The Brief

It’s been a long day at work, and you still need to stop by the store on your way home.

To spare yourself more social interaction, you make a beeline for the self-checkout station, praying for a quick and painless transaction.

“Please wait, help is on the way,” the machine’s feminine voice coos, taunting you as you try desperately to flag down a clerk.

Following a failed, union-backed effort last year to regulate self-checkout machines, California Democrats are trying again to set guidelines they say will improve the efficiency of self-service stations across the state’s grocery, drug and big box stores.

Senate Bill 442, from Los Angeles Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, who chairs the Senate committee on labor and public employment, would require stores to have at least one dedicated worker there to help self-service customers. Stores also would be required to operate at least one traditional staffed checkout lane at all times and restrict the type and number of items a customer can bring through self-checkout.

“This is about supporting our workforce, to make sure that they're safe but mostly to also make sure that they're providing the level of service that customers expect and deserve,” Smallwood-Cuevas said on the Senate floor earlier this summer before the bill passed that chamber 26-10.

But the state’s business community, especially its grocers, still opposes the effort. Instead, without pointing to concrete studies or evidence, businesses say more regulations will drive up prices due to added labor costs companies will pass along to consumers.

“This seems like a clear example of why Californians pay the highest prices for groceries, regardless of what checkout line they go through,” said Daniel Conway, a lobbyist for the California Grocers Association, at an Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing in June.

It’s not surprising that Smallwood-Cuevas, a former labor organizer herself, is carrying such a bill, given her close alignment with the two union heavyweights cosponsoring the legislation: the California Labor Federation and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. She votes their way more than 95 percent of the time, according to the Digital Democracy database, and has received nearly $30,000 in total campaign contributions from the groups since 2021.

Under the measure, stores would have to display signs that limit customers to 15 items or fewer in the self-checkout lanes and also designate one employee whose only assigned duties are to monitor the stands. Notably, the bill explicitly states stores would not be penalized for failing to enforce the item limit, a condition business groups say is nonsensical. Proponents of the provision argue signs will increase peer pressure and self-policing without strict enforcement.

More items banned from self-checkout

Building on a 2011 law that banned the sale of alcohol at self-checkout stations, another union-backed effort, Smallwood-Cuevas’ new bill would expand the ban to any items that require identification to buy, such as tobacco products, and anything with anti-theft security devices that must be removed by an employee.

Stores that want to add new self-service checkout stations must notify employees and their unions in writing at least 60 days in advance or face a $1,000 penalty per violation per day.

Democrats largely have voiced support for Smallwood-Cuevas’ bill, calling it a much needed remedy for the headache that is self-checkout.

Democratic Assemblyman Ash Kalra, of San Jose, scoffed at Conway’s assertion that self-checkout is an efficient and preferable choice for customers and said customers often are forced to use them since stores have reduced the number of cashiers.

“I don't know if I can disagree with more points that were just made from our friends with the grocers,” Kalra told Conway during the late June hearing. “You must not be going to the stores if you think there's an improved shopping experience from these self-checkouts.”

Opponents have expressed concern that a newly added provision in the bill would invite local municipalities to pass their own more stringent standards, as the city of Long Beach recently did, requiring stores to assign at least one clerk for every three self-checkout machines.

Companies warn that such a patchwork of laws would make it difficult to run stores with multiple locations, creating a burden for both owners and customers.

“Only a uniform, statewide approach can provide the consistency that both employers and employees need to thrive,” wrote Ryan Allain, a lobbyist for the California Retailers Association, which currently opposes to the bill.

Even though Republicans admitted they, too, despise the self-checkout process, lawmakers slammed the bill for overstepping businesses’ authority to regulate themselves and raise operating costs that ultimately would be passed along to the consumer.

Republican Sen. Shannon Grove, of Bakersfield, called it “completely unacceptable” for the Legislature to prevent businesses from introducing automation that could lower costs after committing to an affordability agenda.

“It's a labor thing. I get it,” said Republican Sen. Kelly Seyarto, of Murrieta, on the Senate floor in June. “I'd like as many people to work as possible, but I'd also like to afford the groceries.”

Democratic Sen. Ben Allen, of El Segundo, was among a few Democrats to express slight hesitation about the state preemption of local rules but voted for the bill anyway.

“I understand you're going to be working with the grocers on that challenge,” he said in June.

The bill must clear the Assembly Appropriations Committee after lawmakers return from their summer recess Aug. 18 before it goes to the floor for a vote.

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, wouldn’t state a position on SB 442, saying the governor’s office “doesn’t typically comment on pending legislation.”

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

Consumers likely won't see cheaper prices at the grocery store or shopping mall, economists say, despite the Supreme Court striking down many of President Donald Trump's tariffs.

There are a couple reasons why: For one, the president has many tools to impose tariffs and the court decision last week only deemed one of them unconstitutional.

Within hours of the ruling, Trump said he was using a different law to reimpose taxes on global imports.

"The administration's made it very clear that they are not turning away from tariffs," says Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The second reason is a little more complex, a concept known as "price stickiness."

Here's what to know about why shoppers won't see price reductions anytime soon.

Presidential tariff tools

"The legal tool to implement it, that might change, but the policy hasn't changed," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told ABC over the weekend.

The Supreme Court struck down Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which no president had used to implement tariffs before. But, it's worth noting that these tariffs only accounted for about half of all the import taxes the government had been collecting.

Now that imposing tariffs under the law has been outlawed, the administration has quickly moved ahead with alternatives, even though they don't offer the sweeping power that Trump claimed to have under the IEEPA.

By Saturday, Trump said he was using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement worldwide tariffs of 15%, after initially saying he would impose them at 10%. He claimed in a social media post that this tariff level was "fully allowed, and legally tested."

"For a consumer, it doesn't really matter what authority that the president calls on to impose the tariff," says Carola Binder, an economics professor at the The University of Texas at Austin School of Civic Leadership. "Some particular tariffs might go down. And so that would mean that prices of particular goods could go down, but the overall level would remain pretty high."

Goldman Sachs analysts seem to agree.

"We estimate that the further impact on consumer prices will be minor from here," the analysts wrote over the weekend, noting that the "bulk" of companies passing on extra tariff costs to consumers has already occurred.

Similarly, analysis from the Peterson Institute said tariff rates "are set to be similar overall to their level prior to the court ruling, so consumers will continue to feel this tax increase. Prices will likely be higher at the store because the longer tariffs last, in whatever form, the more their costs are passed through to consumers."

Tariffs under Section 122 technically have a 150-day limit. But, Binder says, "after 150 days, if Congress doesn't extend the tariffs, it seems that the president could just let the first set of tariffs expire and then declare a new set again." Lawsuits over this are likely and this could end up at the Supreme Court again.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows tariffs in response to "unfair trade practices" of foreign countries, while Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs on certain national security grounds. (Section 301 tariffs on China have been in place since Trump's first term.)

There's also Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a never-used authority to use tariffs to retaliate against foreign discrimination against American goods.

Imposing tariffs under these laws all have stipulations and limitations attached and the administration's rationale could be challenged in court.

Still, "we're not going to see tariff relief in the longer run, and businesses know that," Lovely of the Peterson Institute says.

Stuck prices

Another reason customers are unlikely to see substantial price changes at the store is that in general, prices take time to adjust. It's a concept of "sticky prices."

It happens when "prices change more slowly than the underlying fundamental factors that go into pricing," Lovely says. A common example involves restaurants: if the price of one ingredient goes up, the restaurant might want to wait a bit before printing new menus that show a higher price for the dish, just in case the cost of ingredients changes again.

Prices can be sticky in either the high or low direction. But in this case, tariffs have led to higher prices for consumers, and they could stay that way.

The companies that have raised prices in response to tariffs are finding out whether consumers were willing to pay more for stuff all along. The tariffs have essentially been "a broad set of experiments, which will reveal to suppliers if their previous prices were profit maximizing or too low," marketing professor emeritus at Harvard Business School Robert Dolan told NPR last year. Suppliers may keep prices high if people keep paying, tariffs or not.

Also, many businesses, especially medium-size businesses, are still catching up to tariffs and adjusting how much of the cost they are passing on to customers, Lovely says. Some had stockpiled inventory ahead of tariffs.

"They haven't been able to pass it through completely yet, waiting to see what would happen," she says. "So they're going to be highly reluctant to roll back when they're still in the process of catching up."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger blasted President Trump's policies and invoked a civic call for Americans to push for better leadership, in a rebuttal to the State of the Union that offered a preview of how Democrats plan to message against the GOP in this year's midterm elections.

"In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does, he lied, he scapegoated and he distracted, and he offered no real solutions to our nation's pressing challenges, so many of which he is actively making worse," Spanberger said.

Speaking from Colonial Williamsburg as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, the recently sworn in governor structured her address around three questions: "Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe, both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?"

Spanberger, who previously served in Congress for six years, became the first woman elected governor of Virginia in November, flipping control of the office from Republican to Democrat. Prior to her career on Capitol Hill, she served in the CIA.

Her gubernatorial race was under the national spotlight as one of the first major indicators of voters' political leanings during the second Trump administration. Spanberger focused her campaign on affordability, a message Democrats continue to embrace ahead of the midterm elections and one that featured heavily in her roughly 13-minute speech.

"As I campaigned for governor last year, I traveled to every corner of Virginia and I heard the same pressing concern everywhere: costs are too high — in housing, health care, energy and child care," she said, underlining that Democrats "across the country are laser focused on affordability."

She slammed what she called Trump's "reckless trade policies."

"Americans are paying the price," she said, "and even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done."

She also spoke about the violence from federal immigration enforcement officers in American streets.

"Our broken immigration system is something to be fixed, not an excuse for unaccountable agents to terrorize our communities," she said.

She also centered a portion of her speech on the theme of corruption within the Trump administration — which she called "unprecedented."

"There's the coverup of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms, putting his name and face on buildings all over our nation's capital," she said. "This is not what our founders envisioned."

The rebuttal to a president's State of the Union is considered an honor, given the high-profile nature of the speech. The selection tends to reflect what party leaders see as top policy priorities and which rising star they regard as the best spokesperson to deliver that message to the public.

"National Democrats want people to think about folks like Abigail Spanberger as core to the Democratic message," said Joel Payne, a longtime Democratic strategist. "Spanberger was one of the big Democratic success stories of 2025. She comes from a state that represents lots of parts of the Democratic coalition, a state that's purple, that's relevant in national politics — and that had a big political moment in the last year when they responded to Trump's agenda around DOGE."

Democrats are eager to replicate Spanberger's political success during this election cycle. She was part of a blue wave of Democrats in 2018 who flipped control of the House. She's considered a more moderate voice within the party.

She's recently faced criticism from conservatives who allege she is veering left after leading a more centrist campaign.

A tough gig 

The job of delivering the official response to the State of the Union can be tough.

Take then-Sen. Marco Rubio (now secretary of state), who delivered a response in both English and Spanish in 2013. His speech is mainly remembered by a singular moment when he went off camera to get a water bottle.

More recently, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., was mocked for her speech's intense tone and the choice to deliver the response against the backdrop of her kitchen.

"It's very hard to match the pomp and circumstance and to match the bully pulpit of the president on a night where most of the country is paying attention to him," Payne said. "Spanberger acquitted herself very well, not only because of the content, which really spoke to the frustration of millions of Americans but in temperament, sounding like a grown up."

Payne said the simplicity of the message and the clarity of the delivery made for an effective speech.

"She talked about very crisp, easy to grasp themes," he said. "She offered very clear questions, clear points of contrast and offered specific examples of how Trump is falling short."

The Spanish language Democratic response

California Sen. Alex Padilla, a key figure in his party's fight against the administration's immigration policies, gave Democrats' Spanish language response to Trump's speech. Last summer, Padilla was thrust into the center of the debate over enforcement after he was forcibly removed from a DHS press conference while attempting to question Secretary Kristi Noem.

Padilla relived the moment in his speech.

"They may have knocked me down for a moment, but I got right back up," the California Democrat said in Spanish. "As our parents taught us, if you fall seven times, get up eight. I am still here. Standing. Still fighting. And I know you are still standing and still fighting too."

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., speaks during the ICE Out for Good protest at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office on Jan. 13 in Washington, D.C.

(

Jemal Countess

/

Getty Images for MoveOn Civic Action

)

The son of Mexican immigrants said the administration had weaponized federal immigration officers, forced the increase of grocery and housing prices and is threatening to interfere in the November midterm elections.

Padilla, the first Latino to represent California in the Senate, was appointed to the seat in 2021 after the seat was vacated by Kamala Harris. He won his first six-year term the following year.

Some Democrats were absent from the chamber 

As has been the case during previous Trump addresses to Congress, some Democrats chose to skip the speech entirely and engage in counter-programming.

Temperatures were below freezing on the National Mall, where a stage was set up with the illuminated U.S. Capitol dome as the backdrop. The "People's State of the Union," sponsored by the progressive advocacy groups MoveOn.org and Meidas Touch, featured upwards of 30 members of Congress who skipped Trump's speech.

Among the lawmakers who addressed the crowd was Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

"I am not at the State of the Union speech tonight, because Donald Trump is making a mockery of this great institution, and he doesn't deserve an audience," said Murphy. "These are not normal times, and Democrats have to stop behaving normally."

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., speaks during the "People's State of the Union" on the National Mall on Tuesday night.

(

Ken Cedeno

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The event not only featured remarks from lawmakers but from community leaders as well. Payne, who serves as chief communications officer for Move On, said the intention was to shine a spotlight on constituents.

"We wanted to make sure that those folks were the stars of tonight — whether it's people who've been impacted by DOGE cuts, people who've been impacted by the priorities that were laid out in Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' or people who've been impacted by this immigration regime," Payne said.

One such speaker was Dr. Jenna Norton, a whistleblower who was placed on administrative leave from the National Institutes of Health last fall after voicing alarm about funding and staffing cuts at the agency.

"The Trump administration put research participants and public health at risk when they abruptly terminated NIH studies," said Norton. "By halting these studies, they also wasted taxpayer resources. When you halt a $5 million study four years in, you don't save a million dollars, you waste $4 million."

Lawmakers reiterated calls for significant changes at the Department of Homeland Security, following the killing of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota by immigration agents last month. As Trump delivered his State of the Union address, DHS remains shut down.

NPR's Claudia Grisales and Don Gonyea contributed to this report. 

Read Spanberger's Democratic response to President Trump's State of the Union address

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER: Good evening. Good evening and welcome to Historic Williamsburg. We are gathered here in the chambers of the House of Burgesses. In 1705, the people of the Virginia Colony gathered here to take on the extraordinary task of governing themselves. Before there was a Declaration of Independence, a Constitution or a Bill of Rights, there were people in this room.

The people who served here ultimately dreamed of what a new nation unlike anything the world had ever seen could be. The United States was founded on the idea that ordinary people could reject the unacceptable excesses of poor leadership, band together to demand better of their government and create a nation that would be an example for the world.

[Applause] And this year, as we celebrate 250 years since America declared our independence from tyranny, I can think of no better place to speak to you as we reflect on the current state of our union. Tonight, as we watched our nation's lawmakers gather for a joint session of Congress, we did not hear the truth from our president.

So let's speak plainly and honestly and let me ask you, the American people watching at home, three questions. Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you? As I campaigned for governor last year, I traveled to every corner of Virginia and I heard the same pressing concern everywhere, costs are too high, in housing, health care, energy and child care.

And I know these same conversations are being had all across this country. Because since this president took office last year, his reckless trade policies have forced American families to pay more than $1,700 each in tariff costs. Small businesses have suffered. Farmers have suffered, some losing entire markets.

Everyday Americans are paying the price and even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done. Meanwhile, the president is planning for new tariffs, another massive tax hike on you and your family. And Republicans in Congress, they remain unwilling to assert their constitutional authority to stop him.

They're making your life harder. They're making your life more expensive. They're even making it more difficult to see a doctor. Rural health clinics in Virginia and across the country are already closing their doors, thanks to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, championed by the president and Republicans in Congress.

And tonight, the president celebrated this law, the one threatening rural hospitals, stripping health care for millions of Americans and driving up costs in energy and housing, all while cutting food programs for hungry kids. But here in Virginia, I am working with our state legislature to lower costs and make the Commonwealth more affordable.

[Applause] And it's not just me. Democrats across the country are laser focused on affordability in our nation's capital and in state capitals and communities across America. In the most innovative and exceptional nation in the history of the world, Americans deserve to know that their leaders are focused on addressing the problems that keep them up at night, problems that dictate where you live, whether you can afford to start a business or whether you have to skip a prescription in order to buy groceries.

So I'll ask again, is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? We all know the answer is no. I grew up in a house of service. My mother was a nurse and my father was a career law enforcement officer. I began my career by following in my father's footsteps as a federal agent, working money laundering and narcotics cases.

I worked side by side with local and state police to keep our community safe and to uphold and enforce the law. Law enforcement officers across the country know that it is a unique responsibility to do the serious work of investigating crimes, comforting victims and making arrests. It's about building trust and that requires an abiding sense of duty and commitment to community.

And yet, our president has sent poorly trained federal agents into our cities where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans, and they have done it without a warrant. They have ripped nursing mothers away from their babies. They have sent children, a little boy in a blue bunny hat, children, to far off detention centers and they have killed American citizens in our streets.

And they have done it all with their faces masked from accountability. Every minute spent sowing fear is a minute not spent investigating murders, crimes against children or the criminals defrauding seniors of their life savings. Our president told us tonight that we are safer, because these agents arrest mothers and detain children?

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER: Think about that, our broken immigration system is something to be fixed, not an excuse for unaccountable agents to terrorize our communities. [Applause] After working in law enforcement, I continued my career of service as a CIA officer, working undercover to protect the United States and our allies from global threats, terrorism, nuclear weapons and the aggression of adversarial nations around the globe.

But as the president spoke of his perceived successes tonight, he continues to cede economic power and technological strength to Russia, bow down to — to China, bow down to a Russian dictator and make plans for war with Iran. Here's the truth, over the last year through DOGE, mass firings and the appointment of deeply unserious people to our nation's most serious positions, our president has endangered the long and storied history of the United States of America being a force for good.

So I'll ask again, is the president working to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad? We all know the answer is no. In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does; he lied, he scapegoated and he distracted and he offered no real solutions to our nation's pressing challenges, so many of which he is actively making worse.

He tries to divide us, he tries to enrage us, to pit us against one another, neighbor against neighbor. And sometimes he succeeds. And so you have to ask, who benefits from his rhetoric, his policies, his actions, the short list of laws he's pushed through this Republican Congress? Somebody must be benefiting.

He's enriching himself, his family, his friends. The scale of the corruption is unprecedented. There's the cover up of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms, putting his name and face on buildings all over our nation's capital. This is not what our founders envisioned, not by a long shot.

[Applause] So I'll ask again, is the president working for you? We all know the answer is no. But here's the special thing about America. On our 250th anniversary, we know better than any nation what is possible when ordinary citizens like those who once dreamed right here in this room reject the unacceptable and demand more of their government.

We see it in the determination of students organizing school walkouts all across the country, whose voices are becoming so powerful that the governor of Texas seeks to silence them. We see it in the bravery of Americans in Minnesota standing up for their communities, from peacefully protesting in subzero temperatures to carpooling children to school, so that their immigrant parents are not ripped away from them in the parking lot.

As a mother of three school-age daughters, I am inspired by their bravery, but I am sickened that it is necessary. And Americans across the country are taking action. They are going to the ballot box to reject this chaos. With their votes, they are writing a new story, a more hopeful story. In November, I won my election by 15 points.

[Applause] And we won 13 new seats in our state legislature. [Applause] Because voters decided they wanted something different. Our campaign earned votes from Democrats, Republicans, independents and everyone in between because they knew as citizens, they could demand more, that they could vote for what they believe matters, and that they didn't need to be constrained by a party or political affiliation.

This is happening across the country. New Jersey elected Mikie Sherrill as governor in a double-digit victory. [Applause] Democrats flipped state legislative seats in places like Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi and Texas. The list goes on and on. Ordinary Americans are stepping up to run in the spirit of our forefathers.

They are running to demand more and to do more for their neighbors and communities. I know the story well. I first ran for office in 2018 alongside dozens of other Democrats who did the seemingly impossible, flipping 41 seats in Congress. In my case, I was the first Democrat elected in 50 years, swinging our district 17 points.

Those who are stepping up now to run will win in November because Americans, you at home, know you can demand more and that we are working to lower costs. We are working to keep our communities and our country safe and we are working for you. [Applause] In his farewell address, George Washington warned us about the possibility of, quote, cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men rising to power.

But he also encouraged us, all Americans, to unite in a common cause to move this nation forward. That is our charge once more and that is what we are seeing across the country. It is deeply American and patriotic to do so, and it is how we ensure that the state of our union remains strong, not just this year but for the next 250 years as well, because we the people have the power to make change, the power to stand up for what is right, the power to demand more of our nation.

[Applause] May God bless the Commonwealth of Virginia and may God bless the United States of America. [Applause]

Copyright 2026 NPR

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

Thirty years ago, Jim O’Hara Jr. woke up from a coma, unable to walk, talk or eat. An 18-wheeler had broadsided his car, leaving him, then 18 years old, with a severe brain injury, according to his father, Jim O’Hara. Doctors said the young man’s condition wouldn't improve much. But O’Hara refused to leave his son in a nursing home.

After more than a year of hospital stays and rehabilitation, he brought Jim Jr. home, knowing he’d need far more help than one person could provide. California’s system of regional centers seemed like an answer. These centers purchase and coordinate support services for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities and are designed to do exactly what Jim Jr. needed: help rebuilding his life.

Then O’Hara learned his son didn’t qualify. Under California law, a person’s disability must begin before age 18 to qualify for the regional centers system.

California’s ‘age of onset’ rule that determines eligibility is narrower than federal law and stricter than most states. O’Hara has spent years fighting to change it, pushing to extend access to people whose disability commenced as young adults, up to age 22. Now he’s trying again, this time alongside his state representative Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo, a Santa Clarita Democrat.

Schiavo said she is seeking to make this change through the annual budget process. She acknowledged the task could be an “uphill battle,” given the state’s projected budget troubles, but said it’s a change that’s long overdue.

“California has really fallen behind the rest of the nation on this issue,” Schiavo said. “It’s hard to look at new programs or expansions when you’re looking at cuts. ... Last year we were able to find new dollars for priorities, so we're hoping this will be one of the priorities we can figure out how to make happen.”

The promise of early intervention

Without the regional center system, O’Hara became the advocate and case manager he wished his son had. He trained as a behavioral aide, appealed to insurance companies, shuttled his son to appointments and therapies and designed a home schooling program.

“I devoted 10 years of my life to my son's rehab. I don't regret a single second of it,” he said.

It paid off. Gradually, Jim Jr.’s humor and his self-awareness began to resurface.

Today, at 49, he talks, walks and cracks jokes. He loves to read and bowl — progress beyond what doctors anticipated.

To O’Hara, that trajectory proves just how much early intervention matters.

“But the insurance and the rehab systems are not set up for that,” he said. “The regional center is. We didn't have it; I had to create it myself.”

Today, 21 regional centers serve nearly a half-million Californians with conditions including autism, cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

Regional centers act as a hub, connecting people to therapies, adult day programs, social skills training, independent living support and job training — all managed through a single point of contact.

The California Department of Developmental Services, which regulates regional centers, says people whose disabilities begin after age 18 are generally directed to other programs: in-home supportive services, the state department of rehabilitation and independent living centers. Pathways exist.

But parents like O’Hara say this misses the point. Regional centers offer something those programs don’t — comprehensive, coordinated services for life.

A years-long fight

Since 1978, federal law has defined developmental disabilities as severe, chronic conditions “attributable to a mental or physical impairment” that manifest before age 22. California’s cutoff of 18 puts it out of step with both federal policy and a growing body of research showing that the brain continues developing well into the mid-20s — meaning a traumatic brain injury acquired in late adolescence or early adulthood could disrupt development just as profoundly as one earlier.

California lawmakers have tried several times before to close that gap. In 2022, a bill authored by state Sens. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Cañada Flintridge, and Scott Wilk, a Santa Clarita Republican, made it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. Newsom vetoed the bill, pointing to cost. While his veto message expressed support for extending services to people whose disabilities originated before age 22, he said covering more Californians would require tens of millions of dollars from the state’s general fund that had not been set aside that year.

Such a request, Newsom said, would have to go through the budget process.

Gov. Gavin Newsom takes questions during a press conference at the Capitol Annex Swing Space in Sacramento on Feb. 11, 2026.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

At the time, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that extending regional center services to people whose disability started between ages 18 and 22 retroactively would expand eligibility to 1,000 to 2,000 people in the first year, at a cost of $15 million to $60 million.

Schiavo is now pursuing the expansion through the budget rather than standalone legislation and said she expects her ask to fall in that range.

The Association of Regional Center Agencies supports the idea, with a caveat: that the state allocate adequate funding for this expansion.

The population regional centers serve is already growing quicker than the general population, with the Department of Developmental Services projecting a 7.6% increase in clients for the coming fiscal year. That growth is driven partly by rising autism diagnoses, according to the state, and partly by more aggressive outreach to communities of color — centers have faced criticism in the past for inequitable services.

People with brain injuries acquired in young adulthood may also need additional or different support than those with disabilities from birth, said Amy Westling, the association's executive director.

“It’s not that there is a fundamental disagreement that people with acquired and traumatic brain injury particularly in this age range need additional support,” Westling said. “It’s just a question of, does this proposal include enough consideration of the financial support that would be necessary to make it possible?”

‘What will happen when I'm gone?’

Katherine Graham gets emotional thinking about what will happen to her son’s care when she is no longer around.

In June 2002, her son Joe was a 21-year-old psychology student in Santa Rosa. A traffic accident threw him 40 feet from his car, first responders told her.

He didn’t break any bones, but he did suffer a devastating brain injury.

“Right after the accident, they said, ‘He will be a vegetable. He will never walk. He will never talk,’” Graham said.

Like Jim Jr., Joe Graham is not eligible for regional center services because his brain injury happened after age 18.

Joe Graham at his volunteer job at a community kitchen.

(

Photos courtesy of Katherine Graham

)

Joe with his mom Katherine Graham.

(

Photos courtesy of Katherine Graham

)

For nearly a quarter-century, Katherine Graham has overseen every aspect of her son’s care, constantly searching for activities and services that could help his recovery, sometimes paying out of pocket. Today, at 44, Joe walks, talks, volunteers and lives in his own apartment. He gets some help through Medi-Cal’s in-home supportive services, including assistance with personal care, shopping and laundry. But transportation, managing appointments, staying on top of medication and even looking for opportunities to socialize have largely fallen on his mother.

A retired school teacher from Ukiah, Graham has advocated long and hard for her son.

More than anything, Joe wants to work again and be independent. But his disability makes it difficult to read social cues and understand personal boundaries, Graham said. She believes that if her son had had prompt access to social skills training and job coaching that regional centers provide, he’d be further along in his recovery.

“My concern is what will happen when I'm gone and can no longer support him or provide help. Who is going to continue to protect, to guide, as well as fill out leases and recertifications for services?” Graham said.

O’Hara, too, says he will keep pushing for his son and so that people with disabilities can more easily access critical support services proven to help them become more self-sufficient.

“As long as he has me, my son will keep moving forward, but if something happens to me, that could stop,” O’Hara said. “My goal is to never let that happen.”

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.