The Brief

For the first time since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children can purchase subsidized health plans through Covered California, the state’s insurance marketplace.

This move is expected to provide relief to thousands of so-called Dreamers, especially those who are freelancers, self-employed or have no other means of health coverage.

But the expansion is coming at an uncertain time both because of Donald Trump’s election as president and because of an ongoing lawsuit that contests the move to allow certain undocumented immigrants to buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges.

Trump in his first administration unsuccessfully tried to undo both the Affordable Care Act and the Obama-era policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that protects certain undocumented immigrants.

Covered California officials and immigration attorneys say that while it is difficult to predict what will happen in the coming months, those eligible should take the opportunity and get health insurance as soon as possible.

“Coverage is here right now. So if you need to go to the doctor, if you’ve been putting off care that you need, if you’ve never had the opportunity to get your preventive care, you can do that right now,” said Jessica Altman, the executive director of Covered California. “Let’s not let fears about the future prevent what can happen in the here and now and what you can have access to.”

Altman and her team have been touring the state to spread awareness of the open enrollment period and this new access for DACA recipients.

Created in 2012, DACA does not grant recipients legal status, but it does protect them from deportation and allows them work authorization. Up until now, they’ve only been allowed to sign up for health coverage through an employer. In California low-income DACA grantees can also sign up for Medi-Cal.

The Biden administration announced a rule change in May that updated the definition of “lawfully present” for Affordable Care Act eligibility so that DACA recipients could buy insurance in the federal or state insurance marketplaces.

“The rule is correcting a long-standing mistake of exclusion,” said Nicholas Espíritu, a deputy legal director at the National Immigration Law Center.

For Trump’s Health and Human Services department to undo the rule, it would have to go through a similar administrative process, which includes a notice and public comment period, Espíritu explained. This route could take quite some time.

By some estimates more than half a million people are protected by DACA, but it’s unclear exactly how many of them are without health insurance. One survey from UC San Diego and the National Immigration Law Center estimates about 20% are uninsured. That’s because with permission to work, most have been able to obtain coverage through an employer.

Expanding coverage to DACA recipients is estimated to cost the federal government between $240 million to $300 million a year. However, because DACA recipients are young, with an average age of 30, they could potentially have a positive impact on the health insurance risk pool — younger and healthier individuals can help bring down the cost of premiums for everyone enrolled in marketplace plans.

Covered California estimates that about 40,000 DACA recipients residing in this state are eligible for marketplace coverage this enrollment season.

Open enrollment started Nov. 1 and runs through Jan. 31. People must sign up by Dec. 31 if they want their coverage to kick in Jan.1. DACA recipients can also get coverage for December 2024 if they sign up before the end of this month.

GOP states challenge Affordable Care Act expansion

The most immediate threat to Dreamers’ access to the Affordable Care Act is being fought in a North Dakota courtroom.

In August, a group of 19 Republican attorneys general — from Kansas, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Idaho and other states — filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the insurance marketplace expansion to DACA recipients.

They argue that allowing DACA grantees into the marketplace creates “additional administrative and resource burden” in states that run their own exchanges. They also argue that access to subsidized health care is likely to encourage undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S., and may eventually lead to more illegal immigration.

California and 18 other states last month filed a brief in defense of the Biden benefit expansion.

“Dreamers pay billions of dollars in taxes each year to help fund programs like the Affordable Care Act. Yet until now, they’ve been unable to access these programs themselves,” California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “As home to more Dreamers than any other state in the country, California is proud to stand up for their right to access affordable healthcare.”

DACA grantees in California pay an estimated $2.1 billion a year in federal taxes and another $1 billion in state and local taxes, according to figures from Center for American Progress.

Biden health subsidies could end under Trump

Arguably no other state has done more to expand health insurance coverage for its residents, including its immigrants, than California. The federal government’s move to open the insurance marketplaces to Dreamers complements California’s efforts.

The state already offers Medi-Cal coverage to low-income earners regardless of their immigration status. But thousands of workers who earn above the Medi-Cal income limit don’t have many options for affordable coverage. Undocumented people technically can purchase a health insurance plan directly from a broker in the private market, but that’s without any type of financial assistance, making it unaffordable for most.

Health policy experts say one way that Trump and the incoming Republican-led Congress could undermine the Affordable Care Act, not just for DACA recipients but for everyone, is by not renewing the “enhanced premium subsidies” afforded by the Inflation Reduction Act, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. The enhanced subsidies increased the amount of financial assistance available to those already receiving it and made aid available to others for the first time by capping what they pay for the premium of a standard plan to 8.5% of their income.

Increasing the cost of coverage likely would result in some people going without health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4 million people nationwide would drop their coverage in 2026 if Congress does not act to extend the subsidies.

It’s unclear if Trump will once again go after the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. Republican efforts to repeal the health law in the past have failed, but during his first term, Trump was successful in eliminating or changing pieces of it.

California health leaders say that they are having conversations about how to prepare for potential federal decisions that could impact the gains in coverage that California has made.

“We’ve made such progress, and it’s been incredible and hard-fought,” said Altman at Covered California. “Even through the pandemic and the Medi-Cal redeterminations we’re at the lowest uninsured rate on record. We’ve lowered our uninsured rate more than any other state in the nation.

“And so really it’s just thinking about…how do we keep moving forward on our mission, whether we have headwinds or tailwinds,” 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.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

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