The Brief

California State University’s four-year graduation rates remain flat for the 23-campus system just two years before the end of a 10-year deadline to dramatically improve them.

The system announced Monday during its Graduation Initiative 2025 symposium in San Diego that rates remain unchanged from last year for first-time students. Preliminary data shows the four-year graduation rate remains unchanged from last year at 35%. The system’s 2025 goal is 40%. The six-year graduation rate for first-time students also remains the same as last year at 62%. The 2025 goal is 70%.

Graduation rates for transfers also remain flat this year, although the two-year transfer rate increased by 1 percentage point from last year to 41%. The 2025 two-year transfer goal is 45%. However, four-year transfer rates slightly decreased from 80% last year to 79% this year. The 2025 four-year transfer goal is 85%.

Despite the stall, Cal State has doubled its four-year graduation rates from 19%, when the 2025 graduation initiative was created in 2015. And since 2016, the CSU has contributed to an additional 150,000 bachelor’s degrees earned.

“We have no shortages of challenges ahead,” CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia said during the symposium. “Persistent opportunity gaps continue to shortchange our students and our state. There is a greater need now, more than ever, to expand access and affordability, to proactively recruit and serve students of all ages and stages. Not only to elevate lives but to power California’s economic and social vitality.”

However, graduation equity gaps persist throughout the system. The gap between Black, Latino and Native American students and their peers increased by 1 point this year to a 13% difference. The graduation rate for Black students is at 47%. And the socioeconomic gap in graduation rates between low-income and higher-income students increased to 12%, said Jeff Gold, assistant vice chancellor for student success in the chancellor’s office.

“Graduation rates, although they are at all-time highs, have stagnated,” Gold said, adding that the system has been stuck at a 62% six-year graduation rate since 2020.

Jennifer Baszile, Cal State’s associate vice chancellor of student success and inclusive excellence, said the system is proud of its work to increase rates since 2015, but “we still know there is more work ahead.”

“Across the country, institutions have seen a growth in equity gaps,” Baszile said, adding that much of that is due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and the pressure on students to work or take care of their families.

But the chancellor’s office is also working on strategies to understand and intervene where it can to improve the college experience for low-income and students of color, she said. For example, former interim Chancellor Jolene Koester assembled a strategic workgroup on Black student success to study trends and improve education for that group of students.

Cal State will release more data, including graduation rates by campus and race, over the next several weeks.

“While the CSU’s collective focus on our ambitious goals has resulted in graduation rates at or near all-time highs, there is still much to accomplish in the coming years,” Chancellor Garcia said. “We will boldly re-imagine our work to remove barriers and close equity gaps for our historically marginalized students — America’s new majority — as we continue to serve as the nation’s most powerful driver of socioeconomic mobility.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom has beefed up protections for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights in his latest rebuke of what he and advocates say are attacks from the Trump administration.

The outgoing governor signed over a dozen bills into law, some authored by Bay Area lawmakers, that increase safeguards around LGBTQ+ identity data, change how health insurance companies reimburse for HIV prevention drugs and expand access to medication abortion on certain community college campuses.

“The Trump administration has launched an all-out assault on the LGBTQ community, using medical records to target U.S. service members and civilians alike, hurting countless people and betraying hard-won trust,” Newsom said in a statement. “California will not stand for it.”

Newsom’s package of new laws is only the latest instance in which California has been at odds with President Donald Trump over policies focused on transgender residents. The administration unsuccessfully sued the state over its refusal to ban transgender athletes from girls sports. The president banned transgender people in the military early into his second term, but one of the bills Newsom signed this weekend expands veteran benefits to service members who were discharged under that policy.

Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, said the signings were yet another show of how the state responds to the dismantling of LGBTQ+ protections.

“California has spent decades building some of the strongest LGBTQ+ civil rights protections in the country, and we will continue building on that progress as long as our community remains under attack,” Hoang said in a statement.

The California Family Council, an advocacy group with a stated goal of “advancing God’s Design for Life, Family, & Liberty,” has opposed at least one of the signed bills, Senate Bill 1114, over what they say is a prioritization of ideological confidentiality over child welfare.

SB 1114 limits when sexual orientation, intersex and gender identity collected can be shared. Healthcare providers are also required to notify the attorney general when they receive subpoenas for protected healthcare activities.

“1114 does not protect children; it protects bureaucratic secrecy at the expense of parents and families,” the group said in opposition earlier this year.

Newsom also signed SB 934, authored by San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener. The law updates the state’s ban on conversion therapy in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a conversion therapy ban in Colorado.

Newsom has long championed LGBTQ+ rights since he was mayor of San Francisco, including issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of a federal ban. But he’s also faced criticism for previous comments on transgender athletes and a recent veto on a bill that would have prevented future governors from honoring extradition requests for gender-affirming healthcare providers facing charges in other states.

In March of last year, Newsom said on his podcast while in conversation with late conservative activist Charlie Kirk that it was unfair for a transgender teenage girl to compete in a track and field competition.

Newsom told KQED’s Political Breakdown that he disagreed with “vitriol” in discussions surrounding the topic, but that it is “unfair in these circumstances.” Months later, Newsom said it needed to be more clear when transgender girl athletes can participate alongside cisgender girls.

Separately and in a veto message a week ago, Newsom said that he agreed with AB 2164’s authors about the importance of protecting gender-affirming healthcare. But he said he was “troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor.”

A Senate bill, co-sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, strengthens access to the HIV prevention drug PrEP by improving reimbursement practices for healthcare providers. The law requires health insurance companies to cover long-acting injectable PrEP through medical and outpatient prescription drug benefits, which Lara said will remove “unnecessary barriers” to the care.

“By enacting this first-of-its-kind state law, California is again leading the country in making sure insurance companies never stand in the way of people accessing HIV prevention,” said Tyler TerMeer, CEO of San Francisco AIDS Foundation.

Newsom’s signature on reproductive rights bills could include an expansion of abortion services to community college campuses.

Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, who represents San Francisco, authored AB 2540, which requires community colleges with student health centers to offer medication abortion services if lawmakers dedicate funding.

Stefani said in announcing the legislation in April that the services are “essential health care, full stop. Yet too many community college students face real barriers to accessing care.”

The state already requires schools in the University of California and California State University systems to offer the same services.

The latest budget from the Olympics organizing committee for the 2028 Games is now public, but like other reports from LA28, it’s light on key financial details.

It comes as L.A.’s city controller pressures LA28 to be more transparent and release more specific data. Controller Kenneth Mejia’s deadline of today (Sept. 28) for more information appears likely to pass with no action from the Olympics organizers.

The newly public report from LA28, which includes a summary of the organization’s 2025 finances, puts LA28’s budget at $7.26 billion, up from a previous estimate of $7.15 billion. That includes expense line items such as $1.4 billion for venue infrastructure, $1.42 billion for “sport, games services & operations,” and $586 million for “other expenses.” It doesn’t provide a more comprehensive breakdown. It also doesn’t include budgets or schedules for specific venue construction projects or a list of contracts that LA28 entered into during the 2025 fiscal year.

The lack of financial specificity is despite guidelines in an agreement between the city of L.A. and LA28 requiring the organizing committee to submit updates on venue improvements, including schedules and budgets, and a list of all contracts it entered into valued at more than $1 million each fiscal year.

Instead, the report includes a single page summarizing its contracts over $1 million, which LA28 says total more than $687 million. That list omits contractor names and specific amounts. According to the city administrative officer, LA28 left out those specifics from the annual report and provided them directly to certain city liaisons because of a concern from LA28 that making details public would risk its ability to negotiate competitive contracts.

That’s not good enough for City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who last month wrote to LA28 General Counsel Elisabeth Freinberg asking the organizing committee to submit a detailed budget, including specific line items breaking down its broad budget categories.

“The most recently submitted $7.26 billion budget is limited to one half page of information that lacks the detail necessary to conduct meaningful analysis and evaluate the feasibility of the budget and LA28’s financial standing,” Mejia wrote in that letter.

In an interview with LAist, Mejia emphasized that the city of Los Angeles is the financial backstop for the Games, meaning if LA28 loses money, L.A. taxpayers will foot the bills the organizers can’t pay.

“ The documents we requested will help us understand how they're doing as an organization, because if they go over budget, we pay,” Mejia said.

LA28 has yet to respond to Mejia’s request, according to his office.

“LA28 works closely with the city to ensure that it satisfies all applicable requirements under the games agreement,” LA28 spokesperson Jacie Prieto Lopez said in an emailed statement to LAist on Monday. “All prior annual reports have been submitted to and accepted by the city, and we look forward to continuing to meet our obligations.”

It’s unclear what the city controller’s next move will be if LA28 doesn’t comply with his deadline for more data. His office says he will continue to push LA28 for more financial information. So far, Mejia is the only city official publicly pressuring LA28 to open its books.

The Senate is poised to pass a sweeping bipartisan bill on Monday that would regulate college sports, an attempt to end “chaos” in an industry that has been upended by skyrocketing athlete payments and near-unrestricted transfers between schools.

Passage of the legislation would be the strongest effort yet by Congress to set national regulations governing payments to college athletes for their name, image and likeness and how often they can transfer. It would give the NCAA new authority over those rules and limited antitrust protections to enforce them.

The bill is the product of years of Senate negotiations that intensified as some in the industry pleaded with Congress to step in after a 2025 lawsuit settlement uprooted the college sports landscape by allowing colleges to pay their players. The legislation, which would still have to pass the House, would codify the settlement into law but also establish new guardrails around the system in an attempt to rein in the runaway costs for colleges.

“It would be nice if college sports could somehow magically fix itself, but this is a matter of law, federal law, and only Congress can fix it,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who negotiated the bill with the top Democrat on the panel, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.

The bill’s backers — more than 70 senators from both parties — say it aims to curtail constant litigation and uncertainty across college sports for athletes, schools and fans. It would also give hundreds of thousands of student athletes new health and labor protections.

Critics say the bill doesn’t do enough to protect athletes or curtail the enormous sums of money flowing to coaches, colleges and conferences.

“This is a bill that essentially ensconces a system of exploitation, and it doesn’t fix the broader problems,” said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has worked with labor and civil rights groups to rally opposition to the bill.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed an interest in the legislation, and the White House formally endorsed the bill last month. But it could face an uphill battle in the House, which failed repeatedly over the last year to get a different version to the floor and is in recess until after the November elections.

Lawmakers will have to start over in the next Congress if the bill doesn’t pass both chambers by the end of the year.

Bill addresses skyrocketing spending, unlimited transfers

College sports have been reeling in the wake of the 2025 court settlement allowing colleges to directly pay players for their name, image and likeness. The fallout has reshaped the industry and led to football roster payrolls that can exceed $40 million.

The bill codifies the court settlement, including a revenue cap that allows schools to share up to $21.5 million in revenue with their players. The legislation would more than double that amount for some schools, allowing up to an additional $27.5 million in payments through a retention fund, and would give schools and conferences the option of pooling their TV media rights to potentially raise more revenue.

The legislation also aims to stabilize the NCAA transfer portal that has led to players constantly switching teams. It would restrict player transfers to one “free” move over five years without sitting out a year, with some exceptions, and also restricts players to five years of total eligibility.

The proposed eligibility limit comes amid backlash to schools that have increasingly pushed boundaries, including LSU’s now-canceled plans to place players on the roster who had participated in NFL training camps.

“That was probably like a big lamp for some people who saw it and said, ‘Oh my God, this is so out of control,’” Cantwell said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “You can see how out-of-hand the situation was getting.”

The bill also would restrict coaches from leaving their schools during the season and prevent conferences from growing larger than 19 programs, an effort to prevent so-called “superleagues” from taking over sports. It would force schools that want to switch conferences to spend three years as an independent — down from five years in the original bill. That change brought new supporters on board, including Florida State and Clemson of the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Critics say it wouldn’t do enough to help athletes

The legislation includes new protections for athletes, including caps on agent fees and guarantees for health insurance and certain scholarships. It would also require schools to maintain a minimum number of sports and roster spots — an effort to ensure that women’s and Olympic sports are not cut in favor of football, basketball and other sports that generate more revenue.

Still, some Democrats say it wouldn’t do enough to limit the big money in college sports.

The legislation “places a cap on the students’ cut of the revenues, but there are no caps on coaches’ salaries or on the size of donations to athletic programs,” Murphy said last week.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said that the new antitrust protections would make it harder for athletes to sue universities, and “taking away their legal rights strikes me as a bridge too far.”

Groups like the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus and AFL-CIO have also opposed the bill, in part, because it leaves unresolved whether athletes should be considered employees with the ability to collectively bargain.

All four Black Democrats in the Senate — Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland — have opposed the bill.

Booker, who played football at Stanford in the late 1980s on a scholarship, said in a Senate floor speech earlier this month that he was “afforded opportunities I never would have had if it wasn’t for college athletics” but that he also “saw how unjust the NCAA is.”

He said it wasn’t until college athletes were able to begin to win cases in court that the power started to shift, “and now the NCAA is coming here to the United States Senate, asking for sweeping powers” to exempt antitrust laws.

Some Republicans also said it is overreach.

The legislation “goes way too far inserting the federal government into collegiate athletics,” said Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who is opposing it.

House passage is uncertain

Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the bill faces a murky path in the House.

House lawmakers won’t return to Washington until mid-November, after the elections. And it’s unclear what will be on Republican leaders’ agenda in the chaotic last few weeks of the session.

Pressure from Trump could help push the bill to passage. But some House Republicans have insisted on language explicitly stating that athletes are not employees, which the Senate bill does not have — a key concession to Cantwell to win enough Democratic support.

House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said in a statement in May that “any lasting framework must confront the central issue that continues to cast uncertainty over the future of college sports: whether student-athletes will ultimately be treated as employees.”

“Congress cannot deliver real stability, consistency, or certainty to schools, conferences, and student-athletes while leaving that question unresolved,” the two Republicans said.

Each year, Congress passes laws which allocate money to the federal government's various programs and agencies. Trump, for the second year in a row, is refusing to send some of that money to the places that Congress says it has to go, setting off a fresh battle with lawmakers over who controls federal spending.

Of the $810 million being withheld, $567 million comes from programs that "provided services to refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens," according to a memo from the White House.

The move, called a pocket rescission, is illegal, according to the Government Accountability Office, an independent, non-partisan watchdog agency charged with providing federal agencies fact-based information.

Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and decide how federal funds are spent — known as power of the purse. If the president disagrees, he or she can send a request to Congress to cancel the fund, but that is supposed to happen with 45 days notice in order to let Congress agree or disagree.

A pocket rescission happens when the president decides to cancel funds without ample time for Congress to weigh in or reallocate the money. With the end of the fiscal year less than a week away, the announcement means the funds will go unspent and Congress can't respond.

"This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations committee, wrote in a statement posted to X. "OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding."

The canceled funds are fueling anger from Democrats who say OMB director Russell Vought is violating the separation of powers and undermining Congressional authority.

"This is theft from the American people, plain and simple," wrote Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee on X. "Every Republican who voted for these bills should be furious, because Vought is saying their votes don't count."

"Donald Trump knows he can't get these cuts through Congress, so he is illegally making them through the back door," Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget committee, said in a statement. "Trump's actions are a blatant attack on Congress's constitutional power of the purse."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The administration also says it withheld $15 million to a Justice Department team tasked with "preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony," $70 million to "programs provide grants and fellowships to support institutions bringing foreign students and faculty to the United States to study or teach language," and tens of millions to various research and non-profit grant programs that target climate change or racial and gender minority work.

A detailed accounting provided by the administration can be found here.
Copyright 2026 NPR