The Brief

A year after he took the top job in 2019, the president of one of California’s largest and most powerful unions said in a newsletter that he wanted to be “the 800 pound gorilla” in Sacramento politics.

Since then, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union known as CCPOA representing 26,000 state prison guards, has spent and spent, in a way it never did before. Its biggest recipient: Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has taken $2.9 million from the union since he was elected governor.

That’s 31% of all political spending by the union since 2001.

The union under President Glen Stailey gave $1.75 million to Newsom’s anti-recall campaign in 2021 – the largest single contribution to that effort – and another $1 million to support Proposition 1, Newsom’s treatment and housing plan for people experiencing serious mental illness, which passed by the narrowest of margins this year.

That’s a noted contrast to the union’s relationship with the three governors who preceded Newsom, especially former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fought the union’s proposed raises and was the target of an aborted recall campaign launched by the union.

CCPOA has contributed more than $9.3 million to political campaigns in the last 20 years

Prior to the Newsom administration, the prison union’s biggest political expense came in 2005, when it joined other labor organizations in fighting a package of ballot measures sponsored by Schwarzenegger that would have curbed state spending and weakened public employee unions. The unions won, dealing Schwarzenegger a major defeat.

Campaign finance records show the union largely stayed out of political fights during former Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration. It avoided the ballot measures that lowered criminal sentences for nonviolent crimes and gave inmates more opportunities for parole — propositions that voters passed and that contributed to declining headcounts in state prisons.

Then Newsom took office, and the union’s pocketbook opened wide.

There are two ways to look at that spending, according to interviews with legislators, labor leaders, former prison officials and budget watchdogs.

In one, it’s a naked display of power: one of the richest unions in a labor-friendly state reminding its top politicians that it can spend with them — or against them. That’s primarily the view from outside the Capitol.

In the other view, from inside the Capitol, it’s a reflection of the union’s anxiety in the face of waning influence as California’s future almost certainly includes fewer prisons and fewer union-represented prison guards to staff them. The numbers don’t lie: California is housing 70,000 fewer inmates in state prisons than it did in 2011.

At the outset of his first term, Newsom floated the idea of closing a single state prison. He’s since closed three and canceled a contract on another private prison, collectively saving hundreds of millions of dollars. But facing a budget deficit and 4,000 fewer inmates projected to be in prison by the end of his term in 2026, Newsom demurred this year from shutting down another institution.

In a year of budget scarcity, when each inmate costs about $132,000 to house annually and the Legislative Analyst’s Office has said the state has space to close five more prisons, Newsom has been stubborn about keeping prisons open. He has said he wants to keep some additional capacity in the system, and that he wants to build up rehabilitative programs that can help inmates reintegrate into society.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, in a written statement said the governor has tried to balance potential budget savings with public safety needs inside prisons.

“Saving taxpayers billions of dollars without impacting public safety, Gov. Newsom has closed more prisons than any of his predecessors,” he wrote. “The governor’s decisions have been based exclusively on meeting the evolving needs of our criminal justice system, in a manner that maximizes public safety and the judicious use of taxpayer dollars.

Nathan Ballard, an adviser to the union and a longtime Newsom ally, said in written responses to questions from CalMatters that the union and the governor had “respectful and substantive” discussions about potential prison closures this budget cycle.

“Union leaders clearly aired their views and listened very carefully to the administration’s priorities,” Ballard said. “The governor made it known that he valued the union’s input. Ultimately, Gov. Newsom’s process is his own, and it would be irresponsible to speculate about how he arrives at any particular decision.”

The millions of dollars the union shoveled into Newsom’s most significant projects were a reflection of the union’s priorities, he said.

“When the union and the governor are in alignment policy-wise, as they were during Proposition 1, the CCPOA does not hesitate to fight hard for the governor’s initiatives,” he said.

“Even while grappling with policy areas where they are less aligned, there is a strong commitment to finding areas of agreement and progress.”

CCPOA's big contracts in Newsom years

Spending lots of money to support the most powerful executive in the state is perhaps not surprising. So what happens to the politicians who cross the prison guard union?

When the union wanted to get rid of John Moorlach, a Republican state senator who was questioning pension benefits for California public employees, it spent more than $1 million against him in his Orange County race. Then the flyers started popping up, sponsored by the union, tying the Never Trumper senator to the policies and personal predilections of Donald Trump.

“It was cartoonish,” said Lance Christensen, Moorloch’s campaign manager in that 2020 race. “You would think that the public safety unions whose job it is to serve and defend and protect Californians would want a guy like John Moorlach, who was law and order and supportive generally of public safety programs.”

Former Sen. John Moorlach lost his reelection campaign in 2020. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, or CCPOA, spent heavily against him. The Republican lawmaker had carried legislation that would have allowed public employees to choose 401(k) plans instead pensions.

(

Anne Wernikoff

/

CalMatters

)

The prison guard union has spent $3.8 million across 32 state legislative races in this century – $1.2 million of that was spent to defeat Moorlach. He lost to Democrat Dave Min, 51%-49%.

“They decided that it was time to go hammer and tong after him, and take him out,” Christensen said.

The union, which represents about 10% of all state workers, has undoubtedly gotten good deals for its members, arguably none more so than last year, when it negotiated a $1 billion raise over three years. Correctional officers also got a new state-funded retirement perk out of the deal, in addition to their California Public Employees’ Retirement System pensions. And when the state mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for state employees, prison guards were permitted to skip them.

That spending has consistently come under fire from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which found in 2019 and 2021 that the Newsom administration offered “no evidence to justify (a) pay increase” in an unusually harsh analysis of proposed prison guard raises.

The analysis found that California prison guards have neither a recruitment nor a retention problem, and that their salaries were already in line with the salaries in the counties where they work – if not more than 5% higher than comparable job classifications.

Last year, the Legislative Analyst’s Office excoriated Newsom’s administration for repeatedly refusing to make public a 2018 compensation study on prison guard salaries and benefits. The administration regularly publishes compensation studies regarding its 18 other employee bargaining units.

Instead, the administration provided a 2022 compensation study, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office called “flawed” for its failure to account for overtime pay and its selection of large, metropolitan counties as pay comparison points rather than the rural areas where most prison guards work.

“The study is flawed to the point that it is not helpful in meeting its stated objective and we recommend policymakers not use it to assess whether the state’s compensation package for correctional officers is appropriate to attract and retain qualified workers,” according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Those raises, said Brian Kaneda, deputy director for Californians United for a Responsible Budget, put the state’s budget crisis in sharper relief.

“The CCPOA has a stranglehold on Sacramento politics,” Kaneda said. “Everyone’s struggling right now, but prison guards are getting a $1 billion raise. Explain how this could possibly be the right move for California as we tussle with this historic budget deficit.”

When asked to gauge the union’s influence in Sacramento and the diverging views on its power, Ballard said union leadership concentrates on its members more than its lobby.

“The union’s leaders are focused on matters of character, not reputation,” he said. “The CCPOA’s leaders are street-smart correctional officers who have worked in very tough conditions for decades, and as a group they are not terribly concerned with perceived status.”

Is CCPOA a factor in Newsom's prison closures?

Newsom began identifying prisons to close in 2020. More followed in 2022. Then, Newsom stopped naming additional prisons to close even though they have thousands of empty beds.

What changed? For one, people’s perception of crime spiked in the pandemic — though the kind of crimes that would merit prison time mostly went down.

For a governor who perhaps has ambitions beyond Sacramento, that’s important, said one Democratic legislator who did not want their name used for fear of retaliation by both the governor’s office and the prison guard union.

“I don’t think the CCPOA is the reason we’ve stalled on prison closures,” said the legislator. “I think it’s the governor himself or someone in the governor’s office protecting (the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation).

“My presumption is the governor is moderating his views on public safety because of where he wants to go nationally. And so he’s super careful about any perception of being soft on crime.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at San Quentin State Prison announcing that the facility will be transformed to focus on training and rehabilitation on March 17, 2023.

(

Martin do Nascimento

/

CalMatters

)

In its heyday during the prison building boom of the 1990s and 2000s, the prison guard union would never have had to account for such calculations, said former Corrections Secretary Matt Cate. Back then, both parties had incentives to make nice with the union.

“At the time, the Democrats were more moderate than they are now and they were doing everything to support labor generally,” said Cate, who was appointed corrections secretary in 2008 by Schwarzenegger and stayed for two years under Brown, leaving the office in 2011. “Meanwhile, Republicans were staunchly in favor of law enforcement and long sentences because they didn’t believe in rehabilitation and re-entry.

“So CCPOA had an open field. It was just a much easier job than what the CCPOA faces today. It’s not as easy today to be an 800-pound gorilla as it would have been 20 years ago.”

Cate doubts the union is the sole reason, or even the main reason, that Newsom stopped designating prisons for closure. Closing a prison is like closing “a small city,” Cate said, with 3,000 inmates and 800-1,000 employees represented by a dozen or more different unions. The prison system’s health care is managed by a federal monitor, and another federal monitor oversees the state’s prison mental health care.

Taking on a Democrat, and losing

One legislator who crossed the prison union and whose career survived was Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat, who said the sharp-elbowed tactics employed by the union under Stailey, its president, were reflective of the union’s approach in the 1990s, a time when the union’s power was at its height.

“If they sneezed,” he said, “people got a cold.”

In 2020, Jones-Sawyer fell into their crosshairs, literally.

The union ran an online ad against Jones-Sawyer that showed Stailey pointing at a wall of photos of legislators. Over Jones-Sawyer’s photo was a piece of white paper with crosshairs and a red dot. Jones-Sawyer took that as a threat, and the union pledged to pull the ad down and re-edit it.

“It became clear that if they wanted to get back the power, they needed to take somebody out to put the fear into everybody,” said Jones-Sawyer, who won re-election that year. “They thought I was an easy target to take out. They learned that was not the case.”

A finger belonging to California Correctional Peace Officers Association president Glen Stailey points at a bullseye taped over the official portrait of Democratic Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer in a Facebook video produced by the association.

(

screenshot via Facebook

/

CalMatters

)

Jones-Sawyer notes that the union didn’t spend much under former Gov. Brown – not until the threat of prison closures became a reality after Newsom’s election in 2018.

“Once they started talking about closing prisons, that’s when the fear from the CCPOA came up,” Jones-Sawyer said. “That’s when they started writing double max-out checks.”

Jones-Sawyer said he’s frustrated by what he sees as abuses within the prison system, especially guards with multiple infractions keeping their jobs. The Office of the Inspector General earlier this year found that the corrections department had reclassified a backlog of staff misconduct complaints as “routine grievances,” and allowed the statute of limitations to expire in 127 complaints between 2022 and 2023.

Now, Jones-Sawyer said, he’s considering calling for an audit of the prison system’s facilities and spending.

“When (the corrections department) comes back and says this is the best way to do it, we try to see their logic and a lot of times we don’t,” he said.

Are those hard-charging tactics isolating the prison union? One bill introduced this year may be an indication. The bill would limit the number of empty beds available in the prison system to account for the declining inmate population.

Among the bill’s registered supporters are immigration advocates, the California Public Defenders Association and anti-incarceration lobbies.

There was just one group registered in opposition: the CCPOA.

The Trump administration has removed Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth from next year's calendar of entrance fee-free days for national parks and added President Trump's birthday to the list, according to the National Park Service, as the administration continues to push back against a reckoning of the country's racist history on federal lands.

In addition to Trump's birthday — which coincides with Flag Day (June 14) — the updated calendar of fee-free dates includes the 110th anniversary of the NPS (August 25), Constitution Day (September 17) and President Teddy Roosevelt's birthday (October 27). The changes will take effect starting January 1.

Non-U.S. residents will still be required to pay entrance fees on those dates under the new "America-first pricing" policy. At 11 of some of the country's most popular national parks, international visitors will be charged an extra $100, on top of the standard entrance fee, and the annual pass for non-residents will go up to $250. The annual pass for residents will be $80.

The move follows a July executive order from the White House that called to increase fees applied to non-American visitors to national parks and grant citizens and residents "preferential treatment with respect to any remaining recreational access rules, including permitting or lottery rules."

The Department of the Interior, which oversees NPS, called the new fee-exempted dates "patriotic fee-free days," in an announcement that lauded the changes as "Trump's commitment to making national parks more accessible, more affordable and more efficient for the American people."

The Interior Department did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement: "These policies ensure that U.S. taxpayers, who already support the National Park System, continue to enjoy affordable access, while international visitors contribute their fair share to maintaining and improving our parks for future generations."

The new calendar follows the Trump administration's previous moves to reshape U.S. history by asking patrons of national parks to flag any signs at sites deemed to cast a negative light on past or living Americans.
Copyright 2025 NPR

If you found out your neighbor had a past criminal conviction, your knee-jerk reaction might be that you’d want them relocated.

But what if that person committed a burglary in their late teens, served years in state prison, turned their life around, and now mentors at-risk youth?

Do the details matter? Researchers found that they do.

A new poll by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research examines California voters’ attitudes toward due process for immigrants with criminal convictions during the Trump administration’s nationwide crackdown on unauthorized immigration. The survey also examined support for how tax dollars are spent and Californians’ views on the state’s sanctuary policies.

It found bipartisan support for ensuring that immigrants facing deportation receive due process, including ones with criminal records.

“This survey shows that there’s clear concern about the current administration’s approach to immigration enforcement,” said Sara Knight, a research director at Goodwin Simon Strategic Research. “I’m not surprised by the results, but I am heartened to see how strong the support for due process is and the growing frustration with treating people inhumanely in our immigration system.”

President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of mass deportations that targeted criminals, among other things, and he has made good on that. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested more than 160,608 noncitizens nationwide with criminal convictions or pending charges, since his inauguration.

The Trump administration has sought to expand the use of “expedited removal,” which allows immigration officers to remove certain non-citizens, like those convicted of crimes, from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Researchers say this latest poll by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, released to CalMatters this week, also reflects waning support, even among a small majority of Republicans for the harshest immigration enforcement practices. It showed 84% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 54% of Republicans agreed that “even if someone does have a record, they deserve due process and the chance to have their case heard by a judge before being deported.”

The poll was commissioned by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, both pro-immigrant organizations. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research describes itself on its website as an “independent opinion research firm.” Researchers wrote the survey questions and polled more than 1,200 self-identified voters. Knight said the partisan divide among those polled mirrored the party-affiliation split in the electorate. The margin of error was 3 points.

Some other recent polls echo similar conclusions released in recent weeks, including one released last week by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab that found one-third of Latino voters who supported Trump now regret their choice. Another public opinion poll by the nonpartisan research firm Public Policy Institute of California found 71% of Californians surveyed said they disapproved of the job ICE is doing. And, a CNN exit poll after the Proposition 50 redistricting election on Nov. 4 found that about three-quarters of California voters said they’re dissatisfied with or angry about the way things are going in the U.S., and 6 in 10 said the Trump administration’s actions on immigration enforcement have gone too far.

Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, pointed to other recent national polls to argue the public supports Trump’s immigration policies.

“President Trump and (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kristi) Noem are delivering on the American people’s mandate to deport illegal aliens, and the latest polls show that support for the America First agenda has not wavered — including a New York Times poll that nearly 8 in 10 Americans support deporting illegal aliens with criminal records,” McLaughlin said in a written statement.

“The American people, the law, and common sense are on our side, and we will not stop until law and order is restored after Biden’s open border chaos flooded our country with the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” she continued.

From prison to ICE

In the more recent Goodwin Simon Strategic Research poll, 61% of voters surveyed said they want California’s prison system to stop directly handing immigrants over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation.

The state’s sanctuary law does not apply to immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. State prisons have transferred to ICE more than 9,500 people with criminal records since Gov. Gavin Newsom took office in 2019, according to data released to CalMatters. So far in 2025, ICE has picked up 1,217 inmates directly from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the data shows.

The corrections department also provides ICE with information that helps the agency locate, arrest, and deport people who are not directly transferred. CalMatters obtained and reviewed more than 27,000 pages of emails between state prison employees and ICE. The emails show prison employees regularly communicate with ICE about individuals in state custody, including U.S. citizens. They often share personal details about their families, visitors, and phone calls. Often, these family members have no criminal records and are U.S. citizens

Newsom, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, and Speaker Robert Rivas have all denounced ICE’s broader deportation efforts. But all three have also indicated some level of support for having federal immigration officials remove noncitizens with prior convictions for violent crimes from the community.

The governor has stated he would veto legislation that seeks to restrict the state prison system’s ability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities for the deportation of felons.

‘We may be deporting the wrong people’

Goodwin Simon researchers found that voters’ opinions change when they find out more details about the personal circumstances of a noncitizen with a past criminal conviction, even for violent crime. Pollsters gave two narratives to voters.

One was about a man who was brought to the United States from Mexico as a child. He got into a fight in his early 20s that left someone injured. The man was sentenced to seven years in state prison, where he turned his life around by taking college classes and helping other inmates get their high school diplomas. When he got out of prison, he was deported to Mexico before an immigration judge could decide on his case.

The other narrative was about a person closely connected to a man whose family fled genocide in Cambodia when he was a baby. In the U.S., the man was the lookout for a robbery when he was a teenager and served 30 years in state prison. Upon his release, prison officials turned him over to ICE.

“We may be deporting the wrong people. Although this last person did commit a crime, he has served his time and is now a valuable member of society, so it would be hard to say for sure if a person ever committed a crime deserves to be sent back. That is why the due process is important,” one Republican voter from Sacramento responded to the poll. She shifted her opinion from the view that people with past criminal convictions should be automatically deported to favoring a judge reviewing each individual case after hearing the narratives.

After voters reviewed both pro- and anti-messaging and the two stories, support for having an immigration judge review individual cases before deportation increased from 84% to 90% among Democrats; from 61% to 74% among independents, but it dropped from 54% to 51% among Republicans. Central Coast voters and Republican women voters increased support for due process by 9 points after hearing the stories.

The European Union has announced a fine of $140 million against Elon Musk's X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for several failures to comply with rules governing large digital platforms. A European Commission spokesperson said the fine against X's holding company was due to the platform's misleading use of a blue check mark to identify verified users, a poorly functioning advertising repository, and a failure to provide effective data access for researchers.

Europe's preference had not been to fine X, said the spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, as he drew a contrast with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok. Regnier announced Friday that TikTok had separately offered concessions that would allow it to avoid such penalties.

"If you engage constructively with the Commission, we settle cases," Regnier said at a press conference in Brussels. "If you do not, we take action."

The possibility that X would face financial penalties in Europe had drawn significant political fire, not only from Musk but also from others in Washington, D.C., over the past two years since the European Commission began its investigation.

"Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship," Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on X on Thursday. "The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage."

In July 2024, in a set of preliminary findings, the European Commission formally accused X — which serves more than 100 million users within the EU — of several violations. These included its failure to meet transparency mandates, obstructing researchers' access to data and misleading users by converting the blue verification badge into a paid subscription feature.

Musk has long stated his intention to legally challenge any EU sanctions, rather than make concessions to resolve the investigation.

Nonetheless, the company could have faced far higher financial penalties, with European authorities able under new legislation — known as the Digital Services Act — to fine offenders 6% of their worldwide annual revenue, which in this case could have included several other of Musk's companies, including SpaceX.

The fine announcement follows months of accusations from activists and trade experts that authorities in Brussels were deliberately easing up on enforcement to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. Musk was a prominent supporter of Trump's campaign and spent several months this past spring serving as an administration adviser and the public face of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

The willingness to take on Musk's business empire could serve as a critical test of the EU's determination, especially in light of Trump's previous threats of tariffs over the bloc's fines against U.S. technology giants.

The confrontation highlights a growing division over the concept of digital sovereignty, which has transformed long-standing allies into competitors as Europe strives to establish itself as the global authority for digital regulation, and the Trump administration pushes back against perceived curbs on U.S. companies' profits and freedom of expression.

So, experts warn, this direct punitive action against Musk's businesses carries the risk of U.S. retaliation, even though the EU remains heavily dependent on American technology for a range of sectors.

The United States is already leveraging some of these concerns about free speech as grounds for denying U.S. visas to certain individuals.

The Trump administration also has consistently argued that the EU unfairly targets U.S. technology companies with severe financial penalties and burdensome regulations, equating these measures to tariffs that justify trade retaliation. Just last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that the EU must revise its digital regulations to secure a deal aimed at reducing steel and aluminum tariffs.

The Commission denied again Friday any connection between the trade negotiations with the U.S. and the implementation of its technology rulebooks, any targeting of American firms or any kind of infringement on freedom of expression.

"Our digital legislation has nothing to do with censorship," said Commission spokesperson Regnier. "We adopt the final decision, not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin."

Despite the Trump administration's pressure, the EU has proceeded with the enforcement of its digital antitrust rules, recently imposing fines of $584 million on Apple Inc. and $233 million on Meta Platforms Inc.

It also has issued substantial penalties against other corporations, including over $8 billion total in fines against Alphabet Inc.'s Google over several years and a separate directive for Apple to repay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland for providing unfair state aid.

Other potentially more serious concerns about X's management of illegal content, election-related misinformation and the utilization of Community Notes have not yet progressed to the preliminary stage in a separate investigation by the European Commission.

It’s only been a month since the federal government shutdown caused the 5.5 million Californians who use CalFresh — the state’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — to see their payments delayed.

And although payments of SNAP (formerly referred to as food stamps) have restarted, another holiday season is around the corner, putting extra strain on folks who are food insecure in the Bay Area.

One positive development: The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program — a state program offering SNAP recipients up to $60 of free produce each month — has restarted as of November.

The program, which first launched in 2023, is dependent on state-allocated annual funds that are spent until they’re used up, and the 2024 cycle ran out for CalFresh users back in January of this year.

But this year, the program has received an injection of $36 million, which is projected to last until summer 2026.

In previous years, the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program has made “a real, real difference to so many families,” before its funds were used up, said Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), who chairs the state Legislature’s Human Services Committee with oversight of CalFresh policy.

But despite that, he said, “still only a small percentage of all CalFresh-eligible families are using it.”

While only six stores in the Bay Area are participating in the program right now — almost all of them in the South Bay — anyone receiving CalFresh benefits can automatically receive $60 worth of fresh produce each month if they’re able to reach one of these locations.

Keep reading for how the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program works, where it’s available and how to redeem your money in-store.

And if you don’t need this information yourself right now, consider sharing it with someone else who might: “One in five Californians suffer from food insecurity,” Lee said. “So statistically speaking, you are, or you know someone who is struggling with food.”

Can anyone on CalFresh use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?

Yes: If you receive any CalFresh (SNAP) benefits, you have automatic access to the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program at participating stores (see below).

You don’t need to apply for anything, as your EBT card itself is your proof of eligibility.

Can I use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program in any store that accepts EBT?

No: You’ll need to visit one of the specific stores participating in the program.

In the Bay Area, almost all of these stores are in Santa Clara County:

• Santa Fe Foods, 860 White Road, San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 204 Willow St., San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 1003 Lincoln Ave., San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 2620 Alum Rock Ave., San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 6906 Automall Pkwy., Gilroy

In Alameda County, you can use the program at:

• Santa Fe Foods, 7356 Thornton Ave., Newark

There are also participating stores in Monterey and Salinas counties, and several in the Los Angeles area. See a full list of grocery stores participating in the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program.

How do I use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program in the store?

First, make sure you’re in one of the stores participating in the program — mistakes can happen — and that you’ve brought your EBT card with you.

Next, do your shopping as normal, and pick up fresh fruits and vegetables as part of your trip. You don’t have to separate the produce or pay for it in a different transaction.

At the register, tell the cashier you’d like to use your EBT card to pay for your shopping, like you usually would. When it comes to the fresh fruits and vegetables in your cart, you’ll initially see the costs of those particular items come off your EBT funds — but then those funds will be immediately returned, making that produce effectively free at the register.

Another way of seeing it: If your cart amounts to $15 of EBT-eligible food, including $5 of produce, you’ll initially see $15 debited from your card on the screen — but then you’ll see the instant rebate of $5 for your produce, meaning your final receipt will only be $10.

“People don’t have to enroll and do anything different; they don’t have to keep track of some paper coupon or some other card,” said Eli Zigas, executive director of Fullwell: the Bay Area nonprofit advocacy organization partnering with the state to administer the program this year.

“It’s all built into the EBT card at the participating locations,” he said.

And while you can get these instant rebates for up to $60 worth of produce each month, remember: You don’t have to “spend” that $60 up in one transaction. Your EBT will automatically keep track of your produce purchases and just stop issuing the instant rebates once you’ve hit that $60 cap for the month.

Does the amount of produce I can buy using the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program depend on how much I’m receiving in CalFresh benefits?

No: Every CalFresh household can get up to $60 of free fresh fruits and vegetables with their EBT card, regardless of the amount of benefits they receive. It’s a flat amount for all SNAP users in the state.

My EBT balance is at $0 right now. Can I still use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?

No: To get the instant rebate on money spent on fresh fruit and vegetables, you’ll first need to actually spend those funds using your EBT card — even though you’ll immediately get the money back onto that card.

If you don’t have any money on your EBT card available, you’ll have to wait until your CalFresh funds are reloaded next month to be able to use the program again. But remember that if your EBT funds are running low, you can still spend a smaller amount — or whatever’s available on your card — on fresh fruit and vegetables and receive the money back instantly, until you’ve maxed out that $60-per-month cap.

Is there a deadline to use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?

The $36 million approved in the most recent state budget by the California legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom for the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program “is three and a half times more money than this program has ever had previously for an annual cycle,” Zigas said.

In previous years, Lee said, the funding would last for different periods “because the program was so wildly successful and oversubscribed that it would run out for a while.”

So what about 2026? “We estimate, based on previous usage, that the program will have funds to run through the summer,” Zigas said.

But after summer arrives, Zigas said, “it’s all going to depend on what the usage is, and whether there’s renewed funding.” So while you still have many months to try the program, you shouldn’t wait too long — not least because each month that passes will bring another $60 for you to spend on produce.

In the wake of the SNAP delays caused by the government shutdown, “I think people have seen recently more than ever before how important CalFresh is and how much people are struggling to put food on the table,” Zigas said. “We would love to see this program not only operate continuously all year long without interruption, but also expand — because it’s a limited number of grocery stores right now offering this program, and it could be so much bigger.”

Is the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program the same as Market Match, and can I use both?

Market Match is a statewide program that distributes funds to farmers’ markets across California, allowing people using CalFresh to “match” an amount of their choosing from their EBT card at the market with tokens to spend at that location — essentially doubling their funds.

Market Match is a separate state program from the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program, but people on CalFresh can use both programs.

Learn more about the Market Match program, and watch KQED’s video on how to use your EBT card at your local market.

Why does the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program focus on fresh produce specifically?

The program’s focus on fresh fruit and vegetables “is recognizing that CalFresh benefits, as good as they are, are often insufficient for people to afford the food that they want for their families,” Zigas said.

This is especially true of fresh fruits and vegetables, he said, “which are harder to justify buying when you have less income because they’re not shelf stable, and you don’t know if your kids are necessarily going to like them.

“People would like to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, and often just don’t feel like they can make that choice — or afford it,” he said.