The Brief

After a new law went into effect last year requiring public universities to provide medication abortions to students, UCLA student Winnie Xu wanted to help spread the word.

Xu, a statistics and political science major, co-founded Preserve Abortion Access: California Task Force. She and other students, along with professors on the Westwood campus, said they wanted to make sure people understood the medication was available to them, free of charge.

So several of them organized an abortion “teach-in” — held last April, billed as an interactive event during which the participants would learn about “the medical, legal, and social landscape of abortion care in the U.S.”

In the absence of more consistent messaging from campus administrators, students like Xu said they felt a need to step in to inform other students about their rights.

“We wanted to essentially remind individuals that abortion and reproductive health and sexual health is more than just something that is contentious with politics,” said Xu, now a sophomore at the university.

How abortion access has changed in recent years

About 80 students attended that April teach-in.

Paula Tavrow, an adjunct professor in UCLA’s School of Public Health who helped organize the event, had hoped for more turnout.

“I think that in part, in California we are a bit complacent,” Tavrow said. “After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, nothing happened.”

That decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2022 Dobbs case, made abortion a state-by-state issue. Tavrow thinks many Californians didn’t feel they had to rally to protect access to abortion; California’s lawmakers were racing to pass laws protecting access, rather than limit it, as happened in other states’ legislatures.

Gov. Gavin Newsom had already signed Senate Bill 24 in 2019. The law requires all of the state’s 33 public universities to provide access to abortion pills to students who want them. The law took effect in 2023.

An LAist investigation, published in January, found that many University of California and California State University campuses had failed to notify students about the new law a year after it was implemented. The schools may have followed the letter of the law, but SB 24’s co-author, former state senator Connie Leyva, told LAist that implementation has been “falling short.”

What information is online?

Among the 10 University of California campuses, UCLA was one of eight that mentioned medication abortion on their health center websites as of January. UCLA’s website offers a comprehensive overview of the medication abortion process. It includes a statement about access to health services, a breakdown of what to expect, and resources, including how to address emotional support.

Xu said she wanted to see “how we can use UCLA as a blueprint to essentially set a standard of care for all UCs and CSUs.”

Other campuses that did provide information to students did so to varying degrees.

Cal State Fullerton’s website lists medication abortion as a service provided, and offers a process timeline, an FAQ, and links to additional information about abortion and abortion pills. Cal State Northridge lists medication abortion as a service provided and links to the law, but there are no additional resources or descriptions of the steps as other campuses did.

Until recently, nearly half of California State University campus clinics did not have any information about medication abortion on their clinic websites, nor did they list it as a service offered. Since LAist published its investigation, Cal State Long Beach, CSU Channel Islands, Sacramento State and Sonoma State updated their student health center websites. Cal State San Bernardino updated its website after LAist reached out in its initial reporting.

How are schools informing students offline?

UC Merced and UC Santa Cruz did not list medication abortion on their health center websites. Spokespersons for these two campuses said information about medication abortion is disseminated in other ways, such as fliers and in-person meetings. UC Santa Cruz also updated its website after LAist's investigation published.

Some students and faculty noted that static information on a website might not be enough to get the message across to students — particularly those who are dealing with the stress and fear that can come with an unwanted pregnancy.

“When you’re in a state of panic and anxiety and trauma, it’s incredibly hard to navigate a webpage, especially on your own,” said Shayda Kafai, a professor of ethnic and women’s studies at Cal Poly Pomona.

Kafai praised the faculty and cultural centers at the university for doing their part to get information to students. She said the campus newspaper, The Poly Post, did a good job of reporting on medication abortion when it was implemented.

“But if it’s shared minimally [by administration] and we don’t have access to the information, it creates a real challenge,” Kafai said.

Some student groups have been pushing administrators for months for more transparency regarding medication abortions. The nonprofit Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity (URGE) has chapters at many California campuses, said Faith Chinnapong, the organization’s senior California organizer.

Chinnapong credited chapter members with creating student advisory committees to better center the student voice, “as well as creating student spaces to learn about medication abortion and its availability on campus since campuses haven't been providing that information themselves.”

URGE doesn’t have chapters at every campus, and Chinnapong said progress depended on each administration. Some, like Cal Poly Humboldt, are open to student opinions, they said, while many are not.

Winnie Xu, outside of the UCLA Arthur Ashe Student Health & Wellness Center.

(

Ashley Balderrama

/

LAist

)

Reflecting on the teach-in at UCLA, Xu said recently that she wanted to help “educate students on what Senate Bill 24 was, and what we were hoping to see in terms of Senate Bill 24's implementation.”

The event, held in an auditorium near student housing, featured presentations from the director of UCLA’s student health center, public health researchers, and students. They spoke on a range of topics including the basics of an abortion to “how monumental Senate Bill 24 was,” Xu said.

Organizers said the teach-in was a collaboration among several partners, including the Fielding School of Public Health, the law school’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy, UCLA Medical Students for Choice, and Preserve Abortion Access: California Task Force.

Xu said she is helping to plan another teach-in at UCLA this year, and hopes for higher attendance. She is considering partnering with another university and training students to get the information to students one on one instead of trying to bring students to one event.

What are the limits to student reach?

Tavrow, the UCLA public health professor, said there are limits to what student groups can do to disseminate information, compared to university administrators who have much greater reach. One example of that, she said, was the stream of emails sent from administrators to students at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Why couldn’t a similar email go out every year about sexual and reproductive health services?” Tavrow said.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block sent an all campus email about abortion access in June 2022 after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Dobbs.

That message said UCLA would advocate to protect students’ access to affordable health care and that UCLA was working to begin offering medication abortion on campus.

However, during a visit to the public lobbies of UCLA’s student health center, the Ashe Center, LAist did not see any information posted about medication abortion and staff said they did not have any to hand out.

“[T]he Ashe Center is always looking for ways to enhance outreach to students about its services,” said UCLA spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez via email, “and welcomes feedback and input from individual students and student groups.”

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is undergoing a drastic restructuring of its funding model — one that will reduce federal support and require states to shoulder a larger share of the bill.

Historically, the federal government and states have evenly split the food aid program's operational costs, such as paying for state workers and training staff. But starting on Thursday, states will need to cover 75% of that tab while federal funding shrinks by half.

By the federal government's own calculations, the new rule will lead to a $16.9 billion reduction in federal spending for SNAP over the next five years, or $3.4 billion annually.

The Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger advocacy group, estimates that states would need to shore up anywhere between $3 million and $670 million to fully offset the loss in federal funding for administrative costs. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Michigan are expected to be especially hard hit.

Over the past year, states have been rebalancing their budgets to account for the new costs. But they will likely need to tighten their belts even further as more funding changes are on the horizon.

Currently, food benefits are covered entirely by federal dollars. But starting in October 2027, states may have to pay for a portion of the food aid if their error rate — a measure of overpayments and underpayments to SNAP recipients — is at or above 6%.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, estimates that nearly half of states could each pay $100 million or more if they do not lower their error rates. California and New York could each be on the hook for over $1 billion if they are unable to do so, according to the think tank.

In a report published last year, the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality estimated that these changes together will force states to spend two to three times more to keep the food assistance program running.

These mounting costs will put states in a bind, where they will likely have to find new sources of revenue, cut funding from other programs or further restrict access to SNAP, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"And we may see some states decide that they need to withdraw from the program entirely," Bergh says.

The funding changes were triggered by President Trump's signature domestic policy law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025. The White House said the legislation preserves and strengthens the food assistance program, adding that it was "so bloated that it is leaving fewer resources for those who truly need help."

But Bergh says SNAP's previous funding structure served a purpose.

"That essentially ensured that eligible families who were seeking benefits could get them even if they lived in a state that had much higher rates of poverty or a smaller tax base," she says.

The Agriculture Department, which administers SNAP, has not yet responded to a request for comment.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also introduced other sweeping changes, adding stricter work requirements and ending food aid eligibility for the small pool of noncitizens who previously qualified.

Since Trump's second term began, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits dropped from 42 million to 36 million, as of June. Most of that decline happened after the One Big Beautiful Bill was signed into law.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Trump administration would require U.S. taxpayers to disclose their citizenship and work authorization status to the IRS as part of a proposed change to the annual tax form that nearly all workers file each year.

Administration officials argue the new requirement will help the federal government stop immigrants lacking permanent legal status from collecting federal benefits they are not eligible for, potentially saving taxpayers up to $2 billion. But taxpayer and privacy advocates say the data could be used to help find and deport those people.

“It could be used as an immigration enforcement tool and that is probably the reason why they are doing this,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

Most Americans will see it as a new checkbox that gives the government even more information on taxpayers. But those living in the country illegally face a more complicated choice: Declare on a tax return that they are not authorized to live in the U.S. or lie on the return, which is a felony. Some may stop filing their taxes altogether.

(

The Associated Press

)

“It’s dragging the IRS into this administration’s immigration policies,” said Nina Olson, executive director for the Center for Taxpayer Rights.

The IRS posted its draft 1040 form for 2026 in late August. It includes the question, “At the time you file your return, are you, and your spouse if filing jointly, a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or an alien lawfully authorized to work in the U.S.?” There are “Yes” or “No” checkboxes for both the filer and their spouse. A draft of a second form, known as Schedule 3-A used to claim refundable tax credits, asks a similar question.

The questions are not optional. Every tax filer must certify under penalty of law their immigration or citizenship status to the IRS to file their return.

The Treasury Department says the new question is meant to keep immigrants lacking permanent legal status from taking advantage of refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit. These are credits for which low- and middle income workers and families may qualify that often result in a refund back to the taxpayer.

In a statement, a Treasury Department official said the information will be “subject to a variety of privacy, disclosure and other legal protections.” The statement did not say whether the information will be shared with immigration enforcement agencies.

Despite not being authorized to live and work in the U.S., immigrants that do not have permanent legal status do pay taxes. A 2024 report by the National Taxpayer Advocate found 3.8 million tax returns where a taxpayer used an Individual Tax Identification Number, or ITIN. While an ITIN can be issued for a variety of purposes, undocumented workers who cannot obtain a Social Security number are among those who use them.

IRS data show that taxpayers who filed those nearly 4 million returns paid $14.4 billion in income taxes and $6.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

A valid Social Security Number, not an ITIN, is required to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The IRS checks Social Security Numbers against Social Security Administration records for each claim of the EITC.

Because of this process, Olson said she believes the new proposal is unnecessary.

“Your citizenship or residency status is not information the IRS needs to process a return. It’s not even information the IRS needs to process these tax credits,” she said. “The IRS already has Social Security data on taxpayers, as well as ITIN information. It already has what it needs to process a return.”

Immigrants lacking permanent legal status are generally not eligible for federal benefits after Congress overhauled federal welfare programs in the mid-1990s. A tax filer needs to be a U.S. citizen or a green card holder to claim the EITC or CTC, with some limited exceptions.

But some immigrants in the U.S. who presently qualify for some of these credits would not under the new policy. This would include people covered under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, those with temporary protected status and temporary workers in the country under H1-B visas.

The Trump administration argues in its proposal that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the law that governs who is eligible for benefit programs, should be applied to refundable tax credits as well. The research paper published this week estimates that 671,000 people, including 309,000 children, will lose the Earned Income Tax Credit under this policy. Another roughly 1.1 million people, including 574,000 children, will lose the Additional Child Tax Credit.

Most of the children that would lose eligibility to these credits are U.S. citizens, according to these researchers at Boston University, Columbia University and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, because one or more of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status.

The Trump administration has tried to use the IRS to implement its immigration policies before. Last year, the Treasury Department agreed to share confidential taxpayer information of immigrants with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the purpose of identifying and deporting people.

The data-sharing agreement was halted by a federal judge, which found that it violated federal taxpayer privacy laws, and the halt remains in effect as the case works its way through the courts. However, before it was stopped, it was found that the IRS had already turned over the addresses of 47,000 people to ICE.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The annual Día de los Muertos celebration by Self Help Graphics & Art is coming home to Boyle Heights this year. 

The block party will be held Nov. 7 outside its building on 1st and Anderson streets, and will feature live performances by Los Lobos and La Santa Cecilia. 

Self Help Graphics has been under renovation for years, with its Día de los Muertos celebration often held at the East LA Civic Center. The building is expected to reopen in 2027.

“Día de los Muertos at Self Help Graphics has always been a homecoming — a day when our community gathers to remember our loved ones through art, music, and ceremony,” said Self Help Graphics executive director Paulina Flores in a statement. “This year, that word carries even more meaning as we celebrate block-party style on Anderson Street and begin our return to our Boyle Heights home.”

The 12,000-square-foot building is being transformed into a cultural center that meets museum standards, featuring seismic retrofitting, an expanded printmaking studio, upgraded gallery lighting and a larger multipurpose room for community gatherings.

A key player in the Chicano movement of the 1970s, Self Help Graphics & Art was founded in the East LA garage of Sister Karen Boccalero, a Franciscan nun and printmaker. It started with a small group of young Latino artists who used their medium to spread social justice messages. 

From the onset, these artists involved members of the community in the process of making art and organizing programs, such as a 1972 Día de los Muertos event considered to be the first public commemoration in the United States of a tradition rooted in Mexico’s Indigenous origins. Community art workshops will also be offered this year.

Here’s what to know:

53rd Annual Día de los Muertos Celebration

Attendees will have an opportunity to record interviews with community members at an oral history station hosted by the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Self Help Graphics teaching artists will help attendees create miniature altars.

Details:

2 p.m. — A ceremonial procession featuring Aztec dancers will guide attendees from Mariachi Plaza to Self Help Graphics & Art

Community art workshop series

Self Help Graphics & Art is offering a series of Día de los Muertos community art workshops from 12 to 3 p.m. beginning this Saturday.

Proposition 40, also known as the billionaire tax, is the most contentious fight on Californians’ ballots this November.

The proposal to impose a one-time asset tax on the net worth of the state’s approximately 200 billionaires has divided Democrats, galvanized progressives and sparked fierce pushback from business groups and the state’s wealthy tech sector. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has poured more than $138 million into the campaign against the measure — including two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42 — and is among a handful of billionaires who have moved residences or business assets out of the state in an attempt to avoid the proposed tax. In total, opponents have raised more than $205 million to stop Prop. 40, according to campaign finance records.

It would also set up an entirely new system of taxes in a state that doesn’t traditionally tax wealth. That would be challenging to implement and experts say is sure to invite litigation. Here are some common questions and answers about how the measure would work.

How would the state assess the tax?

Aside from local taxes on real estate and some business equipment, California isn’t in the business of valuing and taxing personal property.

Prop. 40 would require the state, within six months, to create a way to assess the value of a wide range of holdings: billionaires’ stock, investment accounts and business interests, but also their art collections, wine vaults, cars and anything else that stores wealth.

“I have a client who has a machine gun collection,” said Jon Feldhammer, a San Francisco tax attorney who said he is advising several clients who would be or believe they could be subject to the billionaire tax.

The definition of wealth and property has to be broad to close possible loopholes, said Kirk Stark, a UCLA tax law professor.

“Otherwise there would be a very simple workaround, which is, if there’s something that’s exempt then you know there would be an incentive to just shift wealth from one form to another,” Stark said.

Ensuring those subject to the tax aren’t underreporting their assets would require the state’s Franchise Tax Board to hire more people for appraisals and auditing, Stark said.

“It can be done,” he said. “But it’s going to take a huge investment of resources to actually pull it off.”

Franchise Tax Board spokesperson Andrew LePage declined to say how many staff the agency would need to implement Prop. 40. Currently, the board doesn't appraise property but sometimes auditors "examine asset values reported by taxpayers to ensure accuracy," he said.

Chris Parker, a former attorney for the tax board who now works as a tax attorney with the firm Baker Tilly, said the board has “no way of knowing anyone’s net wealth.”

Ariel Jurow Kleiman, a tax policy professor at the University of Southern California, doesn’t think the state would have a hard time putting the tax into effect. Stocks, which make up a substantial part of billionaires’ wealth, are easily valued, she said. For more “bespoke” property like art and jewelry, California could look to the Internal Revenue Service’s federal tax on inherited property.

“There are commonsense methods like looking at comparable assets or looking to available markets to see how comps are valued,” she said. “We wouldn't be asking people to reinvent the wheel here.”

Experts do expect disputes over the value of privately held businesses.

Feldhammer said many startup founders have raised money for their companies but haven’t yet sold any products. He criticized the ballot measure for defining a company’s worth as the most recent amount of investment money it raised, which diverges from how the IRS calculates an asset’s fair market value for the estate tax.

“How do you value a company that is not on the public market? It doesn’t even have a product yet. It’s not making any money,” he said.

He said he expects clients to mount lengthy legal challenges arguing the law overvalues their business holdings.

“These are people who have oftentimes plenty of wealth to spend on legal fees to put up the best defense money can buy,” he said.

Will billionaires leave?

The campaign against the measure warns that billionaires will flee California, depriving the state of billions of dollars in income tax revenue that helps fund the state budget. Experts say there’s no way to know whether the tax will spark a large-scale exodus.

Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan economics professor who studies tax policy, said there’s very little evidence to gauge how billionaires could react to California’s tax, partly because the proposal is unique.

California experts considering the tax have looked at wealth taxes in European countries to try to discern the impact of Prop. 40. In 1990, 12 countries had wealth taxes. Today, only four remain. Many countries abandoned them because they were difficult and expensive to implement, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. But Slemrod said those examples are “not immediately applicable” to Prop. 40 because they differed significantly in design: Tax rates were much lower, they were intended to be permanent and the money was not earmarked for special interests.

“I wouldn’t jump from the evidence we have to California,” Slemrod said.

But one issue that could matter significantly for California, Slemrod said, is that it is much easier to move assets between states than between countries, as sometimes happened in Europe. Spain allowed its provinces to enact wealth taxes and research suggests that rich people changed residences based on tax rates.

Researchers at the Hoover Institution, a conservative policy think tank, conducted an analysis suggesting Californians need not look at history to figure out Prop. 40’s impact. Tax flight has already happened. They estimate that billionaires representing 30% of the tax base have publicly said they have left, lowering state revenue estimates by $60 billion and permanently altering California’s income tax collection.

Feldhammer, the tax lawyer, said “a third to half” of his clients have left the state over the proposed tax. He declined to say how many clients that is. Other tax lawyers told CalMatters that clients who are worth less than $1 billion are also considering moving to avoid limiting their earning potential.

Billionaires who didn’t leave before Jan. 1 would face taxes on their assets anyway; the measure would apply to anyone who was a California resident on that date.

But Feldhammer said he expects people to sue over the measure’s retroactive nature, pointing to two U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 1920s that held it was unconstitutional to apply the federal estate and gift taxes to assets transferred before those laws were enacted. In 1994, the court ruled that retroactive taxes could be constitutional in certain limited circumstances.

Asked how he’s advising clients who are considering leaving California, Feldhammer said there’s a “reasonable argument that the law may be unconstitutionally retroactive — but to take advantage of that, you’re going to have to leave.”

Would it allow the state to tax my retirement?

If you’re not a billionaire, no.

Even for billionaires, Prop. 40 exempts pensions and individual retirement accounts from the asset tax. There are some exceptions, most notably for Roth IRAs that contain more than $10 million.

Misleading advertisements from opponents claim the tax would allow California soon to eat into retirement savings for average Californians. They’re supporting Prop. 42, which would block the proposed billionaire tax by broadly banning any new taxes on personal property such as investment, retirement and pension accounts. Brin’s political spending group, Building a Better California, put it on the ballot, and unions representing firefighters, police and construction workers support it. (If both measures pass, whichever receives more “yes” votes becomes law.)

Proponents of Prop. 42 say their measure would protect the pensions and retirement accounts of teachers, firefighters and middle-class workers from being taxed before they withdraw the money.

“A new tax on Californians’ retirement and life savings would be devastating,” Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association, said in a press release.

There are no active proposals to tax those accounts on the ballot or in the Legislature. Lawmakers who have floated such wealth taxes in the past have gotten nowhere.

Still, Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which supports Prop. 42, denied being deceptive and said it’s “within the realm of realization” for California to tax middle-class workers’ retirement accounts.

“I think it’s more important to be proactive in this area,” he said.

How would the money be used?

Proponents say the billionaire tax is intended to backfill federal cuts to the state’s expansive Medi-Cal health program for low-income residents. State officials project the cuts, enacted as part of President Donald Trump’s 2025 budget bill known as H.R. 1, could amount to $30 billion a year.

The initiative gives the Legislature broad authority to decide how to spend the money. Of the revenue, 90% percent would be put in a special fund for healthcare; the other 10% would be put in a special fund to pay for schools and food assistance like CalFresh, which was also targeted by federal cuts.

If the money is used to keep Californians on Medi-Cal, that could mean spending it on the private health insurance companies that the state contracts with to administer low-income residents’ coverage.

There is some debate over whether the money would actually offset the cuts to Medi-Cal and how strictly the language bars lawmakers from using the money for anything else.

Opponents such as the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood recently circulated a memo arguing there’s no guarantee the money would replace the federal funding cuts, because the proposition also allows the money to offset state cuts to Medi-Cal. They warn that would allow lawmakers and the governor to use the new tax money to maintain state funding levels for Medi-Cal and free up the state’s general fund to pay for other things.

Lawmakers and governors have in the past used special new funds to simply replace existing funding. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, did it with mental health funding created by a voter-approved tax on millionaires, and then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did it with health funding created by the state tobacco tax. More recently, doctors and hospitals accused Newsom of using a different healthcare tax to backfill the general fund. They placed Proposition 35 on the ballot in 2024 to earmark the money. Voters approved it, but the groups say some funding was still diverted.

But proponents of Prop. 40 said that concern doesn’t make sense: Those budget maneuvers, they said, are usually done to address state budget shortfalls, while Prop. 40 was already written to create funding for a shortfall.

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