The Brief

California hospitals filed a lawsuit against a state health regulator Wednesday, seeking to block rules meant to keep consumer health care costs from growing too quickly.

The state Office of Health Care Affordability sets limits on health care spending, capping the amount that a hospital’s spending can grow each year. The California Hospital Association argues that the rules are illegal and will result in layoffs and cuts in services, ultimately reducing access to care.

In a complaint filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, the hospital association argues that setting spending limits creates “arbitrary and irresponsible cost targets that single out hospitals.” The suit also contends that the rules “will severely disrupt … hospitals’ ability to provide comprehensive, high-quality services by starving them of the resources they need to perform their critical roles.”

A spokesman for the California Health and Human Services Agency, which oversees the affordability office, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

In 2022, state lawmakers created the affordability office with the goal of containing skyrocketing health care costs. More than half of Californians have reported skipping medical care because it costs too much, and 38% report carrying medical debt. In California, health care spending reached $405 billion in 2020 — or $10,299 per person — a 30% increase over five years.

The office’s appointed board, noting that median household income in California grows an average of 3% annually, set spending targets for hospitals and other providers that aim to match the rise in consumer income. The rules limit spending growth to 3.5% beginning in 2025, and then lower the cap to 3% annually, starting in four years.

Eight other states have targets similar to California’s rules. In California, hospitals and providers are required to submit spending data to the state to show compliance. Beginning in 2028, the state can enforce spending targets with performance improvement plans and fines.

The affordability board’s approval of the growth caps was contentious, with one board member saying the target was unrealistic.

Office’s regulators have since also reduced the limits further for seven hospitals, calling them “high-cost” for consumers. For these facilities, including Stanford Health Care in Palo Alto and Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, regulators set spending growth targets of 1.8% in 2026 and 1.6% in four years.

“The spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding, and losing access to critical services like maternity care, cancer treatment, behavioral health services, and surgical care,” California Hospital Association president and CEO Carmela Coyle said in a statement.

In its suit, the association estimates that the state’s spending target will force 75% of its members to operate at a loss. The policy, the group argues, ignores the rising cost pressures on hospitals, including labor, pharmaceutical prices and a rapidly aging population. In addition, hospitals estimate that a federal spending law will result in billions in losses over the next 10 years, as federal funding and reimbursement for patient care is cut or reduced.

The statewide target also applies to large doctor groups and health insurers. The California Association of Health Plans, which represents insurers, responded to the hospital association’s lawsuit by saying the state cannot reach its goal of making health care more affordable “unless everyone is part of the solution.” The lawsuit, according to the group, “demonstrates [hospitals’] lack of commitment to the affordability that Californians urgently need.”

Consumer advocates who back the industry spending targets slammed the hospital association's lawsuit, calling it “outrageous.”

“For years, health care costs have vastly outpaced inflation and wage growth, with very little to show for it — our higher costs don’t translate to better quality of care, outcomes, equity, or access,” said Amanda McAllister, the executive director of the consumer group Health Access California. That’s why, she said, the state “very thoughtfully” created an affordability office and set rules to control the problem.

“This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to try to change the rules of the game after the fact because you don’t like the outcome,” she said.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

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

The Trump administration announced Thursday a three-phase transition that will move significant management of and responsibility for the nation's federal student loan portfolio from the U.S. Education Department to the U.S. Treasury Department.

The administration says the Treasury Department is better equipped to, among other things, help millions of borrowers who are in default return to repayment on their loans, though the move is also political: The latest sign of President Donald Trump's efforts to close the Education Department.

"As the Federal student aid portfolio soars to nearly $1.7 trillion and with nearly a quarter of student loan borrowers in default, Americans know that the Department of Education has failed to effectively manage and deliver these critical programs," said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a press release. "By leveraging Treasury's world-renowned expertise in finance and economic policy, we are confident that American students, borrowers and taxpayers will finally have functioning programs after decades of mismanagement."

More than 40 million borrowers hold federal student loans.

According to the interagency agreement obtained by NPR, the deal's first phase will see Treasury resuming control of collecting on defaulted student loans, an authority it has long held but deferred to the Education Department. A senior Education Department official told reporters that 9.2 million borrowers were in default as of the beginning of March, with another 2.4 million in late-stage delinquency on their payments.

The agreement's second phase expands Treasury's management beyond defaulted loans to include servicing much of what's left, even the Education Department's non-defaulted debts, "to the extent practicable, following Treasury's assessment of the portfolio and its operations."

The third and final phase would see Treasury take over key responsibilities beyond the handling of current loans, assuming administration of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which students are required to complete if they want to receive federal financial aid.

The Treasury Department already plays an important role in the FAFSA, using its data-retrieval tool to expedite the once-onerous income-verification process for families.

It was nearly one year ago that President Trump suggested a very different move – that the Small Business Administration (SBA) would assume responsibility for the student loan portfolio. It's unclear why the administration changed its thinking and pivoted to the Treasury Department.

This is the 10th interagency agreement the administration has reached to disperse large swaths of the work of the Education Department to other agencies.

"The Trump Administration continues to unlawfully dismantle the Education Department by moving programs and offices to other federal agencies despite clear warning from Congress that Education Secretary Linda McMahon lacks the authority to do so," said Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, which represents more than 2,000 current and former employees at the U.S. Department of Education.

In response to an NPR question, a senior Education Department official acknowledged that, as was the case with many of those previous agreements, the Treasury Department cannot fully assume all the Education Department's statutory student loan obligations. The official said the department will be wound down to the extent allowable by law and that Education Secretary Linda McMahon understands that "Congress is the only entity that can close the Department."

As for what impact this may have on borrowers, the department officials told reporters: "You should see no change. This should be seamless."

Copyright 2026 NPR

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday said it had approved the merger of local television giants Nexstar Media Group and rival Tegna, the same day that two lawsuits trying to block the deal were announced.

Nexstar said last August that it would buy Tegna for $6.2 billion. The deal would create a company that owns 265 television stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia, most of them local affiliates of ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the company had agreed to divest itself of six of those stations.

The deal needed the approval of the Republican Trump administration's FCC because the government had to waive rules that limit how many local stations that one company can own. Nexstar said it had also received approval from the Justice Department, but attempts to independently confirm that were not immediately successful Thursday.

"We are grateful to President Trump, Chairman Carr and the DOJ for recognizing the dynamic forces shaping the media landscape and allowing this transaction to move forward," said Perry Sook, Nexstar's chairman and CEO.

Attorneys general in eight states and DirecTV filed lawsuits with the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, California, seeking to block the merger. The lawsuits make similar arguments that the deal will lead to higher prices for consumers and stifle local journalism.

The action was filed by the top lawyers in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia — all of them Democrats. "If this merger moves forward, cable prices will spike for consumers in New York and across the country," said Letitia James, New York attorney general, on Thursday. The state lawyers argued the merger would run afoul of federal laws designed to protect against monopolies.

Similarly, DirecTV predicted the deal would allow Nexstar to jack up the price it can extract from DirecTV and other distributors to carry their stations, "which will force them to raise prices to their subscribers."

Given Nexstar's tendency to consolidate newsrooms in communities where it owns more than one station, both lawsuits expressed concern that the merger would hurt the already struggling local news business. There are 31 markets across the country where Nexstar and Tegna own at least one station, according to the states' lawsuit.

In approving the deal, Carr said that "if you care about local news, you should care about the future of local broadcast stations." He said the deal will ensure that the broadcasters have the resources to continue investing in those operations. Sook, too, said Nexstar will be a stronger company, "better positioned to deliver exceptional journalism and local programming."

Nexstar had no direct comment on the lawsuits, a spokesman said.

The merger was endorsed in February by President Donald Trump, who wrote on social media that "we need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks."

Anna Gomez, a Democratic member of the FCC, condemned the Republican-controlled agency's decision, saying it was done behind closed doors without an actual vote.

"Local journalism is under extraordinary strain," she said. "Across the country newsrooms are being consolidated, reporters laid off and editorial decisions made far from the communities broadcast stations are licensed to serve. The Nexstar-Tegna merger will accelerate exactly that trend, concentrating broadcast power in fewer corporate hands, shrinking independent editorial voices and prioritizing national business interests over local needs."

Nexstar flexed its muscles last fall in ordering its ABC stations to yank late-night host Jimmy Kimmel following comments he made about assassinated Republican activist Charlie Kirk, briefly leading to Kimmel's suspension. But ABC brought Kimmel back following an outcry, and Nexstar backed down.

The attorneys general said they were open to having other states support their actions — even those whose chief legal officials are Republicans.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Public officials across California are contemplating what to do with dozens of streets, parks and libraries named in honor of civil rights icon César Chávez in the wake of allegations he sexually assaulted two girls and a woman decades ago.

The allegations surfaced in an investigation by the New York Times published earlier this week that sent shock waves across the country.

Chávez, who was head of the United Farm Workers union, is widely recognized as one of the most influential labor leaders in U.S. history, known for founding the union and for leading national boycotts of grapes to improve working conditions for farmworkers.

Chávez died in 1993.

Many state and local leaders, including L.A.’s mayor and county supervisors, suggested changing the César Chávez holiday on March 31 to Farm Workers Day. March 31 was Chávez’s birthday.

In Sacramento on Thursday, Democratic leaders of the state Legislature said they would push for such a change.

“The farmworker movement was never ever about one man,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said at a news conference. “It was built by tens of thousands of workers. People who labored in the fields, people who organized, people who sacrificed and who stood up when it was hard.

“We have a responsibility to remember the movement and to move it forward with integrity.”

Also on Thursday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed a proclamation renaming the city's César Chávez Day holiday as “Farm Workers Day.” The city recognizes the holiday on the last Monday of March.

“I grew up as a child admiring the farmworker movement,'' Bass said. “I didn't think I was ever going to eat grapes again because my family boycotted grapes.”

The grape strike, organized in part by Chávez, lasted five years from 1965 to 1970.

Multiple allegations of sexual assault

The New York Times investigation uncovered multiple allegations that Chávez had sexually assaulted girls and women in the 1960s and ‘70s, when he was head of United Farm Workers, including union co-founder Dolores Huerta.

Huerta, now 95, told the Times the rape and sexual assault resulted in pregnancies that she kept secret. Huerta said she gave the children up for adoption after birth.

In a statement, Huerta said in part: “... for the last 60 years [I] have kept a secret because I believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for.”

Bass said Thursday she met Chávez once and “thought it was an opportunity of a lifetime.” She said her heart “broke” this week when she heard the allegation that Chávez had raped Huerta.

The mayor said renaming the holiday would allow people “to reflect on how the struggle of farmworkers has elevated working people everywhere.”

She added that the city would need to consider changing the names of buildings, streets and other things named in honor of Chávez.

For example, César Chávez Avenue runs through the heart of the Boyle Heights neighborhood. Several murals of Chávez dot the city.

Bass said she had been in contact with Chávez's family, and they supported her action.

The mayor was joined at the proclamation signing by Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez, who said in a statement that the farmworker movement has always been about the power of the people, “especially the women whose labor built it and too often went unseen."

“As we honor that legacy, we also have a responsibility to tell the truth about harm and stand with survivors,” Hernandez said.

Councilwoman Ysabel Jurado also attended the news conference. She said the movement doesn’t belong to one person.

“Farm Workers Day honors the workers, families and organizers still in the fields and still fighting for fair wages, safe conditions and dignity,” the statement from Jurado read. “And it recognizes that this movement is carried forward every single day by people whose names we may never know but whose impact continues to define the spirit of Los Angeles.”

Other cities and counties 

Many other cities and counties are considering wiping Chávez's name from public spaces.

L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis said she would introduce a motion looking at renaming the county’s César Chávez holiday.

Supervisor Janice Hahn suggested the county consider renaming Chávez day “Farm Worker Day.”

“For those of us who grew up admiring the farmworker movement, today's news is heartbreaking,'' Hahn said in a statement Wednesday. "But as in any other civil rights movement, men were only half the story. The abuses of one man will never diminish the extraordinary sacrifices, accomplishments, and legacy of the women of the farmworker movement.

“It's time we put them first.”

The process for renaming streets and other public structures varies from city to city and school district to school district. It could take months before many cities move to erase Chávez's name from public spaces.

You can follow your city council agenda to keep up with what’s going on, or better yet, reach out to your representatives on the council and county Board of Supervisors to make your voice heard on the issue.

California, along with a coalition of 23 other states and a dozen cities and counties, sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday for rolling back the scientific finding requiring it to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.

“This isn’t a small technical change,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference in Sacramento. “It’s a sweeping decision that would increase pollution, worsen climate change and put the health of millions of Americans at risk. And it’s not based on any credible science.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeks to reinstate a 2009 conclusion known as the endangerment finding — that carbon dioxide and other planet-warming gases threaten public health and welfare.

The climate rule served as the scientific basis for the agency’s ability to limit emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The Trump administration finalized the repeal of the endangerment finding Feb. 12. A post on the EPA’s website stated the change would also dissolve restrictions on vehicle emissions and save Americans $1.3 trillion.

“As a result of these changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control and reporting of GHG emissions for any highway engine and vehicle, including model years manufactured prior to this final rule.”

Sanchez said California’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the landmark 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, signed into law by then-Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, “remains unchanged.”

Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties also were parties to the suit.

KQED’s Laura Klivans contributed to this report.