The Brief

The California State University system will seek a state loan of $144 million that it’ll have a year to repay at no interest, even though current projections show the system will have to add to its deficit to repay the debt.

Cal State’s chief financial officer says the loan will be used to offer one-year bonuses to faculty and staff. While salaries vary widely across the system, the extra $144 million is roughly a 3% increase in the total pay for Cal State’s workers, including executives. State law says the loan needs to be repaid by next July.

Despite months of hesitation, the system today took the first step to request the loan and will likely get the money in 60 days or less, said Cal State’s interim chief financial officer, Patrick Lenz, in an interview. The process involves approval from state lawmakers, who are likely to support the move.

State lawmakers made the loan available to Cal State after they cut state funding to the system by $144 million this year. Cal State has 22 campuses and enrolls 460,000 students.

The system’s largest union, the California Faculty Association of 29,000 workers, is cheering this decision but says more work is needed to bring back lecturers whose contracts were cancelled as many campuses contend with shrinking budgets. The union’s collective bargaining agreement is expiring but negotiators from the union and Cal State leadership haven’t met since April.

“We will take this as a win, but we have so much work to do, and I do hope that this provides an opening for the management to come to the table with us and negotiate fairly,” said Elaine Bernal, a lecturer at the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Cal State Long Beach and senior member of the faculty association.

“The one-time investment, great, but we really got to focus on long-term investment,” she said.
The Legislature intends to increase state spending for Cal State in 2026-27 by just $101 million — far lower than previous promises from Gov. Gavin Newsom of about $250 million — so the system will effectively be $43 million short once it repays the loan, Lenz said. The decision to take the loan came “after careful deliberation, conversations with the chancellor, conversations with our Board of Trustees,” Lenz said.

Money is chronically tight at CSU. Since 2023 the system has battled ongoing deficits that have led to hundreds of degree and course cuts, fewer lecturers and hiring freezes. Back then, the system said it was spending $1.5 billion less than it should to adequately educate its students.

Over the past two years that figure has grown by several hundred million dollars as costs rise for campus utilities, insurance, health benefits and more. The deficits exist even as the system in 2024 began increasing tuition annually; the added costs outweigh the new revenue from charging students more. However, most students don’t pay tuition because of state and system financial aid.

Despite those fiscal pressures and likely new expenses to replace the Trump administration’s cuts to federal education grants, Lenz said system leaders want to spend the money on workers.

Unions wanted loan

The zero-interest loan has been the source of intrigue and scrutiny since July as unions representing Cal State workers have been pressuring the system to agree to borrow the money so campuses can offer pay increases for workers. Unions and some lawmakers argued that the the system was fully funded because the state budget gave CSU the option to borrow the loan, which should trigger collective bargaining contract language that stipulated that ongoing raises would kick in if the system received an increase in state funding.

But Cal State officials say that even if they take the loan, it’s not new or ongoing funding — it’s money they’d have to repay after a year — so the system isn’t obligated to increase wages like those contracts dictate.

Lenz reiterated that point during an interview, even after indicating the system will take out the loan.

“Clearly, anything that is one time is not ongoing,” he said of the loan. So any raise “would be only for the 12 months of the budget year.” But maybe the state will send more cash to the system than what lawmakers and Newsom signaled in the annual budget deal they solidified in June, Lenz said. He also suggested that CSU could negotiate more time to repay the loan.

“There's a long way to go in this process, and there's a lot of unknowns,” he said.

The loan is “an unusual financial strategy”, said Robert Kelchen, a professor of higher education budgets and finance at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Asked if this could be a model for other states, Kelchen said it might be for “other blue states that are heavily unionized” and are trying to secure labor peace with labor groups.

“That's really what this feels like,” he said.

How CSU got here

That the loan even exists is itself an example of curious budgeting tactics by lawmakers and Newsom. Last year they passed a state budget that gave Cal State a moderate increase in state funding with a warning of huge cuts of $375 million this July — equal to about 8% of what the state spends supporting the CSU.

After a half-year of fierce advocacy from Cal State officials, students and workers, the final 2025-26 budget approved in June applied just a 3% cut to CSU, with a promise that the cut — $144 million — would be restored in the 2026-27 budget year that begins next July. To help Cal State manage its finances this fiscal year, the state said the system could borrow $144 million this year and repay it by the end of June 2026.

The loan option was extended to multiple state agencies, including the University of California.

System budget leaders, including Lenz, in July expressed wariness over taking out the loan because if the state’s budget picture remains shaky — it’s already projecting billions of dollars in deficits — then lawmakers may decide to apply further cuts to the CSU. That means the system would be in a deeper deficit and be on the hook for a loan they couldn’t repay.

The fiscal malaise could have been worse. In 2022, Newsom promised the CSU and University of California five years of increasing budget support totaling more than $1 billion for each system in new, ongoing funding. But because of state budget constraints, that so-called “compact” has only been partially funded.

And new funding pain points are likely on the horizon. Congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved spending plans that Newsom says will kick millions of low-income Californians off public health insurance. If the state plans to pay for that care, budgets for other agencies, especially those that can raise tuition, may need to decrease.

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

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

A new California Supreme Court ruling on retirement pay for public employees centered on a small amount of money — just one week’s salary for a retired attorney — but it had the potential to be a much costlier decision for government agencies and taxpayers.

The question: How much accrued vacation time can retiring public employees cash out at the end of their careers in ways that boost their pensions? Former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown took aim at that perk, among others, in his 2013 pension reform law, but it was unsettled in courts until now.

The California Supreme Court’s answer: Under Brown’s law, employees can count toward their pension formula whatever amount of vacation their contract allows them to cash out in a single calendar year.

That sounds simple, but some California government workers end their careers with two months or more worth of accrued vacation time — enough to cash out in increments over several years and increase their retirement pension by hundreds of dollars a month.

The case that reached the state Supreme Court turned on retired Ventura County Counsel Leroy Smith, who designated October 2019 to October 2020 as his final year of civil service and cashed out 240 hours of accrued time off over that period.

His contract allowed him to cash out only 200 hours a year and his pension plan, the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement System, would not count the extra 40 hours toward his retirement formula.

Smith and other retired Ventura County employees argued Brown’s law did not specify that the hours had to be in a single calendar year, and they should have been able to count leave cashed out over any 12-month period.

A state appeals court ruled against them two years ago. Two public safety unions appealed that decision, bringing the case to the high court. They argued that Brown’s pension law does not refer to a calendar year when it discusses cashouts.

“If the Legislature intended to restrict annual leave cashouts to a calendar year, it would have used the term “calendar year” instead of “each 12-month period,” attorneys for Ventura County attorneys and sheriff’s deputies wrote in a briefing to the court.

But the Supreme Court found otherwise, pointing to what justices described as the common meaning of a 12-month period and the broader context of what Brown and lawmakers were trying to accomplish when they passed the pension reform law.

At the time, California’s major pension funds were recovering from two successive blows — first the dot-com bust and then the Great Recession. The law Brown signed trimmed benefits, compelled employees to work longer to earn a full retirement and required them to kick in more money from their paychecks to fund their pensions.

The Supreme Court ruling conceded that Smith wanted just 40 additional hours to count toward his pension, but the justices noted that other employees could go much further if California allowed workers to “straddle” a calendar year with vacation cashouts. They could effectively double the pensionable cashout if they timed it correctly.

The justices wrote that it would be “perhaps not so inconceivable as to rank as absurd” to think the Legislature intended for that kind of pension boost in the pension reform law.

The new decision applies to workers and retirees enrolled in California’s county-run pension plans. They operate outside of the statewide pension funds, which are the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System.

A group of county pension funds wrote a brief to the court urging judges to limit pensionable cashouts to a single calendar rather than a movable 12-month period. They wrote it would be expensive for them to revise retiree benefits if the rules change.

“There is no reason to cause this confusion and undue burden to the (county retirement) systems,” they wrote.

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

Federal immigration agents used racial slurs, including “wet” and “tonks,” to identify people to target while sweeping through Los Angeles last year, according to text messages cited in a new court filing asking a federal judge there to bar agents from racial profiling.

Plaintiffs in the Vasquez Perdomo vs. Noem case filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on Monday, arguing that agents had conducted an “ongoing campaign of suspicionless and discriminatory detentive stops” across the Central District of California even after the high-profile street raids of summer 2025 had ceased. As one ICE agent admitted in a deposition, “We’re [still] doing the same thing [as “Operation at Large”] just with a different name.”

The filing includes evidence from months of discovery, including body camera footage and depositions of agents, ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an earlier temporary restraining order in the case last September.

Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, a coalition of advocacy organizations and private attorneys argue in the court filing that the new evidence undercuts the government’s argument to the Supreme Court that agents were relying on specific intelligence about individuals instead of race when deciding who to stop.

In bodycam footage, according to court documents, a Border Patrol agent at the Hollywood Home Depot says, “There was a guy, I’m pretty sure he’s wet he was just sitting in that minivan.”

In one text message cited in the filing, an agent says, “Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks and we’ll jump out.” In another message, an agent describes seeing “tonks everywhere selling food.”

“Tonks” is a derogatory term Border Patrol agents have used, reportedly derived from the sound a heavy item like a flashlight makes on a migrant’s skull. In 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency for Border Patrol, issued guidance explicitly stating “the term ‘tonk’ is not appropriate” due to its derogatory connotation, according to emails and text messages disclosed to HuffPost under the Freedom of Information Act.

In one deposition an immigration agent bluntly says that the suspicious appearance they look for is “Older Hispanic male.” In their filing, plaintiffs' attorneys argue that immigration agents engaged in unlawful practices by not developing "pre-stop individualized, particularized assessment of reasonable suspicion" of targets, but instead used racial profiling to detain anyone they believed to be low-income and Latino. Such actions swept up U.S. citizens and violated the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures.

The court filing made public Monday reveals a May 2025 directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters telling field officers to “turn the creativity knob up to 11” and arrest more “collaterals.” That’s the agency’s term for people who aren’t the original target of an operation but who are encountered in the process.

ACLU attorneys said the agents’ practices, including racially profiling Latinos, were condoned and directed from the top.

“This was not a rogue method of operationalizing agency orders; it was precisely what agency leadership desired,” the filing states.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said ICE doubled the ranks of its field teams, “thanks in part to recruitment ads employing white nationalist messaging.” The filing says some plaintiffs and organizational members, including those who are U.S. citizens, have already been stopped more than once.

While the filing relies on communications from agents’ cell phones, most agents involved in the L.A. raids have yet to turn over their devices.

Last month, during a contentious hearing, Frimpong weighed whether to hold the federal government in contempt for failing to comply with a court order to turn over agents' cell phones.

The government said in court that of 1,400 Border Patrol agents involved in Los Angeles operations last year, more than half reported using their personal cell phones.

The federal government said that it asked agents to upload any data from their personal phone to a government repository, a compromise created with its union designed to limit any workplace grievances. But only 88 agents volunteered to turn their phones in for forensic imaging, and none of them have been imaged yet.

Plaintiffs argued that the government deserved sanctions by “straight-up saying they will not comply with an order because their employees might complain if they do.”

Progress on the government phones hasn’t gone much faster. In court, lawyers for the federal government revealed they have only been imaging 3 government phones every 2 weeks, without knowing the exact number of government phones but estimating around “200-300 still to go.” That’s a rate that would take the government close to four years to comply with the court’s order.

“There’s enough to suggest that this is a system-wide practice of identifying people through racial slurs,” said Mayra Joachín, an attorney with the ACLU.

CalMatters has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

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

Southern Californians are in for a little relief this week after another muggy weekend.

The region is expected to experience a slight cooling trend over the course of the week, though forecasters say conditions will still be hotter than normal and continue to put people at risk of heat-related illness.

Highs in most of L.A. and Orange counties will be in the 80s and 90s through Friday. Some interior parts of L.A. County, much of the Inland Empire and the region’s deserts are expected to hit triple digits.

Don’t get too used to the — somewhat — milder temperatures either. Forecasters say the heat will soon return with a vengeance.

The high pressure system that’s been driving much of this summer’s weather has retreated eastward, forecasters say, allowing for the cooling trend. But the system is expected to migrate back toward Southern California this week and bring the heat with it.

Temperatures will tick up steadily from Friday to Sunday, when parts of the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys are expected to reach 100 degrees or higher.

Dangerous beach conditions

Meanwhile, forecasters continue to warn of dangerous currents and surf at the beach.

For the last several weeks, Southern California’s beaches have been pummeled by strong rip currents, big waves and surging tides.

Officials are particularly concerned about the hazardous conditions as people flock to the beach to escape the heat

Lifeguards performed nearly 2,000 rescues over the weekend in L.A. County alone, according to the county Fire Department’s lifeguard division.

And the upcoming weekend is expected to present similar hazards for beachgoers. South-facing stretches of coastline will experience the most severe currents and waves.

Officials recommend checking surf conditions before heading to the beach and, if you do go in the water, stay near lifeguards and listen to their instructions. It’s also a good idea to stay off of tidal rocks and jetties.

If you end up caught in a rip current while swimming, relax, stay calm and float as much as possible to conserve energy. To escape the current, swim parallel to the beach, then at an angle toward the beach. Do not try to swim against the current. If you can’t reach the shore, call and wave for help.

The surf conditions are being driven by a series of tropical storms churning hundreds of miles to the southeast in the Pacific Ocean.

One of them, Hurricane Fausto, has been pushing its storm surge towards Southern California since it formed off Central America on July 16. Since then it has moved toward Hawaii, becoming a Category 2 hurricane over the weekend. It is now weakening.

This week, another storm, Hurricane Genevieve, is running parallel to the Mexican coast about 500 miles off the tip of Baja California. Genevieve was briefly classified as a Category 5 hurricane on Monday.

The storms, along with swells originating from storms in the Southern Hemisphere, have combined to create dangerous surf here.

“It's been definitely a long period of very frequent and hazardous rip currents,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Bryan Lewis.

There is also a chance the surge could cause minor coastal flooding.

It always sucks when your favorite L.A. restaurant closes. Multiply that feeling tenfold if you happen to be vegan and already live as an outlier. While Los Angeles has long been seen as a hub for plant eaters, lately, not everyone has felt that way.

Donna Jean, an Italian-inspired vegan restaurant in Sherman Oaks, which shuttered at the end of 2025, was just one L.A. restaurant to close in recent years. Chef Roy Elam opened Donna Jean, which became a beloved community staple, in 2022, naming it in honor of his mother who died of breast cancer but switched to a vegan diet in her final months, in lieu of another round of chemo. The restaurant became known for preparing all its pizzas, pastas and sauces from scratch while using top-notch ingredients.

Donna Jean's cast iron mac and cheese, #1 crush pizza, kombucha on draft and lasagna.

(

Courtesy Donna Jean

)

“It really felt like a small-time kind of community restaurant in a lot of ways,” said Josh McClain, a former manager, going as far as calling it a “lifeline” for certain customers with niche allergies.

In spite of its dedicated fanbase, at the end of the day the restaurant just never was able to expand beyond them, said Elam, who still operates the original Donna Jean restaurant in San Diego.

“We could have a $10,000 day and that would be our whole entire week, and every other day would be, like, $0.”

Donna Jean's sitting vacant on Woodman Ave, after closing in December.

(

Ezra Salkin

/

LAist

)

It’s a problem spread across the local landscape. Other notable vegan restaurants in the Valley to have closed over the last five years include Krimsey’s, Mamicon’s Vegan Mexican Restaurant, Sugar Taco and the Van Nuys location of Grain Cafe.

It got us thinking .... What do plant-based diners do when their favorite restaurants go away? Stay home and cook? Eat vegan dishes at omnivore restaurants? Give up the lifestyle altogether? We spoke to a handful of vegan Los Angeles diners to get a better grasp.

Veganism out of fashion?

McClain, a former manager at Donna Jean, became vegan during the last five years of Covid, initially due to supply-chain fears related to the availability of meat. He does believe there’s substance behind conversations about veganism going out of fashion. Post Donna Jean, rather than eating out, he and his girlfriend have been staying home, disconnecting — as much as possible — “from the structures of agriculture,” he said.

Josh McClain and his girlfriend have begun the practice of homesteading, making their own tofu, sourdough, soy and oat milk.

(

Courtesy Josh McClain

)

The couple have started the practice of homesteading, making their own tofu, sourdough, soy and oat milk, continually dialing in and refining their processes, as being vegan “can get pretty expensive,” he said.

 “Typically, most people that are vegan, they have the time to be able to do so," he added. "They have the money to be able to do so. They have the time to figure out dishes, test, and experiment."

He acknowledged that it’s only in recent history that vegans have been able to go out and enjoy restaurants like everyone else. To do it at home, he admits: “It’s a privileged position.”

Natural correction

Eric Eichelberger, a local filmmaker who’s been vegetarian across different cities since 1994, has the hindsight of remembering what it was like before the boom of the 2010s. What’s happening now is a natural correction, he said, and nothing to be overly concerned about.

“There was a fad of opening vegan restaurants. And so there became, just like anything, too many to really support the people who were vegan, vegetarian, whatever,” he said. “It’s now back to a reasonable amount.”

Eric Eichelberger believes if you have great food and a great price point, vegan restaurants can survive.

(

Courtesy Eric Eichelberger

)

That doesn’t mean Eichelberger hasn’t lost some of his go-tos. Real Food Daily comes to mind, but he stands by a simple truism: “If you have a great price point and you have great food, you're going to survive.”

He also added that places that have maintained a hippy, punk or political approach have done better, with some spots having been around for decades.

For example, he points to Studio City’s Leonors Organic (which opened in 1985), and Oh Happy Day Vegan Café and Grocery (in 1977), which sadly burnt down during the Altadena fires, though the owner is reportedly looking for a new location.

“It’s all these sort of vegan, Bacari-like kind of places that are closed now,” he said, referring to the hip — and pricey — Silver Lake omnivore restaurant. Veggie Grill is always a dependable option, he said. (One of their locations closed in the Valley, as well.)

Vegan heaven

Jacinda, who comes from Texas, is an optimist about L.A.'s vegan food scene.

(

Courtesy Jacinda

)

Jacinda, a customer care associate for a plant-based brand, has been a strict vegan for 16 years. (She declined to give her last name for personal safety reasons). Hailing from Lubbock, Texas, she’s one of the optimists. “L.A. is [still] vegan heaven,” she said.

As someone who likes to eat her way around town, “Every time I see one [restaurant] close, I see a new one open,” she said. “[To this day] I don’t know how somebody could go eat at every vegan restaurant here.” 

Still, every closure, like her local favorite Hijo De Su Madre, is “heartbreaking,” she added.

But what if all the restaurants did close? “It's just not an option to change either,” she said. “We will do whatever we have to do [to stay vegan]. If we have to eat beans and corn bread at home, then that's what we're going to do.”

Supper clubs baby!

Jef Travis, a hospitality professional, has been vegan since 1991, taking on the lifestyle initially as a form of rebellion against his father who insisted on taking him hunting as a kid. As prices continue to rise, Travis predicts some vegan restaurants will continue to exist, but they’ll be expensive, and will exist mainly for special occasions. 

As produce prices continue to surge, sometimes faster than meat, due to a mix of agricultural labor shortage and escalating oil and fertilizer prices, he said things won’t get any easier for restaurants.

“Hopefully those costs will begin to plateau,” he said, as we see more streamlined mechanized processes be implemented, and as we cross the threshold into the much-vaunted AI-driven fourth agricultural revolution. 

In the meantime, Travis urged other vegans to try and stay ahead.

“Don’t neglect the frozen food section” at your grocery store, where you can stock up on produce that’s flash frozen at the peak of ripeness. That, as well as finding gathering places, “Supper clubs, supper clubs, supper clubs, baby! Let's supper-away and do it together. Let’s go to the grocery store!”  

Leaving the lifestyle

If the restaurants continue to close, Eden Gordley, an actor who started her journey toward veganism six years ago to help with sinus issues, said she might be discouraged enough to leave the lifestyle herself.

“I would say that it's not easy to cook for yourself all the time," she said. "It's really hard. Anybody who is able to do that is, like, extremely privileged.”

 “I'd be discouraged to eat out {as well},” she added, noting that vegan dishes at omnivore restaurants aren’t really reliable options. This goes for national restaurants and fast food chains, too, not just mom and pops, who often use L.A. and similar big blue cities as test markets for specialized trends. Some dishes disappear overnight, she said, and others that find their way onto menus often aren’t given much thought or intention. “They just aren’t good.”

So, what’s next for vegan restaurants in L.A.? Donna Jean’s Elam said: “This is the one thing I noticed about L.A., is that when you're new, they care. When they can't have you anymore, they care. But the middle part — that’s the hard part.”