The Brief

Last week, President Donald Trump caused a media frenzy after he floated the idea that the government should back the creation of a 50-year fixed mortgage.

Many commenters, including some of Trump's own supporters, hated the idea. They complained that it would result in Americans being in debt for their entire adult lives, essentially renting from a bank. They complained that this type of mortgage would explode the amount of interest homeowners would have to pay over the lifetime of their loans. They complained that borrowers would be stuck paying interest-only payments for many years and be prevented from actually paying down their principal and building equity in their homes.

"It will ultimately reward the banks, mortgage lenders, and home builders while people pay far more in interest over time and die before they ever pay off their home," posted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.). "In debt forever, in debt for life!"

President Trump "is creating generational debt," said Josh Johnson on The Daily Show. "They're going to be fighting to get out of grandma's will. Grandkids will be like, 'I barely knew her!'" (Side note: Josh Johnson is very funny. I'm a fan.)

The uproar over the 50-year mortgage idea reached such a high pitch that apparently the White House was furious with the administration official who pitched President Trump the idea, according to reporting from Politico.

Sure, it won't solve our housing affordability problem. But is a 50-year mortgage really such a crazy idea?

"It's not quite as outlandish as it sounds," says John Campbell, an economist at Harvard University.

"Honestly, I kind of think it's a fine idea," says Eric Zwick, an economist at The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. "It's not obviously so different from a 30-year fixed mortgage."

The 50 vs The 30

First of all, the reality is most homeowners ditch their mortgage well before its end date. Some refinance. Others move.

In America, unlike some other countries, including the UK, you can't take your mortgage with you if you sell your house. So when people sell their house and move, they end their mortgages.

The typical American homeowner spends less than 12 years in their home, according to a Redfin analysis of the U.S. Census data. That's actually high compared to recent history. Back in the early 2000s, Americans typically spent only about seven years in their houses.

" Most people will not have that 50-year mortgage product for that length of time," says Daryl Fairweather, the chief economist of Redfin. "I think in a world where this product exists, a lot of people might sign up for it initially and then try to refinance later."

In other words, the 50-year mortgage would not be a 50-year trap. It would basically serve as another option on the menu for homebuyers looking to finance their homes. And, because you have longer to pay off the loan, it comes with the benefit of having somewhat lower monthly payments. Maybe that could help some secure their dream house or reap the benefits of investing in the housing market.

"I think affordability is a concern in the housing market," Zwick says. "And one element is the down payment, but another element is the monthly payment. And a longer duration mortgage is gonna lower the monthly payment."

And, sure, there are real drawbacks to this sort of financing, including especially a much higher interest bill over the life of the loan and an extended period where homeowners aren't paying down their principal and building equity. But those same issues also arise with the 30-year fixed mortgage, albeit to a lesser degree.

And Americans apparently love the 30-year mortgage. More than 90% of American mortgage holders have one!

The American mortgage market is weird

The fact that so many American homeowners have long-term, fixed rate mortgages, and they're able to basically refinance pretty easily whenever they want, makes the U.S. mortgage market pretty weird compared to most other countries.

We won't get into the complicated history here (we might actually do a Planet Money episode on this history in the future). But, for now, we'll say the 30-year mortgages date back to the Depression era. And they're fundamentally a creature of government intervention. The government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from private lenders, allowing them to offload (and socialize) the risks associated with lending large sums of money for decades at fixed interest rates.

Without this intervention, the 30-year mortgage would probably not be so ubiquitous. I mean, think about it. Would you want to lend someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for decades and freeze the amount they will pay you for providing them with that money? What if they lose their jobs or die? What if interest rates skyrocket and you can find much more favorable terms for lending out that money? And then, to boot, if interest rates fall, the borrower can just walk away from that loan and get a new mortgage at any time when economic conditions are more favorable to them? I mean, yikes. No thanks.

A long time ago, Planet Money interviewed financial journalist Bethany McLean about 30-year fixed mortgages, and she described them as "a financial Frankenstein's monster" from the perspective of lenders.

Without an important role for the government in backing these loans, "I don't think any rational bank would offer this product," says David Berger, an economist at Duke University.

" You need the public sector to play an important role for really long duration mortgages to be viable in the financial system," says Joseph Gyourko, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business.

It helps explain why this sort of mortgage system is so rare in the world.

The Pros of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages 

There are some clear benefits of the weird mortgage system we have in the United States. One is lower monthly payments because homebuyers can pay off their loans over 30 years. Another is homebuyers are given an incredible ability to freeze their housing costs in stone and then refinance when it suits them.

Several of the economists we spoke to had 30-year mortgages themselves, and they had refinanced when rates sank below 3 percent a few years ago. They were very nice people, but I hate them now. (I bought a house more recently and the mortgage rate is close to 7 percent).

Anyways, the ability to freeze rates and then refinance later if the opportunity arises is clearly a huge benefit to homebuyers. It offers predictability on your housing costs. And, especially nice, a fixed-rate mortgage basically shields you from inflation and its accompanying higher interest rates. Everything else may get more expensive, but your housing payment actually falls in real terms when there's inflation!

The Cons of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages

That said, as we already alluded to, both 30-year and hypothetical 50-year mortgages come with costs: they tend to have higher interest rates than adjustable rate mortgages and you have a longer period upfront paying interest and not actually paying down your loan much.

But there's more.

If the housing market gets dicey and prices start plummeting, having a large outstanding loan at a fixed interest rate can create serious problems. Gyourko, the economist at Wharton, says long-term, fixed-rate mortgages increase the probability that you can go underwater on your home, a situation where you owe more on your house than it's worth.

" The borrower on a really long duration loan — 30 or 50 — does not build equity very quickly at all," Gyourko says. " There's a risk that if there's a severe drop in house prices, you go underwater."

Going underwater is a nightmare. If you sell, it means the money you get won't cover your debt. It gets much harder to refinance, meaning you're stuck with a higher interest rate than you could otherwise get in a situation where the housing market tanks.

If you have a fixed-interest rate and the housing market tanks, "your house price goes down and you're kind of stuck," says Berger, the economist at Duke. "No one is gonna lend to you when you're underwater. If you had an adjustable rate, your rate would've just dropped automatically," and maybe that would help you make your housing payments and not lose your house.

"And are you more likely or less likely to be laid off if house prices drop a lot? Answer: more likely," Gyourko says. "So you run that risk of those two events coinciding, and then you've lost a huge amount of your personal wealth."

Depending on the state of the economy, the direction of interest rates, and your financial circumstances, it might not make sense to fix your interest rate. Actually, that may be the case right now. Interest rates spiked in 2022 and 2023 and have already started to come down, and many expect them to go down further, especially if the economy enters a recession.

" Right now, I think it does make more sense for people to get an adjustable rate mortgage," Fairweather, the chief economist at Redfin, says.

Adjustable-rate mortgages typically start with lower interest rates than fixed rate mortgages. Fairweather says you can think about the choice to buy a long-term, fixed-rate mortgage instead of an adjustable rate mortgage as effectively paying extra for insurance against future interest rate hikes. And, just like the standard advice for buying any other kind of insurance, "you don't really want to get insurance if you can afford to self-insure," she says. In other words, if you think you could afford the possibility that interest rates spike in the near future, it probably makes sense to get an adjustable rate mortgage.

" So if you get the adjustable rate mortgage, what I would advise is to make sure you have some room in your budget left over for when the mortgage rate resets potentially at a higher level so that you're not hit with costs that you aren't able to pay," Fairweather says. "But if you could take that savings and you know, put it in your savings account, then you'll probably end up a-okay with an adjustable rate mortgage and actually save money compared to the fixed rate."

Fixed-rate mortgages may distort our economy

But there are other, economy-wide issues with having so many mortgage-holders with long-term fixed rates.

One is that the government involvement in the housing market that makes our system of widespread 30-year mortgages possible can occasionally result in big problems for taxpayers, especially if regulators aren't vigilant in preventing shady loan practices. Just see what happened during the global financial crisis back in the late 2000s.

"The worst possible situation is what happened in the global financial crisis when Fannie and Freddie were basically insolvent, were put on the treasury's balance sheet and to this day remain there," Gyourko says.

Another problem with America's weird system of ubiquitous fixed-rate mortgages is that it may weaken the Fed's ability to juice the economy or lower inflation when needed (aka conduct monetary policy).

That's because fixed-rate mortgage holders are shielded from interest rate changes. If everyone had an adjustable rate mortgage, the Fed could maybe more easily juice the economy by lowering people's monthly payments, nudging them to spend more in the economy. That said, if interest rates go low enough, it will induce many American homeowners to refinance, lower their payments, and potentially goad them to increase their spending and boost the economy.

In inflationary times though, when the Fed needs to bring down spending in the economy, the Fed's job may be tougher and more distortionary to the economy. If everyone were on adjustable rates, the Fed could just raise rates and, boom, homeowners would probably start spending less and inflation would come down. But most American homeowners are shielded from rate increases, so it's new homebuyers — often younger people — who feel more of the pain. Some argue that's unfair.

Speaking of unfairness, Harvard's John Campbell points out that maximizing your personal wealth in our weird mortgage system relies on considerable financial literacy, and populations that are poorer and less educated tend to be less financially literate. So this system results in greater inequality.

"A lot of people don't know when to refinance and they just don't do it," Campbell says. "And there's some very troubling evidence that, in this country, black and Hispanic borrowers are much slower to refinance than white borrowers." The result, he says, is they tend to pay higher interest rates.

There's another problem with our system: lock in. This has been talked about in recent years. There are tons of homeowners out there who now have rock-bottom interest rates on their mortgages — like, ahem, many of the very financially literate economists I spoke to — and they're reluctant to move.

Lock-in may be one reason why American home prices have been stubbornly high over the past few years, even as interest rates have spiked. Other countries, where adjustable rate mortgages are more the norm, have seen their housing prices dip a lot more in recent years.

" I think that their housing markets are more reactive to their overall economies," Fairweather says. "So in other places where there's more adjustable rate mortgages, when interest rates go up, that means that homeowners have a reason to sell because their payments are going up. And if they can't afford them or they don't want to pay them, then they'll put their homes on the market.  In our housing market, that doesn't happen. There is this unequal treatment between first time home buyers and existing homeowners. And it really benefits long-term homeowners."

Even more, economists believe that the lock-in that fixed mortgages create is bad for the economy. Many people may be refusing jobs where they could be more productive because they don't want to move.

The real fix for housing affordability

So, yeah, many of the problems identified with the 50-year mortgage idea are also present with the 30-year mortgage.

The real motivation for this idea is to enable more Americans to buy houses. With high prices and higher interest rates than a few years ago, many Americans are priced out.

The economists we spoke to all stressed that this new financial product will not solve the fundamental problem of housing affordability. To do that, we need to start building a lot more homes. Some even said that by juicing demand with this new financial product and not increasing supply, this proposal could actually make housing prices go higher, contributing to the problem.

"Proposals to help home buyers — whether it's this 50-year mortgage or whether it's Kamala Harris's proposal in her presidential campaign to give money to first time homebuyers — the main beneficiaries are actually the people selling houses," Campbell says. "Because given the supply, if you make it easier for buyers, they're bidding against each other for the same supply. The price is gonna go up. The winner is gonna be the person selling."

So, yeah, we need to build more homes. But, in that world, maybe a 50-year mortgage would have some benefits for some people. Of course, they will need to know the facts about this financial product and make sure it's the right product for them.

Berger, the economist at Duke, recommends that the government invest more in helping Americans become more financially literate about mortgages and provide better information about alternative financial options to the 30-year mortgage. This stuff is complicated!
Copyright 2025 NPR

The number of Californians without health insurance could double from 2 million today to 4 million by 2030, according to a report from the state Legislative Analyst's Office. It’s the state budget office’s preliminary attempt to quantify how federal legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” will reshape healthcare access statewide.

The One Big Beautiful Bill is driving nearly 90% of the projected coverage loss, according to the LAO report. It's mostly Medi-Cal enrollees who are expected to be dropped when new work requirements take effect in 2027. The remaining 10% are largely people leaving the state's health insurance marketplace, Covered California, after enhanced federal premium subsidies expired last year.

What's the impact to coverage?

L.A. County officials estimate that recent Medi-Cal changes could put coverage at risk for hundreds of thousands of residents and cost the health departments about $800 million a year. A UC Berkeley Labor Center analysis projected more than 1 million Medi-Cal enrollees could lose coverage by 2028.

The LAO report also warns that county indigent health programs for uninsured residents will soon face a surge in demand they’re not prepared to meet. Those county programs had enrolled about 850,000 people statewide before the federal government expanded Medicaid coverage in 2014. Total enrollment is currently 10,000 statewide, but the trend is going to reverse, according to the report.

What's the impact to health-care providers?

More uninsured people means hospitals and clinics provide more services without getting paid. The LAO projects that uncompensated care costs at hospitals could grow by several billion dollars statewide by 2030. Clinics face steeper losses because they run on smaller budgets and depend more heavily on Medi-Cal revenue.

The LAO also projects premiums on the individual health insurance market will rise as healthier people drop coverage.

What are proposals to help?

The LAO itself doesn’t recommend new spending and instead urges lawmakers to track what happens to hospitals, clinics and county programs before taking action. But both L.A. County and state officials are pushing tax efforts to combat federal cuts.

L.A. County voters will decide June 2 on Measure ER, a half-cent sales tax that would generate about $1 billion a year for hospitals and clinics. ANovember statewide ballot initiative would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians worth over $1 billion and direct 90% of proceeds to Medi-Cal.

California regulators say State Farm has illegally delayed, underpaid and denied claims from policyholders affected by the 2025 L.A. fires — something fire survivors have said for months.

The California Department of Insurance announced Monday that it has taken the first step in the process to bring the allegations to a public hearing before an administrative judge. That could result in the state’s largest home insurer paying up to about $4 million in penalties, and suspension of its license for up to a year, meaning it could not write new policies in California during that time.

“Our investigation found that State Farm delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape at the worst moment of their lives,” state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement.

The state analyzed 220 randomly selected claims — out of more than 11,000 filed with State Farm in response to last year’s fires — and found hundreds of violations in more than half them. Attorneys for the state called it a “troubling pattern” in their filing.

State Farm denied the allegations and called the state’s move “politically motivated” in a lengthy statement posted to its website.

Every Fire Survivors Network, a coalition representing thousands of L.A. fire survivors, pressured the state for months to investigate State Farm’s handling of wildfire claims.

Joy Chen, who co-founded the group after her home was damaged in the Eaton Fire, said the state’s action is far from enough.

“It’s just very disappointing to see our regulator issue a report that shows his own failures over the last 16 months,” she told LAist.

Only a few dozen homes have been rebuilt so far in both Altadena and Pacific Palisades since the fires destroyed more than 16,000 buildings, mostly homes, in those communities and nearby areas.

A survey by the nonprofit Department of Angels last year found that nearly three-quarters of L.A. fire survivors reported delays, denials and low payouts of their claims across all insurers.

“What we need is for all State Farm contracts to be enforced so that Los Angeles families can have the money that we need to move forward with getting back home,” Chen said.

The state’s alleged violations carry a fine of up to $5,000, and up to $10,000 if the violations are found to be willful. The case will be heard by a state administrative law judge, who will provide a recommendation to Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara on a possible penalty.

The Insurance Department said people with homeowners policies from any insurer can report problems with their claims at insurance.ca.gov or by calling (800) 927-4357.

Yes, you could put a screen in your backyard and call up your friends to watch a particularly compelling World Cup game after the tournament begins June 12.

But FIFA is turning each game into a public celebration, sponsoring 10 outdoor Fan Zone watch parties with large viewing screens across L.A. County through the final on July 19.

Details were released on Monday, including locations, dates and prices.

The Fan Zones open in a staggered schedule from one day to four days each, starting with the Original Farmers Market on June 18 - 21, and then popping up across the region until the glorious end on July 19 in downtown Burbank.

Ticket prices range from free (City of Downey, Union Station L.A., “Magic” Johnson Park, Whittier Narrows) to over $300 for a VIP experience with a viewing lounge and a concert at the downtown Burbank Fan Zone on the day of the World Cup final match on July 19.

Fan Zone kick off

At the first Fan Zone, at The Original Farmers Market from June 18 for four days, entry will cost you $5 per day or $17 for all four days. Kids age 3 and under are free. (FIFA says the zones are family friendly).

You’ll be able to see four matches there each of the four days, including Mexico vs. South Korea on June 18 at 6 p.m. and USA vs. Australia on June 19 at noon.

FIFA World Cup 2026 scarves are displayed during the ribbon cutting for the LAX/Metro Transit Center rail and bus public transportation station at LAX on June 6, 2025.

(

Patrick T. Fallon

/

Getty Images

)

You won’t have to squint to find your favorite player or catch the goals. The Farmer’s Market will include a 30-foot viewing screen as well as a 15-foot secondary screen to watch the games. There will be beer gardens, and you can purchase food from the Market's dozens of establishments.

Other Fan Zones

The West Harbor L.A. Fan Zone will give people an opportunity to experience the newest major development along the San Pedro waterfront, a 42-acre waterfront district that’s been years in the making.

The Union Station L.A. Fan Zone on June 25 is free and includes match viewing, music, food, and immersive fan experiences, featuring live DJs.

The final Fan Zone opens July 18 and 19 in downtown Burbank for the World Cup’s last two matches. FIFA says it’ll include “an adjacent international street fair filled with global flavors and cultural experiences.” Tickets range from $25 to over $300

The full list of the Fan Zones is here.

This of course, isn’t the only opportunity to watch World Cup matches with groups of people in SoCal. The city of L.A. will host its own watch parties.

Up against a massive court backlog that can drag their cases for years, asylum seekers face steep costs when pursuing their dreams of college in California.

Asylum-seeking students in California often face a double blow: they are charged higher tuition for nonresidents and excluded from most financial aid. For students and their families, this can mean thousands of dollars paid out of pocket and years of financial stress as their immigration cases remain unresolved.

Before establishing residency, asylum-seeking students are charged non-resident rates, which are about three times what state residents pay for public universities and roughly eight to 13 times more for community colleges, depending on the district.

All asylum seekers are disqualified from federal financial aid. The few who qualify for California’s state aid may never know their options, or face hurdles in obtaining it due to a patchwork of financial aid processes.

The state’s higher education systems are not mandated to track asylum seekers, making state budget impacts nearly unquantifiable during legislative attempts to expand financial aid eligibility.

“I only see them struggling,” said Eric Cline, social services program director at OASIS Legal Services, which supports LGBTQ+ asylum seekers across the Bay Area and Central Valley. “I’m always surprised (when) a few clients tell me 'I just graduated from college.’ I think, ‘Wow, how did that happen?’”

Policy changes stoke uncertainty for asylum seekers

Asylum seeking is one of the least-protected immigration statuses in the U.S. Asylum seekers, who’ve fled their home countries fearing persecution and are asking the U.S. for protection, differ from refugees, whose status is granted before they enter the country. Asylum seekers apply upon arriving in the U.S.

Applicants can stay as their cases remain pending for years, though experts say the Trump administration is expediting deportations for numerous asylum seekers and ending cases before they can receive a full hearing.

As of February 2026, a little over 2.3 million immigrants are awaiting asylum hearings nationwide, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal activity. The most recent data shows California alone had about 169,000 pending asylum cases in its immigration courts by the end of 2023 — the second-largest backlog of any state. The average wait for an asylum hearing in California was 1,412 days at that time.

The Trump administration paused asylum cases in November, creating even further delays. The administration has now allowed cases to resume for applicants from all but 40 countries. In the San Francisco immigration court system, which is popular among asylum seekers due to higher acceptance rates, a combination of firings by the Trump administration, retirements and relocations whittled the 21 immigration judges to two, according to reporting in Mission Local. Left behind is a caseload of nearly 119,000 immigration cases, the highest of any immigration court in California.

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” also established new fees for asylum seekers, placing additional pressure on an already low-income population. Applicants must now pay an initial $100 application fee plus $100 per year while their case is pending, $550 for a work permit, and $745 each year to renew the permit. In addition, a new rule proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would effectively end the ability of asylum seekers to obtain work permits at all.

Royce Hall on the UCLA campus

(

Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag

/

Los Angeles Times

)

As they await a decision, asylum seekers are excluded from federal aid and some state financial aid programs, including Cal Grants under California law.

For one asylum seeker, Carol, being ineligible for financial aid meant she had to take time off from school to work to make ends meet. CalMatters is not using her full name because she fears speaking publicly may jeopardize her asylum case.

Carol did speak before the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2023 urging lawmakers to pass AB 888, which would have expanded Cal Grant eligibility to certain asylum seekers. The bill ultimately did not pass.

She said she arrived in the United States at 17 and had spent more than six years waiting for her case to move through immigration courts, a period during which she said she was ineligible for financial aid.

“I’ve had to delay my educational journey several times, including going part-time and even taking a semester off from school to work,” Carol told lawmakers.

Without access to aid, she said she experienced homelessness, couch surfing and at one point slept on a mattress topper on a hardwood floor because she could not afford a bed. She worked multiple jobs at a time, skipped meals and attended class without the required course materials.

Her story, she said, was not new. Carol told the committee that four years earlier her brother had testified with a nearly identical experience on behalf of a previous bill that was ultimately vetoed, a cycle she argued could have been prevented.

“Had California taken action then, I wouldn’t have had to face the harrowing experiences that I shared with you today,” she said.

Despite the barriers, Carol graduated from Cal State Long Beach and worked as a caseworker with the International Rescue Committee, helping resettle refugees and asylum seekers. She told lawmakers she hopes to pursue a law degree and become an international human rights attorney.

The narrow path to college aid for asylum-seeking students

Many asylum seekers arrive eager to continue studies they began abroad, but quickly run into what Cline calls “a brick wall."

“All of our clients are low-income … they’re almost never eligible for generalized financial aid,” he said. “When you take away the financial aid aspect, it makes (college) pretty inaccessible.”

For California residents, annual undergraduate tuition is $15,588 at the University of California, $6,838 at the California State University and about $1,380 for 30 units at a community college. Students classified as non-residents — including some asylum seekers before establishing residency — can pay $54,858 at a University of California, about $20,968 at a Cal State before campus-based fees, and roughly $10,140 to $13,560 for 30 units at a community college, depending on the district. These figures do not include campus-based fees, housing or living expenses.

Even when students do manage to establish residency, the cost is still steep. For the many asylum seekers who arrive in the United States as adults, they may not have attended a California school previously, barring them from qualifying for state financial aid.

AB 540, the 2001 law that exempts undocumented students from paying non-resident tuition, only applies if the student attended a California high school or community college for three years.

Those who qualify through AB 540 can fill out the California Dream Act Application for state financial aid, such as Cal Grants, university system-specific grants, state loans, and the state’s middle class scholarship.

The application process can still be confusing for asylum seekers whose status is not fully accounted for in the design of the application. For example, asylum seekers often have Social Security numbers for work authorization, but affirming so while answering the financial aid pre-screening questions leads to undetermined eligibility because the questions don’t take into account the nuances of applying as an asylum seeker.

Stickers and flyers on a table in the Undocumented Community Center at the College of San Mateo in San Mateo, on Nov. 28, 2023. At this center, undocumented students can access financial and legal aid as well as guidance in navigating grant applications.

(

Amaya Edwards

/

CalMatters

)

Asylum seekers often require extra help from financial aid counselors, but even counselors may not know how to help navigate eligibility rules. Students often wind up seeking help from undocumented student resource centers on public campuses, which are designed to help students who lack legal residency and those from mixed-status families find aid and academic support.

Kaveena Singh, the director of immigration legal services at the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, which provides legal services to low-income immigrants, noted that she herself has written letters to financial aid offices to help explain the in-between nature of the few asylum-seeking students she has served.

As an asylum-seeking student in his mid-20s, L. ended up qualifying for state financial aid through AB 540. However, he misunderstood for six years exactly what aid he qualified for. L. wished to withhold his name and the names of the institutions he’s attended for fear of negative impacts on his pending asylum case.

Initially, community college didn’t cost him anything — but when he transferred to a large four-year university, the cost of college soared. He went to his university's financial aid office for help so often that all the staff there knew his name. It was a "big relief” when he was finally able to successfully fill out the California Dream Act Application, and obtain financial aid for his summer and fall quarters.

L.'s asylum case has been pending for nine years. He, his dad, mom and younger brother arrived in the United States in the winter of 2016, claiming asylum under fear of political retribution. His father organized political assemblies in China, and his mother was forced to have an abortion under the one-child policy.

“I just wish I could go home and visit family and friends and catch up for a good few weeks in the summer here and there to reconnect with my past,” L. said. “It's like there's two separate lives, like two entities being artificially cut.”

L. worked throughout high school and college, and worried about affording school.

Most days, the combination of family trauma and the limbo of waiting for his case means L. survives through “constant compartmentalization.”

In the meantime, he tries to carry on — he studies politics, and is interested in international relations and human rights.

"As rough as all that's happened, the silver lining is that one day hopefully I get a passport and a green card," L. said. "To help other people avoid such a hassle will be just as fulfilling for me."

Previous legislative efforts have failed

Legislative bills to extend state financial aid eligibility to asylum-seeking students have been introduced at least twice in recent years but have failed.

One attempt came in 2019, when Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from El Segundo, introduced SB 296, a bill that would have extended Cal Grant eligibility to students with pending asylum applications. The measure passed the Legislature with some bipartisan support, but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that it would "impose costs on the General Fund that must be weighed in the annual budget process."

“That was frustrating, but I understood it,” Allen told CalMatters. “The real issue is that we don’t have good data. Our schools don’t track asylum seekers, so we can’t easily calculate the cost.”

UC data on asylum-seeking students is protected due to privacy policies, according to Stett Holbrook, a UC spokesperson. The Cal State system reports it has less than 500 students with "asylum status," which includes both those who have an asylum granted and asylum seekers, according to Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith. The numbers are self-reported during the admissions process.

In spring 2025, 13,507 students self-identified as “refugee/asylee” across the California Community Colleges — up from 11,537 the prior semester — per the CCC DataMart. The data does not include a category for just asylum seekers. Students can self-identify their immigration status while applying, but asylum seekers are not specifically tracked, according to the college system’s spokesperson Melissa Villarin.

Four years after SB 296 failed, Democrat Sabrina Cervantes — then representing Riverside in the Assembly and now as a state senator — revived the proposal through AB 888, introduced in 2023. Like Allen’s earlier bill, AB 888 sought to make Cal Grants accessible to students with pending asylum applications by creating a direct eligibility pathway outside the AB 540 residency requirements. The bill passed the Assembly unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee last September, effectively ending its chances for the year.

Cervantes declined an interview with CalMatters. “My Assembly Bill 888 would have created a new pathway for pending asylum seekers in California to apply for Cal Grant financial aid in pursuit of their higher education,” Cervantes wrote in a statement.

Newsom’s office declined to say whether he would support a future version of the proposal, pointing instead to his brief 2019 veto message.

“There’s nervousness around anything that involves new expenses," Allen said. “... We’re going to have to spend some time seeing what information we can get with regards to better data to get better estimated costs. I think that will help to better inform the conversation."

Andrea Baltodano and Chrissa Olson are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.