The Brief

For years, Gov. Gavin Newsom has staunchly opposed increasing taxes on wealthy Californians even when the issue repeatedly reared its head during recent tough budget years. But faced with deep federal cuts to social services programs, labor and health care groups are asking voters to circumvent the governor — to tax a very small number of people.

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and St. John’s Community Health in Los Angeles want voters statewide to approve a “billionaires tax” to help prop up the state’s health care and education systems.

The proposed ballot initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the approximately 200 billionaires in the state, generating roughly $100 billion in revenue, according to proponents.

Going to the ballot is a common move for advocacy groups frustrated with Sacramento politics, which, while dominated by Democrats, can still be factious. Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, said at a news conference the ballot initiative is the “only solution anyone can see.”

“We are facing literally a collapse of our health care system here in California and elsewhere,” Regan said. “This will help us keep health care facilities open. It will stabilize premiums and coverage for all Californians, protect health care jobs, and also improve public education.”

The proposed initiative would tax the 2025 net worth of billionaires residing in California, allowing them to pay off the obligation over five years. The revenue would go into a special fund with 90% reserved for health care spending and 10% reserved for K-12 education spending.

It needs 874,641 signatures to be placed before voters on the 2026 ballot, a number that the groups are confident they can reach. Getting voters to ultimately approve the tax, however, could be a hard sell.

While California has taxed the income of millionaires, lawmakers have never successfully passed a wealth tax. Instead of targeting earnings, the state would levy such a tax on the net worth of an individual, everything from investments to property value and even other assets, like jewelry and paintings.

The governor is a big reason why. Newsom has never supported a wealth tax, at times angrily rejecting conservative efforts to link him with one as “shameful.” He quashed the most recent legislative effort last year.

Democratic lawmakers this year had considered raising revenue to help support the state’s social services programs, which receive billions in federal funds annually, but pivoted to focus on Newsom’s Proposition 50 redistricting fight.

Regan said there are no plans to cut a deal with state lawmakers and pull the initiative from the ballot.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax reform and budget bill — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — is projected to cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over a decade. California is estimated to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medicaid funds annually as a result. The state’s Medicaid agency estimates 3.4 million people will lose coverage as a result of federal eligibility changes.

The bulk of cuts won’t take effect until 2027. But states, including California, are already taking steps to shrink their health insurance programs for low-income and disabled individuals.

California lawmakers facing a $12 billion deficit earlier this year made cuts to the state’s insurance program for immigrants without legal status, including a partial enrollment freeze that starts Jan. 1. They also reinstituted the Medi-Cal asset test, which limits how much enrollees can have in property value and savings.

Susan Shelley, vice president of communications with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said most Californians will probably assume that the tax will not affect them, but establishing a wealth tax in the state could create a troubling precedent.

“We tax income at a very high level, but we don't tax wealth and assets,” Shelley said. Nearly half of the state’s personal income tax revenue comes from just 1% of the state’s earners. Over time, she added, a wealth tax “could come all the way down to the middle class and they say you have too much equity in your house and we’re taking it.”

Shelley also said the proposed initiative would incentivize billionaires to leave the state, creating a “huge hole in the state budget” that would hurt the economy in the long term.

Proponents of the measure disagreed with that characterization of the proposal. They said that it would not levy taxes on the middle class nor would it affect businesses because it targets the net worth of ultrawealthy individuals.

Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley and supporter of the proposal, said the tax is structured to prevent billionaires from avoiding the bill simply by leaving the state.

It would tax their wealth established in 2025, and any billionaires who moved to the state in 2026 would not be subject to the levy.

“California billionaires are not going to be able to avoid the tax by moving their assets outside of California,” Saez 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.

SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico jury decided Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms, a verdict that signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government's willingness to crack down.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety. The jury determined Meta violated parts of the state's Unfair Practices Act on accusations the company hid what it knew about about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and impacts on child mental health.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in "unconscionable" trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

How much does Meta owe

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That's less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion. The company's stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news and its potential impact on the company's business.

The social media conglomerate won't be forced to change its practices right away. It will be up to a judge — not a jury — to determine whether Meta's social media platforms created a public nuisance and whether the company should pay for public programs to address the harms. That second phase of the trial will happen in May.

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

"We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content," the spokesperson said. "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

Attorneys for Meta said the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, while acknowledging that some bad material gets through its safety net.

Other lawsuits against Meta over children's mental health

New Mexico's case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

The trial that started Feb. 9. is one of the first in a torrent of lawsuits against Meta and comes as school districts and legislators want more restrictions on the use of smartphones in classrooms.

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it's contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

"Meta's house of cards is beginning to fall," said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project. "For years, it's been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm."

Haworth pointed to whistleblowers like Arturo Bejar, as well as unsealed documents and other evidence, saying it painted a damning picture.

New Mexico's case relied on a state undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta's response.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also says Meta hasn't fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction. Meta hasn't agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at trial acknowledged "problematic use" and say they want people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta's platforms.

"Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it's the right thing to do but because it is good for business," Meta attorney Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments. "Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators."

Tech companies have been protected from liability for material posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.

New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful for children.

"We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids," prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. "That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids."

What the New Mexico jury reviewed

The New Mexico trial examined a raft of Meta's internal correspondence and reports related to child safety. Jurors also heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, psychiatric experts and tech-safety consultants.

The jury also heard testimony from local public school educators who struggled with disruptions linked to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.

In reaching a verdict, the jury considered whether social media users were misled by specific statements about platform safety by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis.

In deliberations, the jury used a checklist of allegations from prosecutors that Meta failed to disclose what it knew about problems with enforcing its ban on users under 13, the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide, the role of Meta algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and more.

Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta's platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.

ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who have lost children to harm caused by social media, called the verdict a "watershed moment."

"We parents who have experienced the unimaginable — the death of a child because of social media harms — applaud this rare and momentous milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for the dangers their products pose to our kids," the group said in a statement.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Members of Congress are now facing a personal consequence from the ongoing shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security: losing one special flight perk.

Delta Airlines is pausing special services that make flights more convenient and efficient for members of Congress, as first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"Due to the impact on resources from the longstanding government shutdown, Delta will temporarily suspend specialty services to members of Congress flying Delta," the airline said in a statement to NPR. "Next to safety, Delta's no. 1 priority is taking care of our people and customers, which has become increasingly difficult in the current environment."

Specialty services include airport escorts and other red coat services. Delta said lawmakers will be treated like any other passenger based on their SkyMiles status.

This comes a week after Delta CEO Ed Bastian told CNBC he's "outraged" by the ongoing shutdown, which has led to TSA officers working without pay.

"It's inexcusable that our security agents, our frontline agents, that are essential to what we do, are not being paid, and it's ridiculous to see them being used as political chips," he said.

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes TSA, has been in a partial shutdown since mid-February.

The shutdown means TSA officers are working without pay, and has led to widespread staff shortages and long wait times for travelers.

Other major airlines did not respond to NPR about imminent changes to their specialty services. A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines told NPR the airline "continues to engage with our federal partners and joins the airline industry in urging Congress to fund the TSA and CBP without further delay."

DHS ongoing shutdown

In the wake of the killing of two U.S. citizens by immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis, Congressional Democrats said they wouldn't vote to fund DHS until changes — specifically for Immigration and Customs Enforcement — were put into place.

Senate Democrats and the White House have been trading proposals back and forth for weeks, with little progress.

Democrats have pushed to fund DHS with carveouts to not fund ICE and CBP to alleviate the TSA pain points as negotiations continue

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Saturday that Democrats are having "productive conversations" on ICE reforms but that it's an ongoing process "that should not get in the way of funding our TSA workers."

"Let's keep negotiating the outstanding issues with ICE while sending paychecks to TSA workers now," Schumer said. "Let us end those long lines at the airport now. This is the logical, expedient, correct thing to do."

Republicans thus far have objected to votes on those proposals, pressing to fund the entire department.

Last week, a bill from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to prohibit preferential screening at airports for members of Congress cleared the Senate. It has not yet been taken up by the House of Representatives.

Copyright 2026 NPR

New questions are emerging as Orange County leaders seek to understand the extent of the corruption that took place under former Supervisor Andrew Do. Chief among those questions: How did the corruption go undetected for so long?

The Board of Supervisors got its first official debriefing Tuesday from outside auditors hired to review county contracts approved during Do’s time in office — before he went to prison for bribery. The debriefing was based on the first phase of the auditors’ report, released earlier this month.

Many of the audit’s findings were uncovered by LAist in recent years and involve millions in taxpayer money that was directed to nonprofits and businesses associated with Do’s family, friends and political donors.

Do is currently serving a five-year prison term after admitting that nearly $8 million in taxpayer funds that were supposed to feed those in need were diverted for personal gain, including $385,000 to purchase a home for Do’s daughter.

At their Tuesday meeting, several supervisors asked the auditors, from the firm Weaver, to dig deeper. They also questioned how and why early indications of wrongdoing went uninvestigated.

“There were people that were trying to draw attention to this, and those in positions of more executive authority … didn’t pay attention,” said Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who represents District 2.

How to encourage staff to speak up

Sarmiento and Supervisor Katrina Foley, who represents District 5, both questioned how to better encourage county employees to speak up about potential wrongdoing — and how to ensure their concerns are taken seriously.

“I think we have really ethical people that work in this county,” Sarmiento said. “And I'm sure somebody saw something because these are, you know, hundreds of contracts with hundreds of thousands of dollars involved.”

Foley noted that years ago she had heard concerns about the county’s contract for COVID-19 testing during the pandemic. She said when she asked several top county administrators about it, “I was basically told there's nothing to see here.”

The recent audit found that 360 Clinic billed the county for some claims while receiving private insurance payments for the same claims, among other concerns largely echoed in previous LAist reporting.

“ At some point we've gotta figure out why we don't see what's actually there,” Foley said.

What happens next?

Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who represents Do’s former district, District 1, asked the auditors to delve deeper into the payments to 360 Clinic as they move into phase two of the audit. She also said she wants a deeper investigation into Do’s use of an outside printing firm to send mailers to constituents about the 2020 Tet Festival. Foley said she and other supervisors would normally use the county’s in-house printer for such jobs.

“We also need to continue to unearth to see, what else did we miss?” Nguyen said.

Phase two of the audit will look at an even bigger range of contracts considered high priority — worth $1.7 billion. The first phase of the audit looked at 145 contracts worth about a half-billion taxpayer dollars.

Go deeper ...

Here's a look at some of LAist's coverage of one of the biggest corruption scandals in Orange County history:

LAist investigates: Andrew Do corruption scandal
Ex-Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do is ordered to pay $878,230.80 in restitution
'Robin Hood in reverse.' O.C. Supervisor Andrew Do resigns and will plead guilty to bribery conspiracy charge
Former OC Supervisor Andrew Do turns himself in, begins 5-year federal prison term
6 questions we still have after disgraced former OC Supervisor Andrew Do’s sentencing
A quiet retreat for the judge married to disgraced OC politician Andrew Do

How to watchdog your local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention. Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The Orange County Board of Supervisors meets on alternating Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. at 400 W. Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana. You can check out the O.C. Board of Supervisors full calendar here.
• Learn how to submit a public comment to the O.C. Board of Supervisors.