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.

Bone-colored bluffs and jagged cliffs line the Monterey shoreline where chalky sand meets redwoods.

Its rugged coastline, including beloved destinations such as Big Sur, is well-known California iconography protected by the California Coastal Act for nearly 50 years.

In a push to address the state’s gripping housing crisis, the California Coastal Commission last week approved a rule change to make it easier to build affordable housing in Monterey and elsewhere along the hundreds of miles of the Pacific coast.

It was the latest effort by the powerful state agency to combat its poor reputation among housing advocates and Democratic leaders who see it as an obstacle to drastic housing reform in California’s coveted coastal regions. While minor and uncontroversial, the amendment was one of a few shifts the commission has made in recent months in an effort to be viewed as playing a part in addressing the state’s crippling housing crisis.

It released a report for the first time in 2024 that showed local governments were responsible for approving the vast majority of permits in coastal regions, and this year the agency worked with housing activists to make it easier to build student housing in coastal cities. Nor did the coastal commission oppose the landmark housing reform law that excludes most new developments from environmental review.

“I think it’s going to have a real-life change,” Susan Jordan, a longtime conservation activist and founder of the California Coastal Protection Network, said of the regulatory amendment at the meeting.

Reputation rehab: Steps toward more housing

Twelve people — six local elected officials and six members of the public — vote on the independent, quasi-judicial state agency tasked with conserving more than 800 miles of the California coast and keeping it open to the public. Its authority spans about 1,000 yards inland from where the land meets the water at high tide.

The commission has faced relentless scrutiny in recent years for not permitting enough affordable housing in coastal cities, or doing so too slowly, as state lawmakers have stripped numerous housing regulations to make it easier to build more apartments.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a critic of the commission, and other Democratic leaders have appointed three pro-development local officials this year to help get more housing and other developments approved along the Pacific coast.

In October, Newsom appointed wealthy real estate developer Jaime Lee to replace Effie Turnbull Sanders. An attorney appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown, Sanders was lauded by environmentalists for heralding environmental justice policies to the agency.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas , a Salinas Democrat, named two pro-development appointees to the commission in May: Chris Lopez, a Monterey County supervisor, and Chula Vista councilmember Jose Preciado.

Ray Jackson, a Hermosa Beach councilmember, was appointed earlier this year by Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire of Santa Rosa, and is largely a skeptic of big developers.

In a unanimous vote last week, Peciado, Lopez and Jackson each approved changing the commission’s rules to give affordable housing projects in coastal areas more time to be built, from two to five years after permits are issued. Lee was not at the Nov. 6 meeting.

Staff and commissioners hailed the change as a step in the right direction for affordable housing developments that cannot be financed quickly enough under the previous two-year deadline.

“I think next year would be a good opportunity to roll out an education campaign in the Legislature to highlight some of the movements we made toward this,” Commissioner Linda Escalante said. “I don’t know if we can have a white paper that we can walk around with and figure out some of the reputation issues that we have.”

A history of protecting the coastline

Critics of the commission point to the exorbitant coastal housing prices, some of the highest in the country, and the disproportionate number of white residents, as exacerbating the housing shortage. To some, the commission’s priorities have not matched the urgency of lawmakers and local officials to help solve the cost problem.

Two-thirds of coastal residents are white, about twice as many as in the state as a whole, according to an analysis by Nicholas Depsky at the United Nations Development Programme.

Fewer than 2.5% of California residents live in coastal cities, or “coastal zones,” which comprise less than 1% of land in the state but are home to some of the most valuable real estate in the world, from Malibu to Marin.

Waves break near beach homes in Malibu on Dec. 28, 2023.

(

Damian Dovarganes

/

AP Photo

)

The Coastal Commission began as a 1972 ballot initiative in the shadow of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in the country at the time. Amid a broader national environmental movement, there was greater concern about how to protect California’s coveted shoreline in the midst of unregulated offshore drilling and fears of relentless development that would mirror Miami’s coastline.

Four years later, the state Legislature made the commission permanent with the Coastal Act to protect its natural habitats and keep beaches open to the public.

Early tensions between then-Gov. Jerry Brown and the commission brewed when he slammed its members as "bureaucratic thugs” in 1978, just years after championing its creation. Brown would spend his final years in office, nearly 40 years later, roiled by criticism from environmentalists who accused him of appointing commissioners who were too pro-development. Those fears were heightened with the ousting of executive director Charles Lester in 2016, a strong advocate for coastal protection.

Scrutiny of the commission has accelerated in the Newsom administration, as the governor has publicly chided the agency for its broad powers. After the Los Angeles fires, he swiftly moved to suspend all of its authority over rebuilding efforts in the Pacific Palisades, which abut the coastline.

Last year, the commission rejected billionaire Elon Musk’s proposal to increase the number of SpaceX rocket launches off the Santa Barbara coast while criticizing his support of President Donald Trump. Newsom said he was “with Elon” after the company filed a lawsuit for political discrimination. The case is still pending.

Lee, the newest commissioner, hails from Los Angeles and has built a reputation as a prolific builder known for revitalizing Koreatown. Her real estate company, Jamison properties, has built 6,600 multifamily units and is one of the largest private landowners in Los Angeles, according to its website.

Lee did not return emails and phone calls seeking comment from CalMatters.

The new appointments have made many pro-housing advocates hopeful. “We now have three out of 12 voting members who are appointed to the commission in this period when many legislators and the governor want reform at the commission to design more affordable housing,” said Louis Mirante, a lobbyist with the business coalition Bay Area Council. “That tells me that these members will probably move that vision forward.”

Lopez, who has emphasized his support for affordable housing on the coast since joining the commission, said the optimism is warranted.

“I think that that excitement is well placed given where we’re sitting at right now and given the voice that the speaker and the governor are giving at this issue and wanting to see a remedy to it,” Lopez said. “And I do feel it’s the reason I was put here was to have that conversation at the forefront.”

Environmental advocates watch

Environmentalists have mostly been quiet about the new appointments. Instead, they are waiting to see how they vote before raising the alarm.

“While there have been concerns expressed within the environmental movement, at this point we have no idea how this commissioner (Lee) will be,” said Jennifer Savage, associate director of Surfrider Foundation, a coastal protection advocacy group. Lee was not an obvious choice for many, but Savage is optimistic that she’ll support coastal protection.

“It’s actually not that surprising that the governor would appoint someone with housing expertise,” given the political climate, she continued.

A longtime local water authority official and current administrator at San Diego State University, Preciado said part of his pitch for the role to top Democratic leaders was that he wanted to see more of the coast developed to help create jobs and homes for working-class families.

“We have a keen interest in developing the California coast in such a way where underrepresented communities that live on the coast have more access,” Preciado said of himself and Lopez.

Wealthy coastal residents have long sparred with the commission over violations for blocking public access, such as Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, who has been entangled in a slew of legal fights with regulators and coastal groups for years over access to Martins Beach near Half Moon Bay.

An empty road leading to Martins Beach near Half Moon Bay on Aug. 29, 2017.

(

Karl Mondon

/

Bay Area News Group

)

Many commissioners and staff view protecting public access and conservation as their primary purpose rather than housing policy.

Conservationism is out of style, even among Democrats, which has led support for the commission to dramatically shift in recent years, according to legislative director Sarah Christie.

To some commissioners, lawmakers’ push to rip away more and more of its housing authority is a misguided attempt to simplify a complex issue. They point out that 80% of coastal cities and counties have their own coastal laws and are not subject to the commission.

“It’s creating a lot of chaos and dysfunction at the local level and is making it harder,” Christie said of the movement toward slashing housing regulations. “In the Legislature’s enthusiasm and zeal in order to effectuate housing more quickly, they’re kind of stepping on themselves.”

Jackson, a commissioner who represents the South Bay, said lawmakers need to focus more on affordable housing rather than increasing supply more broadly.

Special environmental considerations and its highly sought after nature are what make the coastal zone uniquely expensive, Preciado said. “I think that a broader view, a more objective view, is that developing on the coast is different than developing in urban areas.”

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

Fans tired of waiting for the next Frozen sequel or the next chapter in the Star Wars saga may soon have new ways to engage with those worlds — by creating their own content using Disney's IP.

That was the tantalizing hint Disney CEO Bob Iger dropped during an earnings call Thursday, as he described how the company is exploring ways to make the Disney+ subscription-based streaming service more interactive, and customizable for users.

While Iger stopped short of making any formal announcements, he suggested Disney is in discussions with artificial intelligence companies about tools that could allow subscribers to generate and share their own content built from Disney-owned stories.

"AI is going to give us the ability to provide users of Disney+ with a much more engaged experience, including the ability for them to create user-generated content," Iger said.

Disney+ declined to offer additional details about what form these new creative tools might take or which tech companies were involved in the negotiations. Meanwhile, AI remains a concern in many parts of the entertainment industry, with many companies including Disney engaged in lawsuits against AI players for copyright infringement.

Iger acknowledged this tension. On the earnings call, the CEO said the company's conversations with potential AI partners are focused on enabling new forms of fan engagement and guarding against uses that could dilute or misuse Disney IP.

"It's obviously imperative for us to protect our IP with this new technology," Iger said.

The trend towards increased interactivity 

Disney isn't alone in trying to rethink the boundaries between audiences and the entertainment they consume.

At the recent TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco, Netflix's chief technology officer, Elizabeth Stone, offered her own look at a future shaped by deeper user engagement.

"The future of entertainment is likely to be even more personalized, even more interactive, even more immersive," Stone said during an on-stage conversation with TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos.

In addition to games and social media videos, one of Netflix's most talked-about experiments in this direction arrives next year: Stone said viewers of the classic talent competition Star Search reboot will be able to cast votes directly from their TVs or phones, influencing which contestants advance – or do not.

Younger audiences and deal-making climate drive quest for interactivity

This engagement layer sits on top of Netflix's vast library of films and TV series. But platform leaders increasingly see passive watching as only part of the picture.

Younger audiences, especially Gen Z, are gravitating toward spaces where they can participate, remix and respond rather than simply watch. According to Deloitte's 2025 Digital Media Trends survey , more than half of Gen Z respondents say social media content feels more relevant to them than traditional TV shows and movies. The research also points to the growing popularity of indie creators, and a change in consumer expectations around quality: Content doesn't always have to be polished to be extremely popular, as some of the most-watched feeds on YouTube and TikTok prove.

At the same time, despite ongoing litigation, entertainment corporations are starting to get comfortable with the idea of licensing content to AI companies. One of the most high-profile in recent weeks is the licensing partnership between Universal Music Group and the AI music creation platform Udio.

"It shows that the AI companies can work with the creative community to come up with models that work for both of them," Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid told NPR regarding this particular deal. "And I think we're going to start seeing more and more deals come through because they realize they can do this and do it the right way."

Copyright 2025 NPR

The Trump administration is upending its homelessness policy, with deep cuts to funding for long-term housing. Instead, it will shift money toward transitional housing that requires work and addiction treatment.

In a statement, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said the new policies will "restore accountability" and promote "self-sufficiency" by addressing the "root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental illness."

Critics warn the major overhaul could put 170,000 people at risk of losing their housing again. And they say the timing of this major overhaul is terrible. Normally, funding notices go out in August, but now programs around the country will have little time to start applying for new funding in January. And in many places, it will leave a months-long gap after current funding runs out and before new money flows.

In another change, HUD will no longer automatically renew existing programs — creating the possibility that formerly homeless people who've lived in subsidized housing for years will be forced out. The agency is also opening up more funding for faith-based groups.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness says the new policies could upend life for many people who've found stability in permanent housing programs. "HUD's new funding priorities slam the door on them, their providers, and their communities. Make no mistake: homelessness will only increase because of this reckless and irresponsible decision," CEO Ann Oliva said in a statement.

The funding shift reflects a conservative backlash to longstanding policies

For two decades, federal funding has prioritized getting people into permanent housing and then offering them treatment. That policy is called Housing First and has long had bipartisan support. Backers say the approach has a proven track record of keeping people off the streets.

But critics counter that it has failed to stem the steady rise of homelessness to what are now historic levels.

Those critics include President Donald Trump, who has long pushed cities to clear homeless encampments from streets and parks. The new funding shift reflects an executive order he signed in July , which also sought to make it easier to confine unhoused people in mental institutions against their will.

"The influence of Housing First just became too powerful," says Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank. He calls it a top-down approach, and says for years it was hard to get funding unless a program followed that policy. Eide says that left out a large group of people who may not need permanent housing or who may want the enforced sobriety it does not offer.

"I think what we're going to be looking for is a reinvestment in transitional housing," he says. That means places people can stay for 18 months or so to get sober or recover in other ways, and then — ideally — move out and succeed on their own.

There's broad agreement that the U.S. needs more of every kind of support for homeless people: permanent housing, rehab and mental illness treatment. But critics of HUD's shift fear this may make it harder for some to get help.

"It is moving away from trauma-informed care, and that's problematic," says Stephanie Klasky-Gamer, president and CEO of LA Family Housing in Los Angeles.

For example, she thinks this will lead more shelters to bar people unless they're already sober or enrolled in recovery or mental health care. But that's a high bar for many people, she says, and it could backfire.
Copyright 2025 NPR

President Donald Trump says he is going to "make America affordable again." It's a pledge he made frequently during the campaign. And now, after dropping it from his lexicon for more than eight months, he's saying it again as polls show voters rank the economy and cost of living as their top concern and blame Trump's policies for making things worse.

A senior administration official tells NPR Trump will soon travel around the country with a message that while some things have improved, there is more work to do to help people feeling economic strain. The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, added that when it comes to affordability, "there's no finish line."

Thus far, Trump has spent far more time boasting about how great the economy and stock market are doing than acknowledging any economic anxiety.

"Record high, record high, record high," Trump said of the stock market last week at a business event in Florida.

"Costs are way down," Trump said at a late night signing ceremony in the Oval Office Wednesday. "My administration and our partners in Congress will continue our work to lower the cost of living, restore public safety, grow our economy and make America affordable again for all Americans."

Trump's affordability challenge marks a dramatic reversal of fortune for a president who returned to office on a promise to bring costs down and whose greatest political strength was on the economy. Now his approval rating on the economy is severely underwater.

After sweeping wins by Democrats in last week's elections where the cost-of-living was a key issue, Trump suddenly had a lot to say about "affordability." But he has frequently come across as dismissive and defensive.

"The affordability is much better with the Republicans," Trump said last week. "The only problem is the Republicans don't talk about it, and Republicans should start talking about it and use their heads."

But earlier this week when Fox News' Laura Ingraham pressed Trump on rising costs of things like coffee and ground beef, he called it a "con job by the Democrats."

Asked why people are anxious about the economy, Trump responded by questioning whether people really are saying that.

"I think polls are fake," Trump said. "We have the greatest economy we've ever had."

To support his positive outlook, Trump points to the booming stock market, his tariff policy and pledges by companies and countries to invest in the U.S.

Inflation this year has been persistent but not dramatic, at about 3%. Eggs have gotten cheaper since Trump took office, but other staples like ground beef and coffee are up. According to Gas Buddy , the average price of gasoline in the U.S. is $3.09 per gallon, slightly higher than this time last year.

"Consumer confidence is the lowest it's ever been," said Jason Furman, a professor of economics at Harvard. "People are really negative about inflation."

It's a political truth — and a pitfall for presidents — that people don't want to hear that everything is awesome if they are struggling.

Furman, who served in the Obama administration, says the messaging team in that White House was very cautious not to brag about the economy, as the nation emerged from the Great Recession.

"Because they thought anything we said positive about the economy risked people thinking President Obama was out of touch," said Furman. "I didn't see that type of reserve when Biden was president. He bragged about it quite a lot, and I think that [rang] hollow with a lot of people. And President Trump is even less reserved about his bragging."

Trump's insistence that the economy is great earned him a rebuke from Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Appearing on the Sean Spicer Show on YouTube , Greene said she gives Trump credit for holding inflation steady.

"But that doesn't bring prices down," said Greene. "And so gaslighting the people and trying to tell them that prices have come down is not helping. It's actually infuriating people because people know what they are paying at the grocery store, they know what they're paying for their kid's clothes and school supplies. They know what they're paying for their electricity bills."

She called for compassion rather than lecturing.

Former Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore says there are three major cost issues that have to be addressed: grocery prices, home prices and health care costs.

"It is true factually that the average family has more purchasing power today than they did when Biden left office," said Moore. "And yet people don't feel it. You know, they're not feeling the love. And I can't explain why that is except that people tend to focus on things where their prices are rising."

In fact, purchasing power also grew during the Biden administration, because wages rose faster than costs. But voters didn't want to hear it then, and they are in no mood to hear it now.

"People are kind of in a crabby mood right now when it comes to the economy," said Moore.
Copyright 2025 NPR