Protect local news!

Be one of 5,000 supporters to make a monthly gift during our fall member drive and help strengthen our nonprofit newsroom.
3,847 sustainers of 5,000 goal
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Non-citizens warned to avoid jobs amid ICE sweeps
    A group of people gather outside the entrance to Glass House Farms.
    Families wait outside the front gates of the Glass House Farms facility outside Camarillo on July 11, 2025.

    Topline:

    A series of federal immigration raids at two California cannabis farms has reignited fears across the state’s legal weed industry, especially for immigrant workers. The United Farm Workers union (UFW) is now warning non-citizens to avoid cannabis jobs altogether, emphasizing the conflict between state legality and federal enforcement priorities.

    Immigrant workers at risk: The United Farm Workers urged undocumented and legal immigrants alike to steer clear of cannabis jobs, citing the federal illegality of marijuana as a potential basis for deportation, even in licensed operations.

    Industry shaken by raids: The aggressive federal action at state-sanctioned farms alarmed California’s cannabis sector, evoking memories of past drug war crackdowns and signaling a possible policy shift under the Trump administration.

    After massive federal raids last week at two Southern California cannabis farms, the United Farm Workers posted an urgent message to its social media accounts. Because weed remains illegal under federal law, the union advised workers who are not U.S. citizens to avoid jobs in the cannabis industry, even at state-licensed facilities.

    “We know this is unfair,” the United Farm Workers wrote Monday, “but we encourage you to protect yourself and your family.”

    The immigration enforcement operations at the Camarillo and Carpinteria facilities of Glass House Farms, one of the state’s largest licensed cannabis companies, have unsettled California’s legal industry, which feels more vulnerable than it has since voters approved recreational weed in 2016.

    The chaotic scene has brought to the forefront simmering concerns that weed farms could become an easy target as President Donald Trump ramps up deportations, because simply working in the industry could provide the criminal pretext to arrest even a legal immigrant.

    It has also resurfaced for many industry veterans traumatic memories of raids during the “war on drugs,” raising alarms that the Trump administration may be hardening its stance against what remains a federally illegal substance.

    “There is a sense that the community has gotten a little complacent in our legalization bubbles,” said Caren Woodson, senior director of compliance and licensing for Kiva Brands and the board president of the California Cannabis Industry Association. “We're definitely in a moment of uncertainty.”

    Armed officers in tactical gear and gas masks stand in a line at night, illuminated by headlights.
    A line of federal immigration agents and protesters stand-off near the Glass House Farms facility outside Camarillo on July 10, 2025.
    (
    Larry Valenzuela
    /
    CalMatters/CatchLight Local
    )

    The fears of California cannabis growers had largely faded in recent decades, since voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and its recreational use in 2016. The legal market was nearly $4.9 billion last year and employed an estimated 83,000 people, though its growth is precarious as it struggles to compete with a stubbornly robust illicit industry.

    But any sense of ease was snapped by the immigration raids last week, which were tied to alleged labor violations by Glass House Farms. Federal authorities ultimately reported more than 360 arrests of people they suspected of being in the country illegally and the recovery of 14 immigrant minors. Glass House Farms did not respond to emailed questions.

    “There is absolutely heightened risk working for a cannabis facility. It shouldn't be that way,” Woodson said. “Folks should be aware of that risk and we should be prepared as an industry to manage that risk.”

    The Trump administration has not given an indication whether those operations were an isolated incident or a reflection of shifting enforcement priorities on cannabis. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration did not respond to emailed questions.

    Advocates had hoped that Trump might finally lead the way on loosening federal restrictions on cannabis. Yet since suggesting during his campaign last fall that he would downgrade the classification of weed so that its medical uses can be more easily studied, Trump has made no moves toward rescheduling.

    Other developments signal that momentum may be moving in the opposite direction. During his confirmation hearing, Trump’s nominee to lead the DEA would not commit to removing cannabis from the list of serious narcotics, and there is an ongoing effort in Congress to block its reclassification.

    A woman holds up a smartphone displaying a photo of a man in a gray hoodie.
    Mia Ortiz holds a photo of her father on her phone while talking to reporters on July 11, 2025.
    (
    Larry Valenzuela
    /
    CalMatters/CatchLight Local
    )

    “We can’t take anything for granted,” Steph Sherer, executive director of the advocacy group Americans For Safe Access, warned industry members on a video call last week following the raids. “We've gotten dependent on this broader layer of support for medical cannabis that's being tested right now.”

    She suggested that growers learn how to read a search warrant, have a criminal lawyer on retainer and plan how they would pay for bail.

    Not everyone believes it’s time to panic just yet. Some local members of the cannabis industry have noted that Glass House’s facilities are surrounded by other weed farms that were not raided by federal authorities, which could mean the operation was entirely unrelated to drugs.

    The California Department of Cannabis Control subsequently confirmed that it was actively investigating a child labor complaint against the company.

    “The employment of individuals under the age of 21 in the cannabis industry is strictly illegal, a serious matter, and is not tolerated,” spokesperson David Hafner said in a statement.

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

  • Estimate says 2.2M will be kicked off coverage
    Person with short dark hair sits in a black power wheelchair holding a phone while another person in a mask kneels to adjust their foot, in a dimly lit living room.
    Elizabette Guecamburu, assisted by her caretaker Lexi Marsh, does her circulation exercises in the living room of her home outside of Patterson on Oct. 16, 2026. Guecamburu is afraid that recently passed state Medi-Cal cuts will disqualify her from benefits.

    Topline:

    California is cutting Medi-Cal after a decade of expansion, part of sweeping federal and state cuts that experts estimate will kick more than 2.2 million Californians off coverage in the next four years, doubling the state’s uninsured rate. The latest cut came in June, when state leaders approved a budget that will lower the asset limit for low-income seniors and people with disabilities to $21,000 to qualify for Medi-Cal, starting in July 2027. Feinberg, who has built up emergency savings, will have to spend about $10,000 to get under the cap.

    Why it matters: In 2024, the state eliminated longstanding Medi-Cal asset limits, but since then lawmakers have chipped away at that policy. At the beginning of this year, state leaders reinstated an asset limit of $130,000, and the June budget lowered it further. A primary residence and one vehicle are exempt from the new limit, but people 65 and older as well as those with disabilities cannot own a second home or car, and they can’t have more than $21,000 in savings accounts, certain retirement accounts, life insurance policies or even burial plots. They must still meet Medi-Cal income eligibility limits of about $1,800 a month for a single person.

    The backstory: Gov. Gavin Newsom eliminated Medi-Cal asset requirements in 2024 after a yearslong campaign by senior and disability rights advocates. In a statement before the elimination, Newsom said he was proud of the “bold investments” his administration was making to “protect life savings and homes.” But two years later, faced with a $12 billion budget shortfall, Newsom proposed reinstating the former $2,000 limit, arguing that more than twice as many people enrolled as previously estimated. The Legislature opposed that proposal and compromised at the current higher limit of $130,000, lowering it again to $21,000 starting next July.

    Julia Feinberg feels like she’s living in a sinister version of Groundhog Day. For the second year in a row, California lawmakers have made it tougher for seniors and people with disabilities to qualify for state-funded health benefits.

    Feinberg, 37, who has a degenerative neuromuscular disorder, said without Medi-Cal she would be confined to a nursing home rather than living and working as a therapist in Oakland.

    “We keep having to have the same fight over and over and over again,” Feinberg said. She requires a power wheelchair and about 19 hours of caregiving each day, which Medi-Cal covers.

    California is cutting Medi-Cal after a decade of expansion, part of sweeping federal and state cuts that experts estimate will kick more than 2.2 million Californians off coverage in the next four years, doubling the state’s uninsured rate.

    The latest cut came in June, when state leaders approved a budget that will lower the asset limit for low-income seniors and people with disabilities to $21,000 to qualify for Medi-Cal, starting in July 2027. Feinberg, who has built up emergency savings, will have to spend about $10,000 to get under the cap.

    In 2024, the state eliminated longstanding Medi-Cal asset limits, but since then lawmakers have chipped away at that policy. At the beginning of this year, state leaders reinstated an asset limit of $130,000, and the June budget lowered it further.

    A primary residence and one vehicle are exempt from the new limit, but people 65 and older as well as those with disabilities cannot own a second home or car, and they can’t have more than $21,000 in savings accounts, certain retirement accounts, life insurance policies or even burial plots. They must still meet Medi-Cal income eligibility limits of about $1,800 a month for a single person.

    Advocates say the rules unfairly target older people and those with disabilities.

    “It’s really expensive to be disabled,” said Elizabette Guéçamburu, 44, who like Feinberg has spinal muscular atrophy and requires a power wheelchair as well as daily caregiving.

    Guéçamburu said she’s saving up for a used wheelchair-accessible van, which costs about $75,000. Home modifications such as adding ramps and making bathrooms accessible also cost tens of thousands of dollars, none of which are covered by Medi-Cal. Guéçamburu said those expenses would be impossible to afford if she couldn’t save.

    Guéçamburu lives on her family’s farm in Patterson where they grow walnuts, almonds and alfalfa. She works part time as the farm’s bookkeeper. In 2024, doctors diagnosed Guéçamburu’s father with prostate cancer, and he could no longer act as her caregiver. The same year, California eliminated asset limits for people with disabilities and seniors — Guéçamburu cried, able to qualify for Medi-Cal for the first time.

    “The timing was a godsend,” she said.

    Now, her aging father is unable to take care of her should she lose Medi-Cal, and Guéçamburu is struggling to figure out what to do with money left to her by her grandmother. She’ll likely have to put it into a special needs trust controlled by a family member and give up financial independence. She also had her family strike her from inheriting any portion of their 100-year-old farm. Private home care costs thousands of dollars a month, making it hard for lower- and middle-income people to pay for it out-of-pocket.

    “I have to surrender our legacy just to have medical security and have the ability to live my life,” Guéçamburu said.

    Asset limit flip-flop

    Gov. Gavin Newsom eliminated Medi-Cal asset requirements in 2024 after a yearslong campaign by senior and disability rights advocates. In a statement before the elimination, Newsom said he was proud of the “bold investments” his administration was making to “protect life savings and homes.”

    But two years later, faced with a $12 billion budget shortfall, Newsom proposed reinstating the former $2,000 limit, arguing that more than twice as many people enrolled as previously estimated. The Legislature opposed that proposal and compromised at the current higher limit of $130,000, lowering it again to $21,000 starting next July.

    Lindsay Imai Hong, California director for Hand In Hand, an advocacy group supporting families that need caregiving, said organizers are looking to the next governor for change.

    “We would love to see the asset test permanently taken off of the chopping block,” Imai Hong said.

    Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton said in a statement to CalMatters that he opposes asset limits. He criticized the state for extending other Medi-Cal benefits beyond what it could afford, including coverage for immigrants without legal status.

    “Seniors and people with disabilities shouldn’t lose their coverage because they’ve managed to save some money. They’ve done the responsible thing. Why punish them for it?” he said.

    Democratic gubernatorial candidate and front-runner Xavier Becerra did not answer specific questions about the asset limit policy, but a campaign spokesperson blamed the Trump administration’s federal cuts for “squeezing” California’s Medi-Cal program.

    Becerra will be “focused on protecting access to care and demand savings that are real, measurable and sustainable,” spokesperson Johnathan Underland said. On the campaign trail, Becerra has called himself California’s next “healthcare governor” and has previously floated raising taxes to reverse Medi-Cal cuts, but has not released detailed health policy plans.

    Camille Nguyen, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, said most people who struggle to stay under the limit have little financial security.

    “They have all of their life savings in cash savings instead of a house. That's their retirement. That is the amount they are expecting to live off of for the rest of their life,” Nguyen said.

    State data shows about 600 people lost Medi-Cal when California reinstated the $130,000 limit. Advocates expect many more to lose Medi-Cal at the lower limit, but the state never released budget estimates before lawmakers approved the $21,000 limit. If the state reinstated the much lower $2,000 limit, the Department of Finance estimated 62,000 seniors and people with disabilities would lose Medi-Cal over two years.

    Limit fuels anxiety, anger among people with disabilities

    Feinberg said the prospect of losing Medi-Cal is especially scary because she would also lose access to a special disability program that pays for extra caregiving hours and has a multiyear waitlist. Caregivers help Feinberg get in and out of bed, dress and prepare her meals.

    Before the limit was erased in 2024, Feinberg said she checked her bank account every day to make sure the balance was low. At the time, Feinberg was a graduate student and did not earn very much money. Now, as a licensed therapist Feinberg has been able to squirrel away some money.

    “I don’t want to spend down that money. I want to save that for retirement, maybe buying a house in the future,” Feinberg said. “The prospect of not being able to have a nest egg is very unsettling.”

    Guéçamburu said she’s angry and frustrated that the state views services for people with disabilities as expendable.

    “It’s exhausting to have to justify your existence every legislative cycle,” she said.

    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.

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

  • Sponsored message
  • Analysis shows possible effects on driver wages
    A white car on the street with cameras on either side of its hood. The car says "WAYMO" in small print on the back right door.
    Waymo, which is owned by Google's parent company, Alphabet, began offering rides in Los Angeles in 2024.

    Topline:

    The Los Angeles metro area has the second-most autonomous vehicles on the roads after the Bay Area. New data analysis by Gridwise shows that ride-hailing drivers have been working and getting paid less overall compared to before Waymos hit the L.A. market.

    The numbers: Drivers’ total work hours fell in L.A. by 17.8%, and quarterly pay dropped 14.7% when comparing the second quarter of 2024 (before Waymo’s public release) to the same quarter in 2026. However, drivers’ pay per trip and per hour rose on average. Meanwhile, in cities without autonomous vehicles, both work hours and drivers’ quarterly pay increased, according to Gridwise.

    About the data: Gridwise tracks earnings and mileage from Uber and Lyft drivers and other gig workers. The company says it encrypts and anonymizes the data before analyzing it. Brandon Sellers, Gridwise’s vice president of marketing, who helped to compile the analysis, said that the company also saw an increase in the number of drivers during the time frame studied.

    Why it matters: About 900 Waymos are currently on L.A.’s roads, and direct competitors will soon hit the market. Uber is planning to add autonomous vehicles to its fleet via partnerships with other companies, including Amazon’s Zoox, within the next year. “I think [the results in California] could be telling for what you're going to see in other markets as they start to roll out autonomous vehicles,” Sellers said.

    Concerns for drivers moving forward: Sellers said many human drivers are concerned about safety and about what’s going to happen when millions of autonomous vehicles roll out. “I do think it is really incumbent on certainly a lot of the platforms and the different ecosystem players to help these drivers understand, ‘Hey, what is next for me?’” Sellers explained.

    Overall competition: A survey from USC researchers this year found that there’s been a small drop in people using ride-hailing apps with human drivers, though they couldn’t attribute this directly to the use of Waymo. “ It does appear that the ride-share companies are trying to … compete from a pricing standpoint,” said Sellers. “I'd argue that they're also trying to compete from a quality standpoint in terms of getting higher quality drivers out on the road.”

    To read the full report: See here.

  • Trump’s administration on track to deport 660,000
    Service member in a camouflage uniform and helmet cover looks through binoculars while holding a rifle across the chest, framed by the green bars of a vehicle.
    U.S. Army personnel keep watch over the U.S.-Mexico border in Roma, Texas, on Oct. 8, 2026.

    Topline:

    President Donald Trump’s administration is on track to deport about 660,000 people over the past year, a new report released Thursday shows, as arrests ramp up across the country fueled by billions of dollars meant to supercharge his immigration agenda. The report by the Migration Policy Institute shows deportations increased from 620,000 during the first year of Trump’s second administration.

    In context: The numbers fall short of previous highs in the early 2000s and fail to meet the Trump administration’s promise, made when it received the billions from Congress, that the money would allow for 1 million deportations annually. The report, based on publicly available data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, comes after the Trump administration in January 2025 stopped publicly releasing similar figures compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.

    The backstory: Despite the surging arrests, the report details some of the challenges to the Trump administration reaching its deportation targets. Historically, many immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization were from Mexico and didn’t often seek asylum. But in recent years, migrants have come to the U.S. from a wide range of countries, which can make it more complicated to deport them. And immigration courts, which ultimately decide whether someone can be removed from the country, face more significant case backlogs.

    President Donald Trump’s administration is on track to deport about 660,000 people over the past year, a new report released Thursday shows, as arrests ramp up across the country fueled by billions of dollars meant to supercharge his immigration agenda.

    The report by the Migration Policy Institute shows deportations increased from 620,000 during the first year of Trump’s second administration. The numbers fall short of previous highs in the early 2000s and fail to meet the Trump administration’s promise, made when it received the billions from Congress, that the money would allow for 1 million deportations annually.

    The report, based on publicly available data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, comes after the Trump administration in January 2025 stopped publicly releasing similar figures compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.

    Trump, a Republican, returned to power last year promising to stanch crossings at the southern border and crack down on immigration. His administration has pushed through restrictions on both legal and illegal immigration and launched high-profile arrest operations in its bid to force migrants out.

    More people being deported, but not at all-time highs

    The analysis found that the Department of Homeland Security carried out 980,000 deportations during the first 18 months of the second Trump administration.

    During the last fiscal year — when the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement mechanisms were shifting into high gear — an estimated 660,000 people were deported.

    According to MPI’s analysis, that’s a 26% increase from the yearly average from 2021 to 2024 during the administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, but well below the 1.86 million deportations recorded in 2000, under President Bill Clinton, another Democrat.

    Despite the surging arrests, the report details some of the challenges to the Trump administration reaching its deportation targets.

    Historically, many immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization were from Mexico and didn’t often seek asylum. But in recent years, migrants have come to the U.S. from a wide range of countries, which can make it more complicated to deport them. And immigration courts, which ultimately decide whether someone can be removed from the country, face more significant case backlogs.

    Voluntary departures are increasing as are interior arrests

    The report said voluntary departures — when people give up their cases in immigration court and agree to leave the country — were at an “all-time high,” with 170,000 choosing to do so since Trump returned to office in January 2025. People who choose voluntary departure could one day return to the U.S. But some immigrant advocates and lawyers say that people give up their court fight and agree to leave simply to get out of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention.

    The Trump administration was also increasingly deporting people it arrested in the country’s interior, the report said, reflecting how it was stepping up enforcement against migrants who have been in the country for a long time. In 2025, about 28% of the people deported were arrested inside the country, but by July of this year that had risen to 39%.

    Migrants arrested at the southern border still make up a large number of deportations, the report said — 69% of all deportations between Jan. 20, 2025, and July 31, 2026, were of people initially intercepted at the border.

    People in the country longer may have more opportunities to contest their removal while the government typically has greater authority to fast-track deportations for people arrested at the border.

    The analysis said most people deported have never been convicted of a crime, despite the Trump administration claiming to be targeting the “worst of the worst.” Previous data has showed the same.

    In response to the MPI report, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “President Trump has delivered the largest reduction in illegal immigration in modern history.”

    Trump administration no longer regularly releases immigration data

    Homeland Security stopped releasing similar data when Trump took office, making it difficult to track one of his key campaign promises. Figures the Trump administration has released are inconsistent and unverifiable.

    The administration says it is transparent. On Tuesday, it released some of its own figures as part of a document boasting of its achievements on immigration, including that 1.2 million migrants have been deported or removed during Trump’s second term. The discrepancy could not immediately be reconciled.

    In the absence of regular data, analysts and activists interested in immigration trends have relied on information obtained through lawsuits or limited and sporadic information released by federal agencies to track deportation data.

  • It's the first pullback since August
    Real estate sign for Leclair Estates by Pulte Homes reading “Model Open” and “Two-Story Single Family Homes,” with a red starburst that says “80% Sold Out.”
    A sign stands in front of a new home construction site in Deerfield, Ill., Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2026.

    Topline:

    Mortgage rates fell this week for the first time since late August, easing some of the pressure on prospective homebuyers facing higher borrowing costs on home loans. The benchmark 30-year fixed-rate mortgage dropped to 7.32% from 7.40% last week, mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday. One year ago, the average rate was 6.19%.

    Why now: Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, often sought by borrowers refinancing a home loan, also eased this week. That average rate slipped to 6.68% from 6.71% last week. A year ago, it was at 5.44%.

    The backstory: Mortgage rates have been climbing since late February, when the U.S. war with Iran began, pushing up the price of oil and driving inflation higher. The run-up in rates also reflects heightened bond market volatility, which has pushed up yields on U.S. Treasury.

    Mortgage rates fell this week for the first time since late August, easing some of the pressure on prospective homebuyers facing higher borrowing costs on home loans.

    The benchmark 30-year fixed-rate mortgage dropped to 7.32% from 7.40% last week, mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday. One year ago, the average rate was 6.19%.

    Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, often sought by borrowers refinancing a home loan, also eased this week. That average rate slipped to 6.68% from 6.71% last week. A year ago, it was at 5.44%.

    Rates on home loans are influenced by inflation, Federal Reserve policy and bond-market investors’ expectations for the economy, among other factors. They generally follow the trajectory of the 10-year Treasury yield, which lenders use as a guide to pricing home loans.

    Mortgage rates have been climbing since late February, when the U.S. war with Iran began, pushing up the price of oil and driving inflation higher. The run-up in rates also reflects heightened bond market volatility, which has pushed up yields on U.S. Treasurys.

    The 10-year Treasury yield has been mostly easing the last couple of weeks after climbing to its highest level since 2002. That’s caused the average rate on a 30-year mortgage to hold steady after reaching 7.4%, its highest level in nearly three years.

    The yield was at 5% at midday on the bond market Thursday. It surged to more than 5.30% earlier this month and remains well above its 3.97% level from before the war with Iran.

    U.S. home sales remain stalled this year in large part because of rising mortgage rates, which c an add hundreds of dollars a month in costs for borrowers, limiting homebuyers’ purchasing power and prompting many to put off buying a home.

    In late February, the average rate on a 30-year mortgage briefly dipped to 5.98%, its lowest level going back to late 2022. The rise in rates since then has added roughly $355 to the monthly cost for a borrower financing a $400,000 home loan, going by the latest average rate.

    Depending on a borrower’s income, credit and other factors, they may qualify for a rate on a 30-year mortgage that is below or above the current average.

    The U.S. housing market has been in a slump since 2022, when mortgage rates began to climb from pandemic-era lows. Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes were essentially flat last year, stuck at a 30-year low.

    In its latest forecast, mortgage buyer Fannie Mae projects that the rate on a 30-year mortgage will average 7.4% in the final quarter of this year, and average 7.5% in 2027.