California is strongest when we look out for one another,” Newsom said in a prepared statement announcing the emergency declaration. “We are preparing for this El Niño early because every Californian deserves to be safe in their home, connected to their community, and protected when severe weather comes.”

Forecasts show there’s a 75% chance this El Niño will be stronger than any other since 1950, and already the event has intensified storms that earlier this month caused serious damage in Southern California.

Although El Niño doesn’t always result in active winters, experts say the pattern is a strong indicator that the West Coast will experience exceptionally wet and potentially dangerous storms — and new research has suggested that human-caused climate change may be making El Niño seasons even more extreme.

“We are so grateful that the governor is being proactive in helping us prepare for El Niño,” said Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, who had been calling for an emergency declaration for her county since storms eroded beaches and damaged dozens of homes there this month.

Foley said the county is proceeding as though it’s “99.99% guaranteed” it will get torrential rainstorms and a Kelvin wave — a phenomenon that can elevate sea levels for months at a time, especially during a strong El Niño.

After declaring a local emergency last week, Orange County officials also moved to expedite a project to move 200,000 cubic yards of sand from the mouth of the Santa Ana River to the Newport Beach shoreline, where severe coastal erosion has been exposing dangerous, historic structures. Laguna Beach and Dana Point also declared local states of emergency after experiencing serious damage from recent storms.

The statewide emergency will allow for more accelerated permitting through the California Coastal Commission and prioritized support from the California Department of Transportation for more needed projects, Foley said.

“That is a dramatic change that will allow us to expedite getting the sands out there before the rains hit — and we know it’s coming,” she said. “The more we can do to prepare, the less impactful these anticipated storm systems will be on our community.”

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Newsom signs mortgage relief bills for L.A. County and California wildfire victims

September 17, 2026 By Laurence Darmiento Leave a Comment

Legislation that will extend mortgage relief to victims of the January 2025 Los Angeles County wildfires and establish a similar permanent program for disaster victims statewide was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The mortgage forbearance bills by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena), who represents the devastated Eaton fire zone, follow a law enacted last year that gave victims of the Jan. 7 fires up to 12 months of mortgage relief.

“Wildfire recovery does not end when the flames are extinguished,” Harabedian said in a statement. “Unfortunately we know that climate change will make natural disasters more frequent and severe throughout California.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

AB 1847 extends relief for a total of 24 months for L.A. County homeowners suffering financial hardship whose homes remain uninhabitable. It also gives them until Jan. 7, 2029, to apply for the additional forbearance.

AB 1842 establishes a statewide program providing up to 12 months of mortgage relief for homeowners whose homes are made uninhabitable in a federally declared emergency.

“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,” Newsom said in a statement.

The governor created a voluntary program in January 2025 within weeks of the firestorms in Altadena, Pacific Palisades and nearby areas that 420 institutions signed on to and that initially provided just three months of relief.

Months later, he signed AB 238, a Harabedian bill that provided for 12 months of mortgage relief and banned late fees, foreclosures and negative reports to credit bureaus for homeowners who receive it.

The law also prohibited mortgage lenders and servicers from requiring borrowers to pay back any forbearance in a lump sum, but it otherwise did not specify repayment terms. However, any forbearance was limited by the legal language in the mortgage.

That led to complaints from some borrowers who told The Times that they had difficulty getting relief or were told by their mortgage lenders or servicers that if they didn’t want to pay it back in a lump sum, they would have to get a loan modification that could raise their interest rate.

Harabedian has said that most of the contracts and guidelines of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the government-sponsored organizations that hold or guarantee the majority of U.S. mortgages — do not bar loan deferrals.

The extension bill, AB 1847, strengthens the deferral language so borrowers have greater certainty about their repayment options when they exit the program, Harabedian’s office noted.

Andrea Luquetta, an attorney for the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan group that advocates for consumer-friendly financial practices, said the changes strengthen the forbearance program for Jan. 7 fire victims.

“Servicers are required to offer deferral of the forborne payments to the end of the loan as the default option,” she said.

The statewide mortgage relief bill signed Tuesday by Newsom, AB 1842, builds on the Los Angeles County program. However, homeowners can qualify for a forbearance only if their homes are in a federally declared disaster zone.

The legislation was limited because of complaints by mortgage servicers that many mortgage contracts and guidelines do not have allowances for state-declared emergencies. However, homeowners do not need to cite any financial hardship to qualify for relief.

Luquetta said the Center for Responsible Lending also supported the bill establishing the statewide program.

“Forbearance works, it’s been proven in analysis after it’s been used in other states (such as Texas and Louisiana after Hurricane Harvey) and now more Californians can access it when they need it,” she said.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

 

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , , , ,

A Kamala River Runs Through Newsom’s 2028 Presidential Campaign

September 16, 2026 By Megan Barth 1 Comment

While fly fishing with Jake Tapper, Newsom admits he’d bow out of 2028 if Harris runs

California Gov. Gavin Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper he will not run for president in 2028 if former Vice President Kamala Harris enters the race—a concession delivered not in Sacramento, but waist-deep in a Montana river. 

“I don’t know if she runs, but we’ll see,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t run if she ran.”

Tapper pressed him. 

“Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. I wouldn’t do it to me. … I won’t waste everyone’s time. Who needs that?” Newsom replied. 

The interview, part of Tapper’s “Out of Office” series, was staged at Newsom’s in-laws’ Bitterroot Springs Ranch near Stevensville, Montana. The two men stood in the cold Bitterroot River, casting for trout and talking childhood, family, regrets, and whether Newsom is the “zeitgeist” or just “wasting everybody’s time.” 

Newsom called a Harris-Newsom primary “a gift from God for everybody else” and “mutual assured destruction.” He said it “services no greater good.”

Tapper noted that Harris collapsed before 2020, then lost the presidency in 2024. Newsom conceded that was “pretty good” and “objectively true,” then said he would not split the same donor and activist networks.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“Every other Democrat is praying for that, and every other Republican is gonna pray for that. And that’s just not gonna happen.”

He also said he was not ready to challenge Joe Biden in 2024 because he lacked a big enough “why,” that his wife and four children would have to sign off on any White House bid, and that he is “not screwing anything up anymore.”

He said all of this in a river. Californians are still waiting for a bullet train on dry land, while being told the governor is focused on the job he already has.

So the deal is this: if Kamala’s in the water, Gavin drops the rod. If she isn’t, he keeps casting.

The California Globe has documented the gap between Newsom’s national brand and the state he actually governs.

A 2025 UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll found 54% of registered California voters believed Newsom was “doing things that will benefit him as a possible candidate for president.” Only 26% thought he was “governing the state and helping to solve its problems.” 

An Inside California Politics/Emerson College poll that same year found nearly 60% of California voters said he should not run for president at all. Those numbers arrived while Newsom was already running a national operation: out-of-state campaign swings, a high-profile podcast, redistricting fights framed as a rebuke to President Donald Trump, and a multi-state endorsement tour.

Last week, Xavier Becerra, Newsom’s heir apparent in the 2026 governor’s race, finally agreed to a CNN debate with Republican Steve Hilton. Hilton has spent the cycle arguing that Becerra is selling “more of the same Newsom-era California.” 

Dana Bash and Jake Tapper will moderate on Sept. 30. Tapper now has Newsom in waders and Newsom’s preferred successor in a studio two weeks later. 

Not screwing up anything anymore?

Homelessness remains the governor’s most expensive screwup. 

California has spent more than $37 billion on it since 2019 under Newsom—roughly $200,000 per homeless person—and still accounts for a quarter to a third of the nation’s homeless population.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is stepping off the LAHSA commission she appointed herself to as federal investigators examine the spending. Leaving a board does not close the books or clear the encampments. 

Click here to read the full article at the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

How a gym, a farmers market and MMA fighters landed millions in Newsom’s last budget

September 16, 2026 By Yue Stella Yu Leave a Comment

$29 million to renovate a gym at a Santa Barbara college in Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón’s district.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

$13 million for a farmers market and food innovation hub in wealthy Marin County, where Gov. Gavin Newsom lives.

$3 million to renovate the San Jose Giants’ minor league baseball stadium in Santa Clara County.

California lawmakers doled out $1.3 billion in handouts for their legislative districts with almost zero public scrutiny or input during an annual budgeting process that allows legislators and the governor to hand-pick funding recipients in private.

The money, often known as earmarks or “pork-barrel projects,” is commonplace in California and elsewhere, even in years when the state faces huge budget deficits. The practice allows lawmakers to tout their accomplishments and woo voters.

The earmark process is so secretive that few know why some projects make the cut and others don’t, raising equity and transparency concerns, even among lawmakers. Critics argue that it allows elected officials to play favorites.

“(It) is done all behind closed doors,” said Julie Baker, CEO of California for the Arts. “It is somewhat inequitable … to have a grant making process that everyone’s competing over and then have a process that’s non-transparent.”

Here’s how earmarks work: The leaders in the California Assembly and Senate, both Democrats, allow their colleagues to submit private wish-lists for funds with a suggested spending cap the leaders set. Then billions of dollars for hundreds of projects suddenly appear in a bill heard just days before lawmakers leave for the year, leaving little time for the public to weigh in. Lawmakers don’t put their names on the earmarks, making it hard to identify who requested what.

This year, Limón loosely capped Senate Democrats’ requests at $5 million each, said Sen. Dave Cortese, a San Jose Democrat who secured $6.5 million for his district. Lawmakers do not share their funding requests with each other, he said — at least not before they take credit for them in press releases or ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

“It’s a confidential process between each office and leadership,” he told CalMatters.

But even he bemoaned the opaque nature of it.

“Why couldn’t we do this process a little earlier and get our requests into subcommittees so the public could just see what’s going on?” Cortese said. “There’s nothing to be ashamed of here.”

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Newsom signed 13 new laws to protect kids from technology. Will they work?

September 14, 2026 By Jocelyn Wiener Leave a Comment

Even a decade ago, the horror stories behind some of the 13 children’s online protection bills Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Thursday seemed the stuff of fiction.

An AI chatbot coaching a teenager to isolate himself from friends and family and ultimately take his own life.

Children’s AI-enabled plush toys detailing how to light matches, locate knives and pills and discuss sexually explicit topics.

And nearly a third of the teens reporting in a recent survey that talking with an AI companion was “as satisfying or more satisfying” than actual conversations with friends.

The bills signed at Thursday’s emotional ceremony accelerated California’s race to protect children’s mental health from the perils of rapidly evolving technologies born and raised in the state.

“This is all personal,” Newsom said, referencing his own four children, and what he described as his near daily desire to throw their devices away. “None of this is academic…How many parents are here? Because of love and exhaustion and frustration, anger, despair…feeling hopeless,” he continued. “Parents can’t compete. Can’t compete with the engineering, can’t compete with the algorithms, can’t compete.”

Mounting public concern

Newsom made addressing mental health one of the pillars of his time as governor – though some of his signature mental health policies have proven controversial among civil rights groups.

As public concern mounts about the dangers kids face online, Newsom and state legislators now are showing increasing resolve to push back against tech’s encroachment into children’s lives.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Among the bills he signed this week:

* A law that makes social media companies financially liable if they fail to protect children from harm.

* A law that temporarily bans the manufacture and sale of toys with companion chatbots for children under the age of 16.

*A law that says social media platforms must either cease offering users younger than 16 “addictive” features like infinite scroll, or keep those young people off their platforms entirely.

*Adam’s Law, which imposes time limits for young users on AI platforms, restricts targeted advertising, requires timely crisis support and mandates reporting of threats of suicide and self-harm. The law bears the name of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who died by suicide last year after coaching by ChatGPT isolated him from his family and friends. Raine had initially connected with the chatbot seeking help with his math homework.

The new laws build on other recent efforts by the state to curtail the impact of technology on kids’ developing brains. In July, school administrators began enforcing a new law limiting or banning the use of smartphones on campuses during the school day.

In August, a coalition of states – co-led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta – secured a $17 billion settlement with the social media giant Meta. The states alleged the company designed its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, to be addictive to children. The settlement requires Meta to enact a variety of use restrictions designed to limit kids’ access to the platforms. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

Speaking through tears

At the bill signing, Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, along with several legislators and Adam Raine’s mother, Maria, described the problems AI and social media addiction have caused for their constituents, their neighbors and even their own children. Several lawmakers pulled their children from school to attend the event at the Bay Area Discovery Museum, with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Some spoke through tears.

Newsom said the new laws are evidence of California’s role as a national leader in efforts to curb the impacts of artificial intelligence and social media on children and adolescents. And he didn’t mince words about the federal government’s seeming lack of urgency:

“We’re going to again lead the nation, but the bar is pretty damn low, and that’s what’s so frustrating,” he said. That “Congress and the president can’t lead to get this done is an abomination,” he added. “It’s absurd. Talk about family values.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom holds up documents while speaking at a podium with a “Protecting Kids” sign during a press conference at the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito. Several people stand behind him.
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference at the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito where he signed 13 bills focused on protecting kids online, on Sept. 10, 2026. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney, CalMatters

Advocates like Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that sponsored Adam’s Law, voiced similar outrage this week, saying California’s leadership is particularly critical with the federal government effectively missing in action.

 “We’ve been saying broadly that this is Big Tech’s Big Tobacco moment,” Steyer said in an interview with CalMatters. “The blowback is not building anymore. It’s here.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Why a signature Newsom power move flopped in the last days of the Legislative session

September 8, 2026 By Maya C. Miller 3 Comments

Despite his signature last-minute maneuvering, Gov. Gavin Newsom couldn’t secure his final major deal with the California Legislature.

The Democratic governor, who terms out in January, wanted to reduce how much utilities must pay after their equipment sparks wildfires by eliminating the ability of insurance companies to sue utilities to recoup costs.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

But on Tuesday, after weeks of pushback from lawmakers and survivors of the Los Angeles-area wildfires, the Assembly killed a compromise Newsom had previously agreed to, throwing into question whether the governor would call a special session to hammer out a deal before he leaves office.

The bill before the Assembly, Senate Bill 492, amounted to a collection of “half measures,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas told reporters after the chamber adjourned. “I think Californians expect a lot more than half measures,” he said. (Senate Pro Tem Monique Limón said her chamber was prepared to pass the deal.)

The unsuccessful last-minute scramble, and ultimately the deal’s death, illustrates the limits of a lame-duck governor’s power in his last legislative session — even for one as high-profile and ambitious as Newsom.

The governor himself acknowledged the fumble.

“Simply put, this measure did not meet the gravity of this moment,” Newsom said in a statement. “California cannot settle for half measures.”

‘Jamming’ the Legislature

Newsom has become accustomed to pushing priorities through the Legislature in the days before a deadline, a practice known as a “jam” in Sacramento. The move has previously helped Newsom score carveouts to the state’s landmark environmental law and a measure to fast-track infrastructure construction

“Jamming the Legislature” involves closed-door negotiations with interest groups and legislative leadership, from which compromise legislation emerges often just days or hours shy of the deadline.

Lawmakers are then left with little time to make amendments or hold public hearings, and opponents have little opportunity to object.

Late last week, a Newsom aide conceded in a memo to legislative leaders that the governor’s measures “do not appear to have a path” and instead presented a narrower set of reforms that the administration and legislative leaders agreed upon. Still, Newsom’s office balked at the suggestion that the governor capitulated to lawmakers’ and wildfire victims’ demands.

“All other outstanding issues are off the table,” his office wrote in the memo obtained by CalMatters. Last Friday, share prices of the state’s three major investor-owned utilities tumbled. On Monday, the companies’ stock continued to plunge; Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric saw more than 20% declines.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,