The Brief

From Los Angeles to Sacramento, teachers unions, many fueled by the “We Can’t Wait” campaign organized by the California Teachers Association and a slew of contract renewals, are rallying for higher pay, better benefits, smaller class sizes and other classroom improvements. Some are threatening to strike.

In the West Contra Costa Unified School District, the call for improved pay and benefits, and classroom improvements, resulted in a six-day strike by the district’s 1,450 teachers that ended earlier this month. The teachers won an 8% pay raise over two years and will no longer have to pay healthcare premiums.

The strike is emboldening other teachers unions that are at an impasse with their districts over contract negotiations.

“We are leading a historic wave of resistance to demand safe staffing, affordable healthcare and student-centered budgets, and local chapters are organizing to strike if needed,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “Richmond showed us exactly what is possible: When we stand up for what schools educators and students deserve, we can transform public education.”

There are at least 14 school districts around the state that are at an impasse with teachers unions over contract negotiations. They are: Los Angeles Unified, San Francisco Unified, Oakland Unified, Berkeley Unified, Madera Unified, Evergreen School District, Little Lake City, Upper Lake Unified, Duarte Unified, Newport-Mesa Unified, Oak Grove Union, Apple Valley Unified, Twin Rivers Unified and Natomas Unified.

CTA campaign ratchets up the pressure

Most of these districts’ unions are part of the CTA’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign, which has spent the past few years aligning contracts to end on the same date in order to add pressure on districts in areas where multiple unions would be negotiating and could potentially strike at once.

The campaign has also shared demands for smaller class sizes and caseloads for special education educators, and more counselors, nurses and mental health professionals in schools, as well as competitive wages and benefits to retain and recruit teachers.

“It is our belief that we’ve been siloed,” said Brittoni Ward, president of Twin Rivers United Educators in Sacramento County. “Unified districts all over the state have been dragging themselves year after year through contract bargaining that gets us nowhere. We don’t make any progress, and we all essentially are fighting for the same things. So why not unify on our common goals and make change happen.”

School districts are largely pushing back on union demands, saying that with declining enrollment and rising costs, there isn’t enough money to pay teachers more. Teachers disagree, pointing to expensive outside contracts, high administrative salaries and ample reserves in some districts.

Now, teachers in several districts, including San Francisco Unified, Natomas Unified, Twin Rivers Unified, Madera Unified and Upper Lake Unified, have indicated — by vote or informal survey — that a majority are ready to strike.

Will L.A. teachers strike again?

United Teachers Los Angeles plans a strike vote in January and has already begun polling teachers to determine if there is interest. A strike in the Los Angeles Unified School District would affect 516,000 students.

There is precedent. UTLA took to the picket lines twice in recent years — in 2019, when they went on strike for six days for higher wages, and in 2023, when they walked out in support of school staff in another union.

“I will say that, like in previous years, we have gone on strike, and we’re certainly ready to go on strike,” said Julie Van Winkle, UTLA vice president. “And we feel like we need to be ready in case the district keeps ignoring our demands and making counterproposals that are inadequate. But, we’re also very open to a settlement.”

Los Angeles Unified teachers and the district are negotiating a three-year contract that would have started at the beginning of this school year. Teachers want a complete overhaul of their salary schedule, beginning with an $80,000 starting salary for new teachers, instead of the current $65,000, Van Winkle said.

They also want more arts and physical education teachers, lower class sizes in 11th and 12th grades, free child care centers in closed schools, additional resources for special education, and more psychiatric social workers, attendance counselors and pupil services staff.

Los Angeles Unified district leaders have increased their offers to UTLA multiple times in ongoing negotiations, most recently offering a 4.5% raise and 1% bonus, according to a district spokesperson. The district estimates that UTLA’s demands throughout the 2027-28 school year total more than $4 billion above the district’s current expenditures.

“We deeply value the educators and professionals who serve our students,” the spokesperson said. “We also have a responsibility to maintain long-term financial health so that every generation of Los Angeles students — today and in the future — receives the high-quality, equitable education they deserve.”

District wants to cut benefits

Teachers in the Little Lake City School District in southeastern L.A. County have yet to call a strike vote, but Maria Pilios, president of their teachers union, is preparing them for the possibility.

The 205-member union isn’t asking for a wage increase; instead, they want smaller class sizes and fully staffed special education classrooms. But the district is negotiating to reduce the amount it pays for its healthcare premiums. It currently pays 100%.

The district intends to start taking the contributions from teachers’ paychecks in January while negotiations resume, Pilios said.

Teachers and staff, many of whom grew up in the community, feel betrayed, Pilios said. She said teachers have gone without raises in the past to ensure they could retain full health benefits.

“This has changed the relationship between the staff and the district,” Pilios said.

The district’s decision means a $12,000 annual pay cut for teacher Mabel Manzur. The eighth-grade math teacher was diagnosed with cancer for the second time recently and was in the middle of treatments when she learned about the insurance change.

Manzur had to make a difficult decision: keep the doctors and treatment she had or move to a cheaper policy and start over with another doctor and possibly new treatments. She worried that her cancer history would make it difficult for her to be accepted into a new plan.

Still negotiating last year’s contract

Madera Unified teachers are tired of waiting for a contract for the 2024-25 school year, so more than 90% have indicated they are ready to strike if an agreement can’t be reached, according to David Holder, president of the Madera Unified Teachers Association.

The union wants a retroactive 8% raise on base salary, but the district is offering 4%.

According to the district, teachers have received a total compensation increase of nearly 38% over the last decade.

“A new teacher coming to Madera, on average, is making about $9,000 less in their first year than the surrounding districts, Holder said. “And so, Madera Unified is almost like a training district where we have young educators — a lot of probationary interns coming in here, finishing their credentials, getting some experience, and then they leave.”

Holder said there are still 30 to 40 open teaching positions in the district being filled by substitute teachers.

Madera Unified had 284 teachers resign from the district since the 2021-22 school year, a 93.5% retention rate, according to a statement from the district.

The union won’t bring forth proposals for this year or next until last year’s contract is completed, Holder said. The union and district started state mediation over the contract last week.

Sacramento could have two districts on strike

Two Sacramento County teachers unions are at an impasse with their districts, meaning potential strikes could affect 60,000 of the county’s students. Both districts are part of the “We Can’t Wait” campaign.

Teachers unions for both Twin Rivers Unified and Natomas Unified are seeking increased pay, a reduction in healthcare costs, smaller class sizes and more special education staff, among other things.

Twin Rivers teachers and district administrators have a long way to go before they reach an agreement. The teachers want a 12% increase in salary over two years. The district has offered 2.5% the first year and no guarantee for the next year, said Ward of Twin Rivers United Educators.

The district’s proposal would mean teachers at the top of the salary schedule would earn $152,000 annually, according to a letter from the district sent to staff in November. Beginning teachers would start at almost $77,000.

Twin Rivers Unified leaders said that the district’s salaries are among the highest in the state and that class sizes remain low.

The teachers union is also asking that the district pay more of the insurance premiums. Twin Rivers currently pays the full premium for a basic plan, but asks teachers to pay for higher-cost health plans, according to the letter.

A family of two on the Kaiser family plan pays about $1,600 a month for insurance, and others with more family members pay more, Ward said.

The district and union began their negotiations in February and are now working with a state mediator. The parties might end up having the contract negotiations move to a state fact-finding panel because of the district’s reluctance to bargain, Ward said.

Twin Rivers United Educators' executive board has already authorized a strike vote, and 80% of its membership signed a petition indicating they are ready to strike if necessary. A strike could happen as soon as March, Ward said.

The union has been at odds with the school district before, getting as far as the fact-finding stage, but it has never gone on strike.

“This time we are mobilized, and we’re ready,” Ward said. “Our membership is ready. And they see what’s going on in Richmond. They’re seeing things happening around the state, and they’re like, if that’s what it takes, we’re ready. We’re here for it.”

EdSource data journalist Daniel Willis contributed to this report.

Topline:

Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

• Extreme heat
• Emergency preparedness and recovery
• Protecting communities from pollution
• Water
• Public transit

About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

"States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

"It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
Copyright 2026 NPR

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.