The Brief

When A.W.’s husband lost his job, she was thankful the safety net preserved the family’s access to healthcare. Her eldest son had a team of doctors and therapists at Stanford’s specialty gender clinic; losing that support team, she said, would have been traumatic. The clinic accepted Medi-Cal patients.

Now, California is racing to keep children like A.W.’s son from losing access to gender-affirming care after the federal government moved to cut off funding for those services. State lawmakers are scrambling to approve emergency funding in the last days of the legislative session, even as LGBTQ advocates and parents argue California had months to prepare for the change — and may still fail to prevent a gap in care.

This month the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized a rule prohibiting federal reimbursement for gender-affirming care for minors. It takes effect Oct. 13. Roughly 1,500 transgender and gender-nonconforming children on Medi-Cal could lose access to puberty blockers, hormones and related care if the state doesn’t act.

Lawmakers want an emergency $10 million to replace the lost federal funds. The money would buy time for the state to create a separate funding pathway for transgender kids that complies with federal rules, though the Department of Health Care Services says that could take up to a year.

A funding pathway would keep state dollars separate from federal dollars, and allow Medi-Cal children to keep receiving care without disruption. Without it, transgender and gender-nonconforming youth could lose access to ongoing medical treatments.

“They’re low-income Californians who need support arguably the most, and Medi-Cal is their lifeline to access that care,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward, a Democrat from San Diego and chair of the LGBTQ caucus, which is fighting for the money. “We need to stand up for them.”

But some LGBTQ organizations and parents, including A.W., doubt California’s Medi-Cal agency can stand-up a separate program for transgender kids in under six weeks. They also say they feel misled by state leaders after months of budget negotiations.

For the past eight months, advocates and medical organizations had warned California’s Medi-Cal agency that the federal government intended to cut off funding for gender-affirming care for minors. They believed state leaders had set aside money to prepare for that outcome during June budget negotiations, but later learned officials did not follow through.

“I thought that when we took our kids to Sacramento to meet with members of the Assembly and Senate that we were advocating for a backfill that would cover kids on Medi-Cal who would lose those federal dollars,” A.W. said. “I’m really disappointed that our coalition spent so much time and effort on something that I’m not sure we’ll reap the benefits of, and that sucks.”

CalMatters is identifying A.W. by initials only to protect the identity of her two children, both of whom are transgender.

Why California wasn’t ready

In December, the Trump administration published preliminary rules targeting payments for gender-affirming services for young people.

Though the rules weren’t finalized until August, advocacy groups spent months with state officials negotiating for a program that would protect transgender children on Medi-Cal, according to budget letters and presentations obtained by CalMatters. They wanted the state to set aside $1 million to create a separate Medi-Cal funding pathway and to use other money to bolster access to care.

Many believed the state had done exactly that in June, when the budget included two pots of money totalling $56 million for gender-affirming services and reproductive healthcare. After the budget passed, advocates learned health and budget officials for Gov. Gavin Newsom had removed language that would have ensured some of the money would be used to create a separate, state-only Medi-Cal funding program for transgender children.

The Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, did not answer questions about why the money wasn’t earmarked for Medi-Cal and whether there would be any gap in services for transgender children. It referred CalMatters to the Department of Finance. A finance department spokesperson said the administration was “aware of this particular issue” but had no updates to share.

Ward said the budget, which addressed California’s fourth consecutive deficit, didn’t have “a nickel to spare,” and because federal rules hadn’t been finalized at the time, the Medi-Cal funding commitment wasn’t locked in.

On social media, the California Department of Health and Human Services pointed to the $56 in the budget, saying it remains “committed to ensuring all people have access to the medically necessary, evidence-based care that will allow them not only to survive, but thrive.”

Arne Johnson, an organizer with Rainbow Families Action, called that statement misleading. “In the end, not a penny of it is going to backfill Medi-Cal at all,” Johnson said.

The money will instead fund infrastructure investments for transgender health clinics as more care gets pushed out of hospitals and into primary care settings under federal threats, and will aid other groups that have lost federal funding, including military families and veterans, according to two sources familiar with budget negotiations.

Many advocacy groups said California’s long-term investment is welcome, but argue the state failed to protect the immediate care of vulnerable children.

“It’s been very frustrating to see California say in many words that it’s supportive of trans people, and be so unprepared for something we all knew was about to happen,” Johnson said.

Laura Sheckler, budget and policy director at the California Primary Care Association, which represents clinics, said the state will have a challenging time creating a program by the time the federal cuts are expected to begin.

“The bigger question is how is California going to ensure that whatever they set up is going to be available on Oct. 13 when these rules go into effect?” Sheckler said.

For one family, Medi-Cal was the safety net

A.W. and her family are bracing for that deadline and what they anticipate will be an inevitable loss of care.

Discovering that her first child was transgender prompted a personal reckoning for A.W. She had spent most of her career working in conservative politics for prominent Republican leaders. At home, though, her first child showed signs of gender dysphoria even as a toddler, pulling bows out of his hair, crying when forced to wear a dress and asking why he couldn’t stand up to pee.

A.W. and her husband chalked it up to tomboy behavior.

“We had zero education or inkling that he might be trans, but as we started educating ourselves and learning more, we realized that he at a very, very young age was verbally communicating with us who he is,” A.W. said.

After the family moved from Virginia to the Bay Area for work, her son, who was 8 at the time, started seeing a therapist. A year and a half later he received his first puberty blocker, and has continued to see therapists and endocrinologists at Stanford ever since. Medi-Cal allowed her son to keep seeing the same doctors when the startup where A.W.'s husband worked went under two years ago.

“I say that (my son) has really opened me up and made me see things and accept things that I didn’t understand,” A.W. said. “For me, it was a huge transformation.”

Just last year, A.W.’s second child also came out as transgender. It was surprising, but both parents say part of parenting is loving their children unconditionally.

Either child losing healthcare — even temporarily — would be devastating, but for her eldest, now 15 and giving himself testosterone injections weekly, the consequences could be permanent.

“A gap in care for my son is a terrible thing. He doesn’t take testosterone and what happens? He would be forced to medically detransition,” A.W. said. “It’s unacceptable that the state wasn’t prepared.”

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 rent, as we all know, is too damn high.

So is California’s poverty rate.

The two things are related.

That’s the not-so-surprising finding of a new analysis published by the Pew Charitable Trusts: If California’s rents dropped to the national average, the state would slash its poverty rate by 30%. The child poverty rate would decline by 36%.

The report is meant to highlight an important, if sometimes overlooked, aspect of poverty: It isn’t just about how much a person makes.

“Anti-poverty programs will be much more effective if we address people’s expenses, and rent is the number-one line item for most Americans,” said Pew researcher Alex Horowitz.

Case in point: CalFresh, the state’s food stamp program, saw an increase of $13.1 billion in benefits between 1989 and 2023. Over that same period, rising rents ate away 78% of that increase, according to the analysis.

California’s official poverty rate, which currently matches the national average of 10.7%, has always been a misleading stat. Using another official measure that takes into account each state’s housing costs, the percentage of Californians living in poverty rockets up to 17.8% — the second highest rate in the country after Louisiana.

That makes bringing down rents an especially effective anti-poverty program. If the state’s rents fell by 20%, child poverty would decline by roughly a quarter, the report found.

Twenty percent may seem impossibly ambitious in a state where rents often only seem to go in one direction (with some noteworthy exceptions), but that’s roughly how much typical rents declined in Austin and Minneapolis between 2021 and 2025. Pew researchers attribute that feat of affordability to local policy changes that have allowed for more housing construction.

Those policies — allowing for denser housing in cities, reducing parking requirements for new developments, encouraging the construction of ADUs — mirror many of the laws adopted at the state level in California. Those laws have yet to result in a major increasein new housing, but proponents are optimistic that a building boom is on the horizon.

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

The largest planned deportation program in U.S. history swept up more than 38,000 people in California since February 2025. The federal government purchased detention facilities, in part to avoid scrutiny from local governments. Protests erupted against the detentions and the facilities, and police dispersed those protests with the help of stun grenades.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a package of immigration bills that Democrats aim to disrupt the deportation program in California, limit the tactics of immigration enforcement agencies and open up federal agents to civil liability. The most significant bills will likely be tested in federal court.

They range from prohibiting immigration agents from using electric shock gloves to creating a bill of rights for people held in detention and extending the state’s power to investigate conditions inside detention centers.

The new laws come in the midst of an escalation in Trump’s deportation plan, with weekly immigration arrests hitting new records across the state.

“This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities,” Newsom said in a written statement. “We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable.”

The most sweeping change would allow anyone to sue federal agents for violations of their constitutional rights. Under federal law, the only legal relief available now to people who sue agents of the U.S. government is a “Bivens” action, named after the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case in which a man successfully sued drug enforcement agents who violated his Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.

Supporters of the bill, which they call the No Kings Act, say it “closes that accountability gap [by] providing for a clear statutory pathway to sue any official — federal, state, or local — who violates the Constitution.”

“ICE and Border Patrol have terrorized California communities with impunity. That ends today,” Sen. Scott Wiener, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote the law, said in a written statement after Newsom signed it.

The bill’s opponents, which include dozens of California law enforcement agencies, argue that the law isn’t necessary, and that it will “promote second-guessing of a public employee’s actions made in good faith.”

The actions of immigration enforcement agents — including whether they are acting within their duties when they detain or kill someone, and whether they are following the laws of the state in which they’re operating — are at the center of court battles between California and the Trump administration.

The January fatal shootings of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were protesting the Trump administration’s deportation program in Minneapolis, underscored the stakes for California Democrats who demanded more accountability of federal agents. Dozens of people have been injured in protests, or when the agents misidentify a person as a deportation target.

When an unarmed person in California is shot and killed by a police officer, the state attorney general can investigate the shooting under a 2020 program. Newsom signed a law that duplicates that legislation, but applies it to immigration agents who kill unarmed people.

The state program would face an immediate legal problem stemming from an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case that forbids states from prosecuting federal law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duties. That case played a critical role earlier this year when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a California law Newsom signed last year that tried to compel masked federal agents to identify themselves.

Other new California laws focus on conditions in immigrant detention centers. Detainees have complained of filthy drinking water, among other issues — most of them confirmed by investigations by counties and civil liberties groups. The private detention facilities provide water for sale in their canteens, but the prices were significantly marked up.

One of the new laws extends California’s authority to investigate private detention centers, a power it uses for annual reviews of medical care inside the facilities.

Here are some of the immigration-related bills Newsom signed into law:

• Civil lawsuits against federal agents: Senate Bill 747, the so-called No Kings Act, allows civil lawsuits against officers over alleged civil rights violations.
• Banning electric shock gloves: Assembly Bill 2760 prohibits federal agents from using electric shock gloves. Lawmakers advanced the bill quickly in response to reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement bought thousands of the weapons.
• Civil rights for detainees: SB 942 declares a bill of rights of people held in immigrant detention centers, including access to healthcare and healthy food.
• State investigations: SB 1399 extends a law that empowers state agencies to investigate conditions in immigrant detention centers.
• 911 calls: SB 423 requires government agencies to release details of emergency calls coming from immigrant detention centers. The bill was prompted by CalMatters’ reporting on alleged sexual assaults at Otay Mesa Detention Center.
• Access to state property: AB 1807 prohibits immigration agents from using state-owned property.
• Shooting investigations: AB 1806 requires state prosecutors to investigate shootings by federal immigration agents.
• Crowd control: SB 937 forbids law enforcement agencies from using flash-bang grenades to break up protests.

CalMatters reporter Wendy Fry contributed to this story.

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

A federal judge has now granted Paramount’s settlement agreement with 12 states that sued over the company’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, allowing the companies to soon close their $81 billion mega merger.

In a Wednesday order, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled that the proposed consent decree was a “fair, reasonable, and good faith approach to address the competitive harms” alleged by the states’ lawsuit. Paramount previously called the antitrust challenge the last hurdle ahead of closing its Warner merger, and signaled that it aims to close its Warner acquisition as soon as early October.

Shortly after Martínez-Olguín’s ruling on Wednesday afternoon, the company announced that Ynon Kreiz — current chief executive at toy giant Mattel — will join Paramount on Oct. 5 and serve as co-CEO alongside David Ellison of the combined company.

A Paramount-Warner marriage will bring together two of Hollywood’s last five legacy studios. HBO Max, a library full of titles including “Harry Potter” and cable networks such as CNN will also find themselves under the same roof with CBS, the likes of the “Top Gun” franchise and the Paramount+ streaming service.

Top prosecutors from 12 states — led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta — sued in July with an initial goal of blocking the merger altogether. They alleged a Paramount-Warner combo would “extinguish competition” and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly movie theatergoers and cable customers.

Last week, the states agreed to settle these claims through new commitments from Paramount, including pledges to increase film production in the U.S. over the next five years, commit millions of dollars to a fund aimed at supporting workers displaced by the merger and establish new editorial monitoring of CNN and CBS.

When announcing the deal on Sept. 21, Bonta said the settlement was about “protecting people’s careers, the lives they’ve built here in California, the livelihoods their families rely on,” while maintaining it was not a vote of support for the merger.

Many critics of the tie-up, however, quickly decried the deal as capitulating to corporate pressure and said the proposed terms were too weak. Martínez-Olguín didn’t greenlight the terms right away — maintaining at a hearing on Thursday that the court isn’t merely a “rubber stamp” on a settlement of this kind and that she, like many others, still had questions.

The judge granted outside critics of the settlement — including members of the Block The Merger coalition and the League of United Latin American Citizens — a brief window to share their opposition with the court through amicus briefs. She also instructed Paramount and the settling states to respond to a letter from Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who called for a more thorough review of the deal.

By Wednesday’s order, however, she concluded that the hopes for settlement terms to go further “do not rise to the level of legal violations upon which the Court can reject the parties’ negotiated resolution.”

The Block the Merger coalition on Wednesday maintained the settlement was a “toothless” deal.

“Allowing the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger to move forward with no meaningful structural remedies will cost jobs, mute creativity, weaken independent journalism, and damage our First Amendment rights,” Block the Merger said in a statement. But, the coalition added, “if there is one discernible benefit to the approval of this corporate takeover, it’s that people are now wide awake and paying attention –- and their anger is not going to fade away.”

The Writers Guild of America, which had filed its own suit shortly after the states in July, also reached a settlement agreement with Paramount last week — concluding that it couldn’t continue its legal fight alone.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Inglewood is staring down the barrel of a $30.8 million budget deficit next year, the city’s largest in at least two decades, but officials said locals don’t need to be worried. 

Inglewood’s budget ballooned after SoFi Stadium opened in 2020. City officials roughly doubled their spending from the general fund — the pot of money that pays for basic services from police to parks. 

Revenue also boomed in the first few years after the stadium’s opening, but since then hasn’t quite kept up with what’s been spent. 

City officials downplayed the projected deficit last week, saying in reports and presentations that reserves of more than $150 million will cover the gap this year and that they expect increased tax and other revenues to help take care of the problem in the future.  Mayor James Butts said locals have no reason to worry, and that the city’s reserves have enabled officials to be ambitious in their planning. 

Whether they have to dip into those savings at all depends on how locals vote for a ballot measure on Nov. 3. Officials predict Measure AT could wipe out the deficit entirely by bringing in as much as $45 million to $50 million extra in taxes on tickets to major events.

But_, if Inglewood continues to spend more than it takes in over the coming years and pulls too much out of its reserves, city officials could be pushed to lay off staff and cut funding for services, as they did during a fiscal crisis 15 years ago.

The City Council approved the budget proposal in a 4-0 vote at its Tuesday meeting. Councilmember Eloy Morales Jr. was absent.

Here’s a breakdown of Inglewood’s budget

Inglewood’s annual general fund revenue has grown by about $100 million over the last 10 years, driven in large part by increased property taxes and admissions tax.

But that growth has plateaued over the last five years, while expenditures continued to grow. The city plans to spend $279 million out of its general fund this year, more than double its annual spending prior to 2020.

(

The LA Local

)

The city’s total budget is $675 million. It includes the general fund as well as special funds that pay for things like major construction projects and affordable housing.

Police take the largest bite out of Inglewood’s general fund, followed by the public works and parks departments.

Outside the general fund, the city has also budgeted $239 million for capital projects.

(

The LA Local

)

Some of Inglewood’s largest sources of general fund revenue are property tax, sales tax and admissions tax. 

Property tax revenue has grown by leaps and bounds over the last five years, according to budget documents, but admissions tax and sales tax haven’t matched the growth.

(

The LA Local

)

Officials hope city reserves and a ballot measure will fill the deficit

Inglewood has had budget issues before. The deficit approached $18 million in 2010, just before Mayor James Butts was elected, while reserves fell to around $11 million.

This time around, officials say Inglewood has over $150 million in reserves. 

Butts said those reserves have allowed the city to take an aggressive approach to improving streets, traffic lights and other city infrastructure.

“We put the money there because we want the city to be rehabilitated,” Butts said.

Pulling from reserves, though, isn’t something a city can do indefinitely. City Manager Louis Atwell wrote in a budget report that staff expect tax revenue to keep increasing and new developments to give the city an additional boost. With staff keeping an eye on operating costs, Atwell wrote, those revenues would narrow the city’s budget gap down the line. 

This year’s election could also come into play. The two city ballot measures voters will see — AT and BB — are the product of a larger battle between the city and its stadiums over billboard advertisements and the development deal that brought SoFi Stadium to Inglewood.

Either measure could have a substantial effect on the city’s books. 

Inglewood currently pulls in a 10% tax on SoFi Stadium tickets, but with an annual ceiling on how much the city can get. Measure AT, backed by billboard company WOW Media, would remove the cap and add a new 2.5% tax for the Intuit Dome.

Officials estimated it would bring in between $45 million and $50 million extra annually, more than enough to cover the city’s current deficit. Atwell cautioned, though, that the figures aren’t guaranteed and could depend on economic conditions, the timing of the measure’s roll-out and other factors. 

On the flip side, officials said Measure BB could curtail billboard fees and ratchet the deficit up to almost $39 million. 

The initiative would ban most commercial advertising on the large video billboards that have cropped up along the city’s main roads. Measure BB would cut off a revenue stream that, according to past budget documents, has brought the city between $3 million and $7.5 million. 

City officials itemized how much Inglewood made from billboards in each of the last 10 years, but did not do so in this year’s budget. 

The ballot measures are just a few items on a packed Inglewood ballot that includes elections for mayor, two city council members and three Board of Education trustees.