The Brief

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced today that he will seek to regulate prescription drug middlemen that he blames for driving up costs for patients, less than a year after he vetoed similar oversight for the companies called pharmacy benefit managers.

The plan — part of a revised state budget proposal that Newsom will unveil in full on Wednesday — calls for licensing pharmacy benefit managers through California’s Department of Managed Health Care and requiring them to report their operational and financial details.

“Prescription drug prices are out of control and we’re shining a light on hidden costs,” Newsom said in a statement.

California has long sought to more closely monitor pharmacy benefit managers, which serve as intermediaries between insurance companies and pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, controlling the list of drugs covered by health insurance plans, negotiating their prices and processing claims. Critics say these companies needlessly raise costs by tacking on fees and withholding manufacturer discounts as profit. They can also restrict access for patients to some higher priced name-brand drugs.

But legislative efforts to rein them in have repeatedly withered in the face of the powerful industry lobby, which contends that more stringent regulations would drive up health insurance premiums by billions of dollars annually.

Bill Head, assistant vice president for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the industry group that represents pharmacy benefit managers, said the organization supports Newsom’s goal to lower prescription drug prices, but blamed pharmaceutical manufacturers for rising costs.

“Drug companies alone set and raise drug prices, and the price is the problem. We look forward to working with the administration to ensure transparency across the drug supply chain and to ensure consumers benefit,” Head’s statement said.

According to the association, its members are projected to save Californians $108 billion over the next 10 years in drug costs.

Last year, a measure made it all the way to Newsom’s desk that would have required pharmacy benefit managers to get licensed through the state insurance department, disclose the prices they pay and the discounts they negotiate with drug manufacturers, and then pass on 100% of those discounts to insurance plans.

Newsom vetoed it in September, writing in a message that he was not convinced that the bill’s “expansive licensing scheme” would achieve the desired result of bringing down prescription drug prices.

“We need more granular information to fully understand the cost drivers in the prescription drug market and the role that [pharmacy benefit managers] play in pricing,” the governor said at the time.

The governor’s office would not explain why Newsom’s perspective on regulations had shifted in the eight months since, only saying that they "will continue to collaborate with legislative leaders."

His proposal, according to a summary provided by his office, would allow the state to review pharmacy benefit managers’ contracts, perform financial audits and issue penalties, and require the companies to report detailed drug pricing data to California’s Department of Health Care Access and Information.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announces a partnership with Civica Rx to provide insulin to Californians for $30 for 10 milliliters, which he said was as little as one-tenth of the current cost.

(

Ringo Chiu

/

Sipa USA via Reuters

)

Newsom’s proposal also would require benefit managers to act in the best interest of health plans and clients, something known as fiduciary duty.

Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the USC Schaeffer Center and an expert on drug pricing, said health economists have argued for years that establishing a fiduciary duty for pharmacy benefit managers would solve many of the perceived problems caused by the business model.

“If they have to act as a fiduciary by law, that changes everything,” Joyce said. “Right now, the incentives are to make money for the [pharmacy benefit manager] ... but if they have to act in the best interest of the clients they would be legally liable for the things that they do.”

Pharmacy benefit managers have come under fire in Congress for engaging in opaque business tactics that artificially drive up the cost of some drugs. The Federal Trade Commission, which was investigating their practices last year, published a report stating that pharmacy benefit managers actively tried to avoid regulation by moving portions of their business overseas.

Consolidation has also led to practices like patient steering, Joyce said. Three pharmacy benefit managers dominate the industry: CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx represent more than 80% of the market.

Drug spending has risen 56% since 2017

Pressure has been growing on politicians nationally in recent years to take action on drug prices, which are one of the primary drivers of increased medical costs. In just one year, between 2022 and 2023, drug spending in the U.S. increased 13.6%, according to a study on national pharmaceutical trends. Other studies indicate that Americans pay nearly three times as much as people in other countries for the same drugs.

In California, prescription drug spending has increased 56% since the state first began tracking data in 2017. Spending between 2017 and 2023, the most recent year data is available, jumped by nearly $9 billion, according to a state report on drug costs.

President Donald Trump this week also signed an executive order demanding that manufacturers lower the price of prescription drugs in the next 30 days or face new limits on what the federal government will pay, though it’s unclear how it would work.

Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, authored the vetoed measure last year and has continued to push forward bills aiming to bring down drug costs. Wiener said in a statement today that Newsom’s announcement is a “solid step” toward improving prescription drug affordability but that more needs to be done.

Wiener reintroduced the bill from last year as Senate Bill 41, which outlines clear prohibitions for pharmacy benefit managers, including forbidding them from requiring patients to fill prescriptions at specific pharmacies. That bill is moving through the Legislature and passed its first committee last month.

Pharmacy benefit mangers "should not pocket rebates they negotiate on behalf of consumers, they shouldn’t steer patients toward more expensive drugs and their affiliated pharmacies in pursuit of profit, and they should compensate pharmacies and doctors fairly," Wiener said in a statement.

Newsom’s announcement also included an effort to expand the role of CalRx, a $100-million state effort to procure and manufacture certain highly used drugs like insulin and naloxone, the opioid reversal medication.

Currently, CalRx is tasked with securing lower prices for generic drugs, but the new proposal would allow the state to pursue cost savings on name-brand drugs. This would give California more flexibility to respond to supply chain issues or “politically motivated” federal restrictions placed on drugs like mifepristone, the abortion pill, according to a statement from Newsom’s office.

In 2023, Newsom ordered state agencies to stockpile 250,000 abortion pills after a federal court ruling in Texas temporarily overturned FDA approval of the drug. That stockpile was depleted in 2024, but the fate of the pill’s usage remains in question as conservative groups continue to pursue legal action to block its use.

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

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

A stretch of residential streets between Koreatown and Pico Union is slated for changes to slow down traffic aimed at making it safer to walk and bike, as Los Angeles moves forward with street redesigns ahead of the Summer Olympic Games.

The project — currently referred to as Koreatown Pico Union Neighborhood Connect — would create a nearly two-mile, pedestrian-friendly route along New Hampshire Avenue, Berendo Street, and Washington Boulevard, connecting residential blocks with schools and Metro’s Wilshire/Vermont Station.

It’s designed as a lower-stress alternative to Vermont Avenue, a major corridor that carries heavy traffic through the area.

On a recent weekday afternoon near Berendo Middle School — one of the schools along the route — pedestrians were out and about, including students walking home, residents on a leisurely stroll with their dogs, and people biking through the streets. 

Sol Mendoza, who walks down the street from the school with her 5-year-old son every day, said she generally feels safe in the neighborhood but has concerns about how some drivers behave at crossings. 

“Sometimes the cars passing don’t stop or forget to stop,” she said, gesturing to the curb where her son was playing with his mini kick scooter. “They fail to see people walking and go really fast.”

The plan aims to slow vehicle traffic and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists through measures including traffic circles, speed humps, crosswalk signals, traffic diverters, bike boxes and wayfinding signage, though final decisions will depend on community feedback, according to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.

The City of Los Angeles is seeking to calm traffic and provide bicyclists and pedestrians an alternative to the high-traffic Vermont Avenue corridor.

(

Hanna Kang

/

The LA Local

)

Construction is expected to be completed by spring 2028, according to city documents, with final designs anticipated this fall. The project has been awarded about $5.4 million in funding from Metro through its Active Transportation grant program, according to city documents.

According to LADOT, the corridor would make it easier and safer to get to schools, including Berendo Middle School, Loyola High School, and Camino Nuevo Charter Academy. The proposal is part of the city’s Mobility Plan 2035, which identifies streets for improvements aimed at walking and biking.

A LADOT survey of 729 respondents last fall found that 68% want safer, quieter streets and 43% would consider biking along the route if safety improved. Top concerns included speeding traffic, dangerous intersections and limited visibility at crossings.

Mary Lee, who lives near the route, supports creating an alternative and safer path to Vermont Avenue for pedestrians. 

“I feel pretty safe here but when I’m walking along Vermont to go to the bank or a restaurant with my friends, I’m on edge because people on scooters whiz past me sometimes and they’re really fast. It’s also very loud,” she said.

Lee, who does not drive, said residential streets can also feel unsafe depending on how certain drivers behave.

“There are people who go really fast and don’t slow down when they turn,” she said. “You don’t know if they’ve actually seen you or not, and it doesn’t always feel safe.” 

She’s skeptical about how well the pedestrian-focused changes will work.

“It sounds promising, but who knows, it’s L.A., and a lot of people just ignore signs and break the rules,” she said.

Scooter riders in the area also see room for improvement.

Alfredo Hernandez, a delivery driver who frequents Koreatown, feels generally comfortable navigating the area on a scooter as an experienced rider but sees gaps in infrastructure. 

“I’d like to see more dedicated paths for people who are on scooters or walking,” he said. “I don’t think there’s enough of that.”

In the spring of 2022, a woman named Shelby Bunch began appearing at government hearings in Riverside County, demanding that officials there address what she believed was an epidemic of fraud in local elections.

Bunch often introduced herself as a representative of New California, a secessionist movement that seeks to break away from what it describes as the tyranny of a Democratic-controlled state.

She accused Riverside officials of colluding in criminal activity and warned that they would soon “be answering to law enforcement.” She once closed her comments by telling the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to “have a crappy day.”

The supervisors didn’t seem to take Bunch seriously, but she found a powerful ally in Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Based on her various claims, including that the county’s electronic voting machines had been remotely manipulated, the sheriff put one of his senior investigators in charge of a criminal probe into the registrar of voters.

The investigator, Christopher Poznanski, quickly came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a crime. On July 20, 2022, he sent Bunch an email letting her know he was closing the case.

“I understand this may not be the desired outcome,” he wrote. “But know that I did not take this case lightly and considered all of the information.”

Bunch was furious. She demanded that Poznanski investigate the “corrupt machines.”

But Poznanski was unmoved. “I respect your passion for this cause, but I will conduct no further investigation into the matter,” he wrote.

Bunch continued to write Bianco directly, urging him to reopen the case. Then, in early September, she got some help.

Shelby Bunch comments on election oversight at the Riverside County Board of Supervisors hearing on Oct. 4, 2022.

(

Screenshot via the Riverside County Board of Supervisors

)

A figure in the “constitutional sheriff” movement, which asserts that elected sheriffs are more powerful than anyone — including the president and the courts — sent Bianco an email.

“I just heard this past week that a group of your constituents requested that you investigate election fraud in Riverside County and that your investigator was unable to find anything and you closed your investigation,” Steve Tuminello wrote to Bianco. “I know that as a Constitutional Sheriff you realize how extremely important Election Integrity is, and that you would welcome any assistance in these investigations.”

Bianco, whose career has been guided by the movement, wrote back to say he had launched another, more ambitious investigation.

Emails obtained by CalMatters trace the development of a years-long case that ultimately led to Bianco’s unprecedented seizure of 650,000 ballots in March. They reveal that his sprawling investigation was based on the thinnest of evidence and raise alarms over how the November elections could be disrupted by the unproven claims of fringe groups and ideologically aligned officials.

That scenario is particularly troubling in Riverside County, which is home to one of a few dozen congressional districts in the country that could determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the midterm elections.

Bianco’s emails with Bunch also show that he doubted some of her group’s allegations.

In one exchange in 2023, Bunch suggested the county supervisors were complicit in election fraud and might have ties to drug cartels.

“This is absolutely ridiculous,” Bianco responded. “Just because ‘someone’ convinced themselves of something doesn't mean its reality.”

Bianco told Bunch her group was “acting stupid.”

“I actually cant believe I took the time to respond,” he wrote.

Still, he pushed the investigation forward.

In a 2024 podcast interview, Bunch said the sheriff had been hamstrung by the courts. She told her host that Bianco had “tried to get a search warrant on the machines … but the judge, he just laughed. He said, ‘I’m not giving you anything.’”

Her coalition, she said, needed a judge who was ideologically aligned with Bianco.

“If we can get just one judge,” she said, “the whole dam will break.”

“Who’s gonna be the one judge that steps up?”

In 2026, she would get her answer.

‘Don’t have to ask permission from anybody’

The “constitutional sheriff” movement is rooted in the beliefs of a Southern California-based white supremacist who was active in the 1970s and 1980s and argued that sheriffs were the country’s only legitimate law enforcement officials. Its members cite the 10th Amendment, which says that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government fall to the states. The amendment, however, makes no mention of sheriffs.

The main organization behind the movement, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, is led by a former sheriff named Richard Mack.

Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff, speaks during a rally for gun-rights advocates in Olympia, Washington, in 2014.

(

Elaine Thompson

/

AP

)

Since 2020, Mack has held a series of events alongside prominent election conspiracy theorists, encouraging sheriffs to investigate voter fraud in their own counties. Sheriffs, he said, “don’t have to ask permission from anybody.” As a result, many conspiracy-minded local groups have flocked to their county sheriffs for support when other officials have rejected their theories of election fraud.

Even though claims of widespread voter fraud have been debunked, these sheriffs have used their discretionary power to open investigations, many of them based on allegations that echo President Donald Trump's false claims about the 2020 election.

Bianco, who could not be reached for comment for this story, describes himself as a constitutional sheriff and agrees with the movement’s core tenets.

He has maintained power in Riverside even as the county’s shifting demographics have altered its historically conservative political landscape. Today there are more registered Democrats in Riverside than there are Republicans. But that shift to the left has coincided with a religiously fueled radicalization on the right.

One of the key figures of that movement is Tim Thompson, the pastor of a powerful Riverside church and Bianco’s political ally. Thompson has led an effort to stack local school boards with members who have rolled back transgender student rights and rejected textbooks that mention Harvey Milk, one of the nation’s first openly gay elected officials. He recently celebrated a parishioner who was pardoned by Trump after being convicted for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Thompson has also taken an interest in the local judiciary. In 2022, he supported a former prosecutor named Jay Kiel, who was running to fill a seat on Riverside’s Superior Court.

When Kiel joined Thompson on his popular podcast, he promised to “bring a little balance back to the bench” to counteract the state’s liberal Legislature. Kiel also praised Bianco and said Riverside needed “judges that are willing to stand up and say, this is the law, and I’m going to follow it.”

He won the election.

A new group emerges

By late 2024, a new group had taken control of the effort to prove voter fraud in Riverside County. The Riverside Election Integrity Team included many of the same people who had been working closely with Bunch, but they had very different tactics.

The group’s leader, Greg Langworthy, had testified alongside Bunch for years. While he was part of the same Christian conservative circles, he rejected her antagonistic approach. Langworthy is soft-spoken and polite. At board hearings, he wears button-down shirts and the occasional pocket protector. If Bunch was the movement’s firebrand, Langworthy is its genial middle school math teacher. He focused his group’s efforts on ballot counting, conducting audits of past elections to prove to local officials that the county’s voting system is rife with error.

Greg Langworthy gives public testimony on election oversight during a Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting on April 2, 2024.

(

Screenshot via the Riverside County Board of Supervisors

)

Langworthy’s group asked the county registrar for records from the November 2025 election for California’s redistricting measure, Proposition 50, which passed with overwhelming support across the state and by a wide margin in Riverside. The measure redrew California’s congressional maps and gave Democrats a chance to pick up several House seats in the midterms.

Langworthy said he reviewed the data and found that the registrar’s office had counted 45,896 more ballots than it had received. His group demanded meetings with individual supervisors and asked the district attorney and the sheriff to look into the matter.

The alleged discrepancy wasn’t enough to change the election results in Riverside, and Langworthy said he was not interested in overturning the measure. “Prop. 50 just happened to be the next election,” he said.

On Feb. 10, the Riverside supervisors held a special hearing on the issue. Langworthy’s group had met with several officials but wanted to present its findings to the full board.

Hoping to lay the matter to rest, the board asked the Riverside registrar, Art Tinoco, to show the group that it had misread the data his office had provided. Tinoco said Langworthy and others had relied on raw data that did not include provisional and other ballots. The actual discrepancy between ballots cast and ballots counted, he said, was 103 — a figure independently confirmed by the Riverside Record.

Tinoco spoke for more than an hour, but members of the Riverside Election Integrity Team were not convinced. One by one they approached the podium with prepared statements, laying out their audit.

The supervisors struggled to hide their frustration. But Langworthy didn’t need the board; he had Bianco. Just one day before that hearing, an investigator from the sheriff’s office had appeared in court asking for a warrant to take hundreds of thousands of ballots from Tinoco’s office.

The judge handling the matter was Jay Kiel.

The investigator’s sworn statement, intended to justify the warrant, focused almost entirely on Langworthy’s audit and Bunch’s claims. In three years of investigating the matter, the sheriff’s office had failed to produce any of its own evidence to support a case.

Kiel signed off on the warrant and sealed it, preventing the public from seeing the justification for Bianco’s seizure of the ballots.

Over the next few weeks, Bianco's office removed 1,500 boxes of election materials from the registrar’s office. If stacked, they would rise as high as the Empire State Building.

It was the first time in the nation’s history that a sheriff took possession of previously cast ballots.

‘You intend to ignore my directives’

The California attorney general, Rob Bonta, appears to have been caught off guard.

A day after Bianco seized the first batch of ballots, Bonta sent him a letter asking him to “pause” his investigation. Bonta wrote that he was “concerned” that Bianco had taken the boxes without probable cause that a crime had occurred.

Bianco ignored him.

A few days later Bonta sent another letter. “I learned that you intend to ignore my directives and plan to start counting the seized ballots tomorrow,” Bonta wrote. “Let me be clear: this is unacceptable.”

Bianco called a press conference to tell reporters he would continue counting ballots and that the attorney general did not have the authority to stop him. What had been a behind-the-scenes battle immediately became national news.

“I will carry out my constitutional duty to pursue justice,” Bianco said. He called the attorney general “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”

According to the California Constitution, the attorney general has “direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff ... in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices.” There is no California case law directly addressing this provision.

Bianco believes he is the final authority on everything that happens in his county. In flouting Bonta’s orders, he has sparked a high-stakes legal showdown testing the constitutional separation of powers. The case is currently in front of the state Supreme Court.

Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks at a press conference at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento on Feb. 4, 2025.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Bonta didn’t file a lawsuit to try to stop Bianco until almost a month after he first learned about the ballot seizure, and only after the story exploded in the national press. At that point, according to sworn statements by investigators, Bianco’s office had already begun counting the ballots, opening about 22 boxes.

During that same period, Bonta filed at least a dozen lawsuits on other issues, many of them against the Trump administration.

A spokesperson for Bonta said the attorney general was trying to “work cooperatively with the sheriff’s office in order to better understand the basis for its investigation,” and that Bonta believed Bianco was complying with his directives.

The state’s initially tepid response, and its inability, thus far, to get Bianco to return the ballots raise concerns about how officials here will be able to protect future elections.

Bianco has already said he wouldn’t hesitate to seize ballots again, even in the June primary for California governor, when his own name will be on the ballot.

And there’s another critical election that Bianco could throw into flux: In the November midterms, the Riverside registrar will be responsible for counting a significant percentage of the ballots in California’s 48th Congressional District. Last year’s redistricting effort made the district competitive for Democrats. Of the 435 House seats nationwide, it’s one of fewer than three dozen that analysts consider too close to call. These races will ultimately determine which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Bianco takes ballots cast in the race for the California 48th, the ensuing chaos could transcend Riverside County.

A broader network

In the months before Bianco’s ballot seizure, the FBI seized reams of paper ballots cast in Fulton County, Georgia, based on debunked claims from citizen election-deniers, and sought electronic voter data from Maricopa County, Arizona, despite multiple investigations that have turned up no evidence of fraud. The Justice Department has demanded voter information in dozens of states, leaving many attorneys general to fight those demands in court. In speeches and on social media, Trump has escalated his voter fraud claims. He has said Republicans should “nationalize the voting.”

Some of the administration officials pushing these efforts are associated with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that has consistently supported unverified election conspiracy theories. The founding director of the institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, John Eastman, was disbarred in California last week for being one of the legal masterminds behind the attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Several years ago, the Claremont Institute set its sights on sheriffs and began hosting week-long education sessions to provide them with a roadmap for promoting Trump’s brand of conservatism in their counties. Bianco attended the training, and the institute later gave him its “Sheriff of the Year” award — a bust of John Wayne — at a fundraiser in Huntington Beach.

Other sheriffs who were trained at the institute have since dedicated the resources of their offices to investigate baseless allegations of election fraud, but all of those efforts have failed.

In 2022, when it seemed as though Bianco’s investigation into Bunch’s claims had also reached a dead end, Mack’s constitutional sheriff’s organization offered the services of “an expert in cyber crimes” who could “provide Sheriffs with immutable evidence of election fraud” to help them push their investigations forward.

That expert was Gregg Phillips. Before Trump tapped him to lead emergency services at FEMA, he had a history of profiting from unfounded allegations of voter fraud, asking donors to fund his pursuit of concrete evidence and pocketing much of the money.

Recently, Phillips was back in the news with a different claim: He said he had been “teleported” against his will to a Waffle House in Rome, Georgia.

Jeanne Kuang contributed reporting for this story.

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

Uber has failed to create an appeals system to give drivers due process when they’re kicked off the app, violating the California law it carved out that declared app-based drivers independent contractors, a lawsuit filed Monday alleges.

In 2020, voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that exempted Uber and other app platforms from labor law and allowed them to keep classifying their workers as contractors instead of employees. The measure included a promise that drivers would have an appeals process.

Rideshare Drivers United, a drivers group that says it has about 20,000 members in California, said Monday that because Uber has violated Prop. 22 by not delivering on all its promises, it should not be allowed to continue to assert that its drivers are independent contractors.

“Uber has not met the conditions to take advantage of Prop. 22,” Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Massachusetts-based lawyer who has challenged Uber and other gig companies for years and is representing the California group, told CalMatters.

Many deactivated drivers report that they struggle to appeal their cases. They say they are initially sent to sites where they appear to be talking with bots, then eventually reach agents who are working from a script and appear to be in another country. Rarely do they reach people who are empowered to truly help them, they say.

Liss-Riordan said at a news conference in San Francisco that she is seeking a declaration from the court saying that the company is violating the law it wrote, which she said should help drivers who are pursuing individual arbitration of their cases.

“We're going to seek back pay and other damages for them if they were unfairly deactivated, and we're also going to be seeking their rights under the labor code,” she said.

Among the promises of Prop. 22: guaranteed minimum earnings of 120% of minimum wage for active ride or delivery time; health care stipends for those who qualify; occupational accident insurance and accidental death insurance; and “mandatory contractual rights and appeal processes,” according to the initiative’s text. The text does not specify what the requirements for an appeals process should be.

Devins Baker said he has driven for Uber and Lyft in the Bay Area for eight years and was deactivated by Uber right before Christmas in 2024.

He told CalMatters that he thinks Uber deactivated him after he had to brake hard to avoid hitting a person who darted across the freeway, causing his passenger — who was not wearing a seatbelt — to fall out of his seat.

“I don’t know because we never find out which passenger complained,” Baker said, adding that he thinks some people report drivers to try to get a free ride from Uber.

Baker got emotional during the news conference, saying he is trying to “keep it together” and is scrambling to find other ways to make money so he will not become homeless.

Uber spokesperson Ramona Prieto called Liss-Riordan an “opportunistic trial lawyer” in an email to CalMatters and said the company will “fight this publicity stunt in court.” Prieto said the company provides drivers with a clear appeals process, and pointed to a company blog post from last week that explains what drivers can expect when they challenge deactivations.

'It has turned my life upside down'

Another deactivated driver from the Bay Area, Mirwais Noory, said Uber kicked him off the app in November 2024 over what the company said were safety concerns. He said he tried to show Uber dashcam video to plead his case, to no avail.

Getting deactivated caused financial hardship as he tries to support four children, he said. He has found work as a security guard since then, and now occasionally drives for Lyft.

“I’m the only one with income,” Noory told CalMatters. “It has turned my life upside down.”

Jason Munderloh, chair of the Bay Area chapter of Rideshare Drivers United, said at the news conference: “Once they’re deactivated, there is no unemployment insurance (because drivers are not considered employees). This leads to poverty and desperation.”

“The minute someone joins RDU, their first concern is pay and the second is deactivations,” Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, told CalMatters ahead of the news conference.

Uber, a multibillion-dollar company based in San Francisco, was the lead backer of the $205 million Prop. 22 campaign that was also funded by DoorDash, Lyft, Instacart and Postmates. Uber spent a total of $59.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions, and Postmates — which Uber bought in a deal that was completed in 2020 — spent $13.3 million.

The lawsuit filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court is the latest of many legal challenges against Prop. 22, which CalMatters has found has no state agency assigned to enforce it. The state Supreme Court upheld the gig-work law in 2024.

The plaintiffs also allege Uber deactivates drivers based on grounds not specified in its “Platform Access Agreement,” and that the company does not provide drivers with enough information about their earnings to determine that they are receiving 120% of minimum wage.

Separately, Uber is facing a lawsuit by the state Justice Department and the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego over thousands of wage-theft claims that predate Prop. 22. A trial-clock deadline for that lawsuit as well as a similar one against Lyft is set for December 2027.

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

Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump's nominee to serve as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, may face a tough fight for confirmation — partly over events for which he has no control.

The Senate Banking Committee holds a confirmation hearing for Warsh on Tuesday — but already one GOP senator has said he will block a vote on the nominee until the Department of Justice drops an investigation into the Fed.

Warsh will also likely face questions about inflation and borrowing costs and whether he can maintain his independence as Trump makes it clear he expects his next Fed chair to lead the charge to lower interest rates.

Here are three things to know as the confirmation process begins.

Most of the drama has nothing to do with Warsh himself

A key member of the banking committee, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has promised to hold up confirmation of the nominee, but not because of any objection to Warsh himself.

Tillis wants the Justice Department to drop its criminal investigation of the central bank and its current chairman, Jerome Powell. That probe is ostensibly about cost overruns on the Fed's headquarters renovation project. But Powell says it's really part of a pressure campaign by the Trump administration to get the Fed to lower interest rates, and a federal judge agreed, blasting the investigation as an unjustified act of intimidation.

The DOJ has promised to appeal the judge's decision. By dropping its probe, the administration could win Tillis' vote and clear the way for Warsh's confirmation. But that hasn't happened yet.

Warsh has argued for lower interest rates, but it may not be so easy

Kevin Warsh previously served on the Fed's board of governors and had a reputation as "hawkish," meaning he was cautious about cutting interest rates for fear inflation might get out of control.

But recently, he's argued that productivity gains from artificial intelligence could allow the central bank to lower interest rates while still keeping prices in check.

Critics like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the ranking Democrat on the banking committee, see that flip-flop as a sign that Warsh will take direction on rates from President Trump, even though the Fed is supposed to operate free from political pressure.

"Warsh has really gone out of his way to demonstrate that he will be the sock puppet in chief," Warren told NPR.

While past presidents have given the Fed wide latitude, at least publicly, in setting interest rates, Trump has been outspoken in demanding lower rates, raising concern that he could jeopardize the Fed's independence.

Even if Warsh wants to lower interest rates, he may not be able to. Interest rates are set by a 12-member committee at the Fed, and many committee members are reluctant to cut rates until inflation is closer to the central bank's 2% target. The war with Iran and the resulting spike in gasoline prices have made that a more challenging goal.

Warsh has also called for other changes at the central bank

If confirmed, Warsh could also seek to narrow the Fed's footprint in the economy. Warsh has criticized the Fed for straying beyond its statutory role of promoting stable prices and maximum employment. He's argued that the central bank should play a smaller role and that Fed leaders should talk less and stay in their lane.

While he agrees that political leaders should keep hands off the Fed in setting interest rates, he argues the Fed should be equally cautious about stepping into muddy political waters around climate change or inclusion.
Copyright 2026 NPR