The Brief

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.

Copyright 2025 Capital & Main

A coalition that advocates for renters and unhoused residents is demanding the city of Los Angeles halt its planned rollout of a new state law that gives local officials authority to dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a problem.

Assembly Bill 630 gave L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs that have an estimated value of $4,000 or less, an increase over the previous $500 threshold.

Supporters of the new law argue that abandoned RVs often pose public safety, health and environmental hazards.

The law goes into effect in the new year. It was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October. That same month, L.A. City Councilmembers approved a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the new RV enforcement program.

The problem, according to attorneys representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, is that the new law only authorizes L.A. County to launch the program, not the city of Los Angeles.

“The City's planned implementation of AB 630 is illegal,” attorneys wrote in a demand letter sent to L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto last week.

The lawyers who sent the letter represent the CD11 Coalition for Human Rights, an organization that includes individuals living in RVs in Los Angeles and advocates for renters and unhoused residents in the city’s Westside.

The letter gives L.A. city officials a deadline on Dec. 29 at 5 p.m. to confirm in writing that the city will not implement the new law, or at least that it will wait until the issue can be resolved in court.

No lawsuit has been filed yet.

L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto did not immediately respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the demand letter.

Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who sponsored the California assembly bill.

Representatives from Bass' office told LAist Friday that the mayor is working with the state to "secure the authority necessary for the City to fully implement this landmark legislation."

They also said raising the threshold to $4,000 allows "local jurisdictions to dismantle more of these dangerous, inoperable RVs and get them off the street for good."

City vs. county authority

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents westside communities including Venice and Culver City, sponsored the City Council motion to “immediately implement” the new RV law.

It instructed the city administrative officer to work with the city’s Department of Transportation, city attorney and Police Department to start enforcing AB 630 on L.A.'s streets.

Park told LAist that the city needs to be able remove unsafe vehicles from public roads.

“These vehicles create unacceptable health, environmental, and safety risks, putting entire neighborhoods, critical infrastructure, and sensitive environmental areas at risk,” Park said in a statement. “Residents want solutions, not ideological wars, delay tactics, and frivolous lawsuits.”

The City Council approved an amended motion this month, instructing city staff to move forward with implementing the new law as they prepared informational reports for various City Council committees.

The attorneys challenging L.A.’s actions say the City Council moved too quickly, without realizing the legal limitations of the new statute.

“The City Council passed this motion without really fully understanding the consequences of it or even what it said it all,” said Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles told LAist.

“As a result of that, it’s a policy that could really harm Angelenos, but also could result in costly litigation,” she continued.

The legal challenge centers on the language stating that the “Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles may implement a program” to dispose of recreational vehicles. The statute makes no mention of cities having this authority.

Lawyers for the coalition warn that if the city proceeds with implementation, it would be acting beyond its legal authority under state law.

Thousands of RV dwellers 

There are nearly 6,500 people living in more than 4,000 RVs parked across the city of L.A., according to last year’s homeless count estimates.

L.A’s city administrative officer is involved in coordinating and managing the removal of RVs from city streets, along with LAPD and the city’s Transportation Department.

It oversaw more than 370 RV clearing operations between May 2022 and June 2024, according to a CAO report. As part of those operations, the city issued more than 1,000 citations, towed more than 600 vehicles and moved nearly 200 people into housing, the report said.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo did not respond to LAist’s request for comment on AB 630.

Three L.A. City Council members voted against the city’s AB 630 implementation plan: Hugo Soto-Martinez, Isabel Jurado and Eunises Hernandez.

Hernandez’ communications director Naomi Villagomez Roochnik told LAist the councilmember remains opposed to the city-led effort.

“Moving forward without clear legal authority exposes the City to unnecessary litigation and cost during an already severe budget crisis,” she said. “It is imperative we get that clear legal analysis before the city moves forward in any way.”

The state law goes into effect Jan. 1.

President Donald Trump's long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it's not as simple as flipping a light switch.

"It's hard to see the big headlines of, 'Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,'" says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. "You know, those things are not true as of now."

That's because on its own, Trump's Dec. 18 order isn't enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

"The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug," Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump's order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won't automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It's not yet known how other policies might change.

"We don't know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements," Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here's a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump's order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III" of the Controlled Substances Act "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … "

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order's mention of the Controlled Substances Act's Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

"That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug," Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

President Donald Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

(

Evan Vucci

/

AP

)

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration's approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

"I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period," shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

"Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end," Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump's call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA's earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

"The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us," would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill's company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they're blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Section 280E "does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct," Brill says. "I can't deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense."

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

"For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve" was about $38 million, Brill says, "which includes interest and penalties."

Brill hopes marijuana's changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

"The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers," he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: "For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business."

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn't require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

"You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things," neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

"This does a little to make research easier," Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. "But there's a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Tortillas sold in California are going to have a new ingredient, one that’s intended to help nurture healthy infants.

Starting Jan. 1, a new law will take effect requiring most tortillas and corn masa products sold in the state to contain folic acid, a vitamin that’s important to infant health.

Latinas in California are far less likely than other women to get enough folic acid early in pregnancy — a gap that can lead to life-altering birth defects.

State data show that, between 2017 and 2019 – the latest years for which state data is available – about 28% of Latinas reported taking folic acid the month before becoming pregnant. White women took the vitamin at a higher rate, with 46% of them reporting consuming folic acid, according to the California Department of Public Health.

This puts Latinas at higher risk of having a baby born with neural tube defects — defects of the brain and spinal cord. Some examples of that are conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly.

Research has shown that folic acid can reduce birth defects by up to 70%. That’s why it’s found in prenatal vitamins. But because women may not find out they are pregnant until weeks or months after, public health has long recommended that folic acid also be added to staple foods.

In 1998, the U.S. required manufacturers to fortify certain grain products with folic acid, such as pasta, rice, and cereals, to help women of reproductive age get the necessary amounts. Since that rule took effect, the rate of babies born with neural tube defects dropped by about a third, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But even with the addition to these foods, birth defect rates among babies born to Latinas have been consistently higher. In search of a more culturally appropriate addition, in 2016, the federal government allowed makers of corn masa to add folic acid to their foods – but didn’t require it.

Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, who authored the law said leaving folic acid out of corn masa products, used in many Latino staple foods, was a “real oversight.”

Now, with the implementation of Assembly Bill 1830, California is the first state to require folic acid in corn masa products. The law requires manufacturers that do business in the state to add 0.7 milligrams of folic acid to every pound of flour and to list the addition in their nutrition labels. The law makes exemptions for small batch producers like restaurants and markets that might make their own tortillas from scratch.

Months after California’s law was signed, Alabama passed its own version. Its law goes into effect in June 2026.

Some large manufacturers have already been adding folic acid to their products for years. Gruma, the parent company of Mission Foods, said it started fortifying its foods back in 2016, when the federal government first allowed it. A company spokesperson said Gruma “has a longstanding commitment to supporting legislative fortification initiatives” and supports the new laws in California and Alabama.

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.

A new year means a new parade of classic characters and works entering the public domain.

Under U.S. law, the copyright on thousands of creations from 1930 — including films, books, musical compositions and more — will expire at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, meaning they will be free to use, share and adapt after nearly a century.

"I think this is my favorite crop of works yet, which is saying a lot," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, who has compiled an annual list of public domain entrants for over a decade.

This year's treasure trove features famous faces like the original Betty Boop — whose iconic hoop earrings originally took the form of floppy dog ears — and the initial version of Disney's Pluto, who first went by the name Rover.

"That's not only exciting in itself, but it's really an opportunity to look back at the history of these two incredible animation studios, Fleischer and Disney, and how their styles are imprinted in the DNA of today's cartoons," Jenkins says. "That's just a fun rabbit hole."

Literary highlights include William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the full version of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon, Watty Piper's The Little Engine that Could, the first four books of the Nancy Drew detective series and The Murder at the Vicarage, Agatha Christie's first Miss Marple mystery.

The movie selection spans war stories, musicals, thrillers, Westerns, comedies and more, coming from directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hughes and Salvador Dalí. Among them are All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Crackers starring the Marx Brothers, 1931 best picture winner Cimarron, and two Marlene Dietrich films, Morocco and The Blue Angel.

Several movies on the list feature future stars in their early days: Bing Crosby's first feature-film appearance in King of Jazz, Greta Garbo's first talkie Anna Christie and The Big Trail, John Wayne's first leading role.

Notably, Jenkins says, the films on this year's list all predate the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed studio guidelines that banned subjects from profanity, violence and nudity to interracial relationships and "lustful kissing" in movies from 1934 to 1968.

The musical compositions include "Georgia on my Mind," "Dream a Little Dream of Me" and four songs by Ira and George Gershwin: "I Got Rhythm," "I've Got a Crush on You," "But Not for Me" and "Embraceable You." Among the artworks are Piet Mondrian's "Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow" and the Jules Rimet Cup by Abel Lafleur — the original trophy of the FIFA World Cup from 1930 to 1970.

Jenkins says her four-person team spent well over 80 hours poring through the archives to compile this year's list. Writing the online summary was another feat, one she says kept her busy from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. over the course of two weeks.

But she thinks the crick in her neck is a small price to pay for shining a light on the value of public domain in "nurturing creativity and enabling access."

"What's really fun is that people are excited about it — people well beyond our world of copyright lawyers — especially when they start recognizing these works," she says. "And for me, one of the most exciting things is when you revisit a work that you loved in a different period of your life and get to look at it again."

The public domain unleashes new possibilities 

You may be wondering: Isn't there already a pretty famous Nancy Drew movie from 2007, and a cult-favorite Betty Boop musical on Broadway now?

Yes. But those productions had to get permission and pay money to adapt those characters at the time, Jenkins explains.

"What's different now is if you and me are really good at choreographing dance moves and writing lyrics for songs, we could make our own musical featuring Betty Boop 1.0 and we can go in whatever crazy directions we want," she says.

As a matter of fact, a Betty Boop horror movie is already in the works, following a string of 2025 scary movies starring villainous versions of the freshly non-copyrighted Peter Pan, Bambi and Popeye. Also, a Minnie Mouse slasher is due for release in 2026.

Not all adaptations have to be dark: Think West Side Story drawn from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Percival Everett's reimagining of Huckleberry Finn in the 2024 book James and, of course, the Wizard of Oz-inspired Wicked movies.

And public domain isn't just good news for those who want to create art, but also for those who simply want to consume it.

"It goes well beyond creativity to availability, to preservation, to being able to use things freely in school," Jenkins explains.

For example, Jenkins says, books tend to become cheaper — and available in more editions — once they enter the public domain.

A lot of creative works from the 1930s haven't been in print for decades, and ownership questions have kept many from being available online at all — at least while they were under copyright.

"Publishing houses go out of business, people die, ownership changes hands," Jenkins adds. "I mean, who on Earth owns the copyright to those random works from … almost a century ago? And when they go into the public domain, you don't have to worry about that."

Another benefit is that third parties can now digitize old films and sound recordings that have physically deteriorated over the decades — allowing for their preservation and wider distribution.

Jenkins says that's especially exciting for teachers, who can make use of these resources for free at a time when school budgets are shrinking. And even those who are not regularly in a classroom can learn a lot from this sampling of works.

"Now we're all having these conversations with our chatbots and wondering what it means that we're reacting to artistic work or to words that are generated by a machine, it was just really striking to feel the humanity behind all these works from 1930," Jenkins says, explaining that they were all created by people living in the shadow of World War I.

While there are many unresolved questions around AI and intellectual property, Jenkins says one thing is clear: "Human authorship is a requisite for copyright." So if a bot writes your Boop musical, don't expect it to be protected.

Copyright 2025 NPR