Hacking The Sun

Solar geoengineering... with few rules

By Julia Simon | NPR

Published April 21, 2024 12:01 PM

Andrew Song and Luke Iseman of Make Sunsets ready for a launch. Iseman says they hope to someday cool the earth on a larger scale.

(

Julia Simon

NPR

)

Topline:

In the past year, the conversation around solar geoengineering as a climate solution has become more serious, says David Keith, geophysics professor and head of a new University of Chicago initiative to study a broad array of climate geoengineering ideas.

What is solar geoengineering? The aim is to harness the sun's power to fight climate change by shooting vast amounts of reflective particles high into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight off Earth.

The issue: But as money flows in – some from investors who hope to profit from this technology – regulations around outdoor experiments and possible broader deployments aren't keeping up, experts say.

Because of the way the stratosphere works, a large-scale release of particles in one part of the world could impact a large part of the planet. Questions persist about possible risks of solar geoengineering for everything from global crops to droughts. And there are risks of unintended consequences that scientists and investors haven't yet imagined – the unknown unknowns of trying to engineer a cooler Earth.

SAN JOSE, Calif. — One morning late last year, an RV pulled into a parking lot on the outskirts of Silicon Valley. Inside it was a blue Ikea bag with huge balloons, and metal tanks full of helium and sulfur dioxide gas.

The mission was led by Luke Iseman, a 41-year-old serial entrepreneur with a mohawk hairstyle and an orange t-shirt that read "Cool Earth." Inspired by a science fiction novel, Iseman had founded a company in 2022 called Make Sunsets. In the novel, a billionaire undertakes a type of "solar geoengineering": shooting vast amounts of reflective particles high into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight off Earth and counter global warming. Now, Iseman was trying to do it in the real world.

Iseman took a wrench and opened the tanks, releasing the sulfur dioxide first and then the helium. He siphoned the gasses into a long tube while his business partner, Andrew Song, stood just outside the RV using the tube to inflate a weather balloon. As the balloon grew to about 6 feet wide, some sulfur dioxide – which can be hazardous to human health in high concentrations – started to leak. I began to cough, and my eyes watered.

"Don't take big whiffs of air," Song said.

"Just don't breathe," Iseman said with a laugh.

A man with light-tone skin weats sunglasses and an orange T-shirt that reads: Cool Earth. Behind him an Asian man in a puffer jacket and cap holds onto a partially inflated balloon resting on the ground. They're next to a camper.

The three balloons that Make Sunsets launched that day made it to the stratosphere – a layer of the atmosphere about six to 30 miles above Earth's surface. When the balloons popped, the sulfur dioxide gas turned to particles– reflecting enough sunlight, the company says, to offset the warming of 175 gas-powered cars for a year. But Make Sunsets and its balloons signal something bigger: a growing number of startups, research projects, and billionaire-backed nonprofits hoping to ready this tech to potentially cool the earth on a wider scale.

In the past year, the conversation around solar geoengineering as a climate solution has become more serious, says David Keith, geophysics professor and head of a new University of Chicago initiative to study a broad array of climate geoengineering ideas. "Suddenly we're getting conversations with senior political leaders and senior people in the environmental world who are starting to think about this and engage with it seriously in a way that just wasn't happening five years ago," Keith says.

But as money flows in – some from investors who hope to profit from this technology – regulations around outdoor experiments and possible broader deployments aren't keeping up, experts say. Because of the way the stratosphere works, a large-scale release of particles in one part of the world could impact a large part of the planet. Questions persist about possible risks of solar geoengineering for everything from global crops to droughts. And there are risks of unintended consequences that scientists and investors haven't yet imagined – the unknown unknowns of trying to engineer a cooler Earth.

Shuchi Talati, founder and executive director of the nonprofit The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, says Make Sunsets' actions crystallize the need for urgent regulation of this tech.

"At some point down the road, they're going to do this at a big enough scale to trigger some sort of climate impact," Talati says. "It can be done in an effective, globally governed way, or it can be done by two crazy people in California, and it can look horrible for a lot of people."

Song holds a balloon while Iseman watches from the RV. "I think regulations have to be holistic to be meaningful, or people, including me, will just game them," Iseman says.

"The allure of the techno fix"

Iseman, a former director at a tech incubator who used to build large art projects at Burning Man festival, acknowledges there's a performative aspect to his work. For his company to have a measurable cooling impact, researchers say it would need to release significantly more material, probably require equipping special planes, and is likely years away.

But Make Sunsets is attracting significant Silicon Valley investment, and is hoping to have that bigger impact. The company has raised more than $1.2 million from venture capital firms like Boost VC, Pioneer Fund, and Draper Associates.

It's unclear how many entities are exploring solar geoengineering, because some projects keep their work under wraps. But Make Sunsets isn't alone.

A U.S.-Israeli startup called Stardust Solutions that plans to someday launch reflective particles into the stratosphere has raised $15 million, according to its chief executive officer and co-founder, Yanai Yedvab. Stardust's investors include SolarEdge, an Israeli green energy company, and Awz Ventures, an Israeli-Canadian venture capital fund that highlights on its website a partnership with Israel's Ministry of Defense.

From sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky to giant sun-reflecting space mirrors, geoengineering the planet to avoid the worst impacts of global warming is capturing the imagination of greater numbers of people. Coming out of the hottest year on record, with governments and industries failing to adequately transition away from fossil fuels, some people are looking for silver bullets. This attraction is especially felt in Silicon Valley, says Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School.

"Climate tech is sexy," Wagner says, "because it's the allure of the techno fix. Look to D.C., and things are messy. Politics is messy. Wouldn't it be nice if we could cut through all of this with the ultimate techno fix that will solve this thing once and for all?"

Iseman says he's motivated by an urgency to act on climate change. World governments agreed to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100. But temperatures have already risen about 1.2 degrees Celsius, and many scientists think the world will blow past 1.5 Celsius. Passing it would mean more catastrophic impacts like lethal heat waves and flooding, coral die-offs and melting ice.

"What we have done has not worked," Iseman says about current efforts to address global warming. "And we need to try many more broad approaches."

Iseman and other solar geoengineering advocates reject the idea of a so-called "moral hazard" with this technology. That's the idea that solar geoengineering will distract from the difficult - and scientifically necessary - work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will give fossil fuel polluters continued license to pollute.

"I think we need to do solar geoengineering – hard stop – because the world is too hot. We need to cool it off," Iseman says. "I wouldn't say we should only do that after we start dropping global greenhouse [gas] emissions. 'Cause, frankly, I don't know when we're gonna do that."

Make Sunsets does not employ any scientists. The employees are just Iseman and Song, who met while Iseman worked at a tech incubator and Song worked as an outreach manager at a crowdfunding website. Iseman says if they scale up the company, they'll hire scientists.

Stardust's team includes 20 scientists and engineers, including chemists, aviation experts, and physicists, like the company's CEO, Yedvab. Yedvab wrote in an email that he started looking into the tech two and a half years ago and found that it "is the sole viable option humanity has to stop global warming in the coming decades."

Stardust notes their focus is research in anticipation of future government contracts for deployment.

But there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding the science, and experts worry it's too dangerous for companies to have a financial motive to develop and deploy this tech on a larger scale, when there still isn't clear regulation.

"We do know it will reduce global temperatures. That is the one thing we know," Talati says. "We don't know almost everything else."

A man with light-tone skin works on a laptop computer at an RV dining table.

From droughts to "termination shock," the technology poses risks

The type of solar geoengineering Make Sunsets works on is often called "stratospheric aerosol injection," and much of what's known about how it could work comes from volcanoes. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, sulfur dioxide from the eruption spread across the global stratosphere. The particles ended up cooling the world about half a degree Celsius the following year.

Scientists predict the world would, on average, get cooler with this type of solar geoengineering. Compared to other climate tech, it's also very cheap, and – once operational – could have a rapid cooling impact.

But there are lots of unpredictable risks. Computer modeling has limits, says Jonas Jägermeyr, who models impacts of solar geoengineering on global crops at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It is difficult to know what we are getting ourselves into unless we actually did the experiment on the whole planet," he wrote in an email.

If the world engages in stratospheric aerosol injection, it wouldn't go back to some pre-global warming climate, says Alan Robock, climate scientist at Rutgers University. This type of solar geoengineering could weaken the summer monsoon, meaning some regions – where billions of people live – would see less rain. And it could end up changing the ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation, which could affect crop growth and global food supplies, Jägermeyr says.

Changing temperatures and rainfall patterns could mean new risks for infectious diseases, says Christopher Trisos, chief research officer in the Climate Risk Lab at the University of Cape Town. "Solar geoengineering could shift the population at risk by nearly a billion people for malaria across developing countries," Trisos says.

Then there's "termination shock," which is what it sounds like: the shock of suddenly halting a huge experiment. After injecting particles into the stratosphere, the particles only stay there for a year or two and then fall back to earth. Depending on the material, those falling particles can sometimes create their own environmental and health risks.

Because the particles don't stay up forever, if the world doesn't simultaneously reduce the amount of planet-heating gasses in the atmosphere while doing large-scale solar geoengineering, suddenly stopping the experiment poses a big risk.

"You get a whole rush of global warming and climate change in a very short period of time," Trisos says. "That would be very dangerous for ecosystems, for biodiversity, in many cases, very dangerous for crops and food supplies as well."

A woman with medium-ton skin is photographed in front of a porch railing. She wears a jacket and scarf.

New companies raise fears of regulatory gaps

A growing number of legal scholars say national and international regulations are inadequate to cover potential large-scale deployments of solar geoengineering. As global warming gets worse, "there's going to be a strong desire by someone somewhere to do something," says Tracy Hester, a law professor at University of Houston who studies climate geoengineering. "There will be a temptation to grab the throttle and push ahead."

Hester worries that right now there's no regulatory strategy if that happens: "We need to know what we're doing. The consequences here are pretty massive."

In the U.S., the interactions Make Sunsets has with U.S. government agencies are minimal. Before each balloon launch, Iseman calls up the Federal Aviation Administration and alerts them that he'll be launching weather balloons. Iseman also files a yearly report with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) listing all of the company's "weather modification activities". In one NOAA report in the box marked "project or activity designation," Iseman wrote: "Cooling Earth."

While Make Sunsets was launching balloons in the parking lot, on the edge of a county park, a park ranger drove up to us, got out of the car, asked Iseman and Song a few questions about the balloons, and drove away after less than three minutes.

Iseman spends much of his time in Baja California, and the company has done a number of experiments in Mexico. Last year the Mexican government released a statement saying that they would ban solar geoengineering in their national territory, referencing the activities of Make Sunsets.

But outside of Mexico, things are unclear. There are no international conventions that specifically deal with this type of technology, Hester says. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity – a treaty that protects wildlife – has a moratorium on geoengineering that affects living species. But the moratorium is guidance, and non-binding. And "the U.S. is actually not a party" to the treaty, says Daniel Bodansky, a climate legal expert and law professor at Arizona State University.

The Montreal Protocol, a treaty to address ozone depletion, could potentially cover the ways that stratospheric aerosol injection affects ozone. But that treaty does not currently address all the impacts of the tech, nor does it cover all types of solar geoengineering, Bodansky says.

A large round white balloon rises against a blue sky with something red hanging from it.

Last month Hester, Talati and others filed a petition to NOAA. They asked the federal agency to consider making a rule requiring solar geoengineering companies like Make Sunsets to file more information about what they're doing, and consider regulating American citizens when they do solar geoengineering internationally.

A NOAA spokesperson wrote in an email, "We are currently reviewing the request for rulemaking and will provide a response to the petitioners."

Stardust is doing outdoor small-scale testing "only to the extent required ... and in full compliance with all relevant regulations," Yedvab wrote.

Yedvab, who used to work for Israel's atomic energy commission, adds: "Decision making regarding whether to deploy [stratospheric aerosol injection], when and to what extent should only be taken by governments."

A White House official wrote in an email that solar geoengineering activities in the U.S. must comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. The email notes that new tech "may present unforeseen circumstances that require new guidance and/or governance mechanisms."

The official did not clarify what that new guidance or governance might look like.

Iseman of Make Sunsets says, "I think regulations have to be holistic to be meaningful, or people, including me, will just game them."

An aircraft carrier sits in the water tethered to a dock

A test on San Francisco Bay

As the private sector grows, not-for-profit entities are speeding up their research.

Earlier this month, a handful of scientists and engineers gathered on deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier on the San Francisco Bay to test a large machine. After about a decade of work, the researchers were readying the machine for one of its first tests outdoors, creating tiny salt water particles that could – someday – reflect sunlight and cool earth.

An engineer scooped salt into a large plastic container, mixing it with water. Then he turned the machine on, letting forth a giant hissing spray of salt water particles down the aircraft runway.

The test represents a different type of solar geoengineering than Make Sunsets' balloons. "Marine cloud brightening" involves brightening ocean clouds to reflect more planet-heating sunlight.

This technology could someday significantly reduce many of the impacts of global warming, says Sarah Doherty, a University of Washington professor who manages this program. But it also has risks. If the particles are too big, they can make the clouds less reflective, and actually warm the planet. An imbalance of cloud brightening off West Africa could cause a drought in the Amazon. For Doherty, these unknowns are a big reason for this research.

"You could see in 20 years from now, people saying, 'Oh my God, we're really in trouble. We've got major climate disruption. Let's do this thing that we know exists.' Well, if we haven't done the research to look at the ways to not do it properly, to not do it in a way that's going to cause more damage, then we're really in trouble," she says.

Four people stand on a raised surface next to water.

The risks are why university researchers, not for-profit companies, should guide studies of this tech, argues Kelly Wanser, executive director of SilverLining, the nonprofit that led fundraising for Doherty's program. The University of Washington program – which also aims to improve current climate modeling – has raised $16 million, mostly from philanthropic climate funds and Silicon Valley scientists. Doherty says there's no strings attached. "They're not gonna ever get anything back out of it other than more science," she says.

Wanser contrasts this with what she calls the "misaligned incentives" of private companies entering the space. In addition to its venture capital fundraising, Make Sunsets sells "cooling credits" – a single $10 credit offsets the warming of 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide, the company says. For Wanser, for-profit companies like Make Sunsets have a monetary incentive to keep releasing balloons, even if the effects could be harmful.

Iseman responds in an email that, "All change is scary, and we can't use 'someday maybe' as an excuse to avoid the bold actions that the climate crisis demands."

But even with university-based solar geoengineering research, there's a need for regulation, says Imran Khalid, a climate policy researcher based in Islamabad. While the aircraft carrier is a museum open to the public – a group of elementary school children came aboard a little while after the test – there are no rules requiring future research projects to be so transparent. And while this study released a small amount of particles, there are no specific regulations to limit a future study from making a larger release.

Given the stakes, Khalid says there should be global input into research frameworks. "Research leads to deployment at some time," he says. "There needs to be a global discussion around this issue."

A U.S. flag waves next to a machine expelling material into the air. The sky is cloudy.

"I have an obligation to do what I can"

Right now, most solar geoengineering research is funded and carried out by people in the Global North, in places like Silicon Valley. That worries Khalid.

"When we're talking about solar geoengineering, it's important to contextualize it from this perspective," he says, "of somebody who's sitting here in Pakistan, who's recently seen the 2022 floods."

Those floods, which scientists found were made worse because of global warming, left almost a third of the country underwater at their peak, and left hundreds of thousands of displaced people in camps. Just as global warming's impacts are often felt more in developing countries, some scientists fear developing countries could also be particularly vulnerable to solar geoengineering's risks.

"You can get some strong kinds of winners and losers," Trisos says. "And that's especially concerning because a lot of these developing countries in the tropics, such as in Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America, right now don't have a strong voice in the solar geoengineering conversation."

Some nonprofits are trying to change that. In the past year The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering has started consultations and workshops in South Africa, India and Pakistan to educate local scientists and civil society groups about solar geoengineering. The U.K.-based Degrees Initiative has awarded $900,000 to scientists from Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria and other countries to study solar geoengineering.

During the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi this past February, Switzerland put forth a proposal for more global research on solar geoengineering. While it didn't pass, Talati, who was at the talks, says they left her encouraged. "That was a glimmer of hope for me," she says. "To see so many new countries offering their comments and wanting to engage in this conversation."

From his vantage point on a Zoom call in Silicon Valley, Iseman says it's unfair that he has privileges to act on solar geoengineering while others don't. "I think that it is unfair that I was born as a lower middle class, white-ish American male," he says.

But he says that isn't stopping him from scaling his company: "I have an obligation to do what I can to cool the planet, as does anyone else who actually reads the science."

"We're two guys playing with balloons," Iseman says. "In an ideal world, this shouldn't be something left to dudes with a startup to be doing. But that's the world we're in, for now."

Two people stand near a silver camper van. One holds a deflated balloon.

Civics & Democracy

Deportation views

Poll finds Californians want due process for all

By Wendy Fry | CalMatters

Published December 6, 2025 2:38 PM

People's hands are pointing at masked men in Homeland Security uniforms.

Neighbors confront Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Special Response Team officers following an immigration raid at the Italian restaurant Buono Forchetta in San Diego on May 30, 2025.

(

Photo courtesy Pedro Rios

)

Topline:

A new poll shared exclusively with CalMatters adds to a slate of surveys suggesting Californians’ support is waning for Trump’s harshest immigration enforcement policies.

About the poll: The Goodwin Simon Strategic Research poll 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.

The findings: There is bipartisan support for ensuring that immigrants facing deportation receive due process, including ones with criminal records.

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 A lex 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.

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.

News

Medi-Cal changes

California scrambling to address effects on state

By Mark Kreidler | Capital & Main

Published December 6, 2025 10:00 AM

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an event in San Francisco on Nov. 9, 2023.

President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the "One, Big Beautiful Bill Act," a massive spending and tax bill, at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4.

(

Jeff Chiu

Getty Images

)

Topline:

There isn’t a ton of research into the effectiveness of making people prove they have jobs in order to access social services. But what evidence there is points in one direction: Placing work requirements on programs like Medicaid does almost nothing to increase employment or hours worked, while actively hurting people in need.

Background: A significant part of Congress’ so-called Big Beautiful Bill’s takedown of Medicaid funding revolves around forcing people to show that they’re working 80 hours each month before they can receive benefits. And with about a year left until that requirement takes effect, California policymakers are scrambling to mitigate its most toxic effects — even if they are legally required to implement the broader law.

Read on ... for more on California's plans to handle the coming changes to Medicaid.

There isn’t a ton of research into the effectiveness of making people prove they have jobs in order to access social services. But what evidence there is points in one direction: Placing work requirements on programs like Medicaid does almost nothing to increase employment or hours worked, while actively hurting people in need.

With roughly 15 million Californians relying on Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, for their health coverage, the Golden State is staring that grim truth in the face.

A significant part of Congress’ so-called Big Beautiful Bill’s takedown of Medicaid funding revolves around forcing people to show that they’re working 80 hours each month before they can receive benefits. And with about a year left until that requirement takes effect, California policymakers are scrambling to mitigate its most toxic effects — even if they are legally required to implement the broader law.

“At the end of the day, there’s not a full workaround,” said Hannah Orbach-Mandel, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan California Budget & Policy Center. “But I do believe there are some ways that California can try to be a little creative about how the law is implemented, and people are looking into that now.”

Those possibilities include using California’s relatively high minimum wage ($16.90 an hour in 2026) to propose substituting income earned for hours worked under the new Medicaid rules, along with ways to streamline what is likely to be a nightmarish bureaucratic task of recording and verifying the information the federal government is demanding.

The stakes are certainly high enough. According to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration, as many as 3 million Californians could be thrown off Medi-Cal based on the work requirement alone — a significant portion of the many millions of Americans across the country who face a similar fate. While the actual numbers will rise or fall depending upon how the requirements are implemented, the resulting strain on California’s health care system from fewer patients and more unreimbursed care could buckle it.

The work requirement derives from a generations-old Republican talking point that most people on public assistance could be working, but are either too lazy or unmotivated to do so. Research has disproven that theory repeatedly.

As of 2023, nearly two-thirds of all adults aged 19-64 on Medicaid were working full-time or part-time, according to the health policy research site KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. Among the remainder who weren’t working, the vast majority fell into one of three categories: sick or disabled, caregiving for another person or attending school. All of those groups receive exemptions to the work requirement in the new law.

It’s no surprise, then, that the Congressional Budget Office has already said implementing work requirements for Medicaid recipients won’t move the needle on employment. During debate on a 2023 Medicaid bill, the CBO concluded that “the employment status of, and hours worked by, Medicaid recipients would be unchanged” by work requirements.

A couple of states have tried such restrictions themselves, with disastrous consequences. In the first seven months after Arkansas implemented work requirements in 2018, for example, roughly 18,000 people lost their Medicaid coverage — most of them, state officials said, not because they didn’t qualify, but because they either didn’t understand the new rules or couldn’t navigate the maze of administrative details and gave up, losing their health care access in the process.

Meanwhile, there was no notable improvement to the state’s employment numbers or to its total number of hours worked, a finding that has been confirmed by more recent research. The Arkansas requirements were halted in 2019 by a federal judge who ruled the program did not meet the objectives of the Medicaid program.

Nevertheless, Republicans enshrined such requirements nationally in H.R. 1 this year, and they are set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2027. They also further mandated that Medicaid recipients repeat the qualification process twice each year. The budget reconciliation bill says that those in the Medicaid expansion group between the age of 19 and 64 must show that they’re either working, going to school, in job training or doing community service at least 80 hours a month in order to stay eligible.

Those rules will chase people off Medicaid, which could increase death rates and lead to severe financial trouble. Many of those people, Orbach-Mandel says, will still fully qualify to receive benefits, but they either won’t know it or will get lost in red tape.

In California, 3 million people suddenly losing their health coverage means they’ll likely have no health insurance and no access to regular care, and will instead wait to see a doctor until they need to go to the emergency room — the one place where they know they cannot be denied care even if they can’t pay.

It all adds up to a massive new strain on an already overburdened health care system.

“That burden ends up falling on a lot of hospitals, like safety-net facilities,” Orbach-Mandel said. Many of those hospitals are already struggling to survive financially. The combination of fewer Medi-Cal patients and higher unreimbursed emergency room costs could drive them to discontinue certain services or face possible closure, as hospitals in Willows and Inyo County recently have discussed.

The Medicaid takedown is an almost perfectly Trumpian gambit: It helps to finance massive tax cuts for the nation’s richest individuals at the expense of some of the most vulnerable Americans, many of whom voted for Donald Trump. Republicans championed the work requirements mostly as a way to kick people off Medicaid.

That they will do — an estimated 6.3 million nationally, though some estimates run many multiples higher than that. California’s total may run higher or lower than the Newsom administration’s 3 million estimate as well, in part because there is no guidance yet on how the requirements are to be administered or monitored.

Orbach-Mandel said the state is ultimately responsible for gathering and producing the relevant documentation. Much of that work will be farmed out to California’s cash-strapped counties that could be saddled with building out the verification process.

Clarifying how that process should work is one way the state could ease some of the administrative effects of the new requirements. In terms of keeping more people eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s minimum wage may come into play.

Orbach-Mandel said that one idea being tossed around is using the statewide minimum wage in a calculation of what California workers’ output is actually worth. Since that wage is higher than most other states and way above the national minimum of $7.25 per hour, California might argue that its Medicaid enrollees can prove a certain amount of earnings, rather than have to document the 80-hour work requirement.

Since federal implementation guidelines are still lacking, no one is certain what the final rules will be. It’s also possible that Congress ultimately postpones the start of the program, especially given Trump’s miserable approval numbers — and the fact that his approach to health care is the lowest-rated component of those.

Put simply, Trump’s coattails aren’t what they used to be. The Medicaid work requirements are looming, yes — but for many of the president’s longtime Republican loyalists in Congress, the 2026 midterms are going to happen first.

Hey, LA listener!

The Brief