If you've been thinking about exploring California's historic state parks this summer, now may be the perfect opportunity.

Governor Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom have announced a free special edition of the California State Parks Historian Passport, giving visitors unlimited admission to more than 30 participating state historic parks. 

The announcement comes in celebration of Juneteenth, the federal holiday commemorating June 19, 1865. Union troops arrived in Texas and informed enslaved people they were free more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The holiday recognizes the end of slavery in the United States and honors the contributions of African Americans throughout the nation's history.

“Building on our Outdoors for All initiative, we’re creating even more opportunities for Californians to explore the natural beauty and rich history that define our state,” Siebel Newsom said. “As we celebrate Juneteenth and our nation’s 250th anniversary, the free special edition Historian Passport provides an incredible avenue for California families to immerse themselves in nature while gaining a deeper understanding of the remarkable place we’re proud to call home.”

The passport, which typically costs $50, can be claimed through July 6 and will remain valid until the end of the year.

Among the participating locations is Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park, a California town in Tulare County dating back to 1908 which was founded, financed and governed by African Americans pioneers. 

The passport also grants access to other historic parks including Sutter’s Fort Historic Park in Sacramento, museums and cultural sites that tell the stories of Native Americans, immigrants, Gold Rush-era settlers, civil rights leaders and other communities that helped shape California.

The free passport program is funded through donations from the California State Parks Foundation and the California State Railroad Museum Foundation.

California State Parks Capital District Director John Fraser said it gives residents a chance to visit places that often receive less attention than the state's better-known outdoor destinations while supporting the department's Reexamining Our Past initiative.

“Utilizing this passport promotion is going to be a way to not only experience these amazing sites, but get a taste of how California State Parks is trying to be a more accurate and inclusive and complex interpreter of the state's rich history.”

The announcement also comes amid a broader national debate over how American history is presented at public institutions and historic sites.

Last year, the Trump administration ended free admission days at national parks for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth, replacing them with what officials described as "patriotic fee-free days," including Flag Day and Trump’s birthday on June 14. 

Administration officials said the changes were an example of Trump's “commitment to making national parks more accessible, more affordable and more efficient for the American people." 

In his statement, Newsom criticized the removal of dozens of historical signs and exhibits from some national parks. Reasons given by the administration for the removals were because the items “disparage Americans.” Last week, a federal judge ordered them to be restored.

Newsom also drew a "stark contrast" between California's approach to its historic parks system compared to the administration's handling of the country's national parks calling it an attempted "whitewashing" of American history.

“California doesn’t hide from hard truths and uncomfortable history — in fact, we embrace it and learn from it,” Newsom said. “While Trump ignores and tries to rewrite the past, California is marking these celebrations of freedom by inviting everyone to learn our country’s history — our real history — for free in our state parks.”

Fraser said he’s proud of the state’s approach as well saying the public loses something when its park systems — state, national, or otherwise — “walks away from its charge.”

“Which is to try to tell the truth as best as we can about these sites, even if that leads to uncomfortable conversations about the country's history,” Fraser said. “I think the public deserves and expects something far better from its park systems.”

Residents interested in taking advantage of the offer must download the free Historian Passport by July 6 through the California State Parks website. Once claimed, the passport can be used through the end of the year at participating historic parks across the state

You can find the full list of California historic parks here. 

Summer has traditionally been the time that wildfires come into focus in California, but that risk has now grown into a year-round threat.

This reality is fueling an alarmingly-strained insurance market, with companies declining to provide new fire coverage or renew existing policies.

These developments have pushed hundreds of thousands of people onto California’s “insurer of last resort,” known as the FAIR Plan, which was designed to provide basic fire insurance for high-risk properties when traditional companies have refused.

In recent years the number of FAIR Plan policies have ballooned 152%, from roughly 270,000 policies in 2022 to more than 680,000 as of March 2026.

To keep up with that demand, and to offset major losses during disasters like the Los Angeles wildfires last January, the San Francisco Chronicle reports the FAIR Plan is planning to hike rates an average of 30% this fall.

Dave Jones served as California’s Insurance Commissioner from 2011-2019, and is now the director of the Climate Risk Initiative Center at the UC Berkeley School of Law. He spoke with Insight Host Vicki Gonzalez about how these rate increases could impact residents across the Golden State.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

You served as Insurance Commissioner during some of California's most severe and deadly disasters. What are the biggest changes you've seen over that time?

I think the biggest change is that the background risk of wildfire continues to climb, and we've moved from a “wildfire season” to wildfire being part of our new normal throughout the entirety of the year. What's happening globally is that insurance company losses are going up because of global losses from hurricanes, wildfires, floods. That's happening in the United States as well, and that's because we're not doing enough fast enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which are driving global temperature rise, causing more frequent and severe weather-related events which are killing us, injuring us, destroying our homes, and also causing insurance companies to pay out a lot more. 

Insurance companies respond in two ways simultaneously when they have big losses; they raise prices and they write less insurance. Both of those are happening across the United States, as well as in California. So what we're experiencing, which is very acute and severe, is not unique to California.

It has been reported that the FAIR Plan will hike its rates nearly 30% on average come October. This is the first rate hike since 2023, which was almost 16%. Why was such a large increase necessary?

I think the commissioner ultimately approved that rate increase because the FAIR Plan’s losses have been so substantial. With the LA wildfires the FAIR Plan lost so much money that they ran out of money. [They] needed an infusion of a billion dollars, half of which came from the insurers [and] half of which is coming from all the rest of us. 

They demonstrated to the commissioner that they needed a rate increase, and that's the average rate increase. For some homes in some areas it's going to be substantially higher because the risk they face is substantially higher. I think that's sadly just the tip of the iceberg because as wildfire risk continues to grow…I think we're going to see more rate increases occurring over time from the FAIR Plan and from the private insurers.

For this upcoming rate hike on the FAIR Plan, will this impact all 680,000 policyholders? 

Yes, all of them will see some level of rate increase. To the extent that the FAIR Plan is beginning to take into account home hardening and defensible space — they were asked by the commissioner to do that some number of years ago, [it’s a] question mark whether they are — then maybe you won't see a rate increase. But I think it's a pretty good bet if you're on the FAIR Plan, you’re getting a rate increase.

Planning for an on-average 30% hike is considerable. How are policyholders made aware of this? 

They're supposed to send you a notice; typically the way they do this is upon renewal. Everybody buys their insurance at a different time, but there are one-year policies and that’s true with the FAIR Plan. You're supposed to get a notice 60 days or so in advance of your renewal that will tell you “this is a new rate you're going to be charged as your policy renews.”

I don't think they're going to unilaterally impose it on existing contracts that people are in; I don't think they can. But a back of the envelope calculation right now, it's 30% on average. So take your existing FAIR Plan price and plus it up by 30%, and that could be where you are, or it could be more than that.

How can people prepare for this, what options are available?

One thing we need to do collectively is pass a law that requires the private insurers and the FAIR Plan to take into account mitigations. When you do things to reduce risk for your property, you get credit for it. The FAIR Plan is supposed to be offering a discount if you do home hardening, defensible space. You should take a look at the insurance department standards for what one can and should do to make your home safer from wildfire. How big will the discount be? Probably not substantial, but at least it's something. The other thing that we need to do is see if there are ways to get people off the FAIR Plan. There are some insurers that are writing in what's called the “non-admitted market,” where there's a bit less regulation, that are actually trying to write policies off the FAIR Plan.

A plane drops fire retardant on the Park Fire near Forest Ranch, Calif., Sunday, July 28, 2024.AP Photo/Nic Coury

Then, we need to improve the regulations that were just recently enacted which gave the insurers a number of things that they had asked for. They wanted the ability to include reinsurance costs and rates, they got that. They wanted the ability to use forward-looking probabilistic models, they got that. In exchange what they were supposed to do was increase the amount of insurance policies that they're writing in the high wildfire risk areas, which could then be an opportunity for more people to get off the FAIR Plan. 

The problem is the way that this has been executed. The baseline against which the insurance companies are going to be measured, to see if they are writing more policies in the high wildfire risk areas, is 2025. They've been non-renewing in 2021-2024, and effectively lowered the number and percentage of policies they were writing in [those] areas. Now they’re being told they have to write a bit more, but that “more” is measured after they non-renewed a substantial volume of policies. Changing that regulation to put a higher obligation on them is important to get them to write more in these high wildfire risk areas, in exchange for the things they got as a part of this regulatory change.

The insurance market is national, and there are programs like national flood insurance. Why not make fire insurance a national issue? 

There have been proposals to do that. I think the big concern I have about those proposals is that these national insurance schemes oftentimes are very regressive. You have renters paying through their federal income taxes to subsidize home insurance in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP.) They don't send the right price signal [about risk], so the NFIP is expensive as it is… and we've been doing a lot more real estate development in areas that are going to flood, because people think they can get this national flood insurance program. And, they require a substantial amount of subsidy from the federal government.

I think the better route is to improve the regulations to better protect consumers. I've got a proposal at my center to have a federal reinsurance program for FAIR Plans. Have the federal government provide lower-cost reinsurance to the California FAIR Plan and the other 34 state FAIR Plans. Why? Because reinsurance for FAIR Plans is really expensive because the plans are insuring the riskiest risks. The reinsurers know that, so they have them over a barrel and they charge them a lot. 

A lower cost federal reinsurance program targeted at the FAIR Plans, helping those in the greatest need, I think is something that could help reduce prices for policyholders. In a way that avoids setting up a national scheme of insurance.

By Kristen Hwang, CalMatters

A union wants California’s billionaires to rescue the state’s healthcare system. The billionaires have other ideas.

On June 17, an initiative to tax the state’s wealthiest residents qualified for the ballot, according to the secretary of state’s office, which verifies petition signatures.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has consistently swatted down the idea of tax increases throughout his tenure, emerged early as an opponent of the proposed tax. Wealthy allies in Silicon Valley joined the fray armed with deep pockets and threats to leave the state, which depends disproportionately on high earners for revenue.

The union funding the measure, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, says California needs the revenue that would be generated by the measure to rescue the healthcare system from deep cuts that the Trump administration made last year in the president’s tax reform package, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Newsom is reportedly trying to negotiate a last-minute deal that would pull the initiative before the ballot is finalized on June 25.

What would it do?

The proposed initiative would levy a one-time 5% tax on California residents whose net worth exceeded $1 billion at the start of this year. The tax would hit roughly 200 people, and billionaires could pay in installments over five years. 

Proponents of the measure estimate it would generate $100 billion for the state. The revenue would go into a special fund with 90% reserved for healthcare spending and 10% for education and food assistance programs. 

The Legislature would control the funds and could allocate up to $25 billion annually to designated programs including Medi-Cal and CalFresh.

It needs a simple majority to pass. 

Who is supporting it?

The state’s largest healthcare workers union is bankrolling the measure, pouring more than $31 million into the campaign. “We are facing literally a collapse of our healthcare system here in California and elsewhere,” Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, said in October when the campaign launched.

The union, which is known for wielding ballot measures aggressively, argues that federal healthcare cuts will result in hospital and clinic closures, worsened patient access and thousands of lost jobs if the state doesn’t step in to backfill tens of billions of federal dollars. The group also points out that the Trump tax breaks for income, businesses and investments disproportionately benefit the wealthy people who would then be subject to the proposed billionaire tax.

“Whether or not folks support this, they can’t deny that these massive cuts to healthcare are coming,” said union spokesperson Renée Saldaña. “Nobody else has a solution to fill this massive $100 billion funding gap that is facing California.”

Saldaña noted that people signing the initiative petition were supportive and sometimes wanted the tax to be continuous rather than one-time. 

“This is popular. The public is feeling the strain of their own healthcare costs,” she said.

The measure has won high-profile support from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. A handful of local unions as well as the Teamsters and AFSCME California have also backed the measure.

Who is opposed to it?

Newsom is an unsurprising and vocal critic of the proposal. He has long argued that increased taxes would drive wealthy people and businesses out of the state. In a recent appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, Newsom claimed that “we’ve already seen dozens and dozens of people leave the state.”

Google co-founder Sergey Brin, with a net worth of $300 billion, according to Forbes, reportedly moved to Nevada because of the tax threat. Brin, a one-time supporter of liberal causes turned Trump supporter, is also the biggest spender among opponents. As of June 15, he has contributed $82 million to Building a Better California, which is funding multiple countermeasures designed to invalidate or weaken the initiative should it pass. The committee has not, however, taken a position on the wealth tax.

The top two measures — the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act and the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness and Efficiency in California Government Act — will also likely appear on the November ballot. The retirement act would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, effectively canceling the billionaire tax if both measures pass. The transparency act would require audits of state programs funded by special taxes.

Other tech and industry titans, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, worth $43.3 billion, Kleiner Perkins chairman John Doerr, worth $25 billion, and The Wonderful Company president Stewart Resnick, worth $5.4 billion, have donated millions of dollars to Brin’s committee.

Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, worth an estimated $12.4 billion, also started Golden State Promise, a political action committee dedicated to opposing the tax initiative directly. Venture capitalist Ron Conway, who does not appear on Forbes’ billionaires list, is funding a third group, Stop The Squeeze.

Collectively, the opposition campaigns have raised $107.9 million as of June 15, according to state campaign finance data.

Robert Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said one of the most concerning parts of the proposal is a provision allowing the Legislature to amend the tax after passage. “They can change the level of taxation; they can change how often they get taxed; they can keep ratcheting down the income level of who pays it.” The union disputes this claim.

Progressive groups like Planned Parenthood and the California Teachers Association have opposed the measure in recent weeks. Healthcare industry groups like the California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association and California Hospital Association also oppose it.

What’s really going on with healthcare?

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which Congress passed last year, enacts a number of sweeping changes to Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people and those with disabilities. 

Over time, experts say the changes will dramatically reduce the number of people with publicly funded insurance through mandates such as work requirements and shorter eligibility periods. The law also limits federal Medicaid spending. Because Medicaid programs draw on state and federal dollars, reductions in enrollment or federal spending mean less money for states like California.

The state Department of Health Care Services projected early on that federal cuts could cost California $30 billion annually. Roughly 14 million people rely on Medicaid, also known as Medi-Cal, in California.

State lawmakers have also grappled with successive budget deficits and ballooning program costs. Last year, Newsom and the Legislature limited Medi-Cal enrollment for low-income people without legal status. State leaders are eyeing additional cuts this year to align with new federal requirements.

Miranda Dietz, director of the Health Care Program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center, said close to 3 million Californians will lose healthcare over the next two years as a result of state and federal changes. 

“The need for health insurance and healthcare is not going anywhere,” Dietz said.

What are the challenges?

Should the measure pass, it will surely face legal challenges that could tie the potential revenue up for years, experts say. The seemingly retroactive nature of the tax invites a constitutional challenge, many say, though supporters reject those concerns. The initiative proposes taxing those who are California residents as of Jan. 1, 2026, meaning those who have since left the state would still owe it. 

Mark Peterson, a public policy professor at UCLA School of Law, said revenue from the initiative would “make a huge difference” in helping the state offset federal funding losses, but that’s only if the initiative survives legal challenges and efforts by billionaires to move or hide assets.

Economists and state budget watchers are also wary of the number of billionaires who have already left the state, taking their assets and businesses with them. Only six people moved out of state last year before the proposed tax would apply to them, but their collective worth would have generated the state $27 billion, Fortune reported. Others, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, worth $231 billion, have also reportedly moved out but not before Jan. 1.

On the other hand, there’s no evidence yet that a majority of the state’s 200 billionaires are leaving. Some, including former gubernatorial candidate and billionaire Tom Steyer, have stated they support the proposal.

Early polling shows 50% of voters favor the initiative, with most strongly behind it, according to the UC Berkeley Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research-POLITICO poll. But that is not as strong a position as it may seem: 54% of voters are concerned about wealthy individuals leaving the state, and 63% are concerned about them taking their businesses with them. A UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies-Los Angeles Times poll from March showed similar division among voters with 52% in support. 

Generally, campaigns running ballot initiatives want their early polling numbers to be much higher because support nearly always dwindles as the election creeps closer. 

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

The California State Capitol building in downtown Sacramento on January 7th, 2026.Ruth Finch/CapRadio

According to Stop CIPA Shakedowns, a coalition that seeks to reform CIPA to protect businesses from CIPA-related lawsuits, 3,000 businesses have been sued using CIPA.

Jim Monegal said that his law firm, Mullen Coughlin, has represented upwards of 500 clients alone that are defendants in CIPA-related lawsuits.

“No one knows what [they’re] doing wrong, how to follow the law,” Monegal said of his clients. “We don’t even know what the law says in this regard of what we can and can’t do.”

Monegal is one of many attorneys, alongside media and business interests, that comprise Stop CIPA Shakedowns. They’re advocating for the California legislature to pass SB 690, a bill meant to keep CIPA from applying to any tracking that’s done with a “commercial business purpose.”

In 2018, the California legislature passed the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA. This law also covers what companies can and can’t trace on the internet, and is the reason why, for example, most websites will show a pop-up asking if you want to opt-in for cookies. But, it doesn’t allow individuals to sue companies over its violation.

On the other hand, CIPA allows for individuals to sue for damages when it’s violated, due to its origins as a criminal wiretapping law.

Monegal said that law firms, and sometimes individuals representing themselves, have been exploiting CIPA. In these lawsuits, they’re claiming analytics tools, like those used by Google and Meta to track ad performance, are being used without the visitor's consent.

These tools are also used by smaller businesses, like Folsom Lake Heating & Air to track their own internal ad performance.

“There’s actually some claimants out there … that have leveraged AI and other means to send out thousands upon thousands of demand letters shaking these companies down on an individual basis,” Monegal said.

Monegal said that these cases really kicked off in 2022, and have been growing.

“It’s such a high return on such a minimal investment,” Monegal said. “All of the demand letters look exactly the same. All of it can almost be automated and auto-generated.”

However, privacy advocate groups like Oakland Privacy are worried about removing safeguards for all businesses to use tracking technology. Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director of Oakland Privacy, said that, while the law was expanded "awkwardly", oftentimes lawsuits citing CIPA are the only way for individuals to get reparations for breaches of privacy.

Rosenberg said that one example was a lawsuit leveled against Flo, Meta and Google filed in 2021 that accused Flo, a menstrual cycle tracking app, of collecting and selling menstrual data of users without their consent. She also cited cases where Oracle was sued for surreptitious tracking.

“CIPA is the law that allowed women that were upset about this, and there were many, to file a class action lawsuit that said, ‘Hey, we should have been asked if this was okay with us because this was just a way for Flo to make money and for Meta to make money,” Rosenberg said.

Rosenberg said that she recognized the problem that small businesses are facing with these predatory lawsuits.

“There’s a handful of law firms that have come to the same conclusion, basically saying, well, every business collects analytics and IP addresses online, and in a lot of cases they don’t ask for consent,” Rosenberg said. “A lot of it is just kind of first party, and yes, they’re technically violating the law, but the consequences are not necessarily that profound.”

She said that exempting CIPA’s application from all business activity would be an overreach. According to Rosenberg, herself and other privacy advocate groups have proposed amendments that would apply the same thresholds for enforcement that the CCPA has, where businesses below a certain size would be protected from lawsuits.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Paper, the traditional gift for marking a couple’s first year of marriage, also is a great choice for 250th anniversaries — especially when filling a time capsule celebrating American independence.

The 2016 law creating the nonpartisan America250 commission mandated that a time capsule be buried in Philadelphia on July 4, 2026, and dug up 250 years later in 2276. Last week, the resulting 900-pound cylinder was sealed shut, capping years of technical design and construction, collaboration with states and meticulous review of collected items.

“Once it was closed, it was a little bit anti-climactic, and then it was kind of really emotional,” said Michael Berilla, who directs the fabrication technology office at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and led the team that designed and built the capsule.

Designed to stay dry

Berilla’s office, part of the Department of Commerce, has built encasements to protect historical documents in the past, but those tend to be stored indoors under carefully controlled conditions. With time capsules, the number one enemy is water, so much of the design work focused on how to keep it out.

The stainless steel capsule is shaped like a cylinder, not the typical box, because square edges tend to crack and break. It will be covered with a secondary cylinder that will trap air and push out any approaching water, and the capsule itself is rimmed with a soft metal that compresses under pressure.

“When you smash it shut with the lid, that metal goes into all the cracks and spaces and makes an airtight, watertight seal,” Berilla said.

The items inside were at 35% relative humidity. That's moist enough to ensure they won’t dry out and disintegrate, but dry enough that they won’t create moisture problems. The capsule will be buried 10 feet below ground, safe from temperature fluctuations or storm damage, Berilla said.

“Philadelphia would have to be six feet underwater in order for this time capsule to even possibly take on water,” he said. “And if Philly is six feet underwater, you’ve got way bigger problems in the world.”

Filled with diversity

Inside the capsule are contributions from the three branches of the federal government, many of the ongoing America 250 events and programs, and all 50 states, the five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. Most contents are in small archival boxes, while paper documents are in a separate compartment. According to a list posted on the America250 website Monday, archival quality paper was a particularly popular choice, with states submitting hundreds of letters, postcards, posters, poems and other printed material.

In a nod to its past, New Hampshire submitted a brochure featuring a timeline of major events in the state’s Revolutionary War history. California looked to the future, including the answer it got when it asked an AI ChatBot, “Write me a prediction of what California will be like 250 years from July 4, 2026.” Highways will be gone, grizzly bears will be back, and the entire state will secede and join Oregon, Washington and British Columbia to form the “Pacific Federation.”

Some states went all out. Utah sent 100 cards featuring historical citizens, 13 coins, eight documents, eight pins, two granite disks and a booklet. Arizona used nano-etching technology to put the full text of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on a stainless steel coin. Other submissions were more bare bones, literally. Maine’s submission included a bone from the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Arkansas sent a diamond.

The variety was fascinating, said Tom Medema, a retired National Park Service official and project manager for the time capsule.

“I’m glad there wasn’t really a prescription for it,” he said. “I know that was hard for them, but in the end, it was just up to them to represent themselves.”

Anything that might degrade or metals that would rust over time was forbidden: Maryland’s submission of Old Bay seasoning was rejected, while Native American beaded artwork backed by elk hide was resubmitted on a fabric background.

Some of the items reflect dark historical times, Medema said, as well as the nation’s current challenges. But an air of optimism still surrounded the project.

“There’s great hope in what this capsule represents and the messages that are put in it,” he said. “Something about this capsule has been truly uplifting for everyone who’s been involved in it.”

Looking back and ahead

This isn’t the first national time capsule tied to the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

A “Century Safe" filled in 1876 was opened by President Gerald Ford in 1976. That year in turn saw the creation of an official Bicentennial time capsule, which is stored at the National Archives and will be opened in 2076. And there’s another time capsule in the works that will be housed at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.

To ensure the America 250 capsule is found in 2276, the National Park Service has included details about it in its succession plans to be passed down through time. A capstone with information about it will cover the spot where it's buried.

Berilla, who helped build the capsule, said when he thinks back to what America was like 250 years ago, he thinks about resilience.

“And when I think forward to the future, I hope that’s what they see from us,” he said. “That, yes, we had it hard compared to them, but more importantly, we were diverse. We were interesting. We were creative. We worked together.”

The capsule contains a photo of his team and a letter he wrote on their behalf.

“Greetings from the living, breathing hearts and hands of 2026,” Berilla wrote. “We will have long since returned to dust, but our devotion, pride, and unwavering hope for what our world could become are alive right here inside this steel. We built this for you.”

By SOPHIE AUSTIN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif (AP) — Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday accused the Justice Department of launching a politically-motivated investigation into him and his wife, saying the Trump administration was targeting him as he weighs a presidential bid.

Newsom, a longtime political rival of the Republican president, said in a video posted on X that federal agents have knocked on the doors of his friends and former employees, and have asked for records. Newsom didn't provide specifics on the nature of the probe, but his office said the inquiry appears to have recently expanded into “increasingly personal matters involving the Governor's family and professional network.”

“Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets,” Newsom said, referencing his use of social media to mock Trump. “He’s coming after me because I’m considering running for president, because he hates that I’ve consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit.”

The full details of any Justice Department inquires related to Newsom were not immediately clear.

A person familiar with the matter denied the existence of an investigation specifically targeting the governor, but said there are multiple federal probes into people around him, including one related to his wife’s taxes. The probes began last year after whistleblower complaints in California government, and political leadership in Washington was not involved in the decision to open them, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss ongoing investigations.

The Justice Department declined to comment on Monday.

They are the latest known Justice Department investigations related to one of Trump’s foes, a trend that has sparked criticism that the administration is using the law enforcement agency as a political weapon.

The Justice Department has also opened investigations into or brought prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former CIA director John Brennan and former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, among other perceived political enemies of the president.

“One by one, anyone who has challenged Donald Trump has ended up on his hit list, and today I proudly join that list,” Newsom said in the video.

The president has repeatedly gone after the Democrat-dominated state during his second term including by curbing a signature plan to reduce planet-warning emissions from cars, withholding aid for wildfire recovery and suing over state policies supporting transgender student-athletes. The state has pushed back by suing the federal government dozens of times.

Newsom also led a push to counteract a Trump-backed effort in Texas to redraw congressional districts to favor Republicans by championing a successful redistricting measure in California designed to win Democrats five additional House seats.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the governor’s wife, said the investigation showed that Trump is unfit for office.

“There are clearly no boundaries to what Donald Trump will do to get his way or to challenge those who get in his way,” she said in a statement.

___

Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

By Yu Stella Yue, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California lawmakers are expected to adopt a $356 billion state budget on Monday that would largely avoid or delay billions of dollars in social service cuts Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed last month.

Then, the (real) budget negotiations can begin.

Today’s vote is only a formality, because lawmakers are constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget by June 15 each year to continue collecting their pay. They have until the end of the month to strike a deal with Newsom before the new fiscal year starts July 1.  

In the next two weeks, legislators will have to settle their differences with Newsom on healthcare cuts, funding for schools and homelessness and more. 

Here are five takeaways from the Legislature’s spending plan:

Punt and soften healthcare cuts

Faced with federal funding cuts under the tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed last year, Newsom proposed several measures to limit healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants as well as refugees, asylees and human trafficking survivors.

Top legislative Democrats want to delay those cuts by a year while looking for alternatives to soften the impact.

Newsom also wants to raise the monthly Medi-Cal premium undocumented immigrants pay from $30 to $50. But lawmakers prefer waiting him out, proposing to leave the decision to the next governor.

“I don’t think it’s about Gavin Newsom,” said Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the budget committee. “It’s really about trying to stretch as far as we can in the hope that we don’t have to make those cuts.”

The Legislature rebuked Newsom’s proposal to reinstate stringent Medi-Cal asset tests for seniors and adults with disabilities by July, instead pitching a less restrictive limit to take effect in fiscal year 2027-28. With bipartisan support, the lawmakers also rejected Newsom’s proposed cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program.

They did, however, agree to Newsom’s plan to spend $300 million to subsidize private healthcare for low-income Californians.

Restoring some child care, TK-12 money

Democratic lawmakers want to add 22,000 state-funded child care slots over the next few years. They also rejected Newsom’s proposed reduction of 6,800 state-supported spaces due to declining federal and state funding. The new slots would prioritize children ages 3 and under. Advocates who applauded the proposal say it would address a gap left unfilled by Newsom’s transitional kindergarten expansion to reach 4-year-olds. 

Banking on a rosier revenue forecast, state lawmakers proposed $2.7 billion more in funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges than Newsom did in May.

Schools and educators were hoping for more. They wanted the Legislature to reject Newsom’s proposal to withhold $3.9 billion in constitutionally guaranteed school money — an accounting mechanism to prevent overpaying schools in case the projected revenue doesn’t materialize.

“We demand that the Legislature and the governor follow the law, stop with the gimmicks and the shell games, and fully fund our schools,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “Our union is prepared to do whatever it takes to hold them accountable if they don’t. Our students deserve no less.”

More generous with counties

The Legislature’s spending plan would give counties more money to step up eligibility checks for Californians applying for food stamps and healthcare benefits, reviews that are now required under Trump’s spending bill. 

It would also allocate $125 million to help counties reestablish indigent care — a program serving low-income Californians that largely went away under Obamacare.

State lawmakers also want to set aside $900 million for the state’s homelessness fund, whereas Newsom included just $500 million in his proposal.

More revenue, please

Newsom proposed three new tax measures and lawmakers are on board with them:

• Applying a sales tax on most company software, like Slack and Microsoft Suites
• Capping tax credits big corporations claim
• Extending a tax on Medi-Cal health providers, which the state has relied on to qualify for more federal funding.  

The proposals come at a time when California voters have rejected most local tax initiatives during the June primary. But Newsom’s proposals require no voter approval — just the support of two-thirds of each legislative chamber. 

There’s still an appetite among lawmakers to make corporations pay up. Senate Democrats had proposed a monthly charge on big employers for having employees enrolled in Medi-Cal, but have now backed away from the plan, instead asking the next governor to pitch “fully viable options” next year.

Save more money for rainy days

There’s a consensus between the Legislature and the governor to raise the ceiling on the revenue the state can deposit into its rainy day fund. The question is how much. State leaders are constitutionally required to make deposits into the account each year, but the balance cannot exceed 10% of the state’s general fund tax revenue under current law. 

Changing that amount would require voter approval. Lawmakers are considering placing a measure on the November ballot that would allow them to sock away more money for lean years. They have a tight deadline of June 25 to settle on what they want to put before voters.

Republican Steve Hilton will advance to the November general election in the race for California governor, setting up a longshot contest against Democrat Xavier Becerra in which he’s promised to slash spending and regulations if elected. 

Hilton, a British American former Fox News host, secured about 25% of the vote in the June 2 primary, with about 88% of votes counted as of Tuesday evening. 

His opponent, Becerra, is a former state attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary who emerged from a large pool of Democratic candidates.

In a statement, Hilton said he would “lead the movement for change” in California and called Becerra the embodiment of the same decade and a half of Democratic control. 

“My mission is clear: to go to Sacramento, clean up the corruption, cut your costs, help your business, and fix our schools,” he said. “We can’t keep voting the same way and expect different results.”

Hilton’s win knocks billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer from contention after he spent $215 million of his own money to boost his populist campaign and blanket the airwaves with ads. It will make the general election a traditional partisan matchup during a midterm election year that Democrats will treat as a check on President Donald Trump’s administration rather than the intra-Democratic Party brawl that Steyer supporters had hoped for.

California uses a top-two primary system; the two candidates with the most votes advance to the November ballot regardless of party. 

Steyer conceded in a statement Tuesday evening and endorsed Becerra for the November election. He said he was proud to have made “enemies” of the state’s utilities, tech companies and Big Oil, and didn’t blame Californians who “just couldn’t stomach voting for a billionaire.”

“It is absolutely essential that (Trump’s) handpicked candidate does not hold the keys to California,” he said, referring to Hilton.

With a crowded field of Democrats all competing for votes, Hilton led in the polls for much of the race, energizing conservative voters with promises to cut income taxes and the gas tax, boost oil drilling and overturn environmental regulations such as the state’s greenhouse gas reduction mandates.

He’s sold his candidacy as an opportunity for Californians crushed by high costs to end “16 years of one-party rule.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the last Republican to lead California, left office in 2011.

“The people of California have really been generous in giving the Democratic Party the opportunity to show that their ideas work,” Hilton said last week, declaring victory early at a press conference in Sacramento. “I think the patience is running out, really.”

He faces an uphill battle in November.

California Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one. Though Hilton says he’s presenting the chance for the state to go in a different direction, there has been a GOP candidate in the general election for governor in every race in the past two decades — and besides Schwarzenegger’s tenure, Democrats have won them all.

He’s also endorsed by Trump, whom Californians disapprove of by high margins.

But he has not downplayed the endorsement.

“I think it’s going to be very helpful to Californians to have a governor who has a good working relationship with the president and his team,” he said.

Hilton’s signature campaign promise is to eliminate the income tax for the first $100,000 in earnings and institute a flat tax rate above that; he said last week that his campaign will consider raising that cap after conducting an economic analysis of the California cost of living. Either option would represent an enormous reduction in state revenue that Hilton has said he expects to offset by cutting a third of state spending. 

He has not said how, if elected, he would get such a proposal through the Democratic supermajority in the state Legislature.

Hilton was born in London, the son of Hungarian immigrants to the United Kingdom. He got his start in politics working for the British Conservative Party and played a prominent role in the rise of Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010. He moved in 2012 to Silicon Valley, where his wife was a Google executive, and dabbled in startups before launching a weekly Fox News show in 2017 during Trump’s first presidency. The show, The Next Revolution, ran through 2023.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

For the first time since California insurance commissioner became an elected position, two Democrats will vie for the job in November.

By Paula Span, KFF Health News

Jules Netherland traveled from her home in the Bronx to the New York state Capitol in Albany several times in the past few years, hoping to persuade the legislature to pass a medical aid in dying bill, allowing terminally ill patients to end their lives with a lethal prescription.

She spoke at rallies. With other members of the advocacy organization Compassion & Choices, she visited legislators’ offices. In 2024, as the state Assembly was debating the aid in dying bill, she helped unfurl a banner in the chamber gallery that read, “Stop the Suffering.”

Her activism was becoming difficult. Netherland, who is 59 and works for a nonprofit, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019. “I did a full year of aggressive treatment,” she said. “Chemotherapy. A mastectomy. Radiation treatment every weekday for five weeks. Six months of two oral medications.”

She recovered and felt well until the cancer returned a few years later. Although metastatic breast cancer is incurable, drugs are keeping her disease at bay for now. Netherland feels fortunate but also fatigued, and she contends with brain fog, gastrointestinal symptoms, and joint pain.

“My energy is really limited,” she said.

As she emailed and called legislators, Netherland feared she might die before the aid in dying bill — first introduced in New York in 2016 — could become law.

On June 9, 2025, after the Assembly approved the bill, Netherland was in the state Senate chamber, watching the aye votes mount, and seeing it pass. Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an amended version in February; it is scheduled to take effect Aug. 5.

A similar law is slated to take effect in September in Illinois, which would become the 13th state (plus the District of Columbia) where medical aid in dying is legal.

“A breakthrough moment,” said Kevin Díaz, president of Compassion & Choices, which has spearheaded the long campaign for such laws. After almost 30 years — Oregon’s law, the first in the country, was enacted in 1997 — the addition of two populous states means that almost a third of Americans will live in one where medical aid in dying is legally available. “It shows that there’s broad support for this model,” Díaz said.

Polls consistently back that claim. A Pew Research Center survey last spring found that almost two-thirds of respondents didn’t consider the practice “morally wrong,” either because they thought it was acceptable or not a moral issue. Support crossed many political and religious lines: A narrow majority of Republicans and 76% of Democrats both found “physician-assisted death” (also sometimes called “physician-assisted suicide”) permissible; so did most Catholics, Jews, and nonevangelical white Protestants.

In New York, a Siena poll found that 54% of respondents supported aid in dying, including majorities of men and women, of all age groups, and of city, suburban, and upstate residents. A plurality of Latinos supported it; Black respondents narrowly opposed it.

Passing these laws has grown somewhat easier, said Thaddeus Pope, a bioethicist and professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, who tracks such policies. “You can say, ‘We have 10 years in California, 18 years in Washington, and 29 years in Oregon, and nothing bad has happened.’ It becomes more accepted.”

‘You need A, B, and C’

Yet legalizing medical aid in dying, or MAID, has been and remains a long, contentious process. Catholic leadership and many disability organizations staunchly oppose it. (Pope Leo XIV personally asked Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker not to sign the bill.)

The American Medical Association says that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” and poses “serious societal risks,” although a number of state medical organizations have opted to remain neutral or, as in New York, to support passage.

The Patients’ Rights Action Fund, through a sister organization, has lawsuits pending or on appeal in California, Delaware, and Colorado, arguing that aid in dying laws discriminate against people with disabilities by steering them toward physician-assisted suicide instead of treatment.

“This is a litigation strategy we’ve developed to ultimately get to the Supreme Court,” said Matt Vallière, the group’s executive director, who declined to say whether it would sue to block the Illinois and New York laws.

Even when aid in dying laws succeed, using them can prove challenging. In every state (except Montana, where it became legal through a court decision, so there is no statute governing eligibility), aid in dying is available only to people with incurable illnesses who are expected to die within six months.

It typically involves oral and written requests to two doctors, with mandated waiting periods between requests. Patients must have the mental capacity to make the decision, which disqualifies those with dementia, and they must ingest the medication without assistance. (An amendment Hochul insisted on adds a psychologist or psychiatrist to the process.)

All but two states require patients to be residents. Oregon and Vermont scrapped their residency requirements to settle lawsuits brought by Compassion & Choices. (Courts ruled against a similar suit in New Jersey.)

Moreover, any doctor, hospital, or healthcare system can legally decline to provide aid in dying, and religiously affiliated institutions often opt out. Those that participate can add their own requirements.

“The state can say ‘You need A, B, and C,’ and Columbia-Presbyterian can say, ‘We also want D, E, and F,’” said Pope, the Minnesota bioethicist.

Hotly debated, seldom used

Perhaps these restrictions, or a lack of public awareness, help explain why, despite the headlines and fervent debates, the number of people who actually use the law is tiny in every state — usually 1% or fewer of the deaths recorded annually. The support for giving patients this kind of autonomy at the end of life remains widespread, but the desire to personally exercise it apparently is not.

Still, after studies showed that many patients seeking MAID were dying before they could complete the process, the trend has been to loosen restrictions. California cut its 15-day waiting period to 48 hours; New Mexico allows physician assistants and advanced-practice nurses to write prescriptions along with doctors.

“Most states have now amended their laws two or three times,” Pope said. “We have liberalized.” Telehealth can also facilitate access to participating doctors.

Compassion & Choices is planning legal challenges to end residency requirements in additional states, Díaz said. It is also considering how to “make inroads in jurisdictions with a much different cultural and political environment,” he added, mentioning Florida and other Southern states.

Medical aid in dying represents a shift in power, Díaz said. “The person who has to bear the burden of the suffering should have the ability to decide when it’s enough,” he added.

Anne Gurnett Bander, 72, a retired research scientist in Carmel, New York, cared for her husband for four years as ALS — the relentlessly disabling neurological disorder also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease — rendered him bedridden and dependent on feeding and breathing tubes. “By the time he died, the only thing he could do was nod his head,” she recalled.

So being diagnosed with ALS herself last year was “my worst possible nightmare,” Gurnett Bander said. She was planning to fly to Switzerland, where the nonprofit organization Dignitas provides medical aid in dying, when she learned about the New York bill and began speaking publicly in support of it, her voice faltering as her illness advanced.

Gurnett Bander and Netherland say they’re not certain they’ll use lethal drugs to end their lives as their symptoms intensify. Not infrequently, patients complete the necessary steps, secure the prescribed medication, decide they don’t need it after all, and die of their diseases. But both women insist that the choice should be theirs.

“It can offer so much peace of mind,” Netherland said. “I thought, ‘People should have this option.’ Now, they will.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California’s life sciences industry is sounding the alarm over a proposal from Gov. Gavin Newsom that would permanently cap corporate tax credits. 

The proposal is projected to contribute a few billion dollars in revenue to California annually, but opponents say the state’s life sciences industry would be seriously threatened by having their tax subsidy reduced.

Tax credits allow businesses to reduce costs by lowering their final tax bill (as opposed to a deduction, which lowers the overall taxable income). The proposed change, which would go into effect in tax year 2027, would limit the credits businesses can claim each year. The proposal was designed to ensure “that larger corporations pay a minimum level of tax,” while not having a negative effect on small businesses, according to the Finance Department.

The proposal is the latest attempt to get corporations to pay more taxes in California, where voters will likely be considering a ballot initiative to tax billionaires in November. The life sciences industry, which says its annual economic impact is nearly $400 billion, is speaking out about the proposed cap. The tech industry is concerned. Dozens of lawmakers are urging the state’s top lawmakers to reject the new limit.

“The answer to the state’s long-term budget challenges is not to weaken the sectors driving California’s economy and generating state revenues,” 50 assemblymembers wrote to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Monique Limon on May 22.

The current state corporate tax rate is 8.84%, down from 9.6% in 1980 and 9.3% in 1987. California has been either the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world over the past few years; in 1985, with a higher tax rate, it ranked seventh in the world by gross domestic product. Corporations have also been paying less in federal taxes since 2017, when President Donald Trump slashed the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. 

The proposed tax credit cap would largely reduce the state’s research and development credit and would affect the largest corporate taxpayers — fewer than 100 — in California, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s analysis of the proposal. 

Rowan Isaaks, the LAO economist who did the analysis, testified at a recent budget subcommittee hearing. He told CalMatters that lawmakers’ questions and comments indicated skepticism about whether the tax credits were actually incentivizing new research. “These companies were gonna do this R&D anyway,” he said. 

The life sciences industry is opposed 

California’s life sciences industry disagrees, saying the proposal would add to its existing challenges. Representatives say it’s the latest regulatory and policy curveball the state keeps throwing at businesses.

Though California led the nation in venture capital funding for life sciences in 2025, “our global biomedical leadership is not guaranteed,” Sam Chung, senior vice president for government relations for industry group California Life Sciences, told CalMatters. “All these bills take a chunk of flesh out of our leadership.” (He is also concerned about proposed legislation that would change California antitrust law, which he said could have big consequences for the industry.)  

Drug development requires lots of time and money, Chung said. If California reduces the tax credits biotech companies have long relied on, companies may relocate to other states with more generous credits, he said. He’s also worried about competition from China, and of some U.S. venture capitalists’ interest in Chinese biotech. 

Darien Shanske, a UC Davis law professor who helped draft the proposed billionaire tax and has floated a similar limit on business tax credits, said he doubts other states’ tax credits outweigh California’s — even if the credits  are reduced by this proposal. He also cited the state’s other  benefits, including its education system, which is supplying the researchers the industry needs.

As for California’s argument that the proposal protects smaller businesses, Chung said businesses of all sizes are important, adding that mergers and acquisitions are the “lifeblood” of drug development.

“Scientists who develop something need big companies’ backing,” Chung said. “It’s a very symbiotic relationship. Everyone needs to work together to get to the finish line.”

The life sciences industry is also facing uncertainty over federal funding under the Trump administration.

At a time when research grants from the National Institutes of Health have been cut or are at risk, “to not have that, and then not have support from the state as well, is kind of a double whammy,” said Tim Scott, president and chief executive of another industry group, Biocom. The proposal would not eliminate tax credits, just cap them. 

Scott, a biotech entrepreneur, told CalMatters that reducing R&D tax credits could threaten hiring. The life sciences industry — including biotech, pharmaceuticals and medical devices and equipment — employs more than 336,000 people directly and 1 million people directly and indirectly, according to a 2026 report by California Life Sciences. 

“That R&D tax credit keeps those jobs here, it keeps the facilities being built here, and without it it becomes much more problematic,” he said.

The industry report showed that the Bay Area had 107,000 direct industry jobs in 2025, while San Diego and Los Angeles had about 54,000 each and Orange County had about 47,000.

Opponents say businesses can probably afford it

Proponents of the cap point out that what has been a “very generous” R&D tax credit wouldn’t be going away. California’s standard corporate tax rate is 8.84% of a company’s net income; the tax credit cap would be $5 million or 50% of that, whichever is greater. The cap would not apply to net operating losses.

“This tax break in particular is the second largest-corporate tax break (the state provides),” said Shanske, the UC Davis law professor. He said under the current system, companies have been able to “stockpile” the credits for research done long ago to the point where they can avoid paying tax to California. 

“If you imagine that there’s a program where the state actually wrote a check to the biggest, richest companies in the state, I think there’d be an outcry,” Shanske said. The LAO analysis estimates that “check” the state writes is about $3.5 billion a year, based on how R&D tax credits currently work. 

The May budget revision assumes the cap would raise $850 million in 2026-27, and $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion annually between 2027-28 and 2029-30.

Isaaks, the LAO economist, said a possible alternative would be for legislators to restructure R&D credits to make them more targeted.  

What will state lawmakers do?

Businesses wrote to lawmakers that sectors such as semiconductors, software, clean technology, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and artificial intelligence also rely on R&D credits — which has been limited to $5 million for tax years 2024 to 2026, also at the governor’s request because of budgetary concerns.

“The contradiction underlying this proposal is difficult to ignore,” they wrote. “The May Revision itself reflects revenues significantly higher than previously projected, driven in substantial part by California’s innovation economy and the economic activity generated by research-intensive industries.”

In their letter to Rivas and Limon, 33 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the state assembly said “limiting incentives for research and development may generate short-term budgetary gains, but risks long-term economic consequences.” 

Nick Miller, a spokesperson for Rivas, said the Assembly is taking a close look at the governor’s proposals. Limon’s office referred CalMatters to state Sen. John Laird, chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.

“California’s innovation economy is enormously important, but we’re also facing significant fiscal challenges,” Laird said in an emailed statement. “Our job is to carefully weigh those considerations as we work toward a balanced budget.”

In every election cycle, political campaigns strategize about how to harness the power of the media — from speaking to certain outlets to targeting different demographics.

In this year’s California primary, Democratic candidate Tom Steyer spent more than $195 million on broadcast advertising, setting the record for the most expensive political advertising campaign in the country this year. 

These strategies encompass both “traditional” media like television, radio and newspapers, as well as newer forms of communications. 

In September 2025 the Pew Research Center reported more than half of all Americans said they got at least some part of their news from social media. Of that total, 21% said they often look to social media as part of their news diet.

Campaigns have also relied on social media influences, as well as content generated by artificial intelligence, as part of their outreach to potential voters.

Mindy Romero is the founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy. She spoke with Insight Host Vicki Gonzalez about the impact of new media during election season, and what to track heading into the November general.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

There were a lot of debates for this year’s governor’s race. But do you think people still watch debates in their entirety, or are they scrolling on social media and seeing the highlights? 

I think for most people it's the latter and it's definitely a maybe, especially when we're talking about the primary. Debates are important; we have to have that kind of statement of record. That opportunity to engage with candidates in a deeper way, have to have them be challenged and compared. 

But nowadays it's about the soundbite and that's what we actually see play out in terms of how a debate will be run, and how candidates are prepping for them. It's the “afterlife” that comes from what happens in the debate.

Another bridge between traditional media and new media technology is the rise of artificial intelligence, AI-generated ads. We saw this play out in the race for Los Angeles Mayor being used by reality TV candidate Spencer Pratt. What do you make of this? 

There's definitely a lot of concerns. I think for Pratt, it was probably a key factor and why he's doing so well. If he didn't have those AI-generated videos — Spencer Pratt becoming Batman, for instance — I don’t think he would have gotten as much attention… attention that really took him across the country. I think it took him to a totally different level than probably anybody expected initially.

Spencer Pratt, a candidate in the Los Angeles mayoral race, fields interviews during an election night event Tuesday, June 2, 2026, in Los Angeles.AP Photo/Jill Connelly

In terms of the rest of the electorate, I think you really have to look at it in a couple of different ways. One is if there is disinformation or misinformation happening within that AI, and people can't tell that it's not the person saying it or not what they said, that’s really problematic. We still have a long way to go in terms of regulating all of that so the public does know, and of course technology's outpacing all of it. We’re already to the point that you can't tell the difference. 

If it's AI-generated for good, of course who ultimately decides what is good, but if it's making election officials’ job easier to produce content that is going to educate voters correctly, it can be very efficient. It can be used to help disseminate information in creative [or different] ways where maybe you couldn't afford a large campaign, if you were an election official or an advocacy group.

Given that social media is a big part of many people’s lives, and with the rise of these new technologies and messages being used by campaigns, what do you want people to keep in mind?

I think the use of influencers first and foremost has to be properly disclosed. There are the legal requirements through the FPPC; people’s campaigns do have to disclose what they are doing. But it’s not always clear from reading those disclosures where the money is going — if it’s going through a media outlet and then eventually going to an influencer. And then, what’s the willingness to be transparent right on the part of the influencer?

We've seen it in the gubernatorial race alone here in California. Steyer, at least just recently, it [was] discovered he was paying a number of influencers out from his campaign and they weren't disclosing, at least not most of them fully, that they were being paid. So it looked like it was a genuine endorsement, or an organic endorsement.

Nowadays people are so disconnected from the political process that something that is genuine, real and organic —- and they think is from another person that they already admire and consider trusted — can actually have a heavy weight. This is a really important topic, and one that I think is just going to multiply going forward. 

Looking ahead to the general election, what’s on your radar?

I'm thinking about all the noise that we're going to be expecting in November, and how so much of the California campaign landscape is probably going to get drowned out. There'll be a lot of attention on the gubernatorial race but other statewide races, local races in this new era that we’re in get really drowned out by the national landscape; the battle for control of Congress and also all of the things that we've seen, and things that we’re expecting from the federal government, the Trump Administration… executive orders, there’s a Supreme Court decision looming. 

There's a lot of concern around election interference. Whether that's real or otherwise, the perception of it can impact how people feel about the election. The conversation is happening, and all of that is real and very important to track, but it does make it harder for people just to get information on their local races, especially when local media is so fractured these days and often struggling. It's difficult in this environment for people to cut through the national noise.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Democrat Xavier Becerra has advanced to the general election for California governor after pitching himself as an experienced choice to lead the nation’s most populous state.

Becerra leaned on his more than 35 years in public office — including as state attorney general and U.S. health secretary — to argue that he was the most qualified candidate in a crowded field.

“I am ready to lead the fight to uphold California’s promise to make sure we have the governance worthy of our gifts,” he said on election night.

Loading...

Once an afterthought in the race, he surged in the final months and vowed he would maintain the state’s mantle as a chief antagonist to President Donald Trump.

As attorney general Becerra filed more than 120 legal actions against the first Trump administration on everything from immigration to climate policy.

During the campaign his rivals scrutinized his leadership as health secretary during the COVID-19 pandemic and unaccompanied migrant children crisis in 2021, when Becerra’s Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for shelters where they were housed. Some of them were criticized as having inadequate living conditions, and there were also concerns about authorities failing to thoroughly vet sponsors with whom some children were placed.

If elected, Becerra said, he would declare states of emergency to address high energy costs and housing shortages and to freeze home insurance rates.

Though California is one of the nation’s most diverse states, almost all its governors have been white men. Becerra would be the first Latino to hold the office since the late 1800s.

Ballots continue to be processed across the state and the second spot in the primary race for Sacramento’s 7th congressional seat remains too early and too close to determine.

The race has been one of the most closely watched contests in the region and comes after months of back-and-forth between the campaigns. 

As of Friday, early afternoon, Democratic Congresswoman Doris Matsui holds the lead with 30% of the total votes counted. Sacramento State student and 25-year-old Republican Zachariah Wooden is ahead by about 100 votes of Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang. Still, only half of the ballots submitted have been counted. The top two, regardless of party affiliation, will head into a runoff election in November.

Loading...

Matsui has represented the Sacramento area for two decades. She took the seat after a special election following the death of her husband, former Congressman Robert Matsui. Vang is running a progressive campaign following a nationwide trend of younger progressives challenging establishment Democrats. The Republican candidate, Wooden, is running for office for the first time. 

On election night, Vang was optimistic about advancing to the top two and urged her supporters to be patient as ballots are tallied. 

"We're going to wait for every ballot to be counted," Vang said. "I'm just so proud of the grassroots campaign that we ran. We've knocked on over 40,000 doors, have made over 38,000 phone calls.”

Vang later said she plans to continue focusing on the same issues of free health care and affordability if she advances to the general election.

"Doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, a Republican, or have no party affiliation. So many of our families are struggling in this moment," she said. "We're going to focus on the issues impacting people's lives. That's what we did during this campaign during the primary. We're going to continue to do that until November."

California elections can take weeks to decide as counties process mailed-in ballots after Election Day. The state counts ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and can arrive up to seven days later.

Sacramento City Councilmember Karina Talamantes, who endorsed Vang, said she believes many of the last-minute ballots that are waiting to be counted could favor Democrats.

"I do think that the votes that will come in do tend to be more Democratic, do tend to be younger and do tend to be more progressive," she said.

Wooden, meanwhile, says his campaign's performance reflects the grassroots support he built and voters ultimately being displeased with the incumbent’s leadership.

California’s District 7 Congressional Candidates, from left, Enayat Nazhat, Doris Matsui, Zachariah Wooden, Ralph Nwobi, Mai Vang, and Robby Morin participate in a forum moderated by the League of Women Voters on April 2, 2026.Tony Rodriguez/CapRadio

"It is a very close result so far. There are a lot of votes left to be counted," Wooden said. "I'm very thankful to the supporters, volunteers and voters for a lot of the support that they've shown my campaign."

The battle for second place comes after weeks of accusations from Vang and her supporters that Matsui allies attempted to boost Wooden's candidacy through California's top-two primary system.

The criticism from Vang’s campaign claimed that Matsui’s campaign identified Wooden as the Republican choice in the race. Vang and her supporters argued that Matsui would benefit from facing a Republican in November rather than another Democrat.

Wooden rejected the suggestion that his support comes from Matsui trying to boost his name. 

"There is genuine support for my campaign regardless of what the other candidates are up to," he said. "I've got the endorsement of the Republicans in Sacramento County and San Joaquin County.”

Before the election, Republican political strategist Rob Stutzman said it was a strategy that Matsui could use to win. 

"We've seen the Matsui campaign take on the tactic of trying to help Republican voters consolidate around one Republican, with the hopes of that Republican pushing through and avoiding a messy and expensive runoff with Vang," Stutzman said.

Matsui's campaign rejected the accusation that she would help a Republican. Campaign Strategist Roger Salazar said Congresswoman Matsui "knows exactly what's at stake with MAGA Republicans like Zachariah Wooden" and remains focused on helping Democrats regain control of the House.

Matsui also emphasized her record of opposing President Donald Trump and voting to impeach him twice in his first term while speaking on election night.

"I have fought against Donald Trump. I fought against ICE. I really believe that health care is fundamental and we need universal health care," she said.

This story was updated June 2, 11:56 p.m.

Sacramento County’s unofficial primary results will arrive in three separate waves on election night, with the first released shortly after polls close at 8 p.m., another at 10 p.m., and a final report issued at midnight. The county will release another batch of results on Friday following the election, with further reports being issued on Mondays and Wednesdays until all results are certified.

Here are the current results for congressional districts in the Sacramento region:

Congressional District 7

Congresswoman Doris Matsui greets supporters at an election watch party on Tuesday, June 2, 2026.Keyshawn Davis/CapRadio

Loading...

Early results show Democratic Congresswoman Doris Matsui leading the race for Sacramento's 7th Congressional District seat, while Democratic Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang was running second.

The contrast between the two campaigns was on display during their election night events.

At a packed Midtown restaurant, Vang’s supporters cheered as early returns appeared on screens, showing she had likely forced a runoff with Matsui. In California’s primary system, the two top candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. 

Vang described her campaign as a grassroots movement built off small dollar donations.

"We were outspent three to one and I'm just really proud of the team. I'm proud of this movement that we built in the region," Vang said.

Matsui’s supporters also gathered in Midtown. They included Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty, former Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper.

Matsui, who has served in Congress since 2005, emphasized her experience and connections in D.C.

"I really believe that experience matters. Effectiveness matters," Matsui said. "And I can meet the moment."

-Tony Rodriguez, CapRadio Local Government Reporter

Congressional District 6

Loading...

District 6 spans from Placer County to West Sacramento, including Sacramento’s urban grid. It’s a crowded race, where sitting Representative Kevin Kiley is fighting to retain a seat in Congress.

Kiley currently represents California’s third congressional district, but decided to run in Congressional District 6 instead after Prop 50 redrew district lines. He switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent last year and is now running in a Democratic-leaning district.

He slammed California's redistricting efforts to flip his district blue as he addressed supporters at an election night watch party in Roseville.

"You see, certain politicians think they can move lines around on a map and choose your representative for you. But they forgot one thing, we still get to vote," Kiley said.

A crowded field of Democratic candidates were vying to face off with Kiley in November. Dr. Richard Pan, A Democrat running for District 6, criticized sitting Congressman Kevin Kiley for supporting the Trump administration and the congressional spending plan that stripped Americans of Medicare coverage. Pan is a medical doctor.

"I think there’s a very strong contrast. Right? You have someone who voted to take healthcare away from people and you have someone who worked to get more people healthcare," Pan said.

Early results show Republican Michael Stansfield closely behind Pan and Democrats Thien Ho, Martha Guerrero, Lauren Babb Tomlinson, and Tyler Vandenberg trailing behind.

-Laura Fitzgerald, CapRadio Politics Reporter

Congressional District 3

Loading...

One of the districts targeted by Prop 50 redistricting, District 3 was originally represented by Kevin Kiley, now running in District 6. The district now includes parts of Sacramento within its borders.

Candidates for the district include several Democrats: Congressman Ami Bera, Sacramento District Attorney Thien Ho and former state senator Richard Pan, along with Republican Robb Tucker.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

This story was updated June 3 at 12:03 a.m.

Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra were leading in the race for California governor in early returns Tuesday night, a nailbiter befitting the most unsettled gubernatorial race in recent memory. 

Governor's Race Results

Loading...

By Kate Wolffe, CalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Even after all the ballots have been cast on Tuesday, it might be a while before Californians know the results of some significant races this election, given the state’s notoriously slow counting.

California has made headlines for trailing other states when it comes to tallying its votes. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom sent a letter last month to all 58 county elections officials urging them to “accurately count every lawfully cast ballot as quickly as possible,” saying that “mis- and dis-information” can spread in the time between Election Day and when the results are certified as official. 

The delay is due in part to ways California has endeavored to make it easier to vote since the COVID-19 pandemic: Every registered voter gets a mail-in ballot, and ballots are valid as long as they’re postmarked by Election Day and arrive at county elections offices within seven days of the election. California’s one of eight states that allow all elections to be conducted by mail, with varying grace periods for ballots that are postmarked by Election Day. Those grace periods are at risk with the U.S. Supreme Court currently weighing a change that would require ballots to arrive by Election Day.  

For mail-in ballots that arrive before Tuesday, elections officials can begin certifying signatures and preparing the ballots for counting; for those that come in later, elections clerks must do this work later, delaying results.

According to voter data firm Political Data Inc., nearly 17% of registered California voters had cast their ballots as of Monday afternoon, a similar return rate as in 2022. 

Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., said he expects a higher turnout than in 2022, since early returns already have shown a higher Republican turnout, and some of the Democrats hanging onto their ballots are “high-propensity voters.”

“There’s a lot of evidence here that we’re probably headed towards 38%, 40% turnout in total, rather than 33% which was the turnout in 2022,” he said.

Elections experts say California’s high proportion of competitive districts and generous windows to fix errors have also added to the longer wait time for results. 

Changes aim to speed up counting

Several recent changes could make a dent in when Californians know the outcome of certain races. 

The first is a change to how long elections officials have to count: Due to Assembly Bill 5, which was signed into law last year, counties now have 13 days to finish counting most ballots, down from 30 days. Newsom pointed to the change during a news conference last week as a move toward “timely ballot counting.” County officials still have 30 days to finalize their official results.

However, Jesse Salinas, Yolo County’s top elections official and the president of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, said the new law doesn’t apply to the ballots that take the most time to count, including those filed by voters who registered on election day and those where a signature doesn’t match what’s on file. State law provides a weeks-long window for those questions to be addressed. 

“I’m hearing these comments about ‘We should be done by the 13th day,’ — that’s legally not possible by state law,” he said. 

Another is trying to pare down the glut of mail-in ballots that come into ballot boxes on Election Day, which slows down vote counting, according to Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

A survey conducted by the foundation found that 31 of the state’s 58 counties will give voters the option of bringing their mail-in ballot to the elections office Tuesday and having it scanned and counted that day as an “in-person” ballot. The change was made possible by Assembly Bill 626, passed in 2023. 

In Placer County, where the system debuted in 2024 as “sign, scan and go,” officials said it cut post-election processing time by about three to four days. 

Some have issues with the assertion that the long tabulation process makes it easy for people to sow distrust in election results. 

Mindy Romero, a political sociologist and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California, said the argument is based on repeatedly discredited claims of voter fraud. She said the narrative that anyone is tampering in elections has been “artificially generated” by politicians like President Donald Trump to undermine the electoral process.

“I think the focus should not be on fixing something that is flawed or wrong, because that long count is a product of making sure that every ballot is verified — indeed, just the opposite of the claims around fraud,” she said.

For the record: This story was corrected to reflect that California has 58 counties, and updated to reflect that 31 counties now allow mail-in ballots to be counted as "in-person" voting.  It was also updated to correct Mitchell’s role at PDI. He is the vice president.

Loading...

This story was featured in our SacramenKnow newsletter. Sign up to get updates about what’s happening in the region in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.

It's Election Day and CapRadio reporters have been talking to Sacramentans about their feelings on the primary. Here's what people had to say:

Alina Rahman, 28, Land Park resident, state worker

“I care about the well-being of state workers and pay raises and return to office, so I would like to see a governor candidate who acknowledges the workers who fuel California’s economy, and I know that’s not only state workers, but we are the ones working in all the departments that fuel the government.”

Jeff, 47, Downtown Sacramento resident, veteran

“I’m just looking at California as a whole getting worse and worse… The jobs are leaving, crime and homelessness are increasing. Although out in the Midwest, I’m seeing things getting really nice out there. I’m planning on moving out there myself.”

Jazely Peña, 30, Midtown resident, mental health professional

Jazely Peña, a 30-year-old Midtown Sacramento resident and mental health professional, poses for a portrait outside Tupi Coffee on Friday, May 29, 2026. Peña says her mother's immigration from Mexico has shaped how she views issues like immigration.Tony Rodriguez/CapRadio

“My mom was born in Sinaloa. She came here when she was 18. I spent a lot of time in Mexico and grew up in a Spanish-speaking household. It's definitely important to think about immigration and how we're being treated moving forward. Growing up, it was never something that we talked about until Trump. Then we started talking more about politics. I think I've seen more of a push to vote because of all of the injustices that have been seen.”

Carissa Dodge, 42, Midtown resident, social worker

Carissa Dodge and her husband, James Dodge, outside a coffee shop near Sacramento’s Land Park neighborhood. June 1, 2026.Laura Fitzgerald/CapRadio

“I just felt like we got so overwhelmed with so many Democratic nominees [for governor] that it was really hard to kind of weed through all of them and I really hate that about the Democratic Party because I feel like they just can’t get it together.”

Christopher Garland, 39, Sacramento resident, unhoused

Christopher Garland in Oak Park across from Aggie Square.Riley Palmer/CapRadio

 “I’ve actually never voted. ?The last time I was gonna vote, that was about six years ago, I  went to the wrong district. I’m in transit and based off that, I haven’t...?My main focus is unity. When there's unity I believe a society will [thrive]. And so that's what, that's what I would focus on, is unifying everyone so we'll be on the same page.”

Marcie Linggi, retired nurse, and Chris Linggi, high school instructor, East Sacramento residents

East Sacramento couple Marcie and Chris Linggi Thursday, May 28, 2026, at East Portal Park in East Sacramento. The two were born and raised in Sacramento and have lived in the neighborhood for nearly seven decades.Gerardo Zavala/CapRadio

“It’s not really a matter of left or right, it’s like who’s going to be honest. We’ve got the fourth largest economy on the planet and there’s homeless people a block from here. Why? It doesn’t make sense.”   -Marcie Linggi

“Now colleges are having to reteach basic math. Everybody gets A’s, they get sent to college and they can’t perform… The last few years [I’ve been] teaching at a high school construction trades, It’s very frustrating because nobody could read a tape measure to save their life, and these are seniors in high school who can’t do fractions…  You try to take their phone away from them and it’s like you’re killing them.”   -Chris Linggi