The Brief

About a month after the Eaton Fire destroyed thousands of houses in Altadena, fleets of smoke remediation vans could be seen parked outside the homes still standing.

Ash from the fire is potentially hazardous to human health, according to the public health officials. Work to safely remove that debris is now in full swing inside many homes.

But there’s no van outside the Pasadena home of a tenant we’re calling Elizabeth. Her single-family rental house is about three blocks south of houses that were incinerated. When she asked about her landlord’s plans to do something about the smoke damage, the landlord ordered her, her husband and her two young children to move out.

“After all the things that we've all been through, to now hear that your landlord is not only not going to clean the house, but wants you out because you’ve asked him to take care of the cleaning of the house ... it's so upsetting,” Elizabeth said.

LAist is not using her full name because of her concerns about further straining her relationship with her landlord and jeopardizing any future housing search. We have reviewed her landlord’s correspondence with her to verify what she’s been told.

Elizabeth is among several tenants near the Eaton Fire burn area who told LAist they’re not getting clear answers from landlords or property managers about who will take responsibility for cleaning homes coated in ash. In some cases, landlords have outright refused to fix smoke damage, telling renters they can either pay for it themselves or move out.

Housing experts say that under state and local laws, landlords are required to address smoke damage. But in practice, some renters are being told by government officials that their only path for getting this work done is to take their landlord to court.

‘No plans to clean this house’

Elizabeth’s family is renting a Craftsman home. The architecture is charming, but like many houses in Pasadena, it shows its age. The old latch windows don’t fully close. Hurricane-force winds were able to spew ash through the cracks, leaving visible residue in many areas.

The worst ash buildup is in her 10-year-old daughter’s bedroom, where the windows blew open, Elizabeth said. A dark layer of soot covered the child’s desk and toys.

Elizabeth said finding another nearby home to rent isn’t a viable option because the market has been flooded with fire victims. There are few available homes, and costs have skyrocketed as landlords increase asking rents — in many cases, higher than what is legally allowed.

“We're still paying rent here, and yet living at a friend's house for free for a couple more weeks,” Elizabeth said. “Then we really don't have anywhere to go because there's been no plans to clean this house.

“Unless we pay out of pocket and clean this place up, it's not going to happen.”

Smoke remediation vans have become a common sight in Pasadena, but some renters say they're struggling to get answers and timelines.

(

David Wagner

/

LAist

)

Who’s responsible for Eaton Fire ash?

Housing rights attorneys and landlord advocates agree that, under state law governing rental housing habitability, removing potentially toxic debris after a fire should be a landlord’s responsibility. They told LAist that renters are on the hook for any damage to their personal belongings, such as couches or mattresses saturated with ash. But it’s the landlord’s job to make the rental housing unit habitable, experts said.

Amy Tannenbaum, an attorney with Public Counsel, said government officials “should be making clear that this is the landlord's responsibility — bottom line.”

Housing experts said many landlords are fulfilling their duty to clean up rental homes. But some may be unsure where to start.

“The first call an owner should be making is to their insurance company,” said Daniel Yukelson, executive director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. “They need to get a proper abatement company out to the property to assess it and do whatever cleanup is necessary before the tenants move back in, so that tenants have a safe environment to go back to.”

Renters feel out of the loop 

But some landlords and property managers are declining to tell tenants if, or when, they will arrange for smoke remediation.

Jason, a tenant who also asked LAist not to use his full name because of concerns about retaliation from his landlord, said a representative from his renters insurance company confirmed that his policy would not cover smoke remediation for his two-bedroom apartment in Pasadena.

“They would cover my personal property, but not the premises,” Jason said. “I was like, ‘Well, who would do that?’ And he was like, ‘Well, your landlord should.’”

“Yeah, they should,” Jason continued. “But they are, I think, trying to avoid that.”

Jason said he and his daughters have been bouncing between Airbnb rentals and hotel rooms, waiting for updates from his property manager. He said the apartment building has been inspected by a remediation company, but he hasn’t heard anything about the results.

“I don't want to live in a place that could be dangerous with two young kids,” he said. “It just doesn't feel like a very honest, transparent relationship, which is unfortunate when people's safety is at risk.”

Personal belongings are piled on a sidewalk outside an apartment building near the Eaton Fire burn area.

(

David Wagner

/

LAist

)

Pasadena says ash is toxic, but doesn’t violate code

Pasadena health officials have been telling tenants that ash from the Eaton Fire is potentially toxic. But the city’s housing officials have been telling tenants they cannot force landlords to carry out ash cleanup.

Pasadena housing officials have told tenants to consider hiring an attorney and that local regulations don’t specifically address toxic ash in rental housing. The city’s code compliance employees have emailed tenants, saying, “there are no codes in regards to ash so this would be considered a civil matter.”

Pasadena’s building code says housing units are not considered habitable if they contain “debris, garbage, offal, rat harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials” or other materials that could “constitute fire, health or safety hazards.”

The word “ash” is not explicitly mentioned in Pasadena’s code. By contrast, the city of L.A.’s building code specifically lists “ash” and “partially burned building materials” as hazardous.

Tannenbaum, the Public Counsel attorney, said that discrepancy doesn’t mean ash is beyond the scope of Pasadena’s code. She said local laws include broad language about health and safety that clearly cover ash containing chemicals from thousands of destroyed homes.

“If you're saying that this ash probably contains toxic substances — including asbestos, including lead — this is injurious to human health, but it's OK for a tenant to move back in there. That's a pretty callous disregard for a tenant's health and safety,” Tannenbaum said.

LAist emailed Pasadena code compliance officials to ask how they interpret laws governing habitability of rental housing with smoke damage. We asked if they would give a home coated in Eaton Fire ash a passing grade upon inspection. They have not responded to those questions.

The city’s spokesperson, Lisa Derderian, emailed a statement saying issues that affect a renter’s well-being “may give rise to a civil action between landlord and tenant.”

The statement goes on to say, “The [Rent Stabilization] Department is also in the process of offering mediation services to facilitate resolution of complex landlord-tenants concerns, which will be available to fire victims.”

Ash from the Eaton Fire is visible on a windowsill that held potted plants. Health officials have said ash from the recent wildfires is toxic.

(

David Wagner

/

LAist

)

Renters unsure when they can return

Ryan Bell, the chair of the Pasadena Rental Housing Board, said he has heard from dozens of tenants who feel they've been left to fend for themselves.

“I think tenants are rightfully concerned,” Bell said. “Most tenants that I've talked to are simply saying to the landlord, ‘Can you please just give us a timeline? We just need to know: Do we need to stay with our folks for a month? Is it two weeks? Is it three months?’”

Renters insurance plans typically cover temporary relocation costs. But different policies have different coverage limits. And some tenants worry they’ll have to pay out of pocket if remediation work isn’t scheduled soon.

Marah Eakin and Andrew Morgan rent a home in Northwest Pasadena about one block from homes that burned down in Altadena. Since Jan. 7, they’ve been living in hotels and short-term rentals with their 6-year-old twins.

Morgan said their current Airbnb rental in South Pasadena costs about $2,000 per week.

“It costs more than our rent,” he said. “It's much smaller than our house. We don't have most of our stuff. We're just thrown way off balance. ... Like most families, we really thrive on a routine and a schedule. And it's just kind of out the window.”

The struggle to get clear answers 

Eakin and Morgan said their property management company — Cornerstone R/E Management, Inc. — went weeks without confirming whether their landlord would cover smoke remediation or when that work would happen.

Last month, a Cornerstone representative told the couple, “We are working on the basis that until told otherwise, properties are assumed livable,” according to emails sent to the tenants and reviewed by LAist. The representative said, unless anything changed, February rent would still be due.

“It feels like there's no good answer,” Eakin said. “Do we get a rental for a month? Do we get a rental for three months? Should we just cut bait and move out? There's nowhere to move, really, within driving distance of school. So I don't really know what to do.”

About an hour and a half after LAist emailed Cornerstone seeking comment about Eakin and Morgan’s situation, an employee contacted the couple to say a smoke and ash adjuster had been assigned to their case and they could soon receive a refund on their rent since the fire.

Trevor Barrocas, Cornerstone’s operating officer, emailed LAist with a statement: “We are working together with our clients and their insurance companies with the clear objective of: professionally assessing all damage, completing all necessary repairs and remediation; and, subsequently, returning displaced tenants to their homes as soon as possible.”

The Trump administration has removed Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth from next year's calendar of entrance fee-free days for national parks and added President Trump's birthday to the list, according to the National Park Service, as the administration continues to push back against a reckoning of the country's racist history on federal lands.

In addition to Trump's birthday — which coincides with Flag Day (June 14) — the updated calendar of fee-free dates includes the 110th anniversary of the NPS (August 25), Constitution Day (September 17) and President Teddy Roosevelt's birthday (October 27). The changes will take effect starting January 1.

Non-U.S. residents will still be required to pay entrance fees on those dates under the new "America-first pricing" policy. At 11 of some of the country's most popular national parks, international visitors will be charged an extra $100, on top of the standard entrance fee, and the annual pass for non-residents will go up to $250. The annual pass for residents will be $80.

The move follows a July executive order from the White House that called to increase fees applied to non-American visitors to national parks and grant citizens and residents "preferential treatment with respect to any remaining recreational access rules, including permitting or lottery rules."

The Department of the Interior, which oversees NPS, called the new fee-exempted dates "patriotic fee-free days," in an announcement that lauded the changes as "Trump's commitment to making national parks more accessible, more affordable and more efficient for the American people."

The Interior Department did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement: "These policies ensure that U.S. taxpayers, who already support the National Park System, continue to enjoy affordable access, while international visitors contribute their fair share to maintaining and improving our parks for future generations."

The new calendar follows the Trump administration's previous moves to reshape U.S. history by asking patrons of national parks to flag any signs at sites deemed to cast a negative light on past or living Americans.
Copyright 2025 NPR

If you found out your neighbor had a past criminal conviction, your knee-jerk reaction might be that you’d want them relocated.

But what if that person committed a burglary in their late teens, served years in state prison, turned their life around, and now mentors at-risk youth?

Do the details matter? Researchers found that they do.

A new poll by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research examines California voters’ attitudes toward due process for immigrants with criminal convictions during the Trump administration’s nationwide crackdown on unauthorized immigration. The survey also examined support for how tax dollars are spent and Californians’ views on the state’s sanctuary policies.

It found bipartisan support for ensuring that immigrants facing deportation receive due process, including ones with criminal records.

“This survey shows that there’s clear concern about the current administration’s approach to immigration enforcement,” said Sara Knight, a research director at Goodwin Simon Strategic Research. “I’m not surprised by the results, but I am heartened to see how strong the support for due process is and the growing frustration with treating people inhumanely in our immigration system.”

President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of mass deportations that targeted criminals, among other things, and he has made good on that. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested more than 160,608 noncitizens nationwide with criminal convictions or pending charges, since his inauguration.

The Trump administration has sought to expand the use of “expedited removal,” which allows immigration officers to remove certain non-citizens, like those convicted of crimes, from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Researchers say this latest poll by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, released to CalMatters this week, also reflects waning support, even among a small majority of Republicans for the harshest immigration enforcement practices. It showed 84% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 54% of Republicans agreed that “even if someone does have a record, they deserve due process and the chance to have their case heard by a judge before being deported.”

The poll was commissioned by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, both pro-immigrant organizations. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research describes itself on its website as an “independent opinion research firm.” Researchers wrote the survey questions and polled more than 1,200 self-identified voters. Knight said the partisan divide among those polled mirrored the party-affiliation split in the electorate. The margin of error was 3 points.

Some other recent polls echo similar conclusions released in recent weeks, including one released last week by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab that found one-third of Latino voters who supported Trump now regret their choice. Another public opinion poll by the nonpartisan research firm Public Policy Institute of California found 71% of Californians surveyed said they disapproved of the job ICE is doing. And, a CNN exit poll after the Proposition 50 redistricting election on Nov. 4 found that about three-quarters of California voters said they’re dissatisfied with or angry about the way things are going in the U.S., and 6 in 10 said the Trump administration’s actions on immigration enforcement have gone too far.

Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, pointed to other recent national polls to argue the public supports Trump’s immigration policies.

“President Trump and (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kristi) Noem are delivering on the American people’s mandate to deport illegal aliens, and the latest polls show that support for the America First agenda has not wavered — including a New York Times poll that nearly 8 in 10 Americans support deporting illegal aliens with criminal records,” McLaughlin said in a written statement.

“The American people, the law, and common sense are on our side, and we will not stop until law and order is restored after Biden’s open border chaos flooded our country with the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” she continued.

From prison to ICE

In the more recent Goodwin Simon Strategic Research poll, 61% of voters surveyed said they want California’s prison system to stop directly handing immigrants over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation.

The state’s sanctuary law does not apply to immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. State prisons have transferred to ICE more than 9,500 people with criminal records since Gov. Gavin Newsom took office in 2019, according to data released to CalMatters. So far in 2025, ICE has picked up 1,217 inmates directly from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the data shows.

The corrections department also provides ICE with information that helps the agency locate, arrest, and deport people who are not directly transferred. CalMatters obtained and reviewed more than 27,000 pages of emails between state prison employees and ICE. The emails show prison employees regularly communicate with ICE about individuals in state custody, including U.S. citizens. They often share personal details about their families, visitors, and phone calls. Often, these family members have no criminal records and are U.S. citizens

Newsom, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, and Speaker Robert Rivas have all denounced ICE’s broader deportation efforts. But all three have also indicated some level of support for having federal immigration officials remove noncitizens with prior convictions for violent crimes from the community.

The governor has stated he would veto legislation that seeks to restrict the state prison system’s ability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities for the deportation of felons.

‘We may be deporting the wrong people’

Goodwin Simon researchers found that voters’ opinions change when they find out more details about the personal circumstances of a noncitizen with a past criminal conviction, even for violent crime. Pollsters gave two narratives to voters.

One was about a man who was brought to the United States from Mexico as a child. He got into a fight in his early 20s that left someone injured. The man was sentenced to seven years in state prison, where he turned his life around by taking college classes and helping other inmates get their high school diplomas. When he got out of prison, he was deported to Mexico before an immigration judge could decide on his case.

The other narrative was about a person closely connected to a man whose family fled genocide in Cambodia when he was a baby. In the U.S., the man was the lookout for a robbery when he was a teenager and served 30 years in state prison. Upon his release, prison officials turned him over to ICE.

“We may be deporting the wrong people. Although this last person did commit a crime, he has served his time and is now a valuable member of society, so it would be hard to say for sure if a person ever committed a crime deserves to be sent back. That is why the due process is important,” one Republican voter from Sacramento responded to the poll. She shifted her opinion from the view that people with past criminal convictions should be automatically deported to favoring a judge reviewing each individual case after hearing the narratives.

After voters reviewed both pro- and anti-messaging and the two stories, support for having an immigration judge review individual cases before deportation increased from 84% to 90% among Democrats; from 61% to 74% among independents, but it dropped from 54% to 51% among Republicans. Central Coast voters and Republican women voters increased support for due process by 9 points after hearing the stories.

The European Union has announced a fine of $140 million against Elon Musk's X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for several failures to comply with rules governing large digital platforms. A European Commission spokesperson said the fine against X's holding company was due to the platform's misleading use of a blue check mark to identify verified users, a poorly functioning advertising repository, and a failure to provide effective data access for researchers.

Europe's preference had not been to fine X, said the spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, as he drew a contrast with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok. Regnier announced Friday that TikTok had separately offered concessions that would allow it to avoid such penalties.

"If you engage constructively with the Commission, we settle cases," Regnier said at a press conference in Brussels. "If you do not, we take action."

The possibility that X would face financial penalties in Europe had drawn significant political fire, not only from Musk but also from others in Washington, D.C., over the past two years since the European Commission began its investigation.

"Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship," Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on X on Thursday. "The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage."

In July 2024, in a set of preliminary findings, the European Commission formally accused X — which serves more than 100 million users within the EU — of several violations. These included its failure to meet transparency mandates, obstructing researchers' access to data and misleading users by converting the blue verification badge into a paid subscription feature.

Musk has long stated his intention to legally challenge any EU sanctions, rather than make concessions to resolve the investigation.

Nonetheless, the company could have faced far higher financial penalties, with European authorities able under new legislation — known as the Digital Services Act — to fine offenders 6% of their worldwide annual revenue, which in this case could have included several other of Musk's companies, including SpaceX.

The fine announcement follows months of accusations from activists and trade experts that authorities in Brussels were deliberately easing up on enforcement to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. Musk was a prominent supporter of Trump's campaign and spent several months this past spring serving as an administration adviser and the public face of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

The willingness to take on Musk's business empire could serve as a critical test of the EU's determination, especially in light of Trump's previous threats of tariffs over the bloc's fines against U.S. technology giants.

The confrontation highlights a growing division over the concept of digital sovereignty, which has transformed long-standing allies into competitors as Europe strives to establish itself as the global authority for digital regulation, and the Trump administration pushes back against perceived curbs on U.S. companies' profits and freedom of expression.

So, experts warn, this direct punitive action against Musk's businesses carries the risk of U.S. retaliation, even though the EU remains heavily dependent on American technology for a range of sectors.

The United States is already leveraging some of these concerns about free speech as grounds for denying U.S. visas to certain individuals.

The Trump administration also has consistently argued that the EU unfairly targets U.S. technology companies with severe financial penalties and burdensome regulations, equating these measures to tariffs that justify trade retaliation. Just last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that the EU must revise its digital regulations to secure a deal aimed at reducing steel and aluminum tariffs.

The Commission denied again Friday any connection between the trade negotiations with the U.S. and the implementation of its technology rulebooks, any targeting of American firms or any kind of infringement on freedom of expression.

"Our digital legislation has nothing to do with censorship," said Commission spokesperson Regnier. "We adopt the final decision, not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin."

Despite the Trump administration's pressure, the EU has proceeded with the enforcement of its digital antitrust rules, recently imposing fines of $584 million on Apple Inc. and $233 million on Meta Platforms Inc.

It also has issued substantial penalties against other corporations, including over $8 billion total in fines against Alphabet Inc.'s Google over several years and a separate directive for Apple to repay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland for providing unfair state aid.

Other potentially more serious concerns about X's management of illegal content, election-related misinformation and the utilization of Community Notes have not yet progressed to the preliminary stage in a separate investigation by the European Commission.

It’s only been a month since the federal government shutdown caused the 5.5 million Californians who use CalFresh — the state’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — to see their payments delayed.

And although payments of SNAP (formerly referred to as food stamps) have restarted, another holiday season is around the corner, putting extra strain on folks who are food insecure in the Bay Area.

One positive development: The CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program — a state program offering SNAP recipients up to $60 of free produce each month — has restarted as of November.

The program, which first launched in 2023, is dependent on state-allocated annual funds that are spent until they’re used up, and the 2024 cycle ran out for CalFresh users back in January of this year.

But this year, the program has received an injection of $36 million, which is projected to last until summer 2026.

In previous years, the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program has made “a real, real difference to so many families,” before its funds were used up, said Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), who chairs the state Legislature’s Human Services Committee with oversight of CalFresh policy.

But despite that, he said, “still only a small percentage of all CalFresh-eligible families are using it.”

While only six stores in the Bay Area are participating in the program right now — almost all of them in the South Bay — anyone receiving CalFresh benefits can automatically receive $60 worth of fresh produce each month if they’re able to reach one of these locations.

Keep reading for how the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program works, where it’s available and how to redeem your money in-store.

And if you don’t need this information yourself right now, consider sharing it with someone else who might: “One in five Californians suffer from food insecurity,” Lee said. “So statistically speaking, you are, or you know someone who is struggling with food.”

Can anyone on CalFresh use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?

Yes: If you receive any CalFresh (SNAP) benefits, you have automatic access to the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program at participating stores (see below).

You don’t need to apply for anything, as your EBT card itself is your proof of eligibility.

Can I use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program in any store that accepts EBT?

No: You’ll need to visit one of the specific stores participating in the program.

In the Bay Area, almost all of these stores are in Santa Clara County:

• Santa Fe Foods, 860 White Road, San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 204 Willow St., San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 1003 Lincoln Ave., San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 2620 Alum Rock Ave., San José
• Arteaga’s Food Center, 6906 Automall Pkwy., Gilroy

In Alameda County, you can use the program at:

• Santa Fe Foods, 7356 Thornton Ave., Newark

There are also participating stores in Monterey and Salinas counties, and several in the Los Angeles area. See a full list of grocery stores participating in the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program.

How do I use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program in the store?

First, make sure you’re in one of the stores participating in the program — mistakes can happen — and that you’ve brought your EBT card with you.

Next, do your shopping as normal, and pick up fresh fruits and vegetables as part of your trip. You don’t have to separate the produce or pay for it in a different transaction.

At the register, tell the cashier you’d like to use your EBT card to pay for your shopping, like you usually would. When it comes to the fresh fruits and vegetables in your cart, you’ll initially see the costs of those particular items come off your EBT funds — but then those funds will be immediately returned, making that produce effectively free at the register.

Another way of seeing it: If your cart amounts to $15 of EBT-eligible food, including $5 of produce, you’ll initially see $15 debited from your card on the screen — but then you’ll see the instant rebate of $5 for your produce, meaning your final receipt will only be $10.

“People don’t have to enroll and do anything different; they don’t have to keep track of some paper coupon or some other card,” said Eli Zigas, executive director of Fullwell: the Bay Area nonprofit advocacy organization partnering with the state to administer the program this year.

“It’s all built into the EBT card at the participating locations,” he said.

And while you can get these instant rebates for up to $60 worth of produce each month, remember: You don’t have to “spend” that $60 up in one transaction. Your EBT will automatically keep track of your produce purchases and just stop issuing the instant rebates once you’ve hit that $60 cap for the month.

Does the amount of produce I can buy using the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program depend on how much I’m receiving in CalFresh benefits?

No: Every CalFresh household can get up to $60 of free fresh fruits and vegetables with their EBT card, regardless of the amount of benefits they receive. It’s a flat amount for all SNAP users in the state.

My EBT balance is at $0 right now. Can I still use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?

No: To get the instant rebate on money spent on fresh fruit and vegetables, you’ll first need to actually spend those funds using your EBT card — even though you’ll immediately get the money back onto that card.

If you don’t have any money on your EBT card available, you’ll have to wait until your CalFresh funds are reloaded next month to be able to use the program again. But remember that if your EBT funds are running low, you can still spend a smaller amount — or whatever’s available on your card — on fresh fruit and vegetables and receive the money back instantly, until you’ve maxed out that $60-per-month cap.

Is there a deadline to use the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program?

The $36 million approved in the most recent state budget by the California legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom for the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program “is three and a half times more money than this program has ever had previously for an annual cycle,” Zigas said.

In previous years, Lee said, the funding would last for different periods “because the program was so wildly successful and oversubscribed that it would run out for a while.”

So what about 2026? “We estimate, based on previous usage, that the program will have funds to run through the summer,” Zigas said.

But after summer arrives, Zigas said, “it’s all going to depend on what the usage is, and whether there’s renewed funding.” So while you still have many months to try the program, you shouldn’t wait too long — not least because each month that passes will bring another $60 for you to spend on produce.

In the wake of the SNAP delays caused by the government shutdown, “I think people have seen recently more than ever before how important CalFresh is and how much people are struggling to put food on the table,” Zigas said. “We would love to see this program not only operate continuously all year long without interruption, but also expand — because it’s a limited number of grocery stores right now offering this program, and it could be so much bigger.”

Is the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program the same as Market Match, and can I use both?

Market Match is a statewide program that distributes funds to farmers’ markets across California, allowing people using CalFresh to “match” an amount of their choosing from their EBT card at the market with tokens to spend at that location — essentially doubling their funds.

Market Match is a separate state program from the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program, but people on CalFresh can use both programs.

Learn more about the Market Match program, and watch KQED’s video on how to use your EBT card at your local market.

Why does the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT Program focus on fresh produce specifically?

The program’s focus on fresh fruit and vegetables “is recognizing that CalFresh benefits, as good as they are, are often insufficient for people to afford the food that they want for their families,” Zigas said.

This is especially true of fresh fruits and vegetables, he said, “which are harder to justify buying when you have less income because they’re not shelf stable, and you don’t know if your kids are necessarily going to like them.

“People would like to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, and often just don’t feel like they can make that choice — or afford it,” he said.